Sexism you have personally experienced or have heard of? *READ POST 1*

iptba

iptba wrote: »

I dislike any suggestion of equivalence: I think much more unfair to men than it is to women.

Of course, it is... because we (men) are getting assigned responsibility for all the ills of the world... and women are poor little victims who previously had no choice but to accept it, in spite of their glorious struggle for equality and freedom from the shackles of male oppression. :rolleyes:

I throw that out as a sarcastic joke, but that's the reality now. That's the environment that is being encouraged to develop in culture and in education...

Oh, the average woman you meet in Ireland will roll her eyes and call it rubbish, declare that feminism doesn't represent her, but, they'll allow it to happen while maintaining that it's foolish.

newport2

Wibbs wrote: »

People and how they act in groups have always fascinated me. From political movements, through cultural philosophies, religion, riots, even how people queue or how traffic operates. And People in groups tend towards thinking as a group and can be easily enough manipulated. It's a part of human nature and part of being a social animal. The outliers, the rebels are the minority. A minority we most certainly need from time to time(and probably why they still crop up and weren't selected out over time), but too many of them in a population would be detrimental to same, because mostly we need to operate as a cohesive group with similar aims.

This book is an interesting read which touches on that Wibbs

Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind

From what I remember, it claims a key difference between us and other animals is our ability to communicate about things that don't actually exist. Concepts such as religion, philosophy, morals, money, etc. Take most other animals which have dominant males and once you reach a certain number, say 50, they can't be controlled and they splinter off into other groups. Humans however, can use things such as religion, morality, etc to control thousands and even millions of people and steer them in the same direction.

Wibbs

maybe

Yeah, we appear to have been the first human species that invented abstraction tokens of culture. Like you say religion, money, etc. Other previous humans clearly had culture, but evidence for such tokens are either extremely rare, nonexistent or highly debatable. My theory why we came up with this killer app is because when we left Africa we weren't moving into virgin territory. Other earlier humans were already living in most places we moved into. They had a home advantage and usually a physical strength advantage and at first a numerical advantage too. So maybe these tokens of a much larger group affiliation were positively selected because of this.

We see this in Europe in the early days. Neandertals were the locals. A territorial bunch of small family grouped apex predators scattered throughout the continent. They appear to have had some cultural tokens but they were very localised to particular groups. If we had remained like them we wouldn't have likely survived. However by having these wider cultural tokens we went from their setup of our small band against the neighbouring small band, to all of us versus any bunch of them. Take our cave art and other cultural items. For a long time and over some distance it's a monoculture throughout Europe, with the same symbolism throughout, so one of us in southern France would have the same cultural references, maybe even the same language as one of us from Germany, or Spain, or Italy. This connected us, kicked off mass trade over distance and allowed for much larger groups that could be kept cohesive and as you say steer us in a common direction because of the shared culture.

Sleepy

gizmo555 wrote: »

I was at Jerry Fish's performance at the Westport Arts Festival last Saturday. He was big into audience participation, getting everyone to clap and wave, sing along, and dance in the aisles. It was a bit of fun to begin with, although I found it a bit tedious after a while - after all, we paid for our tickets to see him perform, not to be the performers ourselves.

Towards the end of the show, though, he invited all the men in the audience to come up on stage and jointly apologise to the women present for the mess that men had made of the world. To my absolute astonishment they all did, with the exception of myself and three others.

Apparently Jerry thinks being a man is a special kind of original sin in itself and that women can do no wrong - obviously hasn't heard of Theresa May, for a start ...

Wow... this is interesting. We have him booked for a gig in a few weeks in a sports club where I do a bit of bartending.

I've been at quite a few of his shows at Oxygen / Electric Picnic back in the day and he's a brilliant entertainer, the audience participation is great craic when you're in the mood for it.

If he tries a stunt like this in the club, however, I suspect he'll be met with guffaws and told to g'way and shite... The club wouldn't be male dominated either, gender wise it'd be close to a 50/50 split in a liberal, upper class area.

I'm really hoping he tries it TBH.

silverharp

Sleepy wrote: »

Wow... this is interesting. We have him booked for a gig in a few weeks in a sports club where I do a bit of bartending.

I've been at quite a few of his shows at Oxygen / Electric Picnic back in the day and he's a brilliant entertainer, the audience participation is great craic when you're in the mood for it.

If he tries a stunt like this in the club, however, I suspect he'll be met with guffaws and told to g'way and shite... The club wouldn't be male dominated either, gender wise it'd be close to a 50/50 split in a liberal, upper class area.

I'm really hoping he tries it TBH.

bring a camera

Sleepy

I'll have the mobile at the ready!

Saruhashi

gizmo555 wrote: »

I was at Jerry Fish's performance at the Westport Arts Festival last Saturday. He was big into audience participation, getting everyone to clap and wave, sing along, and dance in the aisles. It was a bit of fun to begin with, although I found it a bit tedious after a while - after all, we paid for our tickets to see him perform, not to be the performers ourselves.

Towards the end of the show, though, he invited all the men in the audience to come up on stage and jointly apologise to the women present for the mess that men had made of the world. To my absolute astonishment they all did, with the exception of myself and three others.

Apparently Jerry thinks being a man is a special kind of original sin in itself and that women can do no wrong - obviously hasn't heard of Theresa May, for a start ...

This is partly hilarious but also partly sad. I'm not even sure what the point of doing this would be?

Really, the appropriate thing for the women to do there is to say "OK, we forgive you, now can we just enjoy the show?"

I mean, are the lads asking for forgiveness here or is it just public self-flagellation for the sake of it?

I try to think how it would go over in other situations.

Can you imagine going into a work meeting and there are a few women there and you say "I'd like to take a moment to apologize to all the women here. On behalf of all men I'd like to apologize for the mess we've made of the world." How are the women expected to respond to that?

Or meeting a woman on a first date. Would many lads feel comfortable apologizing to a woman they just met for the crimes of men around the world?

Remember too that a lot of the good things in the world are done by men.
Would it be appropriate for a male musician to demand appreciation from all the women in the audience towards all the men?

It can't be healthy for men to be in a position where they are constantly apologizing for the actions of "All Men" without any chance of forgiveness or any realistic hope for redemption.

When we were young we would sometimes do wrong and we'd be forced to apologize, often very tearfully. Maybe we broke a window or called someone a bad name. Then it would be met with "don't do it again" or " be more considerate in future" and everyone would just move on and forget about it. Demanding that the apology is made day after day, sometimes in public, begins to border on bullying and abuse.

Isn't that a fairly typical tactic in abusive relationships? Where things that went wrong but are supposedly forgiven and forgotten are brought up over and over again many years later? It just feels wrong to say "Men, get up here and apologize for what you've done!"

Ralf and Florian

gizmo555 wrote: »

I was at Jerry Fish's performance at the Westport Arts Festival last Saturday. He was big into audience participation, getting everyone to clap and wave, sing along, and dance in the aisles. It was a bit of fun to begin with, although I found it a bit tedious after a while - after all, we paid for our tickets to see him perform, not to be the performers ourselves.

Towards the end of the show, though, he invited all the men in the audience to come up on stage and jointly apologise to the women present for the mess that men had made of the world. To my absolute astonishment they all did, with the exception of myself and three others.

Apparently Jerry thinks being a man is a special kind of original sin in itself and that women can do no wrong - obviously hasn't heard of Theresa May, for a start ...

Bizarre. Was it done in a jokey or tongue in cheek manner?

gizmo555

Ralf and Florian wrote: »

Bizarre. Was it done in a jokey or tongue in cheek manner?

As my own mother would say, "half joking, all in earnest" ...

Saruhashi

Saruhashi wrote: »

Really, the appropriate thing for the women to do there is to say "OK, we forgive you, now can we just enjoy the show?"

The thing I find amusing is that I've worked in two employment sectors. First as a credit controller for 12 years, where I had five different managers and four of them were female. Then, afterwards, I changed my career to education where once again, the majority of my supervisors were women. Oh, there were men as Directors who did all the drinking/eating/political handshaking for financing, but the women did the actual management of the faculty. In my family, my mother definitely controls the family and makes all the decisions with token input from my Father...

I'm 40 years old now, and in 22 years of working (yes, I worked through University) the vast majority of my managers, supervisors, etc were all women. So, why is it that I need forgiveness for the state of the world? In my experience, women have had far more influence over my world...

mzungu

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course, it is... because we (men) are getting assigned responsibility for all the ills of the world... and women are poor little victims who previously had no choice but to accept it, in spite of their glorious struggle for equality and freedom from the shackles of male oppression. :rolleyes:

I throw that out as a sarcastic joke, but that's the reality now. That's the environment that is being encouraged to develop in culture and in education...

Oh, the average woman you meet in Ireland will roll her eyes and call it rubbish, declare that feminism doesn't represent her, but, they'll allow it to happen while maintaining that it's foolish.

But how could they (or anybody) stop it? That's a bit like saying men allow the Red Pill to happen. Women have no control over what certain groups say or do, same as men don't have control over elements that claim to be representing mens rights etc.

Wibbs

maybe

Saruhashi wrote: »

Remember too that a lot of the good things in the world are done by men.
Would it be appropriate for a male musician to demand appreciation from all the women in the audience towards all the men?

A lot? Pretty much everything for good or ill (and majority good BTW) you see around you in the world was overwhelmingly created, invented and produced by men.

mzungu

mzungu wrote: »

But how could they (or anybody) stop it? That's a bit like saying men allow the Red Pill to happen. Women have no control over what certain groups say or do, same as men don't have control over elements that claim to be representing mens rights etc.

I'm not quite getting your logic. Doesn't that suggest then that minority groups are unstoppable? That Feminism is unstoppable or that we cannot prevent them from bringing in the more extreme ideas about male responsibility...?

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote:

I'm not quite getting your logic. Doesn't that suggest then that minority groups are unstoppable? That Feminism is unstoppable or that we cannot prevent them from bringing in the more extreme ideas about male responsibility...?

It doesn't suggest that minority groups are unstoppable as such. You said women allow this type of thing, but that's only true in the sense that you as a man allow the red pill movement to exist.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It doesn't suggest that minority groups are unstoppable as such. You said women allow this type of thing, but that's only true in the sense that you as a man allow the red pill movement to exist.

I don't know. The thing is that in my life I've seen so many ideas and ways of life come into being because there was simply no resistance to it. Not that the majority wanted it to happen, but rather that there was no actual resistance by them to it. Seems like every concept/idea/belief/etc has the right to exist. Oh, only a few people believe in it, so it really doesn't harm anyone... but minority ideas have the internet in which to grow. Modern day Feminism is quite like that. We have all the statistics... they've been noted plenty of times back and forth, and yet, the liberal/feminist movement is still able to marginalise fathers regarding their children and encourage the belief that men are still more prone to violence than women, and actually encourage/influence changes in the Law to reflect that.

I look back at my parents period of life, and there was great social change because people actually marched for it. They campaigned for it. Sure, some changes were imported from other countries, but the majority willed it to happen. However, it seems to me that my generation and those after me, have a certain apathy that minority groups are very good at using to further their own aims.

IMHO, We are all responsible for allowing Feminism to grow past the goal posts of equality. Just as we're responsible for pulling them back and Bringing about a reasonable balance to gender rights.

And should the Red Pill Dating concept become far more commonplace, then, yes I would feel that I am responsible for allowing it to gain such momentum.. and believe that it should be resisted.

Zulu

No

Wibbs wrote: »

A lot? Pretty much everything for good or ill (and majority good BTW) you see around you in the world was overwhelmingly created, invented and produced by men.

Perhaps you're not wrong, but I really don't like this argument (made from either side) - it sticks in my craw.

Should we only credit the striker for winning the game? Or should the credit go to the whole team?
Should we only credit the F1 driver for winning the race? Or the engineers and mechanics as well?

I take that your point is in response to the pathetic attempt to "blame" men for the evil of this world, and there's a value highlighting that, but it doesn't sit easy with me. I feel we should be risen above it somehow.

Just sharing...

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote:

I look back at my parents period of life, and there was great social change because people actually marched for it. They campaigned for it. Sure, some changes were imported from other countries, but the majority willed it to happen. However, it seems to me that my generation and those after me, have a certain apathy that minority groups are very good at using to further their own aims.

That's the difference I see. The feminists actually go out and march, form active groups, run awareness campaigns and lobby for change at a political and legislative level. They change the culture. They get fierce abuse for doing it and do it anyway. You don't have to agree with their goals to acknowledge the hard work. I don't see that on the other side. I see the father's rights fellas in Ireland occasionally and they generally get a fair amount of abuse too but no great support. There was some publicity about boys improved educational performance in the UK recently but I think that was just straight journalism rather than any activism or awareness campaign.

Deleted User wrote:

And should the Red Pill Dating concept become far more commonplace, then, yes I would feel that I am responsible for allowing it to gain such momentum.. and believe that it should be resisted.

I don't think I agree that you would be responsible for the red pill movement and I definitely don't feel any responsibility. But I see your point is consistent.

Wibbs

maybe

Zulu wrote: »

Perhaps you're not wrong,

No perhaps about it Z. And not just on the individual levels. The teams, cultures and structures behind human advancements have been overwhelmingly male in make up.

I take that your point is in response to the pathetic attempt to "blame" men for the evil of this world, and there's a value highlighting that, but it doesn't sit easy with me. I feel we should be risen above it somehow.

Just sharing...

Oh I agree, but too many I feel are reticent, even apologetic in the face of sexism going the other way and notions of "toxic masculinity", that IMHO even the above sometimes needs to be said.

silverharp

Zulu wrote: »

Perhaps you're not wrong, but I really don't like this argument (made from either side) - it sticks in my craw.

Should we only credit the striker for winning the game? Or should the credit go to the whole team?
Should we only credit the F1 driver for winning the race? Or the engineers and mechanics as well?

I take that your point is in response to the pathetic attempt to "blame" men for the evil of this world, and there's a value highlighting that, but it doesn't sit easy with me. I feel we should be risen above it somehow.

Just sharing...

I think its worth pushing back against the narrative that women are interchangeable with men. In a lot of cases they can be but in other places not so much, even forgetting top end innovators, think of something like putting a ltr of fuel in your car, go back though all the steps in the process , drillers, divers the equipment, the equipment that makes the equipment, its all held together by men mostly that don't want cushy 9-5 office jobs.
You need a society where men are motivated to get off their asses, and telling them they are the worst is not the best way to go about it.

gizmo555

silverharp wrote: »

You need a society where men are motivated to get off their asses, and telling them they are the worst is not the best way to go about it.

We're seeing a lot this kind of warped logic in the context of the Las Vegas mass murder, in particular about "white men" and their supposed propensity for violence.

For example, this "Newsweek" article is headlined "White Men Have Committed More Mass Shootings Than Any Other Group". The article states that 55% of such shootings are done by white men, also mentions that 62% of US men are white, yet somehow manages to avoid drawing the obvious conclusion that in fact white men are on average less likely than other racial groups to commit mass shootings.

silverharp

gizmo555 wrote: »

We're seeing a lot this kind of warped logic in the context of the Las Vegas mass murder, in particular about "white men" and their supposed propensity for violence.

For example, this "Newsweek" article is headlined "White Men Have Committed More Mass Shootings Than Any Other Group". The article states that 55% of such shootings are done by white men, also mentions that 62% of US men are white, yet somehow manages to avoid drawing the obvious conclusion that in fact white men are on average less likely than other racial groups to commit mass shootings.

If I was to widen that out I'd go as far to say that he was possibly radicalised by CNN. They demonise white men, Trump supporters combine that with an unstable personality and bad things happen

Sleepy

A country music concert would seem an unlikely target for a radicalised Trump supporter? Would have thought the exact opposite tbh...

silverharp

Sleepy wrote: »

A country music concert would seem an unlikely target for a radicalised Trump supporter? Would have thought the exact opposite tbh...

if you wanted to target what you see as white Trump supporters, a country music event is a good target. The implication is the shooter is similar to the Bernie bro that shot the Republican politicians earlier in the year. I'd be very surprised if hed had any republican leanings, it would be like someone in SF shooting up a ceili

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

If I was to widen that out I'd go as far to say that he was possibly radicalised by CNN. They demonise white men, Trump supporters combine that with an unstable personality and bad things happen

Ah jaysus you're going out of your way to invent offence here. You hardly actually want to make that point.

El_Duderino 09

gizmo555 wrote:

". The article states that 55% of such shootings are done by white men, also mentions that 62% of US men are white, yet somehow manages to avoid drawing the obvious conclusion that in fact white men are on average less likely than other racial groups to commit mass shootings.

It's not wrong but it would be most informative to include both facts. White men are less likely than average to perpetrate a mass shooting and if there's a mass shooting its most likely to have been perpetrated by a white man.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah jaysus you're going out of your way to invent offence here. You hardly actually want to make that point.

im not inventing, im not that smart but I am relaying a view that cable news and other media is so toxic in the US that at a minimum "punching" a Trump supporter is seen as a legitimate thing to do by some. Also the guy that shot Scalisi couldn't but have been affected by the media coverage , interestingly he was in his 60's like the current guy.

silverharp

ooh and as if by magic some race baiting by CNN , the evil white man

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

im not inventing, im not that smart but I am relaying a view that cable news and other media is so toxic in the US that at a minimum "punching" a Trump supporter is seen as a legitimate thing to do by some. Also the guy that shot Scalisi couldn't but have been affected by the media coverage , interestingly he was in his 60's like the current guy.

You can make that point if you want to but I see it as looking to take offense. It's a bit ridiculous. Explaining this mass killing by CNN having a go at men. With nothing to link A to B, it's just talking out the top of your head.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You can make that point if you want to but I see it as looking to take offense. It's a bit ridiculous. Explaining this mass killing by CNN having a go at men. With nothing to link A to B, it's just talking out the top of your head.

I didn't say men in particular I was focusing on being a tump supporter in the US, you would have to agree that they are demonised by US media?, you know Trump supporters got hitler elected and all, they should be punched
Could be a completely different explanation and the shooter didnt care who was in the audience. But still a point for the future.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

I didn't say men in particular I was focusing on being a tump supporter in the US, you would have to agree that they are demonised by US media?, you know Trump supporters got hitler elected and all, they should be punched Could be a completely different explanation and the shooter didnt care who was in the audience. But still a point for the future.

Well, you did. You said CNN 'demonise white men, Trump supporters'. See below.

silverharp wrote:

If I was to widen that out I'd go as far to say that he was possibly radicalised by CNN. They demonise white men, Trump supporters combine that with an unstable personality and bad things happen

And then you acknowledge that this is nothing to do with this mass shooting but 'could be a point for the future'. I think if you were to be completely honest you'd say you spewed a load of rubbish and didn't expect anyone to challenge you on it.

gizmo555

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's not wrong but it would be most informative to include both facts. White men are less likely than average to perpetrate a mass shooting and if there's a mass shooting its most likely to have been perpetrated by a white man.

It's not wrong, but it's racist and grossly misleading.

El_Duderino 09

gizmo555 wrote:

It's not wrong, but it's racist and grossly misleading.

Its true so it don't see it as racist. But it is not telling the full story. If the claim is that white men are most commonly the perpetrators, then it's completely true. If the claim is that white men commit a proportional amount of mass shootings for their %of the country, then it's not true.

Even if it was the full story, I don't count t myself among the mass shooter community so I don't take any offence in it. It's not talking about me. Is it talking about you?

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well, you did. You said CNN 'demonise white men, Trump supporters'. See below.



And then you acknowledge that this is nothing to do with this mass shooting but 'could be a point for the future'.

they do both in fairness, CNN is the cable version of Buzzfeed and look Im not psychic but based on the Scalisi shooting outfits like CNN are well capable influencing the thoughts of someone who may be unstable.

an example of a CNN article

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/25/us/too-many-white-men/index.html

What's wrong with too many white men in one place?

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

they do both in fairness, CNN is the cable version of Buzzfeed and look Im not psychic but based on the Scalisi shooting outfits like CNN are well capable influencing the thoughts of someone who may be unstable.

Have you read the article? It's not about any problem with white men gathering together as headline suggests. Are you posting headlines without reading the article again?

Anyway are you seriously making the case that CNN might have radicalised the las Vegas shooter? If so feel free to make the case. I wonder if it's an opinion widely held by other posters. I'd put it with all the other conspiracy theories if the argument you've made is all the evidence for it.

CNN says white men are bad and trump supporters are bad. So a white man bedomes radicalised by CNN and goes out and shoots a load of people at a music festival and the cause is somehow related to CNN's demonisation of white men and trump supporters.

It's such nonsense that I'm not even attempting to exaggerate your claim. Give over.

I mean you're going all around the houses to find an angle where sexism and racism against white men could be a cause of this mass shooting, which was perpetrated by a white man. I can't figure out whether you're doing parody of a men's rights conspiracy theorist or if you actually think it's real.

silverharp

they are on a roll today

[IMG][/img]

Give it time. We'll have more female shooters in the US.

Calhoun

Best race baiting thing i have seen is that guy Shaun something or other, basically painting these shootings as white privilege lol.

El_Duderino 09

Calhoun wrote:

Best race baiting thing i have seen is that guy Shaun something or other, basically painting these shootings as white privilege lol.

I don't think you need to look that far. In this thread we have the claim that the Las Vegas shooting was caused by CNN making it ok to hit Trump supporters! You can basically say anything. White privilege, CNN, lizard people. It's all for the conspiracy heap.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't think you need to look that far. In this thread we have the claim that the Las Vegas shooting was caused by CNN making it ok to hit Trump supporters! You can basically say anything. White privilege, CNN, lizard people. It's all for the conspiracy heap.

I think I'll stick to sexism, & male/female rights. Conspiracy theories give me a headache along with the American media and modern American politics. Utter gutter drama.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

I think I'll stick to sexism, & male/female rights. Conspiracy theories give me a headache along with the American media and modern American politics. Utter gutter drama.

I think you're right. There's nothing in the conspiracy theory angle -except a desire to make oneself a type of victim of the Las Vegas shooting by virtue of being a man. It's stretching the truth and stretching credulity.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

Give it time. We'll have more female shooters in the US.

You don't have to wait. Women commit 2% of the mass shooting, inferring from the headline posted above.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You don't have to wait. Women commit 2% of the mass shooting, inferring from the headline posted above.

I think you're right. There's nothing in the conspiracy theory angle -except a desire to make oneself a type of victim of the Las Vegas shooting by virtue of being a man. It's stretching the truth and stretching credulity.

Fine. I'm stepping out of this vague and circular argument. I'll wait for some real sexism.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote:

Fine. I'm stepping out of this vague and circular argument. I'll wait for some real sexism.

I think you're right. In spite of best efforts to find sexism in this mass shooting, it amounts to nothing. I'm glad someone was willing to challenge the narrative that white men as a whole are one of the victims of the Last Vegas shooting. I wasn't sure it anyone else was going to do it.

We can put that conspiracy theory to bed.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think you're right. In spite of best efforts to find sexism in this mass shooting, it amounts to nothing. I'm glad someone was willing to challenge the narrative that white men as a whole are one of the victims of the Last Vegas shooting. I wasn't sure it anyone else was going to do it.

We can put that conspiracy theory to bed.

There is a general momentum to the Female rights campaign which places men in every possible negative light, but i don't see it as a conspiracy. The media, movies, etc all have been encouraging the idea that females are the better half of the species. Not a conspiracy... just marketing. Hearts and minds.

Not sexism. Just a way to place females in a superior position than men. Corporations go where the money is. Women are more focused than men regarding their 'rights' and that is a very big market. When men decide that they need actual equality, then we'll see another swing in the media. But as long as the general male rights apathy continues, the media will continue to promote the female superiority line. It's worth more and has no backlash yet.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote:

There is a general momentum to the Female rights campaign which places men in every possible negative light, but i don't see it as a conspiracy. The media, movies, etc all have been encouraging the idea that females are the better half of the species. Not a conspiracy... just marketing. Hearts and minds.

Ok. Without getting into the specifics of your post, Silverharp claimed that sexism and racism by CNN was a contributor to the Last Vegas shooting. How on earth was I the only one who called it out as conspiracy theory codswallop?

Deleted User wrote:

Not sexism. Just a way to place females in a superior position than men. Corporations go where the money is. Women are more focused than men regarding their 'rights' and that is a very big market. When men decide that they need actual equality, then we'll see another swing in the media. But as long as the general male rights apathy continues, the media will continue to promote the female superiority line. It's worth more and has no backlash yet.

I definitely agree that men are more apathetic on campaigning for their rights than women are. There's no shortage of motivation to point out, and even invent, sexism against men. But very little motivation to positively promote men's rights.

I mean, the usual posters can't even bring themselves to point out the complete guff of a conspiracy theory about CNN radicalising the Last Vegas shooter through racism and sexism and anti trump reporting.

Zulu

No

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I mean, the usual posters can't even bring themselves to point out the complete guff of a conspiracy theory about CNN radicalising the Last Vegas shooter through racism and sexism and anti trump reporting.

Consider this: if something is not worth commenting on, it's not commented on. A lack of condemnation does not equate to condoning; because every other poster doesn't condemn a post, does not mean they agree to it.

You are creating a most disingenuous argument. Why?

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok. Without getting into the specifics of your post, Silverharp claimed that sexism and racism by CNN was a contributor to the Last Vegas shooting. How on earth was I the only one who called it out as conspiracy theory codswallop?

Because if I objected to every post on boards or even on this thread as being irrelevant, then I'd be a royal pain in the ass.

I definitely agree that men are more apathetic on campaigning for their rights than women are. There's no shortage of motivation to point out, and even invent, sexism against men. But very little motivation to positively promote men's rights.

Because it's not fashionable to do so. We're not big enough victims yet. Another decade, and people will be more sympathetic when they notice men not entering into formal marriage, getting pre-nups, and bringing to court women for theft of their sperm.

I mean, the usual posters can't even bring themselves to point out the complete guff of a conspiracy theory about CNN radicalising the Last Vegas shooter through racism and sexism and anti trump reporting.

I dunno. I avoid the Trump bandwagon because boards is incredibly anti-trump, even to the same level as the foaming mouth H.Clinton supporters. There is no reasonable argument possible the moment that Trumps name is put on a page.

And Racism has it's own corner since Islamophobia was created as a concept, so arguing anything related to race/religion becomes a minefield of epic proportions. It's the reason I left the Politics forum and have not returned.

So, when the post about the shootings, came up, I was very hesitant to post anything related to it.

El_Duderino 09

Zulu wrote:

Consider this: if something is not worth commenting on, it's not commented on. A lack of condemnation does not equate to condoning; because every other poster doesn't condemn a post, does not mean they agree to it.

Wind back ,Zulu. I didn't say they agree with it. I said they can't bring themselves to disagree with it. I understand the difference which is why I prepared it as I did, not the way you interpreted it.

Zulu wrote:

You are creating a most disingenuous argument. Why?

As above. I didn't say they agree with it. So whose making a disingenuous argument?

It's amusing that. Someone proposes make crackpot conspiracy theory which receives tangential support. I point out that it's a conspiracy theory and posters find it worthwhile to disagree with me. Echo... Echo... Echo

ligerdub

The original post:

"If I was to widen that out I'd go as far to say that he was possibly radicalised by CNN. They demonise white men, Trump supporters combine that with an unstable personality and bad things happen"

This was the opinion of one person. It was stated as a possibility rather than something they believed. For arguments sake let's assume it is their opinion. I've yet to see anyone else consider this was the reason for the shooting. I don't consider silence to be a support of anything to be honest (there is a like button feature on this forum....that's usually a good sign......I don't see any likes), and as off the wall as it sounds, it is indeed a possibility.....not a probability, a possibility.

So let's all give our opinion on this, everyone following this thread that is. I don't believe this was the reason behind it. I have no idea why he did what he did.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote:

Because if I objected to every post on boards or even on this thread as being irrelevant, then I'd be a royal pain in the ass.

True enough. But you disagreed with my posts and did find the time to post about it. Stepping over the subject matter (a silly conspiracy theory) to disagree with me pointing out that it's just a big conspiracy theory rather than anything based in reality.

Weren't you the poster who said women are responsible for allowing feminism? And you would take responsibility for allowing movements like red pill because you allowed it to happen? I disagreed with your conclusion. Faced with a nonsense conspiracy theory on sexism and you're response was... Nothing.

Deleted User wrote:

Because it's not fashionable to do so.

Ah protest is rarely fashionable. If protests, awareness campaigns, lobbying, only happened when a topic was popular, then it would be easy. Maybe you're right that it's not fashionable but that's hardly the point. The feminist activists get terrible abuse for their work but they do it anyway.

Deleted User wrote:

We're not big enough victims yet.

Irony? I can't tell sometimes. Some people can claim victimhood from the LV shooting so you're moving in the right direction if being a bigger victim is the objective.

Deleted User wrote:

Another decade, and people will be more sympathetic when they notice men not entering into formal marriage, getting pre-nups, and bringing women for theft of their sperm.

Grim. Maybe you're right but I doubt that will happen to any great degree. Father's rights, I support (I think that's what you meant by theft of sperm).

Deleted User wrote:

I dunno. I avoid the Trump bandwagon because boards is incredibly anti-trump, even to the same level as the foaming mouth H.Clinton supporters. There is no reasonable argument possible the moment that Trumps name is put on a page.

Deleted User wrote:

So, when the post about the shootings, came up, I was very hesitant to post anything related to it.

But you found it worthwhile to post in opposition to someone who pointed out a conspiracy theory.