Why have incels gotten so much attention?

[caketastydelish]

In fairness, I used to deny rape culture not because I was ever a rapist myself or wanted to be one but because I was genuinely nieve of its existence. Blaming the victim didn't even occur to me and I had no idea people actually did that.

But once you provide them with evidence and they still deny it at that point what you said is true.

 

[brennan]

... I really doubt this is what you were banned for, as I have openly called for the beheading of politicians and I was never banned....
I don't believe you were banned from The Guardian for the reasons you state. Judging by your posts here, you were actually causing trouble by trolling people in feminist articles, and possibly Valenti herself.

Hmm. We're refusing to simply believe what people say and then accusing them of acting in bad faith. How hypocritical. And since when is posting my opinion trolling?

I see Katherine Murphy is a political commentator. Politics threads on the Graun are basically un-moderated. Feminist threads are so heavily moderated they pretty much stopped opening them for comment at all. That would explain the discrepancy in experience. Which I managed to do without calling anyone a liar.

the majority of feminists don't believe any such thing

Seriously, you're claiming that the majority of feminists don't believe in patriarchy and rape culture? And your next line is what, pray?

There is no doubt that the patriarchy exists. There is no doubt that rape culture exists; Jimmy Saville wasn't getting away with it because he was a criminal mastermind.

One famous rapist getting away with it does not prove our whole society 'normalises rape'. He's about as atypical an example as could be imagined.

That's the baby warning its mother that Uncle Milo has snuck into the room.
Seriously, you're defending a guy that openly stated he wanted to have sex with underage boys, on the grounds that he's not a feminist? Yeah, you're so edgy. I'm sure it was all Jessica Valenti's fault The Guardian banned you.

No, i'm pointing out that mudslinging and dishonest mis-representations fly thick and fast when you question feminism. You've called me a liar and a troll, for example. Now you're going for 'defending a paedophile' as well? And you said I argue in bad faith.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Hmm. We're refusing to simply believe what people say and then accusing them of acting in bad faith.

Perhaps he has lurked long enough to be aware of your usual behaviors and the trends of your posting.

 

[brennan]

Like what, following people from thread to thread making personal attacks, while accusing them of trolling? That's totally your thing man.

I just try to point out where I disagree with people, because it's, like, a debate forum. And explain why I disagree and stuff like that.

 

[HoloDoc]

Hmm. We're refusing to simply believe what people say and then accusing them of acting in bad faith. How hypocritical. And since when is posting my opinion trolling?

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you're trolling, because if these are your genuine beliefs you're a terrible person.

I see Katherine Murphy is a political commentator. Politics threads on the Graun are basically un-moderated. Feminist threads are so heavily moderated they pretty much stopped opening them for comment at all. That would explain the discrepancy in experience. Which I managed to do without calling anyone a liar.

They literally stopped opening her articles to comments after a few people, including me, pointed out that she used to be Malcolm Turnbull's wife's press secretary when Lucy Turnbull was Lord Mayor of Sydney, and her articles were inane and biased. I also read a lot of other articles, I just rarely comment these days. So that doesn't hold water.

Seriously, you're claiming that the majority of feminists don't believe in patriarchy and rape culture? And your next line is what, pray?

Strawman again. You stated that most feminists believe "Patriarchy is the best description of history - or the 21st century UK..." I pointed out that that is crap, and that most feminists see the patriarchy in an historical and social sense, but not as the be-all and end-all of society. I didn't say feminists didn't believe in rape culture at all, merely that your claims that it doesn't exist are obviously false.

One famous rapist getting away with it does not prove our whole society 'normalises rape'. He's about as atypical an example as could be imagined.

At this point, you might as well have Nicolas Cage burning inside you. Another strawman argument. This is just pathetic. No wonder The Guardian banned you.

Jimmy Saville was just one of many prominent men who were discovered to have been rapists and/or paedophiles recently. Rolf Harris is probably the most prominent who is still alive. It's hard to be "atypical" when you're just one of many.

No, i'm pointing out that mudslinging and dishonest mis-representations fly thick and fast when you question feminism. You've called me a liar and a troll, for example. Now you're going for 'defending a paedophile' as well? And you said I argue in bad faith.

You literally defended Milo Yiannopoulous, who is a self-confessed paedophile. Or, if you want to get really technical in your pitiful attempts to deny the truth of your own statements, an ephebophile. So yes, you are defending a paedophile. That is a simply statement of fact.

If you don't like having mud flung at you, maybe you shouldn't take a swim in it, as you seem to enjoy doing so much? At this point, and in keeping with my references to The Wicker Man, you're basically so far in the mud, of your own volition, that you're at risk of becoming a bog body.

 

[brennan]

They literally stopped opening her articles to comments after a few people, including me, pointed out that she used to be Malcolm Turnbull's wife's press secretary when Lucy Turnbull was Lord Mayor of Sydney, and her articles were inane and biased. I also read a lot of other articles, I just rarely comment these days. So that doesn't hold water.

You just said you "openly called for the beheading of politicians" and now it's all meek and mild.

Now who is trolling?

You literally defended Milo Yiannopoulous

No, I literally didn't. I saw a deliberately incendiary post and pointed it out as such. I said absolutely nothing in support of Milo in any way.

as you seem to enjoy doing so much

Actually I always come to these conversations hoping for a sensible exchange of views. But what I get is outright hostility every time. It's boring.

 

[HoloDoc]

You just said you "openly called for the beheading of politicians" and now it's all meek and mild.

Now who is trolling?

Considering I never said "it's all meek and mild?" I'm gonna go with you.

No, I literally didn't. I saw a deliberately incendiary post and pointed it out as such. I said absolutely nothing in support of Milo in any way.

You accused me of throwing my "toys out of the pram" because someone criticised feminism, quoting a comment I made about Milo being a paedophile. That is either a defence of him, or a rather unusual non sequitur. With mental gymnastics like the ones you're performing here, you should go to the Olympics.

Actually I always come to these conversations hoping for a sensible exchange of views. But what I get is outright hostility every time. It's boring.

Then leave.

If you want "a sensible exchange of views," you should probably engage in discussion sensibly. Look at caketastydelish. I don't agree with a lot of what he has posted here, but he hasn't been a dick about it, so people are engaging with him. Meanwhile, Narz seemed to overreact a bit, but has calmed somewhat and is discussing things more sensibly. I certainly understand his initial reaction, because I get annoyed when I think of my own custody battle. You might want to try emulating that behaviour, and you might find some actual discussion. You're only getting hostility because you deserve it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Like what, following people from thread to thread making personal attacks, while accusing them of trolling? That's totally your thing man.

LOL. Sure man. I'm following you. Don't get paranoid or anything. By the way, have you noticed that I am such a master of surveillance that I followed you to this thread by posting in it several times before you came along? That's some high level espionage skills right there man.

It always cracks me up how people who are known for their bad faith posturing are always wanting to be taken at face value as if they have never posted before.

 

[HoloDoc]

LOL. Sure man. I'm following you. Don't get paranoid or anything. By the way, have you noticed that I am such a master of surveillance that I followed you to this thread by posting in it several times before you came along? That's some high level espionage skills right there man.

It always cracks me up how people who are known for their bad faith posturing are always wanting to be taken at face value as if they have never posted before.

You're just such a masterful stalker that you ascertained he would come to this thread, and therefore was sure to post here beforehand. You were establishing your cover, like the "master of surveillance" you admit to being. I bet you follow people in the street by walking in front of them as well.

(Incidentally, I was once accused of stalking a woman by following her from the train station. She created quite a scene. She literally lived in the same block of flats as me. Good times)

 

[Timsup2nothin]

(Incidentally, I was once accused of stalking a woman by following her from the train station. She created quite a scene. She literally lived in the same block of flats as me. Good times)

You may be too memorable for your own good. There's a convenience in being that guy who can stop at the same coffee shop every day for a year and when he talks to someone they ask him "are you new around here?"

 

[brennan]

If you want "a sensible exchange of views," you should probably engage in discussion sensibly.

Isn't Milo Pedonopoulos already doing that, with his desire to rape little boys to prove his masculinity?

Irony much? Let's be clear, I thought this was unnecessary and immature - but it is absolutely typical of this sort of thread that someone starts throwing juvenile stuff about. Now that I have pointed this out, you are accusing me of defending a paedophile. Now either you are too stupid to talk to, or you might acknowledge that you may have been perceived (possibly erroneously, you may have just been joking around) as having lowered the tone a bit and we can move on. Thus far I haven't accused you of lying or called anyone a dick, or accused anyone of defending paedophiles. I'm giving you an opportunity to disown that corner and talk like a civilised and intelligent individual. Or you can act like Tim and just call me a fascist (flying in the face of 12 years of posting).

 

[HoloDoc]

Irony much? Let's be clear, I thought this was unnecessary and immature - but it is absolutely typical of this sort of thread that someone starts throwing juvenile stuff about. Now that I have pointed this out, you are accusing me of defending a paedophile. Now either you are too stupid to talk to, or you might acknowledge that you may have been perceived (possibly erroneously, you may have just been joking around) as having lowered the tone a bit and we can move on. Thus far I haven't accused you of lying or called anyone a dick, or accused anyone of defending paedophiles. I'm giving you an opportunity to disown that corner and talk like a civilised and intelligent individual. Or you can act like Tim and just call me a fascist (flying in the face of 12 years of posting).

I'm going to go with calling you a fascist. After all, you did just try to police my comments about a paedophile because you thought they were too immature for an online video game message board.

Go play the victim somewhere else. Maybe The Guardian. Oops, sorry, too soon?

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Moderator Action: All right guys, cool it. As I mentioned in the other thread that this argument is somehow miraculously appearing at the same time, calling another poster a troll is trolling. Argue all you want, in good or bad faith, I don't care, but stop the trolling of each other, and I would prefer that it happens sooner, rather than later.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[brennan]

M' gonna double up on this post since the other thread got invaded:

All I actually said was that part of the left has forgotten about class and economics and become obsessed with identity politics. I didn't offer any sort of critique at all, nor was I discussing it. In view of the results, i'd say I was spot on. Merely mentioning feminism negatively causes a crap storm and otherwise intelligent people can't tell friend from foe.

 

[Ryika]

ou literally defended Milo Yiannopoulous, who is a self-confessed paedophile.

He is? When did he have his coming out? Can you tell me where to look for that information?

All I knew is that he himself was the victim of a pedophile and that he is of the opinion that it didn't harm him, and that as a result he thinks that man-boy-relationships in general aren't necessarily harmful either. A bit of a disgusting opinion, but I always thought of it as a coping mechanism, a way to reframe his own abuse.

But now you're telling me that he himself is a pedophile, too, and that explains SO MUCH. Can't wait for you to share your source so I can read all about it.

 

[Hygro]

spank a woman on the ass
You know what I mean?

 

[Narz]

 

[Peuri]

This is true. Childcare and men's role in the family is a big one of these. As a single parent, I've grappled with this for years.

Yes, this is a major point. Sharing parenthood between parents in families in which there is a male and a female parent, would help the earnings gap way more than panicking about wages of BBC presenters etc.

Men decide that.

In the modern world, I struggle to understand what does this even mean. Some men hold political power, yes. So what? Can't some men have legitimate greavances, because some other men hold power? By this logic, since some women also hold political power, and men's issues arn't being alleviated, women are standing in the way of solving men's issues.

Nope, observation. Every "shafted man" that I've ever met walked into family court demanding custody after a divorce and faced:

Who has been managing the feeding of this child you want custody of? Well, she has.
Who does the child's laundry? Well, she does.
Who provides home treatment for the minor ailments and injuries that this child, like all children, has experienced? Well, she has.
Do you have a plan for how you intend to manage these things for this child? Frankly, do you have a plan for managing these things for yourself now that you have no wife? Well, I have a girlfriend and plan to foist it all off on her.

Then they are offended and resentful when the court doesn't see their case as compelling.

Oh, so now that it's about men, they have agency. Their choices in life, that are supposedly informed by cultural norms, should effect the outcomes of the particular tube of life they happened to wonder upon, but when it's women we need all kinds of programs and quotas to change the end results. I'm going to state something radical and say that instead of robbing the child of it's father, the man needs help to be the father the child deserves. Also societally, since representation is important, and apparently representation changes culture, shouldn't we give more custody of children to men in order to change how men relate to their children?

Oh I definitely agree some subsets of men are disadvantaged and need help, such as black men, homosexual men, transgender men, and so on, but men's problems are caused by other men, not women. And of course you have toxic masculinity which hurts men, but that itself is another form of misogyny (you shouldn't be weak and soft like women!)

From my perspective, groups like men going their own way and incels are all types of "men's rights activists", and they're all misogynists, they're all about restoring men's "rights" over women and some sort of weird believe in some inherent right to male dominance, and how women are too uppity and such because we demand actual equality.

Yes, and even men of majority in the west, the boring pasty white men and boys have issues too. No need to qualify men with more qualificants. Just regular old men. Some men may have more issues, but just men in general have issues too.

What I find immensely interesting is feminist term formulation is terms like "toxic masculinity". I agree with the force of the concept, that the expectations of what a man should be makes for men that don't fit into today's feminized society. And I agree with the notion that those sorts of men need to change, even for their own good. But what I don't understand is why was it necessary to call it "toxic masculinity". The feminists in my country mouth all the time about how words create the world, and I agree. They say that words like "palomies" (literally fireman) needs to change to be more inclusive by removing the "mies" (man) part. But then on the other hand it's ok to formulate a term of "toxic masculinity" that sounds very hostile to men in general.

For sure there are hateful people in the MGTOW movement, maybe they all are just woman hating monsters. But from the little I read posts by self described MGTOWs online last summer, the most common story by the MGTOWs was not that they wanted to dominate women, but that they felt that the expectations of women towards men was so informed by chicklit that they felt the expectations that the women had of the men were so large, and the eventual payload of being with the woman was so low, that they just rather not bother with women at all.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Oh, so now that it's about men, they have agency. Their choices in life, that are supposedly informed by cultural norms, should effect the outcomes of the particular tube of life they happened to wonder upon, but when it's women we need all kinds of programs and quotas to change the end results. I'm going to state something radical and say that instead of robbing the child of it's father, the man needs help to be the father the child deserves. Also societally, since representation is important, and apparently representation changes culture, shouldn't we give more custody of children to men in order to change how men relate to their children?

I confront a choice...either I have become unskilled at my native language or I have to believe that it is not yours. I think you are trying to express an interesting point that I cannot quite follow. I also think I won't agree with it, but that's currently not important. Could you take another run at this post?

In the meantime, I agree that men, and women, need help to be the best parents they can. Generally speaking when parents split up the kids are stuck with a crappy mother, and a crappy father, compared to what they had. The same two people who didn't get along well before frequently decide to treat life as a deathmatch between them. The same two people who were probably near the limit of their financial resources supporting one household have to confront the costs of two households. It sucks, and nothing a family court can do is likely to make even one case in a hundred somehow better; the best they can shoot for is less worse.

 

[Traitorfish]

In the modern world, I struggle to understand what does this even mean. Some men hold political power, yes. So what? Can't some men have legitimate greavances, because some other men hold power? By this logic, since some women also hold political power, and men's issues arn't being alleviated, women are standing in the way of solving men's issues.

Well, yeah. This stuff is structural. It's not like there's a shadowy cabal who are screwing everything up out of individual maliciousness, and the debate is just the precise demographic composition of that cabal.