Service Dog wrote:
I liked what you said in the livestream. Sargon gave feminism more of a pass than you did. In the past, my concern has been that you see your own moderate dissent as inherently superior to more extreme dissent. But moderation isn't automatically better. In the face of something patently abhorrent, appeasement or splitting-the-difference isn't better than an extreme rejection of the abhorrent.
What's so incredibly abhorrent in society that requires extreme measures? The SJW are
trying to build an authoritarian regime, but they're pretty far from implementing it. We don't live in a feminist dictatorship. The system is flawed, but it's not "oppressive against men" as much as it is "biased by media outrages". At least for now.
I can understand rejecting completely the "safe space" model of society and correcting false assumptions like "1 in 5" or the "77% wage gap", and fighting moral panics like "the campus rape epidemic" or the idea that any man is a potential pedophile. But all of this can be accomplished without resorting to other moral panics and conspiracy theories.
I don't see it as a clear positive sign-- that you survived longer than most commenting in SJW spaces, without being banned.
I was only trolling them. What I wrote on Atheism Plus was to make fun of them, not to seek a compromise. I pretend I was some sort of Dexter-lite psychopath, FFS.
At what cost? Did you take refuge in mealy-mouthed conceptual compromises, rather than calling a spade a spade? That may have strategic value... but it risks making you a quisling against truth. I'm more attached to grasping the truth, than dancing around it in hopes of political advantage.
I don't think you've understood what I said. This isn't a matter of making compromises with the SJWs. This is a matter of pointing out the truth, and the truth reveals that the SJWs are loons and that many MRAs are also loons. Including Elam.
I side with Jury Nullification advocacy groups, in general, whether they are opposed to Drug War laws, Mandatory Minimum sentencing, or what-ever. I think this man is a model citizen:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/nyreg ... .html?_r=0 I do not accept that jurors are mere 'finders of fact' in regard to whether the person on trial is guilty within the law: jurors should be empowered to find the trial itself too flawed to play role within it. And a groundswell of such dissent is an established, legitimate route to reform:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
As I wrote, I understand the concept of jury nullification in the cases of drug laws, where you're protesting against victimless crimes being crimes. But in the case of rape trials using systematic jury nullification means that you believe in a conspiracy within the justice system which invalidates all rape trials. This is, quite frankly, insane.
But is Elam right? Does the system discriminate against men? I think the evidence is clear it does. One specific example would be the Jodi Arias trial-- in which expert feminist witness & domestic violence author Alice LaViolette was introduced as highly influential on the entire field of working with The State in prosecuting domestic violence for 30 years. But, in the Arias case, LaViolette's testimony wasn't being used to prosecute a man (as usual). This time it was being used to exonerate Jodi Arias's brutal murder of her ex-boyfriend, smear the murder victim as an abuser... LaViolette was even exposed as smuggling secret messages out of jail with Arias-- to tamper with witnesses and evidence. Her credibility couldn't withstand a zealous prosecutor, the one time she wasn't on the prosecutor's side. An indictment of the system built on her guidance.
I beg to disagree. "Feminist witnesses" are expert witnesses, not an integral part of the justice system. I can understand letting the juror know about their lousy standards, and advise them to take their expertise with a pinch of salt. Defense lawyers can use the Jodi Arias case in their arguments. Informing jurors of problems with expert witnesses is some good advice.
But saying that jury nullification should be used systematically implies not only lousy standards of expert witnesses, but a conspiracy in the entire justice system on the level of the systematic FBI infiltration of the political extremist groups that you wrote about before. This is pretty much insane.
I do understand you are advocating for everyone being treated as individuals. When I said a good feminist would have to be an MRA, I wasn't saying the only 2 choices are bad feminist vs. MRA/good-feminist. The third & best option is to treat everyone as equal individuals. But, if one goes down the identity politics path of feminism-- the only honest endpoint is the feminist becoming an MRA.
Why should we go the identity politics path, and not simply focus on individual rights? Identity politics are of dubious use, and often have created more problems than they're worth.
Because feminism establishes so many criteria for judging society... wage gap, genital mutilation, reproductive freedom, right to vote, zero tolerance of domestic violence & rape-- which if honestly applied to both sexes... end up proving males are actually more disadvantaged than females. Nothing wrong with not measuring by those criteria at-all & treating everyone as equal individuals. But if one goes down the feminist route-- the only honest thing to do is admit when the results contradict expectations.
Seriously? Are you arguing that man are paid systematically
less than women? Or that circumcision is just as bad as, or worse than, FGM? Or that men are limited in their reproductive freedom (even though they don't get pregnancies, wanted or not)? Or that men are systematically disenfranchised
as men (instead of this being a side-product of incarceration rates and prohibitions of felons from voting=
I can understand a legitimate concern for male victims of domestic violence and rape who are frequently treated like jokes in society in general, and not given adequate protection or support by the authorities. But the rest is pretty loony.