Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
Well you are dog. Of course you will defend the merits of bones.
Why do so-called feminists sexually assault women so much?
- Thread starter metatron
- Start date
- Status
The OP is a fail I see.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
Okay someone tell me the play on words in this one.
Senethro
Overlord
Metatron, your OP came across as you trying too hard to line up too many ducks and shoot them all with one bullet. Its kind of incoherent and even JR's posts read straight don't make much less sense.
Maybe you could pick one subject area for a tighter focus because connecting predatory celebrities and feminism is a bit of a stretch.
Maybe you could pick one subject area for a tighter focus because connecting predatory celebrities and feminism is a bit of a stretch.
It sorta sounds like buying into that weird "Hollywood are communists trying to destroy America" thing beloved of right wing conspiracy theorists in the US. Except it's coming from an angle that is indifferent to or supportive of the leftist subversion and destruction of America... as long as that doesn't also involve feminism.
When I'm with a woman, I try to remember she is someone's daughter, but then I correct myself when I remember she is someone's wife.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
Okay this is unfair. Metatron is... IMO... working on the level of being true. As in , not only honest, but really honest. Like with regards to ones actual acts and thoughts honest. So... honest in a way actually respectable, by any noble standards.
You can tell by all the words I used that this is an unusual standard. BUT it actually is not unusual when applied to people whom you - say... - depend with your freaking live on! Since those are the people whom you are programmed to attribute any credence to. Since historically, those people existed. Even, they were all the people that existed. Most of the rest was noise.
That communist craze you speak about is also about values, so far so right. But while Metatron actually has a case (as I argued while attacking him), the commy haters just had an enemy. So, really, this is an unfair degradation of Metatron.
While he is too focused on his enemy, he does not see ghosts. Meaning: He does not speculate but describe! That is a and the difference.
warpus
In pork I trust
Someone who says sexist stuff shouldn't really be preaching anything when it comes to gender issues, as that person is obviously in the wrong.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Berzerker
Deity
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
you forgot the jews
So, we can certainly debate the 2nd part of the defense that was - by consensus essentially - chosen in this thread: Can i claim Ben Affleck was a "feminist".
My argument, again, would largely develop in the realm of... if he i saying what "feminists" claim a feminist should say and does so reliably and often enough and/or with enough apparent emotional investment, then we have to accept him as one.
His condemnation of Weinstein as well plenty of public remarks are in essence what a "feminist" writer for certain left wing publications would write (well if they had to imagine they were a male actor and kinda dumb, but anyway).
He's virtually parroting. He seemed to be saying time and time again things that seemed to appear to him as approved/recommended that way.
The 1st part of your implicit objection is even more shaky. Is his stance irrelevant because it's confused or because it is unofficial or because he has, supposedly, no power?
In this thread here Perf and i seem to implicitly agree (possibly with different motivations but still) that celebrities maybe use it badly or that maybe they shouldn't but that they do in fact hold political power once they make political comments.
This is made particularly evident by me referencing the obscure datum that one of them just got elected President.
Let's take an analogous case, which i know rather little about (the latter specific part, because i am not that well versed in junk TV): There are institutional forces that have opposed (technically stilol do) marriage equality in the United States. Among them were politicians, legal experts and philosophers of a certain right-wing bend, a plethora of highly decorated officials in various churches and affiliated religious organisation.
Some of these looked respectable and came with fancy hats, some looked somewhat cooky and rag-tag. This was not a reliable predictor of the political power of any of these individuals or their influence on public discourse in America.
For example this colorful group also included the cast of Duck Dynasty, who most certaily were politically powerful, at least at the time.
And they were reflective of a mindset, a culture, a sentiment. That they also happened to be rather ridiculous didn't change that.
And if one was at some other end of this diverse and colorful coalition one had to accept some ownership of Duck Dynasty or at least their mindset, sentiment and culture.
And if one took the other way and disavowed them, this was bound to look non-credible unless one also disavowed the mindset, culture and sentiment that promted one to distance oneself from these people.
Now this is of course all political football, and arguably somewhat less interesting at this point in the thread.
However my question remains:
Does it not concern you with which ease people profess these values you hold dear (i suppose that is true in your case vis a vis feminism) act completely contrary to that?
I.e. very much like someone preaching "family values" or some such nonsense while doing the exact opposite.
So, does it not concern you and what do you make of it?
And then this brings us back to the original point: Much like Christian conservatism, "feminism" and social justice advocacy (intersectional feminism, BLM, whathaveyou) have this remarkable tendency to both internally self-police and outwardly agitate (e.g. pick fight, allies, enemies) based not on practical considerations or for that matter on people's deeds or the totality of people's expressed worldviews but rather on adherence to or criticism of... well, gospel.
Do you not see this? And do you not see how it is dysfunctional?
If you do, what if anything would you like to see done about it?
This is really not such a complicated row of ducks.
It's polemic, yes, it requires some generosity of association, yes, but it is in no way absurd.
And if my choice of words irritated you, well, tough, you do it to other people all the time.
Well yes. And i would totally settle for it having some of that so-called "feminism" in it.
Last edited:
Apart from cases where exploitation and demeaning treatement are readily obvious, i think that the more particular 'check your male privilege' stuff consist of personal projection. There is no male privilege. Probably because males happen to also not be equal.
Imo all this mladyism and its polar antithesis (exploitation of women) are very far from being the norm (and thankfully so).
At any rate, imo if one actually thinks that such 'movements' will change things, let alone for the better, they are deluded. It is at best some 2010s version of the more general 00s 'emo' outrage. No one is changing anything; and the years pass by.
Imo all this mladyism and its polar antithesis (exploitation of women) are very far from being the norm (and thankfully so).
At any rate, imo if one actually thinks that such 'movements' will change things, let alone for the better, they are deluded. It is at best some 2010s version of the more general 00s 'emo' outrage. No one is changing anything; and the years pass by.
Perfection
The Great Head.
I think we can all agree not to base your opinion based on what Ben Affleck thinks. Basing your opinion off what Ben Affleck says is supremely dumb.
The problem is when you start ranting about "BLM" or "feminism" or people concerned with social issues as if they were all Ben Affleck you denigrate actually smart people who care about actual issues as if they were pampered clueless Hollywood types.
I don't make thread titles calling people Nazis. Don't think things are equivalent between us.
Berzerker
Deity
hmm...I didn't realize Affleck wasn't acting in Dazed and Confused
AFLAC
AFLAC
Jeez mate I'm extremely not sure about the optics of focusing, in a thread about about sexual predators, on whinging about the dreaded sexism against menfolk. I thought you might like the chance to change course.
Sure, but bozo actors and movie producers on the other side of the world who produce entertainment content I couldn't name aren't even on my radar as people who either "share my values" or who I might identify with.
You're making a really weird category error here with that. Hollywood as an institution, like most entertainment business, is not only institutionally sexist itself, but actively relies on and helps to perpetuate sexist tropes and labour practices. Why would I be either surprised, or feel personally betrayed, or be embarrassed, when some number of them turn out to be the sort of predator garbage that inhabit every other part of society?
As I've said upthread, there is plenty of abuse, hypocrisy and silence in many actually worthwhile progressive and pro-feminist circles and institutions that I am worried and dismayed by. Things which I've seen personally hurt, betray, and fail women (so far on a personal level no men) close to me. But another Hollywood actor and a bloke who two weeks ago I'd never heard of but I guess recruits actors? Ain't them.
Last edited:
Doesn't Affleck prove that feminists make good points?
1.
Spoiler :
2. So Affleck - and Weinstein for that matter - are pampered, detached enough in some otherworldly land called Hollywood when it comes to their speech and their opinion?
Do you think they are at least partially synonymous with ordinary men in their tendency to act out toxic masculinity?
I don't want to shock you or anything, but the not calling them names ship has sailed a long time ago. It's probably in Fiji by now.
There were a Chrome extension and a Firefox plugin just for changing the relevant terms in the guardian column of one Ms. Valenti which people apparently used with great amusement.
Just so you have an idea how much toothpaste you want to shove back in the tube on that one.
I think i may be the least of your problems, in that regard.
Well then, do you think Australian men share responsibility for Weinstein's and Affleck's actions?
There are Weinsteins and Afflecks everywhere, so we really are all responsible (in the sense of tacitly enabling/ignoring/covering for, or not doing those things) for those most directly in our own workplaces, organisations, and social circles.
Around 1-2% of adult women are victims of sexual violence each year, lifetime victimisation is at least 10% and probably a fair bit higher. A much larger figure are harassed or otherwise made to feel threatened, and smaller numbers of men are likewise victims of all these things. With these sorts of figures we don't need to look at famous people on the other side of the world to find predatory men who need to be identified, challenged, etc. The percentage of men who when surveyed will admit to rapist behaviour if you don't call it that is preeetty scary.
Around 1-2% of adult women are victims of sexual violence each year, lifetime victimisation is at least 10% and probably a fair bit higher. A much larger figure are harassed or otherwise made to feel threatened, and smaller numbers of men are likewise victims of all these things. With these sorts of figures we don't need to look at famous people on the other side of the world to find predatory men who need to be identified, challenged, etc. The percentage of men who when surveyed will admit to rapist behaviour if you don't call it that is preeetty scary.
Last edited:
Perfection
The Great Head.
you are you're own person and can choose to not call people nazis.
You chose to make vicious hyperbolic statements. They were needless and inappropriate.
Social circles, coworkers, yadda, yadda. No actors one has never met?
So that's a "no" to my actual question then?
Well, if you say so, that's one common ground i have with "feminists" then, i suppose.
- Status
