Although that's very typical left wing crap to start banging on about "privilege" like we should feel guilty for being born white males.
Although that's very typical left wing crap to start banging on about "privilege" like we should feel guilty for being born white males.
Also banana playing the victim card by moaning about how men are victims... that's also left wing babbling. Sort of. It should be, except the left aren't interested in men being victims because they're so busy villifying them.
But still, leave the victim card for the left. I'm not a victim, nor am I privileged.
Nah, I neither identify as left-wing nor think anyone should feel guilty for anything apart from their actions.
Well don't bring up white male privilege then.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Only if men leave themselves out of the movement.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Nanners isn't wrong that there's plenty of discrimination and vilification going both ways, but he's wrong that one group's bad behavior justifies bad behavior in another group.
I'm curious as to why he hasn't started his own metoo movement, inviting men to share the stories of how they were sexually harassed.
Is it laziness? Or is it because he knows that there would be little-to-no traction on that movement?
Who exactly is asking you to feel guilty for being a white male? I never see this message anywhere except from white males claiming they're getting told it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I've had my arse pinched by a random stranger before.
I liked it.
Whites aren't privileged compared to coloured people, or men haven't been privileged compared to women, or both?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
poop-
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
IDK what cocco's intent was, but stating a clear fact like, "There has been a centuries long history of racism and sexism codified into law which has benefited whites and males above others, and while we seem to be moving past them, there are still echoes of these policies." is not a moral statement of whether or not that's right or anyone should feel guilty about it.
That's precisely victim-talk though. So when YOU claim you're being discriminated against based on your gender and/or race, how it is any different from someone else with different gender and/or race making the same complaint? Why is it they're doing something reprehensible by playing the victim card and you're not?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Seems to be a double standard here.
Just leave this one well alone. One minute you're saying "nor think anyone should feel guilty for anything apart from their actions" then you're asking me if I'm priviledged compared to black people and women. What's the point of asking that if it's not to make me reflect on how privileged I am (ie feel guilty)?Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Did you just assume my gender?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Note I said "them" and not "us".
Yes, but why does his question make you feel guilty? You're not promoting the white privelege concept (afaik), you're just lucking out from it. Not the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Making an observation is not playing the victim card. I'm not complaining about how I'm disadvantaged as a man.
Men should feel guilt about being male about as much as young germans should feel responsibility for the actions of nazis. What they should do though, is recognize the history, understand it and its causes, and make sure the same shit won't happen again.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It doesn't, but that's the intent of the post, whether he realises it or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
So Germans shouldn't feel responsible for the actions of the Nazis... but they have a greater responsibility than others to ensure it doesn't happen again?Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Do you not see how this is contradictory?
No, I already know your gender I don't need to assume. Unless it changed or I've completely misunderstood you.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'm pretty sure I could find a direct quote of you complaining about how you get treated as a white male, if only I could be arsed.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Not me. White male privilege hasn't existed in any of our lifetimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Ascribing motives to others is a bit more complicated than 'this fits my world view, so this is why they did it'Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'm certain that you couldn't. Even if you went back ten years to when I was banging on about the elite and 9/11.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I object to the word 'greater' here. I don't think his post implied that at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Shit, that was easier than I thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's difficult to argue I'm privileged. I grew up in several foster homes and two children's homes. I left school with one GCSE, despite being exceptionally bright. I've spent my adult life drifitng in and out of failed jobs and failed relationships. Who gave me chances just because I'm a white male?
Dude that's a stretch.Quote:
Shit, that was easier than I thought.
poop -
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Poop -Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Who is "they"? Why not "we"?Quote:
What they should do...
Well first, the whole 'white privelege' concept is not predicated on the extent to which it applies to one guy in middle England; it's much more general than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
And second, you sound dangerously close to someone complaining that they're missing out on something they should have and are thus a victim. But I know that's not you.
Maybe he didn't think about how you would interpret the two words differently because he's not a pedant. I don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I did not interpret it as 'only they and no-one else' though.
I'm sure Cocco will happy to clarify his exact meaning.
Did you know those facts already? You've been here six years, how many times have I "complained" about being dragged through the care system?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It's not pedantry. It's what he meant. He literally suggested "they" should take more responsibility after saying they shouldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Only you are complaining, whether you admit it or not. You're saying you're being discriminated against by being lumped into a group of 'white priveleged males' to which you feel you haven't benefited from.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
And you are saying you're disadvantaged because it implies that if it weren't for the goddamn lefties complaining about white privelege, you wouldn't be exposed to all this guilt-tripping.
I don't want to get personal. It's your argument that, when you complain it's not being a victim but when someone different from you complains they are being a victim, that I object to.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Let's ask him?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Quote:
Only you are complaining, whether you admit it or not. You're saying you're being discriminated against by being lumped into a group of 'white priveleged males' to which you feel you haven't benefited from.
Wrong. Better would be "which I feel I don't identify with".Quote:
which you feel you haven't benefited from.
This isn't about personal benefit at all. My point in my post about the care system was to simply point out that privilege is, dare I use the word, subjective. You'd have been better off arguing that I am still indeed privileged, because lots of people in many parts of the world don't have access to foster homes and children's homes. I might have hated it at the time, but as an adult I can appreciate that my life would be a lot worse if not for the people who took me in.
I already said I don't consider myself either guilty or privileged.Quote:
And you are saying you're disadvantaged because it implies that if it weren't for the goddamn lefties complaining about white privelege, you wouldn't be exposed to all this guilt-tripping.
edit - I'm not disadvataged either.
I'm not actually sure what you're getting at here. You might have a point that I have many times mistaken "observations" for "complaints", I can be feisty and get stuck into debates without really getting context right, but you won't hear me complaining about much, you just might mistake my observations for complaints.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
See, it's interesting that you read this differently than I because we're both quite literate.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
I see the first 'they' in the second sentence as somewhat ambiguous, as it could either refer to young Germans or men, since both subjects were present in the first sentence. So one could even interpret the second sentence as being all about how men should react to male privelege, not young Germans reacting to Nazi-era shit.
Also, the 'What they should do', regardless of who 'they' is referring to, doesn't read to me as 'they are solely responsible for doing this and everyone else isn't', which seems to be how you are reading it.
Edit: so much for Finland's amazing education system. This guy can't even write an airtight statement void of ambiguity in his second language.
Well the use of "they" implies that it doesn't include him. That's basic psychology, if he felt part of the group that needed to take greater responsibility, he'd say "we".
They and we are completely different words, it's very difficult to get the context wrong with such language.
I guess I'm just a bit confused about what the whole 'victim' label means. If it means the person claims to be personally disadvantaged for some reason or other, why cannot that also simply be an observation? Or is it the fact that they demand some kind of justice or retribution that makes them a 'victim'? Or is the label solely meant for people who over-react to whatever thing that they feel is unfair?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You can also refer to a group you belong to in a hypothetical way as 'they' - e.g., I can say 'Canadians watch too much hockey. They are fucking stupid over it' and not be inconsistent just because I could as easily substitute 'we' for 'they'.
Also, your argument doesn't address my main point that the 'they' is not necessarily implying 'only they and no-one else'. In the above example, my statement doesn't preclude there being other nationalities that also watch too much hockey.
I guess my point with the victim label is everyone can be a victim if we want to be. If I were so inclined, I could spend my life claiming to be a victim, using my "disadvantage" to gain sympathy. I don't. I might sometimes bring it up in conversation, but only if I feel it's relevant.
Professional victims are those who make a career out of it, for example feminists.
This is super thin, and you're giving cocco too much credit for his fuck up. Let him reassess what he meant to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Well i see victims as much more whiny than most feminists are, 'cause they always come across as angry to me. They're still often disagreeable, but I don't think of them as manipulating the victim card so much as making a valid point and never shutting up about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The second paragraph is rock solid. You only want it to be thin because it fits how you originally read his post.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If this is thinly vieled mockery, it's wide of the mark. I'm the polar opposite of angry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I read his post how the language implied it. You're the one changing context to give him the benefit of the doubt, you're the one making it fit your position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Read 'they' as 'feminists' and it will make more sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
No you read the post how you read it, and I read it how i read it. What he actually meant only he can say.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Many of the women in those situations are claiming "I was a consenting adult, I willingly participated, and I was a victim". That is wrong. It is unsound.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Only the first and third phrase describe what I'm saying. That middle sentiment is not espoused by me.Quote:
I.e. that there was nothing wrong with what the men did, and nothing wrong with the woman sharing the story of what happened, but that society's reaction to that is messed up.
Fuck yeah I am.Quote:
So my point remains that you aren't mad about women making up lies.
That too.Quote:
You're mad that society views this as acceptable.
Not quite. I'm mad that society has robbed men of their right to the presumption of innocence and is compelling them to embrace certain behaviors under threat of catastrophic consequences. That's the opposite of freedom. Are you ok with diminishing freedom?Quote:
You're mad that you feel vilified by society for "being a man."
I just explained how it diminishes freedom.Quote:
The irony is that is exactly what the metoo movement is about, and you're railing that it's somehow in opposition to your freedom to be a man
What show are you watching dude? I'm quite sure I've stated explicitly in at least TWO recent posts that the solutions to these problems hinge on individuals taking responsibility for themselves. You're the one who insists on making this about group vs group. That kind of group vs group thinking is a symptom of indoctrination in the culture of identity politics. Get woke.Quote:
You're letting the conversation be about women against men, and not about decent people against harassers. That's on you
No they don't! Their viewpoint is one of resistance against an oppressive male dominated patriarchy. How can I agree with that viewpoint if I don't agree that the patriarchy even exists!!Quote:
See above. The group seems to represent your exact viewpoint, but you vilify the group while continuing to hold your view.
To be clear, I never claimed to be a victim myself. I said "men". Did you watch the video I posted? Men are less healthy, less educated, and make far less consumer decisions than women. Because of that I said that men are the more vulnerable sex. Do you have some basis with which to disagree with that statement other than than juvenile taunts?Quote:
Waaaah, waaaah. I am a victim because of my penis! Waaah waaaah!
I don't believe I ever referenced myself. I said men are more vulnerable. I also presented some of the ways that women, and society in general, will leverage this vulnerability to victimize and scapegoat men.Quote:
You literally just argued that you are a victim because you are a man.
Ong mentioned domestic violence a little bit ago. Care to guess what % of female-on-male domestic violence incidences go unreported? That's because of the sentiment you just expressed right there.Quote:
What could possibly be more snowflakey?
It's not subjective nonsense. Turn on the TV once in a while and take a look at how men are portrayed. Take a look at what the archetype of a "good man" has become in recent decades. These men aren't assertive. They aren't industrious. They're pot bellied pussies glued to their couches. They're milque-toast losers with video game habits and porn-addictions. And men who don't fall into this mold are portrayed as oppressive members of the patriarchy.Quote:
IDK what subjective nonsense you have to think to assert that anything a man does is somehow "not acting like a man."
People who do things which offend you exist, and that doesn't make them any less human than you.
It's not just me. There is tons of data that show which personality traits are inherently male, and which are female.Quote:
You're buying into the social BS that you rail against by attacking men for being men. You are just another wind-bag on the wrong side of the line if you think YOU can decide what is manly for other men.
Really?? You're gonna have to explain it to me, cuz I ain't seeing it.Quote:
The exposure of hypocrisy couldn't be more plain.
To be clear, I don't think domestic violence has any place in this discussion any more than divorce does. The answer to both of these are simple... pick better partners. It's a different game altogether.
Sure there's plenty of female-on-male violence, but again they are different. I think most of us here can take a slap off a woman and get on with it.
Right, and none of those men would later refer to that event when they answer a survey asking if they've ever been a victim of domestic violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
On the other hand, a woman should be able to endure a vulgar comment and "get on with it". Yet 77% of them claim to have been "sexually harassed" verbally.
Do you see the double standard now?
It gets worse when people react to that data by suggesting that masculinity is toxic, and must be squashed.
I see the double standard and I'm not disputing it.
However, I remain rigid in that, on average, men are bigger cunts than women.
When you refer to one gender "being a cunt" are you speaking generally, or are you specifically referring to that gender's behavior toward another gender?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
And if it is the latter, are you suggesting that the cunts are being cunty specifically for the purpose of undermining and oppressing the other gender? Or is it just in their nature to be cunts?
The latter.Quote:
When you refer to one gender "being a cunt" are you speaking generally, or are you specifically referring to that gender's behavior toward another gender?
Nature. Which is why I don't assign blame, I accept it just like I accept the dog might shit on the carpet.Quote:
And if it is the latter, are you suggesting that the cunts are being cunty specifically for the purpose of undermining and oppressing the other gender? Or is it just in their nature to be cunts?
So in that situation, who is the bigger cunt?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
the dog who shit on the carpet? Or someone who cites that one incident as a reason to denounces ALL dogs? Someone who then proceeds to engage in a campaign that seeks to enact policies that either punish dogs for dog-like behavior, or force dogs to act un-dog-like.
You really think the dog is the bigger cunt in that situation??
No. But there's more dogs shitting on carpets than there are people denouncing dogs for shitting on carpets.Quote:
You really think the dog is the bigger cunt in that situation??
If we're literally talking about dogs, then I guess that's true. But we're not. The dogs are a metaphor.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If you replace the word "dog" with "men", and "shitting on carpets" with "sexual misconduct", then your above statement is incredibly un-true.
It really does depend how we define "sexual misconduct".
If me spending ten seconds more than I should watching my friend undress counts as "sexual misconduct", then I really don't think you're right. I would say most men have probably behaved in a way that could be deemed "sexual misconduct", by this measure.
But if we're using that term to refer to things that people should genuinely be ashamed of, well then you probably are right.
The problem is that the definition of "sexual misconduct" is shifting to include the likes of huggy bear and pervs like me who should respectfully look away sooner.
Sheeesh, here we go again where definitions are nebulous things that we can mold into whatever fits our argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The definition of sexual misconduct is not the crux of the issue. Though you're right about it's expanded use, that's just one symptom of a larger problem that's been going on for decades. That is, the systemic marginalization of masculinity.
Virtually everyone, believes that there is a "wage gap". They are truly certain that a toxic male patriarchy has enacted policies to undermine women that results in them earning less money than their male counterparts. The believe this despite the fact that the science behind it is comically easy to debunk.
That myth, and many others, have been used marginalize and silence men for decades now. There is a social narrative that MUST be pandered to if you are going to get elected to any office at all. And denying this narrative has catastrophic consequences.
You'd get better agreement from spoon on this one. Shame he disappeared again.
Well, the casting of a wider net is not something I'm comfortable with, and so it's an issue for me.Quote:
The definition of sexual misconduct is not the crux of the issue.
Well here's the difference... for decades it wasn't working. Now it is.Quote:
Though you're right about it's expanded use, that's just one symptom of a larger problem that's been going on for decades. That is, the systemic marginalization of masculinity.
There is, but it's due to perfectly logical reasons, rather than discrimination. In fact it might have been you who churned the numbers out that I took notice of... can't remember the numbers, but women are infinitely more likely to take time off work to give birth, and in doing so they lose out on performance bonuses and pay rises and the like. So the average wage for a 30 y/o female and 30 y/o male doing exactly the same job will probably show a "wage gap".Quote:
Virtually everyone, believes that there is a "wage gap".
Further, you'll get high profile cases where people actually have access to the numbers, but forget they are dealing with special cases with a very small sample size... such as tennis. Men did until recently win more for winning Wimbledon than women. But they do more work... they play five sets, not three. Also, there is greater commercial interest in the men's game (fuck knows why), so it's perfectly logical that they earn more. Now the bitches get the same, so they're actually earning more per hour. There's a wage gap.
Wage gaps exist, of course they do, but it's not just as binary as men getting paid more, and it's nearly always because of economic reasons, and has fuck all to do with discrimination.
I definitely didn't mean that only germans should learn from past mistakes, and obviously I include myself in there.
Ong, the point isn't what your personal experience has been, it's whether you'd be better or worse off if you were colored and/or a woman.
That would be boringQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
*shaking my head*Quote:
Well here's the difference... for decades it wasn't working. Now it is.
Dude.....c'mon. Take a look around at what's been happening for the last 50 years. The feminist agenda has been working.....to the detriment of men.
Yeah that was me. I illustrated one way that a univaried analysis fails. Tucker talked about this in the video I posted. And it's covered extensively in the Jordan Peterson/Cathy Newman debate that's darting around the internet lately. When you compare all women, to all men, there is a wage gap. But when you compare women and men with equal educations, equal years experience, equal responsibilities, at equal sized companies, in the same geographical region....the wage gape virtually disappears, or even inverts.Quote:
There is, but it's due to perfectly logical reasons, rather than discrimination. In fact it might have been you who churned the numbers out that I took notice of...
Now certainly there are other factors in the equation. It's entirely possible that there is some ass hole out there actually discriminating, and he is having some non-zero effect on wages. But to use those bad actors as examples of a larger pervasive chauvinistic culture is WRONG.
Poop 1, Ong 0.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
(well more like Poop 100, Ong 3, but who's counting)
Well I guess that depends if I'm Serena Williams or some poor Indian woman.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Yeah you're giving him too much credit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Of course he meant "we" instead of "them". Easy mistake to make.
Maybe I was just fooled into thinking they were after equality only until recently.Quote:
Dude.....c'mon. Take a look around at what's been happening for the last 50 years. The feminist agenda has been working.....to the detriment of men.
Privilege as a concept of something systemic is among the laziest concepts I know of. And it's racist and sexist.
Fine. If I frame it as other races/sexes being handicapped compared to white males, is that better? Maybe I just huwt ur feelins talking about privilege, and that would make the facts more palatable.
So... let's play semantics again...
What special rights, advantages or immunities do I get for being a white male?Quote:
privileged -having special rights, advantages, or immunities.
You, or white males in general?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Would you like a list or are a few examples acceptable?
White males in general, in the UK or USA. Let's do this.
I got bored of waiting for your list, so here's Al-jazeera's...
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/...124754885.html
This is very unlikely to be discrimination. People have better job prospects if they are educated. People are more likely to be better educated if they have a stable family life. Immigrants are less likely to be educated to the same degree as natives. So it's perfectly logical that minorities find it harder to get a job, when we look at general statistics. An educated black person in the UK will have better job prospects than I have.Quote:
Fewer minorities in work
Quote:
Stop & Search
I'm also far more likely to be mugged by a non-white in Britain. Further, non-whites are more likely to be poor, for the reason stated above... less job prospects. Thus, non-whites are more likely to turn to crime. Non-white youths are more likely to be hanging around in gangs, or loitering and acting suspiciously, so this is again perfectly logical.Quote:
Police are far more likely to stop and search non-white Britons.
Gypsies are more likely to be excluded from school. I wonder if that has anything to do with their upbringing? They are much more likely to start fights, and since their parents are more likely to be poorly educated, then they kids are more likely to be poorly educated.Quote:
Roma pupils suffer
This is a combination of the first point, coupled with ancestral legacy... inheritance.Quote:
White people are more likely to own their own home
Al-jazeera used the term "drug abuse victims", but I prefer the term "addict", since it emphasises personal responsibility on the matter. Noone is forcing anyone to take illegal drugs. And again this comes to the first point... I am also more likely to be a drug addict than, say, a white man the same age as me who is better educated than I am. In fact, replace white man with black man and my point still stands.Quote:
Black people more likely to become drug addicts.
The last point they make is about minorities feeling "British", not really a matter of discrimination, more refuting the argument that they don't integrate. I recognise that many immigrants do successfuly integrate, I'm not disputing this point. Those who don't... it isn't because of racism, it's because they lack the skills or motivation required.
Here's a question for you Yanks...
It appears the NRA are suing Florida after recent gun laws were passed. The NRA, of course, cite the 2nd Amendment, but they also cite the 14th Amendment with regards to Florida raising the age from 18 to 21.
Now, if the 14th Amendment protects an 18 y/o's right to buy guns, why doesn't it apply to alcohol?
the 14th amendment guarantees due process. Specifically, rights cannot be deprived without due process.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Guns are a right. Alcohol isn't.