• Radical Feminists Trying to Attack and Desecrate a Cathedral, Peaceful Defenders Attacked.
    281 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Starpluck;43058835]Besides the fact they pretty much ruined everyone's clothes and tried to provoke them, the moment the they spat in their faces is when I would respond and knock them out cold. Maybe that will teach them what the extent of gender equality truly is.[/QUOTE] And then you'd get criticized for hitting women
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43063120] it's a very crude comparison, but i think it's valid enough to get my point through.[/QUOTE] It gets your point across perfectly, I assume the closest they come to generally uniting is similar to how gamer's unite only when shit gets really bad? Also apologies if my perspective isn't too educated on the subject, I'm not sure where to go to learn more about the correct philosophy of it all.
[QUOTE=Mr.95;43063944]It gets your point across perfectly, I assume the closest they come to generally uniting is similar to how gamer's unite only when shit gets really bad? Also apologies if my perspective isn't too educated on the subject, I'm not sure where to go to learn more about the correct philosophy of it all.[/QUOTE] sorta. there is often an attitude of solidarity among radicals even when they disagree. since "the system" uses tactics like strawman'ing, distraction, and demonization to subvert radical attitudes, radical groups often avoid publicly denouncing each other since it sorta plays into the hands of the elite. it isn't "unity", but there is a shared sense of understanding. an anarchist friend told me(this is a paraphrase): "we can disagree, refine our theories, and tear each other apart in private. however, when it comes time to fight the cops we all stand together" there is a common foe for feminists(or anarchists, communists, etc.) to "stand together" against, but radicals tend to do their own thing and have their own goals. that's why i don't denounce the people in the op. there is a context and reasoning behind their actions. i might not agree, but playing the game of "whack a feminist" with every radical that acts contrary to your beliefs gets you stuck in a trap of trying to justify any radical action ever and you can lose sight of the greater struggle. we aren't "united", but it is counter-productive when we get stuck fighting too much.
I know of course on Facepunch I'm going to get hate for this, but this is what happens when radical feminism is left unchecked. We need things like the Men's Rights Movement (as stupid as some of it may be) to counter some of the more radical elements.
[QUOTE=SnakeHead;43064189]I know of course on Facepunch I'm going to get hate for this, but this is what happens when radical feminism is left unchecked. We need things like the Men's Rights Movement (as stupid as some of it may be) to counter some of the more radical elements.[/QUOTE] if you want to counter the violence of radicals you need to dismantle the violence of patriarchy. radical violence is a response to an unresponsive and hostile system.
[QUOTE=SnakeHead;43064189]I know of course on Facepunch I'm going to get hate for this, but this is what happens when radical feminism is left unchecked. We need things like the Men's Rights Movement (as stupid as some of it may be) to counter some of the more radical elements.[/QUOTE] Err, where on earth are you getting this funky idea of balance from?
[QUOTE=Ownederd;43064216]Err, where on earth are you getting this funky idea of balance from?[/QUOTE] You need Nazis to keep the Communists in line.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;43064225]You need Nazis to keep the Communists in line.[/QUOTE] Yeah
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43064213]if you want to counter the violence of radicals you need to dismantle the violence of patriarchy. radical violence is a response to an unresponsive and hostile system.[/QUOTE] What the hell does this even mean? Because CEO's aren't handing their jobs over to women just because women tell them too?? because women don't make up atleast 50% of politics or something? What are you referring too when you say "violence of the patriarchy"? You could replace the 2 variables in that sentence to just about anything to justify the actions of any group, it's non-sense. "if you want to counter the violence of islamic radicals you need to dismantle the U.S.' control. Radical Islamic Violence is the response to an unresponsive and hostile system". Boom, we just justified 9/11. The funny thing is that my version actually makes more sense at this point in time since we're actually involved in military operations that can contribute to repressing islamic beliefs in the middle-east.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;43063675]They're not feminists because you disagree with them?[/QUOTE] because the definition of feminism [I]is the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.[/I] a literal fact. they don't want equal rights, so they're not feminists. [editline]3rd December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Ownederd;43064216]Err, where on earth are you getting this funky idea of balance from?[/QUOTE] r/mensrights /pol/ infowars the new generation of apathetic internet atheists that are seeking rights for themselves under the guise of being better than "them" probably all of them
Went to watch this on youtube. Not surprised to see this fucking shit from someone familiar as the first comment. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/oDJfYyE.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;43064487]Went to watch this on youtube. Not surprised to see this fucking shit from someone familiar as the first comment. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/oDJfYyE.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] The reasons they're protesting are reasonable - the methods are up for debate. How is Max composing or stirring shit?
To be fair, if he's right then that does change the context of the situation quite a lot.
[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;43064487]Went to watch this on youtube. Not surprised to see this fucking shit from someone familiar as the first comment. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/oDJfYyE.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] How is bringing context to a situation is "fucking shit"?
[QUOTE=Starpluck;43058835]Besides the fact they pretty much ruined everyone's clothes and tried to provoke them, the moment the they spat in their faces is when I would respond and knock them out cold. Maybe that will teach them what the extent of gender equality truly is.[/QUOTE] an internet tough guy post and a "if they really want gender equality they better prepared to get decked" post rolled into one way to fuckin go dude
[QUOTE=soulharvester;43064446]What the hell does this even mean? Because CEO's aren't handing their jobs over to women just because women tell them too?? because women don't make up atleast 50% of politics or something? What are you referring too when you say "violence of the patriarchy"? You could replace the 2 variables in that sentence to just about anything to justify the actions of any group, it's non-sense. "if you want to counter the violence of islamic radicals you need to dismantle the U.S.' control. Radical Islamic Violence is the response to an unresponsive and hostile system". Boom, we just justified 9/11. The funny thing is that my version actually makes more sense at this point in time since we're actually involved in military operations that can contribute to repressing islamic beliefs in the middle-east.[/QUOTE] i could point out the obvious and say that you just compared equality between genders to al-qaeda. even so, the statement is sorta correct, but it isn't a justification for jack shit. you don't have to choose between denouncement and justification. if it weren't for us imperialism, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. that doesn't condone or justify any violence. it simply acknowledges the violence, and attempts to put the violence into a greater context. you can hate the people who perpetrated violence, but you gotta understand that we have (collectively) created a culture that encourages that sort of violence.
No shit.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;43063394]those aren't feminists????[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=milkandcooki;43064474]because the definition of feminism [I]is the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.[/I] a literal fact. they don't want equal rights, so they're not feminists.[/QUOTE] First of all thanks for criticizing some women instead of blindly defending them and going "you can't define what a feminist is, everyone can be a feminist, it's not an organization, yadda, yadda, stop being an ignorant misogynist and judging entire movement based on a small vocal minority". Second, don't get angry when people are confused about feminism, they are because you have people like thisispain who are saying that feminism is when women talk about their problems, whatever that means. Or like yawnmen: [QUOTE=yawmwen;43063120]feminism can't "unite" because it's not an organization. it's a movement. it's a philosophy. people interpret the movement in unique ways and people start independent organizations with unique goals and methods to fight patriarchy in their own way. to use a more familiar example to compare it, you can look at the gaming movement and sub-culture. how do you unite gamers? some people play consoles and some play pc. some hate call of duty and other people don't think mobile gamers are really gamers. there are organizations of people who participate in gaming, but they are unique and not really meant to get all gamers under the same banner. and if someone says gamers are fucking stupid because call of duty gamers are annoying, you will be quick to point out that call of duty gamers do not represent every gamer out there. it's a very crude comparison, but i think it's valid enough to get my point through.[/QUOTE] Really good point that branding all gamers fucking stupid because of call of duty gamers would be stupid and people would quickly point out that those don't represent every gamer out there. And that's why division in feminism is needed. So stop crying that people don't like radical feminists. Separating them from feminists only helps the latter. Wouldn't you want feminism to have a nice face in the media? For people to think about feminism that it's an understanding, calm movement that's talking about gender stereotypes and which wants to help everyone? That it isn't about war against men or whatever? That's why people who aren't for female domination, or don't want to use violence to achieve equality brand themselves with a different name. It has nothing to do with masculinity when someone doesn't want to call themselves a feminist but an equalist or whatever instead. They just want to separate themselves from the shit like in the OP, since right now feminism is associated with it. [QUOTE=yawmwen;43063239]it's blind anger, and it's oppressive to men, and it's dangerous to society. as a man, i am used to the way society treats me. i am privileged enough to be ignorant of my privilege, and i am comfortable with that. feminism attacks men because it seeks to take away my privilege. it seeks to undermine the way society has valued me and that makes me scared about how society will treat me in the future. women are not oppressed. i know for a fact they aren't because i have never observed women being oppressed, nor have i felt that oppression firsthand. that's why feminism is scary.[/QUOTE] I fight for equal rights. Judging people based on their gender is wrong. Demanding things from people based on gender is wrong. Double standards are wrong. All men are oppressors. All men should pay compensation to women. It's okay to be mean to men based solely on their gender because it's not really sexist, sexism can only be of the institutionalized type, but it's still wrong if you do it to women you misogynist. That's why some of the feminists are full of shit and that's why there are people who support the idea of equality between genders but try to distance themselves from feminists.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;43063394]those aren't feminists????[/QUOTE] I see you like to use the "No True Scotsman" fallacy :v: .
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;43069024]Wouldn't you want feminism to have a nice face in the media? For people to think about feminism that it's an understanding, calm movement that's talking about gender stereotypes and which wants to help everyone?[/QUOTE] no not rly actually. it's not going to happen anyways. news corporations don't really make a lot of money by selling feminism as a beneficial thing. they portray feminism as an aggressor because sensationalism sells. they feed people's fears because fear keeps viewers.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43069964]no not rly actually. it's not going to happen anyways. news corporations don't really make a lot of money by selling feminism as a beneficial thing. they portray feminism as an aggressor because sensationalism sells. they feed people's fears because fear keeps viewers.[/QUOTE] You missed the point entirely. I wasn't asking what's gonna happen with the name feminism. I asked if you didn't want "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men" be portrayed in the media as something beneficial to the society and not as a "war against men". Regardless of the name it would be called. And really great logic you've got there. You are aware that the news corporations are using shit like in the OP to paint feminists as batshit crazy and the entire movement as an aggressor yet you want to put those events that don't represent the movement at all in the same bag with the entire movement by opposing division within feminism. Furthermore you make fun (in the most pathetic way) of people who do try to separate themselves from the image the media created about feminism by calling themselves a different name, while still advocating what feminism actually stands for. Why in the blue hell would you oppose a version of feminism that would have a different name but stand for gender equality and which would be attractive to non militant feminists and many men by separating it from the negative image that the news corporations created for feminism?
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;43070150]You missed the point entirely. I wasn't asking what's gonna happen with the name feminism. I asked if you didn't want "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men" be portrayed in the media as something beneficial to the society and not as a "war against men". Regardless of the name it would be called. [B]And really great logic you've got there. You are aware that the news corporations are using shit like in the OP to paint feminists as batshit crazy and the entire movement as an aggressor yet you want to put those events that don't represent the movement at all in the same bag with the entire movement by opposing division within feminism. Furthermore you make fun (in the most pathetic way) of people who do try to separate themselves from the image the media created about feminism by calling themselves a different name, while still advocating what feminism actually stands for.[/B] Why in the blue hell would you oppose a version of feminism that would have a different name but stand for gender equality and which would be attractive to non militant feminists and many men by separating it from the negative image that the news corporations created for feminism?[/QUOTE] I was under the impression the media (at least, anything beyond local) wouldn't touch this story with a 29.5 foot pole.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;43070211]I was under the impression the media (at least, anything beyond local) wouldn't touch this story with a 29.5 foot pole.[/QUOTE] Notice "like" before "shit like in the OP" and even if you'd ignore this particular story, or even news entirely, people often associate feminism with crazies and a war on men. I was talking generally about that opinion. I've put the "news corporations" there to use the same words as the guy I was replying to.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;43070150]You missed the point entirely. I wasn't asking what's gonna happen with the name feminism. I asked if you didn't want "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men" be portrayed in the media as something beneficial to the society and not as a "war against men". Regardless of the name it would be called.[/quote] not if it serves to perpetuate conflict within the movement. there is enough conflict without name changes and confusing bullshit. [quote]And really great logic you've got there. You are aware that the news corporations are using shit like in the OP to paint feminists as batshit crazy and the entire movement as an aggressor yet you want to put those events that don't represent the movement at all in the same bag with the entire movement by opposing division within feminism.[/quote] i don't put anyone in any bags, i just don't go around pretending to be some sort of referee for a diverse movement. by me admitting that i don't have the authority to decide who is a "true feminist" or who is "legitimate", i am suddenly throwing people in bags now? [quote]Furthermore you make fun (in the most pathetic way) of people who do try to separate themselves from the image the media created about feminism by calling themselves a different name, while still advocating what feminism actually stands for. Why in the blue hell would you oppose a version of feminism that would have a different name but stand for gender equality and which would be attractive to non militant feminists and many men by separating it from the negative image that the news corporations created for feminism?[/QUOTE] how long until that name gets abused? it isn't the word "feminism" that draws the attention of news media, it's the principle. any movement that seeks to destroy privilege and oppression can be a target since it allows businessmen to capitalize on the people who fear their privilege being destroyed. besides, it would be a name change for the sake of pleasing some ignorant people who don't have the proper motivation to even read on their own. how does pleasing these people actually help feminism, again?
[QUOTE=mchapra;43059810] [editline]pppppp[/editline] [IMG]http://puu.sh/5BdHi.png[/IMG] these fucking comments man[/QUOTE] Look at the name...
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43070421]not if it serves to perpetuate conflict within the movement. there is enough conflict without name changes and confusing bullshit.[/QUOTE] There's problem with the name feminism because it's so broad. People who peacefully oppose gender roles call themselves feminists and people who want female dominance call themselves feminists. Division wouldn't be confusing at all. This "everything is feminism" is. [QUOTE=yawmwen;43070421]i don't put anyone in any bags, i just don't go around pretending to be some sort of referee for a diverse movement. by me admitting that i don't have the authority to decide who is a "true feminist" or who is "legitimate", i am suddenly throwing people in bags now?[/QUOTE] Hold on. The media is showing a vocal minority of people who call themselves feminists. People go "yeah, a true face of feminism" then you and people like you go "but it's a vocal minority, do some research you lazy misogynist before you judge entire movement". So you do have some kind of criteria of a "bad feminist" or at least the one who gives feminism a bad name. [QUOTE=yawmwen;43070421]how long until that name gets abused? it isn't the word "feminism" that draws the attention of news media, it's the principle. any movement that seeks to destroy privilege and oppression can be a target since it allows businessmen to capitalize on the people who fear their privilege being destroyed.[/QUOTE] Agree but it's way easier to do that if you have batshit crazy people claiming to be part of the movement and then people from the movement not distancing themselves from that vocal minority. With a new name and division you can have a stricter definition. Then you could say that these and those people are not true whatever because they are violent or they don't advocate equality or whatever. Apparently unlike feminism because feminism could be pretty much anything. [QUOTE=yawmwen;43070421]besides, it would be a name change for the sake of pleasing some ignorant people who don't have the proper motivation to even read on their own. how does pleasing these people actually help feminism, again?[/QUOTE] Stop simplifying so much. First of all if calm equal rights supporters and militant "castrate all men" rioters are both called feminists then you have confusion. Second, it's way easier to discredit the former that way, you just have to paint everyone as the latter. Third, you're saying it's a deliberate effort done by media to create that image for feminism, and in defense to this you just say "well people are stupid to believe this" and do nothing to fight that, you even help them by not distancing yourself from those who only call themselves feminists but actually don't stand for it's values or do it in a manner that throws everyone off. Forth, human stupidity and falling for propaganda is a conceivable obstacle on your way of getting to gender equality, why the hell ignore it? By giving people strict definition you can weaken the influence of it. The idea that there should be no gender roles should get as many supporters as possible. You can do that by having a movement that doesn't share the name with those who are used to paint feminism as "war on men" and give it stricter definition. It would be harder to abuse it that way.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;43059096]this is a disgusting post and you should be ashamed of it tbh the idea of punching someone in the face because they spat on you is just fucking ridiculous. that's like whipping out a gun and shooting someone if they push you. [editline]3rd December 2013[/editline] and then to follow it with "HAH GENDER EQUALITY" just makes you sound like an utter child[/QUOTE] Uh, I dunno if you'd not punch someone cause you're a bitch or something. But if someone spat on me i'd probably cave their fucking skull in.
[QUOTE=zizzleplix;43069861]I see you like to use the "No True Scotsman" fallacy :v: .[/QUOTE] I see you like to use the "Fallacy" fallacy
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;43070895]I see you like to use the "Fallacy" fallacy[/QUOTE] Touché
On the real though that's not an example of No true Scotsman because he's talking about the literal definition of the word. Saying "No true Scotsman doesn't live in Scotland and has no Scottish blood whatsoever" is not fallacious.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.