Mainstream left silencing sympathetic voices?

[Chief]

http://loonpond.blogspot.com.au/

Thanks for the link, though it includes big chunks of crud from the likes of Miranda Devine that I'd rather not read, even if it is being pulled apart bit by bit.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Interesting that Tim 'I am a lefty' Lott states: "I believe the state must work to ensure equality of opportunity for all" while contradicting himself by also stating "I believe there should be more all-women shortlists for parliamentary seats", thus advocating for an equality of outcome. Does this contradiction that makes up what feminists call equality have a broader appeal that encompasses left leaning folk? Tim, as a lefty, implies, if not outright states, that it does given he lists some of his reasons for his leftism.

This is why feminists/SJW's are ethically challenged, for they seek so-called social justice through advocating the use of mandated inequality and discrimination, and thus injustice. They're typically hypocrites. This is why feminism and the typical feminist stands for female privilege, advantage and special consideration for women and women alone, not equality.

Whilst I've pointed out Tim's contradiction that's also the stance of many a lefty, in my observation, I also commend him for getting much right in the article.

This video from Sargon of Akkad is a must watch if one is interested in Tim Lott's article, as posted in the OP, or feminism in general.

Feminism, Chivalry and the Civil War in the Left

decent medium pace bowler.

len. looks like a market green grocer

Lenny Pascoe - one of the few (with Simon Katich) test cricketers from the old country(ies)

 

[medusala]

Lenny Pascoe - one of the few (with Simon Katich) test cricketers from the old country(ies)

Leonard Durtanovich. Apparently didn't appreciate being reminded of it.

 

[fleabitten]

Good article related to this topic: https://medium.com/@aristoNYC/socia...ism-of-millennial-social-justice-6bdb5ad3c9d3

 

[CM86]

Good article related to this topic: https://medium.com/@aristoNYC/socia...ism-of-millennial-social-justice-6bdb5ad3c9d3

Half way through...

How is it different to an SJW?

 

[kfc1]

Good article related to this topic: https://medium.com/@aristoNYC/socia...ism-of-millennial-social-justice-6bdb5ad3c9d3

Excellent summary of the Feminist Myths thread. It's like he's a member here.

 

[clogged]

Good article related to this topic: https://medium.com/@aristoNYC/socia...ism-of-millennial-social-justice-6bdb5ad3c9d3

This is probably better on same subject

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-words-words-words/

 

[fleabitten]

I like the motte-and-bailey doctrine.

 

[kickazz]

On both sides, extremist nutters have hijacked the debate.

Never a truer word spoken. The institutions that are the bastions of the Right and Left are so entrenched with power that appeasing them, getting their approval, preaching to the converted if you like; has never been more important. Convincing your opponent- pfft where us that going to get you in life?

 

[tesseract]

Excellent summary of the Feminist Myths thread. It's like he's a member here.

You beat me to this comment after I read the article. I was going to say that it explains the dynamic of BF's feminism related threads so very well.

 

[CM86]

Excellent summary of the Feminist Myths thread. It's like he's a member here.

You beat me to this comment after I read the article. I was going to say that it explains the dynamic of BF's feminism related threads so very well.

Great minds think alike...

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

Good article related to this topic: https://medium.com/@aristoNYC/socia...ism-of-millennial-social-justice-6bdb5ad3c9d3

In the interest of fairness (or equality, if you will...), here is a counterargument to that article that popped up on my Facebook: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/04/20/spare-me-these-poseurs/

 

[Chief]

In the interest of fairness (or equality, if you will...), here is a counterargument to that article that popped up on my Facebook: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/04/20/spare-me-these-poseurs/

"Jebus. Again, this guy is going to try and have it both ways: he’s going to claim he’s fully supportive of the goals of good causes like feminism, while simultaneously calling feminism an ideological cult. He constantly whipsaws the reader, mouthing a few platitudes about how he supports equality for women while appeasing his feminism-hating readers by calling feminism itself a false religion. It’s dishonest rhetoric."

This seems a bit of a habit with the MRA crowd. But let me be clear that I am fully supportive of good causes like men's human rights.

 

[fleabitten]

In the interest of fairness (or equality, if you will...), here is a counterargument to that article that popped up on my Facebook: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/04/20/spare-me-these-poseurs/

That looks like it was written by a 15 year old and is a pretty good example of exactly the kind of millennial justice twat we were talking about.

 

[fleabitten]

That looks like it was written by a 15 year old and is a pretty good example of exactly the kind of millennial justice twat we were talking about.

Also how is he expecting to be taken seriously while using the word "jebus" and saying "okay guy" as part of his rebuttal? Its lije he just wants to make sure the reader knows that he is not fully mentally formed.

 

[fleabitten]

"Jebus. Again, this guy is going to try and have it both ways: he’s going to claim he’s fully supportive of the goals of good causes like feminism, while simultaneously calling feminism an ideological cult. He constantly whipsaws the reader, mouthing a few platitudes about how he supports equality for women while appeasing his feminism-hating readers by calling feminism itself a false religion. It’s dishonest rhetoric."

This seems a bit of a habit with the MRA crowd. But let me be clear that I am fully supportive of good causes like men's human rights.

Which part of his article led you to believe he was an MRA?

Guy writes article about how young SJWs are intolerant of different viewpoints and are often unable to argue against facts with facts, instead launching ad hominem attacks and assigning a bunch of opinions and beliefs to the person that they never stated or even hinted at. SJWs respond by labeling him a whining white baby MRA poseur.

 

[fleabitten]

I’m sunk deep into the university environment, and have been for decades.

That one line sums the article up, really.

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

Also how is he expecting to be taken seriously while using the word "jebus" and saying "okay guy" as part of his rebuttal? Its lije he just wants to make sure the reader knows that he is not fully mentally formed.

Yeah, I found his style of writing and some of the language used to be pretty annoying as well. He made some good points, but there were a few things that I disagreed with.

Firstly, he accuses the initial author of being wrong on the subject of 'doublethink', condescendingly suggesting that "Hey, let's go to your favorite source, the dictionary!". He then gives the dictionary definition of doublethink, which is "the acceptance of or mental capacity to accept contrary opinions or beliefs at the same time, especially as a result of political indoctrination." The contrary beliefs provided in the original article are that:

1) "One cannot be sexist against men because we live in a patriarchal society"; and
2) "(Men) are told that feminism has the solution for them as well" i.e. that feminism has a solution to problems that men face due to sexism.

This looks like doublethink to me. It's a small thing, but I just think that if you are going to be condescending, at least be correct.

Secondly, he uses an argument regarding the wage gap that is quite common with feminists, and that I find pretty hypocritical. On one hand, we are told that we should be breaking down barriers and dismantling traditional gender roles (quite fair enough), but then on the other he laments that jobs that are traditionally the domain of women are paid less than those where men are over-represented. The example that he uses is to compare the wages of a physicist and a teacher - "So I do complain that there is a physicist-teacher wage gap: the teachers deserve more."

If we are removing gender roles, what is stopping women (and men) from choosing to go down a path that has traditionally been trodden by the opposite gender? Especially since it is known beforehand which is paid better (using the physicist-teacher example), not sprung on them once they are already committed to the field. Again using his example, this doesn't seem to me like a sexism issue - a male teacher is going to earn less than a female physicist.

I guess the argument would be that we haven't reached that point yet, where traditional gender roles have been removed and woman are (or feel) free to enter a field historically dominated by men, but I can only speak from my own experience here. I studied, and now work in, IT - an area that has been, and still is, dominated by men. There were plenty of women in my course at uni though (maybe a 40/60 split or slightly less), and there are plenty women who I work alongside and underneath now - I've seen nothing to suggest that there are barriers specific to women that would prevent them from entering, or advancing within the field. Obviously, as a man, I may not notice even if there was, but I'm pretty confident in saying that women and men have been treated as equals throughout.

That said, and as I mentioned, he does make some good points. He (rightly) called out the intial author on his deliberate manipulation of statistics regarding rape. Fudging figures in order to shape them to support your opinion is extremely disingenuous and detracts from the overall article. It is a common tactic from both 'sides' and only complicates the argument.

It is particularly hypocritical of the author of the original article in this case, when he states that "To the social justice advocate of our time, conclusions are not contingent on facts; rather facts are contingent on conclusions." It's a nice sentence, and highlights one of my most disliked tactics in any debate, but to mention this and then go ahead and do the exact same thing in the same article is dishonest and, frankly, quite stupid.

Anyway, I didn't intent for this post to be so long, so I will stop here. (If anyone can show why my opinions are incorrect, I am more than happy to hear it - I'm not even close to being an expert in this area!).

 

[Docker Alyssa]

For me, the main point is one I keep on about on this board....Whatever the intentions, censorship is a BAD IDEA.

A policy might be brought in with the greatest of intentions, but unless you can criticise, debate and differ in your views without being attacked and labeled, then the intentions of the policy wont have any means to correct themselves when they (inevitably) get things wrong. I say inevitably, because I highly doubt any policy can and will be perfectly implemented first time.

Classic "No True Scotsman" -- unless you take on all of a peoples viewpoints that body of people believing in something will claim you are not a true "lefty" in this case. Not a true "feminist". Not a true "liberal" -- The argument people should ignore twitter feeds is rather weak. Those people can damage your image if they make the right noise.

I agree with all of this. My view is there should be no censorship in political issues. Nowhere an issue can't discuss because its "taboo". No label politics in social movements to discredit someone, even if you hate them. If their ideas ring true that is reality. People all have differing viewpoints. I think it's the embodiment of censorship when one group of people say "the debate is over".

Censorship never helped anyone ever. Literally. And the arts, movies, comedy, videogames all end up harmed from these measures of censoring under the "protection" of kids, women, minorities -- You, each individual should have more agency of your own emotions and not let them be easily frazzled by a viewpoint you personally find shocking. It's like those snowflakes who get all twisted up watching Bill Burr joke about women. You chose to watch him... Next stop, moving on with your life in total freedom to simply say "won't watch that guy again". All good. Everyone wins.

Even the worst "nutter" deserves free speech.

 

[kfc1]

I thought it was pretty clever that he parodied himself by arguing about the differences in gender earnings while accusing the first guy of gaming the stats to fit an argument. Self awareness is not his strong point.

 

[Chief]

Which part of his article led you to believe he was an MRA?

The fact that he's a complete jerk?

 

[fleabitten]

That said, and as I mentioned, he does make some good points. He (rightly) called out the intial author on his deliberate manipulation of statistics regarding rape. Fudging figures in order to shape them to support your opinion is extremely disingenuous and detracts from the overall article. It is a common tactic from both 'sides' and only complicates the argument.

I don't understand how the original author fudged anything. He was disputing the survey that claimed 1 in 5 women in college are sexually assaulted. He referenced a Department of Justice report that shows a rate of 6.1 per thousand female college students as victims of sexual assault, which would seem to contradict the surprisingly high number from the survey with something from a more reliable source and with a much larger sample size. The rebuttal of the 2nd writer quotes the statistic that 18.3% of women will be raped at some point in their lives to back up the original survey, but it doesn't really. 18% over a lifetime doesn't support a figure of 20% during college years.

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

I don't understand how the original author fudged anything. He was disputing the survey that claimed 1 in 5 women in college are sexually assaulted. He referenced a Department of Justice report that shows a rate of 6.1 per thousand female college students as victims of sexual assault, which would seem to contradict the surprisingly high number from the survey with something from a more reliable source and with a much larger sample size. The rebuttal of the 2nd writer quotes the statistic that 18.3% of women will be raped at some point in their lives to back up the original survey, but it doesn't really. 18% over a lifetime doesn't support a figure of 20% during college years.

Yeah, fair enough. Having gone back and read the article, you are right and I've probably gone in a little too cocksure on that one. Unfair of me to accuse the author of 'fudging figures', but I still think he was somewhat downplaying the prevalence of sexual assault, but probably not to the extent that my post (and the rebuttal) suggested.

I'm blaming this oversight on the fact that I only got around 3 hours sleep last night, on account of the Ashes! And if you again don't agree with the first paragraph of this post, refer back to the sentence before this one

 

[fleabitten]

I have two daughters that expect to go to university, so I certainly don't want to downplay existing problems, but the kind of fear-mongering around that issue in the States is ridiculous and counter-productive IMO. They make it seem like the average male student wants to prey on the innocent female students, when really most of the male students are just as innocent/naive and are probably only concerned with passing their classes, having fun, maybe falling in love or having their first sexual experience, just like many of the female students. Problems with sexual assault or misogyny should be dealt with proportionally, not by creating hysteria that it's unsafe for women on college campuses.

It seems to me that many college students over there desperately want to be part of some victimized class, or to fight against some injustice (real or greatly exaggerated) that directly effects them, which can seem shallow to the social justice advocates of older generations who were usually more concerned with fighting for people worse off than themselves. This is especially true when the activism doesn't extend past a few mouse clicks and some preachiness on social media.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Anybody remember the AIDS ribbon episode of Seinfeld?

Back then, before SJW's and leftards were spewing their bile from every corner of the western world, this was absurdist humour and it was damn funny.

Fast forward twenty years... this passes for reality.