Serious Political Correctness and Race

Status
Not open for further replies.

tcr

sage of six tabs
is a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
My statement, specifically about killing drug dealers / minorities, was largely backed by emotional rhetoric and thinking. It would be more accurate to say that poor race relations lead to an inordinary amount of unjustified killings. However those unjustified killings result from LEO (law enforcement officers) seeking small non violent crimes in order to fill their pockets. The claim is largely an attack on the prison-industrial complex and the laws associated with that, such as civil asset forfeiture or privatization and delegation of prisons to for profit companies. As is probably redundant to point out, the point of privatization in a capitalist society is to make money, thats just a given for any corporation. How this works is private prisons make money by receiving stipends from the government that often depend on the number of prisoners held in the prison. This incentivizes these for profit organizations to increase their funding by acquiring as many prisoners as possible, or by building another set of prisons to the point where they take over small towns. As with any corporation, those stipends are supposed to be used for taking care of prisoners but costs are often cut to line the pockets of those at the top, leading to poor care in those prisons. Because of this need to fill the jails, many police officers are then incentivized to meet an unofficial quota. Of course, many people will agree that quotas for arrests are morally wrong, which is why no LEO has openly stated they practice it and most of that information comes from whistleblowers.

"Wexler says the problem can get especially bad if officers start to view the community they're policing as a source of revenue. That, according to the Justice Department, is exactly what happened in Ferguson, Mo. As NPR and others have reported, the largely white police there wrote huge numbers of tickets for the city's black residents, collecting millions of dollars in fines every year."

There is of course, even worse ways that law enforcement and prisons become "for profit." Civil Forfeiture is one of those ways that LEO abuse their power to balance their budgets. In 2014 for example, law enforcement used civil asset forfeiture to acquire more money than burglars and theives combined, sourced by the FBI. Their are videos that show this in action, its not some myth.

My main point was that police are incentivized to invent crimes and take property and sell it. They don't make money from catching murderers so the resources to stop those crimes dry up, leading to 1 in 3 murder cases going unresolved in America. As to the comments about executions in the street, I believe I made a post in the Police Brutality thread earlier with tons of sources and a somewhat solid, if emotionally charged, statement.

I hope this clears up any questions you had Jalmont and I can only say that the initial "drug dealers murdered in the streets to fill quotas" was poorly explained in my emotional post.
 
Last edited:

TheValkyries

proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
Minor gripe: were quick to say the cause of a mass shooting is mental health and that's maybe a part of it but it's an inaccurate red herring. As an easy example women have a higher rate of mental health issues than men yet mass shootings are committed nearly entirely by men. Schizophrenia patients are significantly more likely to be assaulted than to assault another. The problem isn't as simple as "they're a loony toon! Case closed!" The problem is a cultural one. And honestly we dont even necessarily know what to really dig into and look for in these things because people are so quick to smokescreen and deflect any real sickness in our society and pretend these people are separated from it. Until we accept that these mass shooters are a reflection of our values that need to be addressed we won't learn anything. As they say, admitting you have a problem is the first step.
 

GatoDelFuego

The Antimonymph of the Internet
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
i feel the issue with shooters is the level of celebrity that the US media gives to them. they report on them constantly, give them a lot of attention. they are essentially immortalized
Until people stop slowing down on the highway to look at dead bodies (read: never), don't think this is going to change. It's human nature.
 

vonFiedler

I Like Chopin
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
Until people stop slowing down on the highway to look at dead bodies (read: never), don't think this is going to change. It's human nature.
To paraphrase Cervantes, cause I'm sure as fuck not gonna flip through the beast of a book, "It's not the fault of the masses who enjoy drivel, but the fault of those who can't give them anything else."

There's a lot less news outlets than there are people who consume the news. It's their responsibility not to engage in behavior that promotes murder which they're fully aware of. Getting them to do so does not seem impossible. It's just a side of the issue that gets drowned out, sadly.
 

GatoDelFuego

The Antimonymph of the Internet
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
To paraphrase Cervantes, cause I'm sure as fuck not gonna flip through the beast of a book, "It's not the fault of the masses who enjoy drivel, but the fault of those who can't give them anything else."

There's a lot less news outlets than there are people who consume the news. It's their responsibility not to engage in behavior that promotes murder which they're fully aware of. Getting them to do so does not seem impossible. It's just a side of the issue that gets drowned out, sadly.
If people stopped tuning in to watch the coverage, then media would swap it out for something else pretty quick. Didn't trump have the highest TV ratings in years?
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
talking about how the media celebrates these figures is at the minimum a deflection, I would argue that social factors better explain why mass shootings/murders are so common. Isn't it too convenient, and simplistic, to focus on 'the media' covering these events as celebrating (celebratizing??) the perpetrator? "It's the liberal media's fault".

That being said, I agree that it is worth pointing out that school shooters are celebrated on certain dark places on the web where mentally ill (white) boys congregate unsupervised. And the commonly reiterated 'liberal university brainwashing conspiracy', that 'the media' loves so much, paints schools as an existential threat to American society (glossed as a bastion of western values under attack from immigrants and non-white people, see user TIK's beliefs as an example of a former mod on these forums who has expressed such beliefs, and deck knight for a current one).

First, I want to reiterate what the valkyries said because when I talk about 'expanding mental health access' as a measure to prevent mass shootings, it might sound like the problem is that people with diagnosed mental illnesses are getting their hands on weapons and are predisposed to violence. In fact, the opposite is the case, a mentally ill person is many times more likely to be a victim of violence. Mental illness is also, without further elaboration, not sufficient to explain why men are nearly always the perpetrators of these mass shootings.

https://byrslf.co/thoughts-on-the-vegas-shooting-14af397cee2c


Men in the United States are chronically lonely.
Boys in the United States — just like all human beings — need touch, caring, warmth, empathy, and close relationships. But as we grow up, most of us lose those essential components of our humanity.

What’s worse: we have no idea how to ask for those things, or admit we need them, because we’re afraid it will make us look weak.

As a man, you might be thinking, “Not me, I’ve got drinking buddies. I play poker with the guys. I’ve got friends.”

But do you have confidants? Do you have male friends who you can actually be vulnerable with? Do you have friends whom you can confide in, be 100% yourself around, that you can hug without saying “No homo,” without feeling tense or uncomfortable while you’re doing it?

For many men, the answer is “no.” So, we spend our time posturing instead.

From an early age, we have an unhealthy ideal of masculinity that we try to live up to. Part of that ideal tells us that Real men do everything on their own. Real men don’t cry. Real men express anger through violence.

The byproduct is isolation. Most men spend the majority of their adult lives without deeper friendships, or any real sense of community. Not to mention a complete inability to release anger or sadness in a healthy way.

There is a fantastic documentary called The Mask You Live In, which explains how boys in our society are ultimately shaped into mentally unstable adults. My friend Ryan recommended this film to me, after confiding that he cried throughout the entire thing. I cried, as well.


Simon Sinek echoed similar insights on Glenn Beck’s show:

“We’re seeing a rise of loneliness and isolation. No one kills themselves when they’re hungry; we kill ourselves when we’re lonely. And we act out, as well.In the 1960’s, there was one school shooting.In the 1980’s, there were 27.In the 1990’s, there were 58. In the past decade, there have been over 120.It has nothing to do with guns, it has to do with people feeling lonely.How do we combat the loneliness that kids are feeling? All of them attacked people in their own community, and all of them attack people they blamed for their own loneliness.”
This loneliness compounds as men grow older. Without deeper friendships or a strong sense of community, the isolation is soul-deadening and maddening. You are alone. Any slight from someone you care about can feel emotionally traumatizing. After enough rejections and feeling like an outcast, you begin to believe that people are just cruel and not worth the effort. You perceive people as threats. And the effects on our health are devastating. Here is Dr. Dean Ornish, the founder of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute, on the effects of loneliness:“I am not aware of any other factor — not diet, not smoking, not exercise, not stress, not genetics, not drugs, not surgery — that has a greater impact on our incidence of illness, and [chance of] premature death.” Before we ask, “How could he do such a thing?” we have to understand how that person felt on a daily basis, and how those feelings grew over the years.
"
So when I mention expanding mental health access I am particularly talking about access to programs for men that can teach them to cope with the psychic toxicity of hetero-masculine socialization in our society that leaves them raging against a society that left them without any meaningful community to teach him how to express his masculinity non-violently.


https://itself.blog/2017/10/02/the-apocalypse-is-happening-once-a-week-or-so/

"The apocalypse is happening once a week or so. When people open fire on crowds of strangers to let off steam, that’s a sign that you don’t have a society anymore. Crime is bad enough, but it at least follows a certain rationality — the motives are anti-social and dangerous, but legible. Terrorism is a step beyond normal crime, but again, there is some ostensible goal that the terrorist group is pursuing, albeit with tragically misguided ends. But something like a mass shooting isn’t even terrorism. It is sheer nihilism. It is violence as an end in itself, as the pure expression of a rejection of one’s fellow human being."


So I think there is a logic to these events as part of a broader pattern in American 'society':

"At this point, it is part of the ritual of a mass shooting for the shooter to be declared “troubled” or “mentally ill,” and then the liberals all point out that this happens every time and is a reductive explanation, etc. Yet there is a moment of truth in the individualistic explanation, because the systemic cause of the systemic problem of mass shootings is precisely a toxic individualism that, when thwarted, can find its way to a destructive annihilation of the other — any other will do.

We can also call it toxic masculinity, insofar as it takes the least desirable traits stereotypically associated with manhood — isolation, lack of empathy, rage — while completely discarding the more desirable traits like loyalty or duty. Surely it is no accident that only men — and almost always white men — participate in this nihilistic anti-ritual, but there is a false universalism in pinning the problem on masculinity. This is not always or even often how men behave. In fact, it is only in contemporary America that they have come to behave in this way at an epidemic level.

Call it toxic Americanism, then. That will allow us to include the ritualized non-response within the broader phenomenon. Systemic effects have systemic causes, and one of those effects is the utter refusal to take any steps to remedy the problem. Our political leaders are so enamored of the romance of gun ownership that they are willing to sacrifice dozens of us per year on the idol of the Second Amendment."
The headline might seem dramatic... if you're trying to deny the reality of what it means for dozens of people to die and for all the people in their lives affected by it.

Gato: I edited this a little bit to streamline it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Shrug

is a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past SPL Championis a Past SCL Champion
LCPL Champion
you know whats weird is within a year there will be a tape of the president using the hard r and calling jews nebbish golems and like 50% of the country will say it's fine actually and u can see it coming itt
 

Asek

Banned deucer.
you know whats weird is within a year there will be a tape of the president using the hard r and calling jews nebbish golems and like 50% of the country will say it's fine actually and u can see it coming itt
an arguably more powerful and influential man, pewdiepie has already done this and by god it is tearing the fabric of western society apart
 

OLD GREGG (im back baby)

old gregg for life
Myzozoa tcr
there might be a double standard but i don't pay enough attention to media to notice any sort of trend such as that.
i don't need the media to give me a reason to hate this fella, i already do and his skin tone got nothing to do with it.
none of those people went to the concert thinking "gee, it would be swell if someone emptied a ton of ammunition upon us"
personally i feel like being disturbed or mentally ill is besides the point, too. damn the picture media wants to paint...this dude doesn't deserve even life in prison.
there is a huge difference between being mentally handicapped and intentionally harming people.


TheValkyries yes it is a part of culture but, maybe, not the way you think it is...
take away guns and heartless humans find other ways of inflicting pain. the culture is the money culture. the material culture. the have and the have nots...this is what that leads to...when we learn to value money and things over people and ideas...this is what happens.
 

kilometerman

Banned deucer.
talking about how the media celebrates these figures is at the minimum a deflection, I would argue that social factors better explain why mass shootings/murders are so common. Isn't it too convenient, and simplistic, to focus on 'the media' covering these events as celebrating (celebratizing??) the perpetrator? "It's the liberal media's fault".

That being said, I agree that it is worth pointing out that school shooters are celebrated on certain dark places on the web where mentally ill (white) boys congregate unsupervised. And the commonly reiterated 'liberal university brainwashing conspiracy', that 'the media' loves so much, paints schools as an existential threat to American society (glossed as a bastion of western values under attack from immigrants and non-white people, see user TIK's beliefs as an example of a former mod on these forums who has expressed such beliefs, and deck knight for a current one).

First, I want to reiterate what the valkyries said because when I talk about 'expanding mental health access' as a measure to prevent mass shootings, it might sound like the problem is that people with diagnosed mental illnesses are getting their hands on weapons and are predisposed to violence. In fact, the opposite is the case, a mentally ill person is many times more likely to be a victim of violence. Mental illness is also, without further elaboration, not sufficient to explain why men are nearly always the perpetrators of these mass shootings.

https://byrslf.co/thoughts-on-the-vegas-shooting-14af397cee2c

"
1- Men in the United States are chronically lonely.
Boys in the United States — just like all human beings — need touch, caring, warmth, empathy, and close relationships. But as we grow up, most of us lose those essential components of our humanity.

What’s worse: we have no idea how to ask for those things, or admit we need them, because we’re afraid it will make us look weak.

As a man, you might be thinking, “Not me, I’ve got drinking buddies. I play poker with the guys. I’ve got friends.”

But do you have confidants? Do you have male friends who you can actually be vulnerable with? Do you have friends whom you can confide in, be 100% yourself around, that you can hug without saying “No homo,” without feeling tense or uncomfortable while you’re doing it?

For many men, the answer is “no.” So, we spend our time posturing instead.

From an early age, we have an unhealthy ideal of masculinity that we try to live up to. Part of that ideal tells us that Real men do everything on their own. Real men don’t cry. Real men express anger through violence.

The byproduct is isolation. Most men spend the majority of their adult lives without deeper friendships, or any real sense of community. Not to mention a complete inability to release anger or sadness in a healthy way.

There is a fantastic documentary called The Mask You Live In, which explains how boys in our society are ultimately shaped into mentally unstable adults. My friend Ryan recommended this film to me, after confiding that he cried throughout the entire thing. I cried, as well.


Simon Sinek echoed similar insights on Glenn Beck’s show:

“We’re seeing a rise of loneliness and isolation. No one kills themselves when they’re hungry; we kill ourselves when we’re lonely. And we act out, as well.In the 1960’s, there was one school shooting.In the 1980’s, there were 27.In the 1990’s, there were 58. In the past decade, there have been over 120.It has nothing to do with guns, it has to do with people feeling lonely.How do we combat the loneliness that kids are feeling? All of them attacked people in their own community, and all of them attack people they blamed for their own loneliness.”
This loneliness compounds as men grow older. Without deeper friendships or a strong sense of community, the isolation is soul-deadening and maddening. You are alone. Any slight from someone you care about can feel emotionally traumatizing. After enough rejections and feeling like an outcast, you begin to believe that people are just cruel and not worth the effort. You perceive people as threats. And the effects on our health are devastating. Here is Dr. Dean Ornish, the founder of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute, on the effects of loneliness:“I am not aware of any other factor — not diet, not smoking, not exercise, not stress, not genetics, not drugs, not surgery — that has a greater impact on our incidence of illness, and [chance of] premature death.” Before we ask, “How could he do such a thing?” we have to understand how that person felt on a daily basis, and how those feelings grew over the years."

So when I mention expanding mental health access I am particularly talking about access to programs for men that can teach them to cope with the psychic toxicity of hetero-masculine socialization in our society that leaves them raging against a society that left them without any meaningful community to teach him how to express his masculinity non-violently.


https://itself.blog/2017/10/02/the-apocalypse-is-happening-once-a-week-or-so/
"The apocalypse is happening once a week or so

When people open fire on crowds of strangers to let off steam, that’s a sign that you don’t have a society anymore. Crime is bad enough, but it at least follows a certain rationality — the motives are anti-social and dangerous, but legible. Terrorism is a step beyond normal crime, but again, there is some ostensible goal that the terrorist group is pursuing, albeit with tragically misguided ends. But something like a mass shooting isn’t even terrorism. It is sheer nihilism. It is violence as an end in itself, as the pure expression of a rejection of one’s fellow human being."

So I think there is a logic to these events as part of a broader pattern in American 'society':


"At this point, it is part of the ritual of a mass shooting for the shooter to be declared “troubled” or “mentally ill,” and then the liberals all point out that this happens every time and is a reductive explanation, etc. Yet there is a moment of truth in the individualistic explanation, because the systemic cause of the systemic problem of mass shootings is precisely a toxic individualism that, when thwarted, can find its way to a destructive annihilation of the other — any other will do.

We can also call it toxic masculinity, insofar as it takes the least desirable traits stereotypically associated with manhood — isolation, lack of empathy, rage — while completely discarding the more desirable traits like loyalty or duty. Surely it is no accident that only men — and almost always white men — participate in this nihilistic anti-ritual, but there is a false universalism in pinning the problem on masculinity. This is not always or even often how men behave. In fact, it is only in contemporary America that they have come to behave in this way at an epidemic level.

Call it toxic Americanism, then. That will allow us to include the ritualized non-response within the broader phenomenon. Systemic effects have systemic causes, and one of those effects is the utter refusal to take any steps to remedy the problem. Our political leaders are so enamored of the romance of gun ownership that they are willing to sacrifice dozens of us per year on the idol of the Second Amendment."

The headline might seem dramatic... if you're trying to deny the reality of what it means for dozens of people to die and for all the people in their lives affected by it.
I read a great book by Christina Hoff Sommers called "The War on Boys". There's a lot in it but the main argument is that boys are no longer treated as normal people. Especially in school, but also in society to an extent.

Let's think about boys, school, and masculinity. Boys demonstrate specific traits that are more or less discouraged or even shunned in the traditional classroom setting. For example, boys learn best when they are able to do more "hands-on" type learning, while girls learn best in the traditional setting. Does our education system accommodate for this? Do we do an equal amount of hands-on learning as we do traditional learning? Absolutely not. Most children will only perform well in school when they sit down, shut up, and focus. Girls are great at doing this. Boys are not. And what do we do to boys who act on their biological instinct? Who want to go outside and learn or to pick up something instead of reading about it? We diagnose them with a mental illness and give them drugs. This wasn't an issue before. When we lived in a pre-modern world where you HAD to use your hands in your job, we didn't have a problem with this. But now we live in a service-based economy where males do not have a good place to, well, be males. On top of that you have political movements such as political correctness, zero tolerance, pushing femininity, and others that intentionally or not target these masculine traits. In short, males have less and less of an opportunity to be themselves in a healthy and safe way.

If your statement is true, and masculinity is the reason behind this increase in mass shootings, may I ask why this hasn't been a problem before? The way I see it, the more we try to combat masculinity, the worse this problem becomes. When we tell men they aren't allowed to express their biological instinct in a safe healthy way, then we're opening up the door for things like mental illness and the "loners" you talked about. I feel as if it'd be hard to argue that masculinity is MORE accepted now than it was say 50 years ago. That being said, how would fighting it more help the problem?

 

tcr

sage of six tabs
is a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Myzozoa tcr
there might be a double standard but i don't pay enough attention to media to notice any sort of trend such as that.
This isn't philosophy class dude, you can't just submit the argument of "if i can't see the wall it doesn't exist."

i don't need the media to give me a reason to hate this fella, i already do and his skin tone got nothing to do with it.
no one hates the dude because his skin color, you obviously missed both mine and myzozoa's point, as well as the article's point. Narratives are spun in a specific way so as to demonize non-white criminals while at the same time victimizing and often sympathizing with white criminals. You can look at literally any news story and see this biased slant. "Unarmed, black, 220 lb criminal caught peddling drugs" vs "white shooter kills entire family and threatens police, maybe he just has economic anxiety?" People only look for a "motive" when the narrative is thrown out of whack, like, idk, maybe a rich white dude with tons of guns opening fire on an entire country music crowd. No one gives two shits what the motive for a black dude getting gunned down by police in the streets is, the only information you get is his entire rap sheet, maybe a facebook post with him posing with a gun or a ton of money, etc. Obviously most normal people hate any kind of mass shooter.

none of those people went to the concert thinking "gee, it would be swell if someone emptied a ton of ammunition upon us"
what are you even responding to with this, no one at all mentioned people wish for these horrific acts to happen.

personally i feel like being disturbed or mentally ill is besides the point, too. damn the picture media wants to paint...this dude doesn't deserve even life in prison. there is a huge difference between being mentally handicapped and intentionally harming people.
That's not what "mentally ill" means. Mentally ill doesn't mean you have debilitating mental issues that prevent you from functioning in the socially acceptable way. Depression is a mental illness; Autism is a spectrum that can range from simply mild mental illness (social anxiety, paranoia, inadequate ability to gather social cues) to actually being mentally handicapped (unable to walk correctly, requiring assistants just to do daily tasks, extreme personality changes, unable to "grow up"). I'd argue it certainly is a good point. It's important to understand why these attacks happen instead of just writing it off as a bad egg. If there's a mental health problem in the country it should certainly be addressed and funded towards. If you never attempt to make change then nothing ever changes. Just saying "oh he did this hes a pos" is a very binary moral code to live by and leads you to never being able to understand others, and that type of predisposed judgement leads to rational that encompasses any sort of oppressive policies. For the record, I think all of those people who committed mass shootings are terrible terrible people, but I at least try to understand their reasons in order to help better myself and prevent those things from happening in the future. You can't look at the mass shooting in the past perspective and wish it could be better, you have to actively look towards the future on how those attacks can be prevented. Every mass shooting is a lesson on how society can better itself to prevent those from happening in the first place.

TheValkyries yes it is a part of culture but, maybe, not the way you think it is...
take away guns and heartless humans find other ways of inflicting pain. the culture is the money culture. the material culture. the have and the have nots...this is what that leads to...when we learn to value money and things over people and ideas...this is what happens.
is there any proof you can provide that links "money culture" to this dude spraying and praying? The shooter was extremely rich and had what many americans would consider "the american dream." Other societies have also proven that restricted weapons laws lead to a more, for lack of a better word, complacent society. Yeah people are still going to punch and stab each other but the magnitude of those harmful and violent acts is on a minimal scale compared to shooting up next to 300 people with one weapon.
 
Last edited:

OLD GREGG (im back baby)

old gregg for life
what are you even responding to with this, no one at all mentioned people wish for these horrific acts to happen.
not truly in response to anything in particular just don't want anyone to get the crazy idea that maybe i have sympathy for anyone because of how they look, the media might but i do not.

That's not what "mentally ill" means. Mentally ill doesn't mean you have debilitating mental issues that prevent you from functioning in the socially acceptable way. Depression is a mental illness; Autism is a spectrum that can range from simply mild mental illness (social anxiety, paranoia, inadequate ability to gather social cues) to actually being mentally handicapped (unable to walk correctly, requiring assistants just to do daily tasks, extreme personality changes, unable to "grow up"). I'd argue it certainly is a good point. It's important to understand why these attacks happen instead of just writing it off as a bad egg. If there's a mental health problem in the country it should certainly be addressed and funded towards. If you never attempt to make change then nothing ever changes. Just saying "oh he did this hes a pos" is a very binary moral code to live by and leads you to never being able to understand others, and that type of predisposed judgement leads to rational that encompasses any sort of oppressive policies. For the record, I think all of those people who committed mass shootings are terrible terrible people, but I at least try to understand their reasons in order to help better myself and prevent those things from happening in the future. You can't look at the mass shooting in the past perspective and wish it could be better, you have to actively look towards the future on how those attacks can be prevented. Every mass shooting is a lesson on how society can better itself to prevent those from happening in the first place.

A lesson, you say? What exactly is new that we are learning here? i already knew some people were dumb af and that some people are heartless. this is not a time to capitalize with knowledges. This is a time to mourn and denounce this type of behavior...lone wolf or not this guy was heartless and anyone who can do that is heartless. That is the reason they do this...lack of empathy. The real question you need to figure is how do people get to that
point. Answer this and things become clear.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tcr

sage of six tabs
is a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
not truly in response to anything in particular just don't want anyone to get the crazy idea that maybe i have sympathy for anyone because of how they look, the media might but i do not.
fair i guess



A lesson, you say? What exactly is new that we learning here? i already knew some people were dumb af and that some people are heartless. this is not a time to capitalize with knowledges. This is a time to mourn and denounce this type of behavior...lone wolf or not this guy was heartless and anyone who can do that is heartless. That is the reason they do this...lack of empathy. The real question you need to figure is how do people get to that
take away guns and heartless humans find other ways of inflicting pain. That is the reason they do this...lack of empathy. The real question you need to figure is how do people get to that point? How do people lose all respect for life itself? Answer this and then it becomes clear..
What's "new?" How about the admittance that mental illness is very clearly an unhinging factor in america's youth (Adam Lanza). Adam Lanza before he was infamous Sandy Hook instigator was a socially awkward and mentally ill individual that was largely ignored by his community despite numerous red flags presented. Attention needs to be brought to people that present red flags like that so that they don't progress to the Adam Lanza stage. I'd argue that had attention been given to him in a sufficient manner suiting someone with clear mental health issues, therapy, reassurance, compassion, that Sandy Hook would never have happened. A lack of awareness on mental health issues leads people to see those people as either "different (in a negative way)" or just avoids them altogether. Pretend they don't exist because they fracture their perfect little world, when instead they should be compassionately reaching out to those people.

From this Vegas shooting we have learned that the previous "well thought out" argument of assault rifles being technically illegal past 1986 (meaning that its hard for people to get automatic weapons) was false, as there are perfectly legal / efficient ways to turn your semi-automatic ar15 into a deadly mass killing weapon (bump stocks, cranks, drilling a hole in your sear).

Obviously there are going to be shootings and killings that have no sense behind them, many serial killers are interesting topics to psychologists because there is no clear reason on why those incidents happened. Does that mean every single killing ever is just the result of a dude going ham and hes just "one of those bad apples." no, thats such a binary and dumb way of thinking about it. See the forest for the trees man christ

people can do more than one thing at a time. might be suprising to you but capable adults can actually walk, breathe, and chew gun at the same time. You can also mourn and learn from your mistakes at the same time. My point isn't to somehow bombard you with knowledge and claim some stupid moral high ground, its to impact on you that the best way to get good from a failure is to learn from it, and adapt. Just because I'm saying look to the future and use these incidents as springboards to better society doesn't mean you can't also mourn the lost lives in the incident. "Thoughts and prayers" solves abso-fucking-lutely nothing. You still don't realize that the bolded questions you're asking are the exact same thing as learning and addressing mental health issues.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

GatoDelFuego

The Antimonymph of the Internet
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Ok. I've deleted a bunch of posts that really were dragging down any kind of structure to this thread. Some people have apparently got the idea that us mods are against links without explanation. That's not the case at all.

There are two extremes that are bad: claims without sources, and links without discussion. Making a claim without a source is pointless, because there's no proof to back anything up. You can claim anything! If you say something and somebody asks for the source of, it's your responsibility to provide that. Convincing people of your position is a lot easier when you provide the facts yourself! Likewise, if somebody asks for clarification on an argument--try and give it to them! That way, everybody can learn. On the other hand, just posting an article or a source without talking about it is bad too. We can all read a story or watch a video. This is a forum for smogon users to discuss things--so discuss it! The whole point of posting here is so that we can all share opinions.


Both Myzozoa and Kilometerman made some nice statements above that I think are worth talking about some more. I left a few of the posts after that up if people want to respond to them, but Old_Gregg tcr whatever you two were going back and fourth about is done.
 

termi

bike is short for bichael
is a Community Contributoris a Top Tiering Contributor
If your statement is true, and masculinity is the reason behind this increase in mass shootings, may I ask why this hasn't been a problem before? The way I see it, the more we try to combat masculinity, the worse this problem becomes. When we tell men they aren't allowed to express their biological instinct in a safe healthy way, then we're opening up the door for things like mental illness and the "loners" you talked about. I feel as if it'd be hard to argue that masculinity is MORE accepted now than it was say 50 years ago. That being said, how would fighting it more help the problem?
I don't know exactly how much is true of the idea that boys are instinctively inclined to prefer learning through doing - all I will say on this matter is that a debate can be had on how much of this tendency is nature and how much of it is nurture -, but what I do know is that this is not the masculinity feminists talk about when they say it's toxic masculinity that causes men to turn into "loners" that may end up shooting up a school or a concert or what have you. Toxic masculinity, ie that part of what is commonly defined as masculine that is being targeted by most feminists, includes stuff like: a tendency towards solving problems through violence, suppression of emotions, lack of empathy, misogyny, and homophobia. These are the things that ought to be combated in order to create an environment that allows for men to develop themselves in a healthy way. Nobody wants to combat the playfulness and curiosity that boys may possess, it is out of the question that these traits could turn men into monsters.

"The War on Boys", by the way, is a gross mischaracterization of the issues with the traditional educational system. It is being framed as though the typical classroom system, despite the fact that its existence predates any feminist movement, is a deliberate attempt to stifle boys in their development and emasculate them, which to me sounds almost conspiracy-esque - your mentioning of "political correctness" and "pushing femininity" as political movements hardly helps your case here. In reality, the reason why the education system finds itself in this situation probably has more to do with the fact that putting children in a classroom and keeping them working on their assignments in silence is simply very cost-efficient, since you don't have to give students great amounts of individual attention, teachers can easily exercise their authority within this setting, and overall it just takes a minimum amount of effort. Naturally, I oppose this educational system, but I also recognize that this educational system is unlikely to change as long as schools are businesses where the primary focus is to maximize profits and as long as schools remain glorified training facilities rather than places where their personal growth as decent human beings is the greatest good.
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
Ok this was a long and lengthy reply that I had the post by kilometerman catch the real hls in Robert Alfons post:
I read a great book by Christina Hoff Sommers called "The War on Boys". There's a lot in it but the main argument is that boys are no longer treated as normal people. Especially in school, but also in society to an extent.
Well that is an interesting argument, but I reckon most people aren't treated like normal people, especially at school.

Let's think about boys, school, and masculinity. Boys demonstrate specific traits that are more or less discouraged or even shunned in the traditional classroom setting.
Surely this is true, but there are also many ways in which 'the traditional classroom' harms girls, you go on to argue as though there is some agenda, in American public education, to push femininity onto children, but this is circular and simplistic line of argument because although it is true that many forms of masculine expression may be regulated in a traditional classroom, by arguing that the source of this disavowal is in a feminist agenda, you are simultaneously able to ignore the ways girls' expressions are regulated in that context, and that ignorance sets in place a cognitive dissonance which is resolved by blaming some supposed agenda to push femininity onto children, thus, the object overlooked in your analysis becomes the target of the blame.
For example, boys learn best when they are able to do more "hands-on" type learning, while girls learn best in the traditional setting.
source? First the claim: "Girls learn best in the 'traditional classroom model'" For reference this 'traditional model' did not even include girls until as late as the 1970's in some cases, and that non-co-ed educational opportunities continue to exist. So according to you, the 'traditional classroom' setting, that didn't even involve women until the last 150 years, is pushing femininity on boys. LOL?

Last I checked, such as in the sources you linked, there are plenty of ways in which the 'traditional classroom' setting also critically fails girls. This claim utterly fails to be born out in your sources:

From your second source:
  • Help your daughter talk through her feelings about schoolwork and school problems. Because girls may focus on communication, relationships and attention for approval, they can easily get caught up in an intense emotional experience. Often a girl will subvert her own feelings, including needs, to get the approval of others and this causes self-esteem issues.
  • Be careful to not label children, especially with labels such as ADD and ADHD, unless they are diagnosed by a health care professional. Many boys and some girls are just on the outer edge of active and are being mislabeled
  • Make sure teachers understand the different learning styles of boys and girls so that they are able to create a learning environment that meets the needs of both, by teaching different modalities that capture girls’ needs for spatial learning practice, including geometry, and boys’ needs for enrichment projects.
so far, no evidence indicating that girls are being promoted at the expense of boys. lets try another:

"
Something is awry in the way our culture handles the education needs of boys and girls. A smart 11-year-old boy gets low grades in school, fidgets and drifts off in class, and doesn't do his homework. A girl in middle school only uses the computer to instant-message her friends; when it comes to mastering more essential computer skills, she defers to the boys in the class.

Is contemporary education maliciously set against either males or females? We don't think so. But structurally and functionally, our schools fail to recognize and fulfill gender-specific needs."

This directly contradicts the claims you are making based on their article, that women are privileged at the expense of men in schooling.

Children, of any gender, will not perform well in a school when they are told to sit down, shut up, and focus. None of your sources are about how these commands 'work great' for girls. Although there may be facets in which the model of learning enshrined in the traditional classroom favors girls over boys, but this is far from a demonstration that the current educational model is set-up to favor women because of political correctness and feminist conspiracy.

And what do we do to boys who act on their biological instinct? Who want to go outside and learn or to pick up something instead of reading about it?
We diagnose them with a mental illness and give them drugs.

We give children too many drugs, I agree, but how do you make a connection between this and 'pushing femininity' where is 'femininity' being pushed? and by who? and on to whom?

You have this idea that just because 'the traditional classroom' has features that favor girls over boys that there is some specific trend going against boys on behalf of girls, but such an assertion is only a demonstration of your ignorance of the contemporary politics, and history, of education in the united states, and here you go off wildly:

This wasn't an issue before. When we lived in a pre-modern world where you HAD to use your hands in your job, we didn't have a problem with this.
Right, 'the pre-modern world', before I assume that you know what this means I want you to clarify: do you mean the period before the renaissance? Yeah women didn't go to school back then, almost no one went to school and only a special class of serf or slave, the scribe, or else the (male) priests (and wealthy elite males in some places) were concerned with methods of teaching that would go on to resemble and establish 'traditional classrooms'.

But remember, there was, in fact, a class of people, men and sometimes women, that did not have to use their hands in their job because they had no job but to own other people or their labor: nobility, aristocrats, etc. Nowadays these have become landlords and investment class capitalists.

Now for your wild jump (even more wild than references to a supposed pre-modern post where men were men, and girls certainly weren't allowed in school, and no one had drugs because medicine hadn't yet gotten around to incorporating chemistry), where you go into the 'service based economy', lack of tolerance for bullying, and 'pushing femininity' (which I'm just gonna assume is some type of gamer-gate level pseudonym for 'feminism') for reasons why men feel alienated. But what do these even have to do with 'the traditional classroom' and how, overall, girls and boys have differences in brain chemistry that affect learning outcomes in such a system?

But now we live in a service-based economy where males do not have a good place to, well, be males.
except uh, you know the whitehouse?? seems like america is all for letting boys be boys.


On top of that you have political movements such as political correctness, zero tolerance, pushing femininity, and others that intentionally or not target these masculine traits. In short, males have less and less of an opportunity to be themselves in a healthy and safe ways.
So just so you know: I can't find a single place in your sources where they mention the service economy, but this is an interesting connection, here is how I would state it:

Under late-stage american capitalism, America has transitioned away from a manufacturing economy and a political-economy based on full-employment (industrial capitalism/fordism) to a service economy and a political-economy based on corporatism (supply side economics/neoconservatism/neoliberalism).

What consequences might this have for binary gendered contexts, such as the male psyche? Whatever they are, I don't see how it is connected to 'pushing femininity' or a service based economy schemed up to benefit women. Men still make more money than women for doing the same (which is expected to be more for the woman, since a woman doing the same work as a man in her job would usually experience negative evaluations or discrimination because of it since she is expected to work harder) work. If you think that the service based economy favors women (which it doesn't) what does that have to do with 'traditional classrooms' (the subject of all your sources) that pre-existed that transition?

I would rather say that the transition to a political economy based on supply-side economics makes workers expendable and leads to higher turn-over (low job satisfaction), lower wages, and high unemployment, all of which are a threat to the traditional equation of masculinity with capacity to produce an abundance of wealth.

But yet again, I don't see anyone pushing femininity on anyone.


and so finally, Source?

none of political correctness, zero tolerance, or 'pushing femininity' are mentioned by your sources, wonder why?


In the same way you ignored the content of your 'sources' you also ignored the content of my post:

If your statement is true, and masculinity is the reason behind this increase in mass shootings, may I ask why this hasn't been a problem before?
I never made such a reductive statement. Haha, what wasn't a problem before? Masculinity? It surely was an issue... Masculine supremacy created a traditional classroom setting where women were not allowed until the late 1800's, but sure, please tell me more about how masculinity has never been a problem, jesus christ.

The way I see it, the more we try to combat masculinity, the worse this problem becomes. When we tell men they aren't allowed to express their biological instinct in a safe healthy way, then we're opening up the door for things like mental illness and the "loners" you talked about. I feel as if it'd be hard to argue that masculinity is MORE accepted now than it was say 50 years ago. That being said, how would fighting it more help the problem?
Right, and so you're back to 'trying to solve the problem makes it worse', which as when I responded to Old_Gregg, I think is more of an expression of the impotency you feel to change the situation for men in America, than a useful or true conclusion based in evidence. I do not that that nothing can be done on behalf of men or that any attempt will inevitably exacerbate men, I believe men have demonstrated amazing capacity and potential, but the way our society socializes males is harmful to all of us and that our society can socialize men in ways that are better for them without stifling them, in fact, they will have actual opportunities to demonstrate positive masculinity that they were denied before.

Talking to men about how to be better fathers for example, my suggestion how does that harm boys? You seem to think that any attempt to help society grapple with masculinity ultimately alienates men, but how does that actually happen?

I have no concept of what 'biological instinct' you think males have or how it relates to your arguments. Your sources don't mention much more than them preferring certain toys, and that their brains are better suited to object manipulation and spatial reasoning. How are men prevented from 'acting on their biological instinct'? What is this instinct and why is it even relevant to our conversation, let alone desirable in a final analysis?


after reviewing my post, any justification for your reductive interpretation of my argument/assertion ("masculinity is the reason behind this increase in mass shootings") escapes me. There is nothing about 'fighting masculinity', 'targeting it', etc, in my post, but you seem to suggest that the typical male ego is too fragile to handle criticism or questioning without having a potentially destructive emotional reaction, so maybe youre the one who thinks the problem is masculinity, even as you misrepresent 'sources' to make it seem like masculinity is being persecuted in American education.

Here is what I actually wrote, I've deleted anything that was a quote from an article, but I will come to those after):


talking about how the media celebrates these figures is at the minimum a deflection, I would argue that social factors better explain why mass shootings/murders are so common. Isn't it too convenient, and simplistic, to focus on 'the media' covering these events as celebrating (celebratizing??) the perpetrator? "It's the liberal media's fault".

That being said, I agree that it is worth pointing out that school shooters are celebrated on certain dark places on the web where mentally ill (white) boys congregate unsupervised. And the commonly reiterated 'liberal university brainwashing conspiracy', that 'the media' loves so much, paints schools as an existential threat to American society (glossed as a bastion of western values under attack from immigrants and non-white people, see user TIK's beliefs as an example of a former mod on these forums who has expressed such beliefs, and deck knight for a current one).

First, I want to reiterate what the valkyries said because when I talk about 'expanding mental health access' as a measure to prevent mass shootings, it might sound like the problem is that people with diagnosed mental illnesses are getting their hands on weapons and are predisposed to violence. In fact, the opposite is the case, a mentally ill person is many times more likely to be a victim of violence. Mental illness is also, without further elaboration, not sufficient to explain why men are nearly always the perpetrators of these mass shootings.
So when I mention expanding mental health access I am particularly talking about access to programs for men that can teach them to cope with the psychic toxicity of hetero-masculine socialization in our society that leaves them raging against a society that left them without any meaningful community to teach him how to express his masculinity non-violently.

Nowhere have I argued that the only factor in mass shootings is toxic masculinity, nor have my sources made this argument, although this argument is explicitly rejected in one of my sources and I cped that part of the article into my post lol.

I think we can both agree that it is not easy to 'be a man' in our current society, but you attribute the state of affairs for men to consequences of 'pushing femininity' or what I think you are trying to say, which I can partially agree with: that labor is being feminized. But this has little to do with 'pushing femininity' or lack of tolerance or space for male behaviors in traditional classrooms, the problem is remains within the feminization of labor that is contradictory to the more fulfilling elements of masculinity, while promoting male expression through violent channels. As such, I suggested broader programatic outreach to men, about how to be better men, and to change what society projects onto men (because these expectations are harmful).


This is the next article I posted, the one where it complicates and decides against masculinity being the cause of mass shootings lol:

https://itself.blog/2017/10/02/the-apocalypse-is-happening-once-a-week-or-so/
"The apocalypse is happening once a week or so

When people open fire on crowds of strangers to let off steam, that’s a sign that you don’t have a society anymore. Crime is bad enough, but it at least follows a certain rationality — the motives are anti-social and dangerous, but legible. Terrorism is a step beyond normal crime, but again, there is some ostensible goal that the terrorist group is pursuing, albeit with tragically misguided ends. But something like a mass shooting isn’t even terrorism. It is sheer nihilism. It is violence as an end in itself, as the pure expression of a rejection of one’s fellow human being."

So I think there is a logic to these events as part of a broader pattern in American 'society':


"At this point, it is part of the ritual of a mass shooting for the shooter to be declared “troubled” or “mentally ill,” and then the liberals all point out that this happens every time and is a reductive explanation, etc. Yet there is a moment of truth in the individualistic explanation, because the systemic cause of the systemic problem of mass shootings is precisely a toxic individualism that, when thwarted, can find its way to a destructive annihilation of the other — any other will do.

We can also call it toxic masculinity, insofar as it takes the least desirable traits stereotypically associated with manhood — isolation, lack of empathy, rage — while completely discarding the more desirable traits like loyalty or duty. Surely it is no accident that only men — and almost always white men — participate in this nihilistic anti-ritual, but there is a false universalism in pinning the problem on masculinity. This is not always or even often how men behave. In fact, it is only in contemporary America that they have come to behave in this way at an epidemic level.

Call it toxic Americanism, then. That will allow us to include the ritualized non-response within the broader phenomenon. Systemic effects have systemic causes, and one of those effects is the utter refusal to take any steps to remedy the problem.Our political leaders are so enamored of the romance of gun ownership that they are willing to sacrifice dozens of us per year on the idol of the Second Amendment."

^This is where you can clearly see that I'm not reducing the problem to a universalized set of male features. How did you conclude that my argument is that masculinity is the reason behind these mass shootings?? That argument does not attend to factors behind why white men do 3x the number of mass shootings as the article points out, nor does it explain why men in other countries and at other time don't act this way.

I am not going to reply to further posts about this because it's clear you prefer to read reductively and react with what you think you already know, and I am not interested in a discussion that privileges the projection of your ego over the content of my post, or even the content of your own sources.


Your misrepresentation of sources is a joke:

1. here is the conclusion of the study in the first link:

"Smaller digit ratios in early infancy predicted higher activity levels in girls. ► Activity counts were comparable during play with female-typical or male-typical toys. ► Higher activity counts and stronger male-typical toy preferences were unrelated."

LOL this study concluded that there was no notable trend difference between activity with female or male typical toys, that goes against the idea of differences between girl and boy children in activity or learning.
Please read your sources. This is the second time I've seen one of these studies misrepresented by users on these forums.

2. This one was interesting, but I don't see how it supports what you've said:

"When little boys don’t want to make eye contact and they fidget in their seats, and little girls are caught talking and sending notes, a savvy teacher can organize her classroom in which she takes into consideration that little boys need to move around, and little girls need to express themselves verbally, and interprets this as part of their biology rather than misbehavior. A savvy parent can be sure that there are playtime opportunities during the day for both boys and girls to unwind and express themselves in a creative way. Further, allowing children to start school especially little boys a little later, perhaps even by a year, gives them an edge. A more mature child can handle school material in a much better way."


Seems like the 'traditional classroom's' expectations are hazardous to children regardless of sex. Your conclusions are wildly out of proportion with the evidence presented, your arguments are about blaming perceived women's advances and movements for men's problems, but you have no evidence anywhere of this.

3. This one is def the weirdest one, with the paper offering a suggestion that male aggression needs to be given a healthy outlet. But it also mentions piles of ways in which the traditional ways of teaching can be improved for both boys and girls, the focus of this paper is not on how women are favored in a traditional classroom, but how boys and girls learn differently and how education can be modified to accommodate relevant differences.

"Research into gender and education reveals a mismatch between many of our boys' and girls' learning brains and the institutions empowered to teach our children."

So again, problems in school are not confined to boys.

4. http://www.centerforpubliceducation...hool/Syscom.GM.Web.Content.axd?d=2vS6Gh2BGkk1

This was my favorite source you link, because it so clearly demonstrates the distorted paranoia of your post:

look at the chart, you can see that minutes in all categories have been cut: arts (supposedly a feminine thing or smthg?), pe/recess (a male thing according to you?). The ones that have been given more time are math (boys brains are supposed to better at this remember?) and english (girls brains supposed to better right), so how the fuck do you conclude that there is some one pushing 'femininity' in the classroom based on this one.

If you actually knew about educational politics in america, you would know that the changes in alloted teaching times to subjects is due to focus on standardized testing which only includes math and english. Which schools' funding is based on since that white MALE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES George W Bush passed No Child Left Behind,

It's not some conspiracy against boys on behalf parents that are afraid their children are being bullied, it's a conspiracy against education, much more broadly, to make all of our children less capable and well-rounded. like it says in the 3rd article you sourced:

"However, there is very little gap between what girls and boys can learn, and herein lies the rub. In fact, the differences are most pronounced in young children, and as children grow older, their home environment, their interests and their peers have the greatest influence over their behavior. By the time children are in the 12th grade, the differences between boys and girls are very subtle. Understanding these subtle differences can help educators guide their students in a positive way, meeting them and their needs where they are."

we done?? can we agree that the problem is broader than education and be done blaming abstractions about 'traditional classrooms' failing boys, when our whole society fails them? Can we talk about how what we can do as a society to facilitate better 'home environments, interests, and peers for men'?? Can we talk about differences in male and female socialization as it relates to gun violence instead of as it relates to alleged toy preference??

tldr- this discussion is quite off topic for the thread, and i did a thorough and soul searching examination of your post's content and its 'sources' and found little relation between them, especially in reference to your mentions of supposed consequences of a service economy, zero tolerance for bullying, and 'pushing femininity' on boys in a traditional classroom setting. Further, there is no reason to believe that, because women succeed at a moderately higher rate then men in education, that education systems are privileging women over men. There is no necessary connection nor have you provided evidence that indicates a substantive connection. Nor is it clear to me why any attempt to help men, as men, is just going to exacerbate them, and I think that such an assertion is mainly a way of resolving a cognitive dissonance that results from conceiving that there is seemingly very little any one of us can do, as individuals, to end the epidemic of violence in America.
 
Last edited:

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
kilometerman, might want to check this out:



https://medium.com/@RVAwonk/leaked-...for-all-out-war-on-womens-health-531cc14f2623
"
A leaked memo obtained by Crooked Media gives a glimpse into the administration’s views on reproductive health, revealing a policy agenda that would gut evidence-based pregnancy prevention and family planning programs in order to fund abstinence-based education and “fertility awareness” initiatives — otherwise known as “the rhythm method,” a type of birth control that fails to prevent pregnancy for one out of every four couples who use it. Among the programs on the chopping block are Title X — the nation’s only federally funded family planning initiative — and the US Agency for International Development’s (USAID) family planning budget, as well as a federal teen pregnancy prevention program and the World Health Organization’s (WHO) “Let Girls Learn” initiative.

If enacted, the funding cuts would undo years of progress in reproductive health outcomes — including record-low rates of teen pregnancy and abortion — and threaten to reverse progress in the fight for gender equity in the United States and abroad.

...

Instead of funding evidence-based teen pregnancy programs, the Trump administration wants to divert the money to promote “sexual risk avoidance” — also known as abstinence-only education.

The leaked memo also outlines a plan to slash USAID’s family planning budget and stipulates that “no other family planning programming for girls should be provided except fertility awareness methods.” Beyond the implications for pregnancy prevention, cutting funds for global family planning initiatives threatens to worsen maternal and fetal health outcomes, reduce the likelihood that girls will complete their education and enter the workforce, and even exacerbate gender based violence.
"

the memo:

https://crooked.com/article/leaked-memo-reveals-white-house-wish-list/

I think theories that promote paranoia about the supposed advances of women serve to distract and deflect away from the existence of actual programs, propagated by conservative legislatures, that actually intend to target women. The theory that women are making advances at the expense of men fails to take into account much evidence that points to the existence of some sort of rightwing agenda to attack women in the American education system, and in our society more broadly. It seems the drugs such people are so keen to keep children off of are not psychoactive pharmaceuticals but rather basic birth control. So while the guttertrash, paleo reactionary conservatives that dominant that segment of conservative politics in America love to fantasize about 'pre-modern' times, where such problems as aderall over-prescription didn't exist because there were no meds, that impossible fantasy (repressing science and technologies) of a return to the past has not found an outlet in a movement against pharmeceuticals but rather in further attempts to deny women access to birth control and to keep America children ignorant of contraception and other sciences/technology (climate science for example).
 

kilometerman

Banned deucer.
I don't know exactly how much is true of the idea that boys are instinctively inclined to prefer learning through doing
See the Huffington Post link I put in my original post.


but what I do know is that this is not the masculinity feminists talk about when they say it's toxic masculinity that causes men to turn into "loners" that may end up shooting up a school or a concert or what have you. Toxic masculinity, ie that part of what is commonly defined as masculine that is being targeted by most feminists, includes stuff like: a tendency towards solving problems through violence, suppression of emotions, lack of empathy, misogyny, and homophobia. These are the things that ought to be combated in order to create an environment that allows for men to develop themselves in a healthy way. Nobody wants to combat the playfulness and curiosity that boys may possess
This is why I have a problem with the concept of "toxic masculinity". The last two you listed, "misogyny and homophobia" are non-measurable and on top of that you didn't link a source. But the first couple are what interest me. You say "a tendency towards solving problems through violence, suppression of emotions, and lack of empathy" are all traits that are "unhealthy". But these are common traits amongst males and by seeking to "combat" them you are proving that you are against the idea of masculinity and males themselves. Boys are not the same as girls and demonizing male-specific traits (such as aggressiveness) is borderline misandry. You cannot claim you are not sexist while insisting that normal and biological behaviors are wrong and should be "combated".

it is out of the question that these traits could turn men into monsters.
But why is it that only now, once we've began accepting your view that masculinity, dominance, and aggressiveness is wrong, has there been a problem? Mass shootings are a new concept and it is simply ridiculous to suggest that biological male traits (that have recently come under attack) are the reason. If it was, why did this problem not exist before?

kilometerman, might want to check this out:



https://medium.com/@RVAwonk/leaked-...for-all-out-war-on-womens-health-531cc14f2623
"
A leaked memo obtained by Crooked Media gives a glimpse into the administration’s views on reproductive health, revealing a policy agenda that would gut evidence-based pregnancy prevention and family planning programs in order to fund abstinence-based education and “fertility awareness” initiatives — otherwise known as “the rhythm method,” a type of birth control that fails to prevent pregnancy for one out of every four couples who use it. Among the programs on the chopping block are Title X — the nation’s only federally funded family planning initiative — and the US Agency for International Development’s (USAID) family planning budget, as well as a federal teen pregnancy prevention program and the World Health Organization’s (WHO) “Let Girls Learn” initiative.

If enacted, the funding cuts would undo years of progress in reproductive health outcomes — including record-low rates of teen pregnancy and abortion — and threaten to reverse progress in the fight for gender equity in the United States and abroad.

...

Instead of funding evidence-based teen pregnancy programs, the Trump administration wants to divert the money to promote “sexual risk avoidance” — also known as abstinence-only education.
I can't tell if you're ignoring it or you're too bigoted to understand it, but there is legitimate reasoning behind wanting to reduce government spending on birth control. When the federal government funds something it is using taxpayer dollars to do so. Because non-abstinence-based birth control is against the teachings of God and The Bible, in effect you are forcing taxpayers to fund something that goes against their faith. The "Republicans are evil and hate women" mantra is incorrect and only proves that you lack a serious non-purely emotional hold on the issue.

The leaked memo also outlines a plan to slash USAID’s family planning budget and stipulates that “no other family planning programming for girls should be provided except fertility awareness methods.” Beyond the implications for pregnancy prevention, cutting funds for global family planning initiatives threatens to worsen maternal and fetal health outcomes, reduce the likelihood that girls will complete their education and enter the workforce, and even exacerbate gender based violence.
And why might the US want to cut funding for the USAID? Is it maybe because the US government's first priority should be the advancement and protection of its own people as opposed to foreigners who won't necessarily further the US's interests? And women staying home is not automatically a negative thing as you stated, if women are working that means that it's a lot more difficult for them to raise children--is that an ideal? And do you have a source on how this affects "gender based violence"?

I think theories that promote paranoia about the supposed advances of women serve to distract and deflect away from the existence of actual programs, propagated by conservative legislatures, that actually intend to target women. The theory that women are making advances at the expense of men fails to take into account much evidence that points to the existence of some sort of rightwing agenda to attack women in the American education system, and in our society more broadly.
Source? That's an extremely broad statement.

So while the guttertrash, paleo reactionary conservatives that dominant that segment of conservative politics in America love to fantasize about 'pre-modern' times
Can you try to treat the other side of the argument with respect?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

vonFiedler

I Like Chopin
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
I can't tell if you're ignoring it or you're too bigoted to understand it, but there is legitimate reasoning behind wanting to reduce government spending on birth control. When the federal government funds something it is using taxpayer dollars to do so. Because non-abstinence-based birth control is against the teachings of God and The Bible, in effect you are forcing taxpayers to fund something that goes against their faith. The "Republicans are evil and hate women" mantra is incorrect and only proves that you lack a serious non-purely emotional hold on the issue.
Church and state are separated in America. Government has no responsibility to cut very beneficial programs on the behalf of people with serious non-purely emotional holds on this issue, as you phrase it.
 

termi

bike is short for bichael
is a Community Contributoris a Top Tiering Contributor
See the Huffington Post link I put in my original post.
Looks like nature plays a role in how (young) children learn and develop but that ultimately it's nurture that plays the decisive role, which is pretty much what I assumed to begin with. Cool. Oh yeah and if you click on one of its sources you'll find that there's no such thing as "male-specific traits", at best there are certain traits that are more common in boys than in girls and vice versa but when you say "male-specific" you're simply being wrong (which makes you accusing me of misandry for saying we should combat aggression and other traits you deem "male-specific" a bit silly)

The last two you listed, "misogyny and homophobia" are non-measurable and on top of that you didn't link a source.
How are these non-measurable? What?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculinity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_masculinity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_masculinity

here's sources on the conceptualization of masculinity and in particular masculinity of the toxic kind, keep in mind toxic masculinity and hegemonic masculinity are defined as social constructs and therefore they assert that the concept of masculinity is largely a result of the inner workings of society, in other words no need to get upset if it tells you a lot of masculinity is bad because it's talking about a social construct not the stuff in your brain or the thing dangling between your legs thanks

You say "a tendency towards solving problems through violence, suppression of emotions, and lack of empathy" are all traits that are "unhealthy". But these are common traits amongst males and by seeking to "combat" them you are proving that you are against the idea of masculinity and males themselves. Boys are not the same as girls and demonizing male-specific traits (such as aggressiveness) is borderline misandry. You cannot claim you are not sexist while insisting that normal and biological behaviors are wrong and should be "combated".
Ah so we men are all aggressive unsympathetic motherfuckers by nature. What a comforting thought that is. No honestly mate, if I for a second believed that it is in our nature to be like that I would turn into a full blown "misandrist" just like that. Racism, sexism, homophobia, and the like are bad because they discriminate based on arbitrary traits that do not inherently affect someone's character. If it were demonstrably true that black people are, by nature, violent savages (to be very clear here, obviously they're fucking not and if you think so you are subhuman racist scum) it would make sense to treat them differently from people of other colours. Similarly, if it were true that men are, by nature, violent savages, it would make sense to treat them differently from people of other genders.

My point is, of course, that (hegemonic) masculinity is socially constructed and not something that is inherent to man, so there's no reason to combat males themselves, but if you could convince me that masculine character traits are entirely biological (you can't and I don't think you even believe in this yourself) my retort would be that in that case, it's time to start combating men. We're gonna have to scrub some of that aggression out of our systems, I don't see a reason why we shouldn't.

But why is it that only now, once we've began accepting your view that masculinity, dominance, and aggressiveness is wrong, has there been a problem? Mass shootings are a new concept and it is simply ridiculous to suggest that biological male traits (that have recently come under attack) are the reason. If it was, why did this problem not exist before?
Well, for one, nobody is saying it's "biological male traits" and their repression that cause mass shootings, it tends to be a cocktail of many different factors that leads to a mass shooting (here you can find several explanations with plenty of referenced source material). In addition, consider that for most of human history, citizens did not have easy access to assault rifles and the like and that this is still the case in most parts of the world (but not in the USA, where you will find a vastly higher rate of mass shootings than in other countries in "the western hemisphere").

I can't tell if you're ignoring it or you're too bigoted to understand it, but there is legitimate reasoning behind wanting to reduce government spending on birth control. When the federal government funds something it is using taxpayer dollars to do so. Because non-abstinence-based birth control is against the teachings of God and The Bible, in effect you are forcing taxpayers to fund something that goes against their faith. The "Republicans are evil and hate women" mantra is incorrect and only proves that you lack a serious non-purely emotional hold on the issue.
1: As vonFiedler already touched upon, the US of A is at least in theory not a vulgar theocracy where the will of God - whatever that may be since even among Christians themselves there's plenty of difference in opinions over what actually is the will of God - dictates the law.
2: Sounds like by your logic - assuming you're not willing to defend the idea of theocracy - using any taxpayer money on anything that at least one taxpayer can't find themselves to agree with is unacceptable, ergo in practice you'd pretty much have to abolish taxes since you'll never spend that on something all taxpayers can agree on. Maybe that's a line of thinking you actually support but I thought I'd let you know that's what you sound like - again, assuming you're not trying to defend theocracy here.
3: Strawmanning your opponent's argument so that you can paint them as "not serious" and "purely emotional" is a class fucking act, my dude.

And do you have a source on how this affects "gender based violence"?
If you click on the article Myzozoa quoted that paragraph from you'll notice that in the article, that paragraph links to several sources to back up these claims.

Can you try to treat the other side of the argument with respect?
Why would anyone treat paleoconservatives with respect? Not all ideologies are born equal, you know.
 
Why would anyone treat paleoconservatives with respect? Not all ideologies are born equal, you know.
While we're on here, yes we're going to treat each other with respect. So far the arguments from everyone have been fine, attacking points and sources, but we don't want the snide remarks to escalate.
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
. You cannot claim you are not sexist while insisting that normal and biological behaviors are wrong and should be "combated".
What is a 'biological behavior' and how would you go about showing that a man's behavior was driven by biology? "Biology made me do it." Why not the devil?


Sources please.


Can you try to treat the other side of the argument with respect?
there is no 'other side' here lol, did you miss the part where you lied about having sources for your arguments and misrepresented the content for them?

you made a long drawn outpost and added links that were unrelated as 'sources' in order to justify a paranoid post about a femininist conspiracy. so no, i will not treat you as though you even have an argument, let alone respect that argument.

While we're on here, yes we're going to treat each other with respect. So far the arguments from everyone have been fine, attacking points and sources, but we don't want the snide remarks to escalate.
how can kilometerman be treating me with respect while making fake arguments for me to reply to and accusing me of being part of a conspiracy to target masculinity?

i would love to hear how you swing an explain this one into some case where there are two sides and one isn't being respectful enough.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You're assuming I'm just talking about one side here but I'm not. I'm not in a position to determine what arguments are fabricated but there were comments from both sides toeing the line on calling each other bigoted and I just wanted to catch things before they escalated.

I quoted Robet Alfons' post in particular because while not all ideas are created equal, all people should be treated with respect as long as they're also following the rules and that's an important distinction to make.
 

Cresselia~~

Junichi Masuda likes this!!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...qUJQyzXOUywaFQVZ1Py-qcrva3-b6XVLsl2-uzp5sPgoY
DNA discoverer James Watson loses honors over views on race

So he hasn't changed one bit throughout all these years, despite having to sell his Nobel Prize medal due to his diminished income after his unfriendly political views.

Although I personally think he should be punished, I think the lab is at a loss for cutting ties with such a great scientist.
I think the lab needs him more than he needs the lab.

I think he should be fined or arrested instead.
In the UK, you can get fined or arrested for speaking racist things in the public. However, this doesn't happen in USA.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top