Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

This whole "To punch nazis or not to punch nazis" discussion really need it's own thread guys..... Sure, it's politics and has relevance in relation to neonazis in America, but the discussion is extremely circular right now.

I feel ya, but I gotta respond to this because dude nailed it but I'll spoiler it because it needs it's own thread, but again, well done Harry, errr, 30 points to Gryffindor

I disagree. I think Harry has the right intentions, but he hasn't actually demonstrated or shown any sources that demonstrate that reality does in fact work the way he suggests it works. Other posters have mentioned (I forget whom sorry and am too tired to check all posts) that the type of tactics used actually strengthen the fringe groups mentioned.

However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results

So far the only arguments I've seen is that it would be nice if open hostility to Nazis was supressing Nazis. e.g. the tactic is justified based purely on having a good intention rather than having any proof that the tactic achieves the goals that are claimed. I've not see any evidence that this actually works like it "says on the box", and have every reason to think, from previous experiences and knowlege of history that it actually works the opposite of that claimed.

Think about other groups with victimhood conspiracy theories or self-identities, how do they react when people are openly hostile? e.g. for example if men are more hostile to radical feminists, does that in fact make them less radical feminists? Or does it make them more radical feminists? Of couse the latter is true. If a theory is self-evident it should also be universal, e.g. if you say "punch a nazi" suppresses Nazis but the same attitude doesn't suppress other groups such as Radfems, then you need to have a coherent theory explaining the difference, or you're merely appealling to special pleading.

Similarly, leftists and minorities going around punching white supremacists becomes the proof of their persecution complexes. It becomes the evidence used for further recruiting, the "told you so" moment. Also, if you say "nobody go see Milo Y speaking" what on Earth do you think happens to Milo's next audience. It's going to shoot through the roof. Nobody likes being told they can't read a certain book or hear a certain speaker. It makes them interesting and dangerous. The massive protests/outrage against punchable Nazi Milo Y. and e.g. Ann Coulter are exactly what you need to boost them from obscurity to mega-stardom.

EDIT: BTW note that radical feminists and the KKK are actually roughly equally unpopular in the USA. Only 18% of Americans label themselves as any type of "feminist" while 18% of Americans are favorable to the KKK (gave them 50+ out of 100). So if we assume the 18% of Americans who accept the broad feminist label are roughly equivalent to the 18% of Americans who are more favorable than not to the Klan, we can see it's not just the radicals on one side that are deeply unpopular, it's both sides. That's something to think about. For both sides, external hostility to the core group is in fact built into their ideologies as a core recruiting tool.

[Lord Shonus]

BTW note that radical feminists and the KKK are actually roughly equally unpopular in the USA. Only 18% of Americans label themselves as any type of "feminist" while 18% of Americans are favorable to the KKK (gave them 50+ out of 100). So if we assume the 18% of Americans who accept the broad feminist label are roughly equivalent to the 18% of Americans who are more favorable than not to the Klan, we can see it's not just the radicals on one side that are deeply unpopular, it's both sides. That's something to think about. For both sides, external hostility to the core group is in fact built into their ideologies as a core recruiting tool.

While I agree with your larger points, this bit has an extremely large flaw. The polls linked in the first article you linked show that people don't have a problem with the ideals of classical feminism (more than 85% were in favor of "gender equality"), but object to the label - presumably due to the antics of the lunatic fringe (and people masqurading as the lunatic fringe) of feminism. Comparing that to an extremely specific white supremacist group (albeit the most iconic one in the US) is more than a bit disingenuous.

[Reelya]

That's a little apples and oranges, since the polls do show general favor of the groups involved.

The thing is, feminist basically claim to "own" the issue of gender equality. But the vast majority of people who support gender equality reject feminism. e.g. if you pick a random person who believes in gender equality, they're overwhelmingly likely to be a non-feminist. This suggests that the feminist claim to "own" the issue of gender equality might actually be fallacious dogma.

for example in the UK it's even more divergent. e.g. according to a poll I read, only 7% of British are feminists, yet 86% agree with gender equality. So if you find a "pro-gender equality" person in the UK, there's only about a 1 in 12 chance that they're actually a feminist. e.g. believing in gender equality is in fact the least predictive measure of whether someone is a feminist.

The internal logic of feminism is that people reject feminism because they're against equality. But as shown in the data, this viewpoint doesn't really match how real-world people think. People reject feminism for a host of reasons unrelated to gender equality - e.g. it's everything else that feminists do that people reject. Feminism has many trappings of a religion, complete with forces of cosmic Good (feminism) and evil (patriarchy), blasphemy laws (excommunication), and the wonderful religious trait of 100% relying on circular logic.

Also note that feminism has effectively gendered the concept of good and evil themselves. So if e.g. saying "fireman" is bad because it reinforces stereotypes about roles, how does gendering the force of good (feminism) and the force of evil (patriarchy) effect how male and female people vision their roles in society? Is that even helpful or is it just creating another problem?

"Against Equality" is just feminist movements rationalization of why people won't support the nutjob fringe. In fact it's because feminists won't let you into the conversation unless you 100% buy into their very specific monolothic conspiracy theory and also agree to play by all their rituals and rules.

[wierd]

This is likely because the goals of actual feminism, eg--- women are people, not things, and require proper respect as such-- is now basically mainstream, with a vocal hanger-on element in society in opposition that most people consider to be like that awkward uncle that ruins social gatherings.

As such, the label has no value for "Give me extra attention! I'm some kind of hero that needs to be worshiped more!", because basically they are championing for the new status quo.

Now, to keep that "Worship me, I'm totally some kind of hero for the downtrodden!" fire alive, "Feminists" (note the scare quotes, it is purposeful and very much appropriate to use them here) have had to go so far into cray-cray land that all concepts of rational behavior have been lost. (It's kinda the ideological equivalent of a quantum singularity-- the point where the rhetoric breaches some analog of the schwartzchild radius, and implodes into an endlessly collapsing point of pure insanity that is impossible to describe using normal methodology, since tautologies, logical contradictions, post hoc fallacies, and more are simply "truths.")  Naturally, sensible people have no reason to adopt a less than useless label (since it has been coopted by the crazy people, and because its original value to distinguish a person as not holding absurd sexist views while being a minority position, no longer has any practical value due to the position now being mainstream, and being a sexist douchebag is the backward minority-- so much so that they even have their own counter-cultural labels, a-la "red piller" and pals.) so the only people using the label are the absurd attention seekers screaming from the center of the cosmic chaos like the chorus of Azathoth.

Because, you know, the new status quo is to treat women with dignity and respect.

Feminism is basically suffering from "Post mission anxiety syndrome" where it struggles to find real relevance in the face of its own accomplishment.

[Lord Shonus]

That probably goes a bit too far. While the lunatic fringe is increasingly tainting dialogue, the first article Reelya linked is an excellent example of why feminism still needs to exist - not everybody lives in a place where gender inequality is an aberration. Moreover, many of feminism's bugbears still exist - except that the biggest reason many of them still exist is because of the behavior of the lunatic fringe.

[Reelya]

There could be a huge discussion there but I'll keep it short. It's actually questionable whether any particular movement can claim the "victory" of the postwar opening of employment etc to women.

e.g. did masses of American families start sending their daughters to college because of "the feminist movement" at all. Since so few parents have ever identified as feminists it's kind of actually a big question. The thing is, even countries in which they didn't have a big feminist movement going on saw the same types of social adjustments. It's possible, even likely that the changes were in fact merely in response to changes in technological / economic incentives, and not because of "bra burners" at all. Similarly, virtually everywhere they gave men the vote, women got the vote within a handful of years after that, whether or not those countries even had an active "suffragette" movement. e.g. 1918 in England extended the vote to 8 million women, but also 5 million working-class men. Most men didn't in fact have the vote any longer than women did.

It's the same as e.g. Rudy Giuliani claiming that his mayorship's "broken windows" policing was the cause of the decline in violent crime in the 1990s New York. it's almost certainly fallacious because

[Lord Shonus]

It would be very difficult for "bra burners" to have much effect, as they never existed in the first place - people got draft card burnings mixed up with feminist protests.


Besides that, how many of those "countries without big feminists movements" are heavy importers of culture from the US and other countries that did? Things that happen in the US tend to have an enormous global impact because of the reach of American culture.

[Reelya]

Most other Anglo nations predate the USA on suffrage, dude.

The isssue of economics is underlined by the fact that the most "equal" nations on employment are also some of the toughest for women. e.g. feminists are hailing Rwanda as being more gender progressive than the USA. It's purely delusional, the reason is that economic necessity drives men and women to make more similar career choices. In rich countries, men and women have more economic freedom to do what they want. And what they want then tends to diverge. "Equality" hardliners have it backwards.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/20/rwanda-is-beating-the-united-states-in-gender-equality/?utm_term=.de038414b028

[wierd]

Reelya--

Since feminists represent greater than 10% of the population, recent research into cultural tipping points becomes relevant.

Sadly, the same is also true of "red pillers". They too are more than 10%, and without continued action from *real* feminists, (even though now they champion for the status quo), there *WILL* be a backslide, if there is any predictive qualities to the data and research mentioned. (It's well known, just google it.-- Screw it here's a fairly reputable source. https://phys.org/news/2011-07-minority-scientists-ideas.html )

What Feminism really needs is to take a "post victory, maintenance position", instead of taking a "Gotta maintain that momentum, until it becomes a singularity!!" position.

[Reelya]

Dude, 18% of the nation have a favorable view of the KKK. By the same logic everyone should be becoming more KKK-friendly.

[wierd]

And--- Who's president, and what was his support base again?

[Reelya]

Back to what I was getting at, marriage has declined since ~1980, and that's going to be the single biggest link to female employment. Since marriage or employment, you gotta pick one. However ... it happened in about 100 countries at the same time whether or not they had a strong feminist movement and whether or not they educated girls. So ... it's more likely to be an evolution that had to happen, because of technological and economic necessity rather than being some magic wand that some movement can claim.

e.g. if you take the Historical Materialism theory, it postulates that different stages of economic development were inevitable e.g. mercantilism follows feudalism, and is followed by capitalism. You can have a few holdouts, but the trends are inevitable. We can apply that same logic to socioeconomics, e.g. changes in technology cause consistent changes in socioeconomic organization, and these shape the parameters for how people live. Social mores then follow on from that. e.g. women didn't work in wage jobs, but then they started to. Cars and public transport probably was more important than activists for making that practical and safe, plus the rise of office jobs / bureacracy and a consumer economy. None of that was "caused" by feminists. Women weren't allowed in some pubs, because those were drinking establishments for working men, but when women started working wage jobs, then pretty soon they started to be allowed into the same drinking establishments. Was that because "activists" or because "good business sense"? Probably as soon as women had expendible capital, then being allowed in pubs was inevitable. So again, economically necessary change in response to technology, rather than some amazing thing that "only" happened because of fringe activists.

 This would in fact be a consistent Marxist interpretation of the history of female suffrage. If you're going to cherry-pick Marx you should at least consistently apply his theories however the chips fall. e.g. in actual Marxist theory any "patriarchy" should in fact rise or fall purely because it's a reflection of the economic status quo, and that status quo changes not because of a "vanguard party" but because of changes in technology (the means of production). Marxist Feminism is therefore not valid since they don't apply Marxist theory in a consistent fashion. If you properly apply Marx's ideas to the rise of female employment, then it devalues the idea that a "movement" of great leaders caused there to be job opportunities for women. That ... just doesn't make any economic sense.

But if a movement happened to be around at the right place at the right time, and advocating for something similar, it's easy to see how causation and correlation could be confused, the same as Rudy Giuliani falsely took credit for the decline in crime in New York (despite every big city in America having the same decline in the same time period).

[Max™]

This whole "To punch nazis or not to punch nazis" discussion really need it's own thread guys..... Sure, it's politics and has relevance in relation to neonazis in America, but the discussion is extremely circular right now.

I feel ya, but I gotta respond to this because dude nailed it but I'll spoiler it because it needs it's own thread, but again, well done Harry, errr, 30 points to Gryffindor

I disagree. I think Harry has the right intentions, but he hasn't actually demonstrated or shown any sources that demonstrate that reality does in fact work the way he suggests it works. Other posters have mentioned (I forget whom sorry and am too tired to check all posts) that the type of tactics used actually strengthen the fringe groups mentioned.

Then you don't really disagree, as I kinda also said "peacefully drawing people out of cloistered hatefilled echochambers and getting to stop being nazis is fantastic, but far too rare" and shortly afterwards that "I doubt punching will ever make someone pop up and say 'I was wrong, find me a brown person to hug!' but the intent of a fist to the jaw is to hopefully make them say 'fuck, being punched sucks, I shouldn't spew nazi shit in public like a fucknut' because fuck nazis" and I'm not willing to cede the threat of getting your shit slapped for being a nazi to try to make sure I'm on the highest moral ground possible. Particularly when, as Harry said: they count on people inherently wanting to be better than nazis and wanting to try to resolve things in a civilized fashion.

So far the only arguments I've seen is that it would be nice if open hostility to Nazis was supressing Nazis. e.g. the tactic is justified based purely on having a good intention rather than having any proof that the tactic achieves the goals that are claimed. I've not see any evidence that this actually works like it "says on the box", and have every reason to think, from previous experiences and knowlege of history that it actually works the opposite of that claimed.

>.> A huge and ideologically varied chunk of the world's population literally used open hostility to suppress nazis, you know this.

Think about other groups with victimhood conspiracy theories or self-identities, how do they react when people are openly hostile? e.g. for example if men are more hostile to radical feminists, does that in fact make them less radical feminists? Or does it make them more radical feminists? Of couse the latter is true. If a theory is self-evident it should also be universal, e.g. if you say "punch a nazi" suppresses Nazis but the same attitude doesn't suppress other groups such as Radfems, then you need to have a coherent theory explaining the difference, or you're merely appealling to special pleading.

When radical feminists start enacting programs to set up camps where certain males can be selected out for their usefulness and the rest get culled, I'll be straight up "punch a radfem", yo.

[sluissa]

Tarantino movies do not reflect reality.

That is all.

[Starver]

Tarantino movies do not reflect reality.

That is all.

Says the person without a Twist-Dancing trophy!

*posting from the bathroom of this place I'm 'housesitting' - darn, left my piece on the countertop, but probably doesn't matter...*