Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 12:53:43 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Arguing with a racist moron [split topic]

Started by Hello! Replies Hidden, April 24, 2021, 11:12:16 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Kankurette

Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on April 26, 2021, 06:44:09 PM
It was originally.

I think we're in a bad place because progressives are reproducing a very conservative stigma about male mental health - that men already have what they need to do get over things themselves, so asking for help or assisting is not just bad for you, its actively immoral or hurting people around you. If anything, men have too much, and they should prove their moral fortitude by making do with even less.

This leads the door open to Peterson I think because he makes it clear that he doesn't give the slightest actual fuck about his fans suffering it makes him a more attractive figure. The fact he's a self-help guru who is blaisé about the help part and focuses on culture war bullshit makes him more attractive to people who believe needing help in the first place is sign of weakness.
What progressives say this? I'm not trying to be a cunt but I've not encountered anyone, except radfems, who think male mental health doesn't matter and men should shut up and get on with it. I'd say the opposite actually, men shouldn't be ashamed to admit weakness or pain.

Admittedly it is personal to me because mental health problems run in my family. Men and women alike.

Buelligan

Quote from: Zetetic on April 26, 2021, 07:18:33 PM
But enough about comedy forum CookdAndBombd, let's get back to policing who's allowed to find which diagrams laughable.

I laughed.

Video Game Fan 2000

#122
Quote from: Kankurette on April 26, 2021, 08:34:40 PM
What progressives say this? I'm not trying to be a cunt but I've not encountered anyone, except radfems, who think male mental health doesn't matter and men should shut up and get on with it. I'd say the opposite actually, men shouldn't be ashamed to admit weakness or pain.

Admittedly it is personal to me because mental health problems run in my family. Men and women alike.

There was a lot of writing by mainstream american liberals about online male social groups like lobsterboys, incels, mtgow, mras, puas, etc. that the part that mental health and social deprivative/isolation plays is not as big as a force as the abstract social privilege that all men apparently enjoy. I don't want to reference anything in directly or go looking for it because I find it pretty upsetting material to read, but the wikipedia page for Incels and Peterson both have links to articles that talk about how the role of mental health and isolation in those groups (off the top of my head, the Vox one but I haven't read it in ages). There is an eagerness ot find a social or structural cause for mental illness that I find unpleasant. Its not just liberals either, there is a dreadful Mark Fisher article that goes round sometimes that argues the same thing from an apparently 'marxist' perspective.

I don't want seem like this is any comment on feminism of any stripe, the focus of my target is specifically male allies using feminist-adjacent rhetoric in order to push conservative views on to other men. If you remember the awful "Being A White Male Is Like Playing A Videogame On The Easiest Difficulty" blogpost that went around years ago, I can say I definitely saw male 'allies' reference that article in a very 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps' kind of way to their peers. The whole "being one of the good one" attitude by liberal men among their peers can be very toxic as it essentially uses superficially woke or feminist language in order to push a lot of very traditionally masculine virtues and attitudes: men should shut up and live with it, don't centre your own experiences, don't 'sealion', don't indulge in grievance politics, etc.

The obsession within male dominated media around "mens rights" figureheads was something particularly nasty to me -  focusing on bad guys, losers, basement dwellers, men who believe the wrong things, obsessing over misogynistic rhetoric found in the dark corners of the internet, etc. My partner use do research on radical feminism, so by proxy I've read more radfem writing than most people, can I say that even the most 'misandrist' radfem doesn't fulminate over 'bad men' like milquetoast male allies can - they don't see why they have to care. During the peak of the GamerGate/Trump/Alt Right years there were progressive men online who spent hours along swapping Davis Aurini and Peterson quotes. There were blogs and social media feeds set up just for good guys to have the voyeuristic pleasure of reading what the bad guys believe. Just gross to me, men obsessing about what kind of man not to be.

Retinend

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on April 26, 2021, 02:58:34 PM
Can I just say this is very similar to what I was going to put in a reply last night but then I thought I'm really not going to spend the last waking (steady) hour of my day explaining why Peterson is anything to get excited about (unless you are a misogynist racist; not saying you are Retinend but that is what he is primarily good at; his psychology creds are not very interesting unless you are in the field of alcoholism and even then he is not that well considered).

You asked for an example and I gave a mild one. Why list everything I found worth learning in the lectures if the answer will always be "you could have learned it from someone else"?

What makes him a compelling intellectual, to myself and others, is that he talks about a variety of things, most of which were new ideas to me and sold me on a way of thinking which is less materialistic - less scientistic: by encompassing Heidegger and Dosoyevsky and so on, but also about the validity of Freud and Jung.

But I'll stop going on about myself. I am not an academic like you and have nothing important to share about the field of psychology, nor did I claim to - I'm just a hobby reader.

JaDanketies

Quote from: Kankurette on April 26, 2021, 08:34:40 PM
What progressives say this? I'm not trying to be a cunt but I've not encountered anyone, except radfems, who think male mental health doesn't matter and men should shut up and get on with it. I'd say the opposite actually, men shouldn't be ashamed to admit weakness or pain.

Admittedly it is personal to me because mental health problems run in my family. Men and women alike.

It's not like it's a part of progressive thought explicitly, it's just said unthinkingly by progressives. Some people pay lip service to ideas about male mental health or male wellbeing but they shut you down very quickly when you start talking about it.

If I say "Working class men are being left behind. Who is really advocating for working class white males?" then it sounds like I'm making an alt-right argument. Worst of all, if you've got an answer to the question, the first person who comes to mind is probably a far right ideologue.

But frankly, the issue too is just how much radfems like arguing and how vicious and misandrist they can be. And how they have a relatively privileged position on the internet. 'Liberal' feminists might quietly encourage men to talk about their issues, but it's easier to remember that time a thousand radfems mocked your male tears.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on April 26, 2021, 08:57:42 PM
There is an eagerness ot find a social or structural cause for mental illness that I find unpleasant. Its not just liberals either, there is a dreadful Mark Fisher article that goes round sometimes that argues the same thing from an apparently 'marxist' perspective.

What is it that you disagree with social or structural factors (lets not just say causes) of mental health; hard to know what you are talking about here but this is doesn't make sense to me after what say in the preceding sentences; what is the Mark Fisher article perhaps I can read that to understand.

QuoteI don't want seem like this is any comment on feminism of any stripe, the focus of my target is specifically male allies using feminist-adjacent rhetoric in order to push conservative views on to other men.
. I'd say the majority of this is just men and women creating power for themselves; in hierarchies; this has been commodified and monetised even.

QuoteIf you remember the awful "Being A White Male Is Like Playing A Videogame On The Easiest Difficulty" blogpost that went around years ago, I can say I definitely saw male 'allies' reference that article in a very 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps' kind of way to their peers. The whole "being one of the good one" attitude by liberal men among their peers can be very toxic as it essentially uses superficial woke or feminist language in order to push a lot of very traditionally masculine virtues and attitudes: men should shut up and live with it, don't centre your own experiences, don't 'sealion', don't indulge in grievance politics, etc.

these are good points.  All that is really required is a bit of empathy, self-policing, staying away from gender reductionism and working on the blindspots that we all have.

JaDanketies

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22male+tears



imagine thinking that 'male tears' is funny enough to put on a tshirt or a mug? The woman in the picture is Jessica Valenti, co-founder of the blog Feministing and opinion-haver for The Guardian and The Washington Post. And she isn't even a radfem, or at least she's not a terf and is pretty leftwing.

Video Game Fan 2000

#127
Valenti is really bad. These are people with enormous social capital and media influence who are throwing around misanthropic and dog-eat-dog bullshit as if its just a quirky joke.

Those who started the "male tears" meme have at least some responsbility for "Liberal Tears" and "Facts Don't Care About Your Feelings" becoming rhetorical cornerstones of the right, just as centrist Clinton supporters were the ones who gave us the fucking "fake news!" response to criticism.

Nice going, adults in the room.

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on April 26, 2021, 09:17:24 PM
What is it that you disagree with social or structural factors (lets not just say causes) of mental health

I don't think mental illnesses are just constructions of abstract social hierarchies and discourses. The structural part is about access to care and assistance. The idea that depression or addiction is caused by abstractions like whiteness or male privilege is to liberals what anti-vaxx or whatever is to the right.

Shouldn't surprise us that this rhetoric mostly comes from a nation that is currently spending millions to surpress the idea that everyone should have free access to healthcare.

Quote from: JaDanketies on April 26, 2021, 09:16:01 PM
It's not like it's a part of progressive thought explicitly, it's just said unthinkingly by progressives. Some people pay lip service to ideas about male mental health or male wellbeing but they shut you down very quickly when you start talking about it.

If I say "Working class men are being left behind. Who is really advocating for working class white males?" then it sounds like I'm making an alt-right argument. Worst of all, if you've got an answer to the question, the first person who comes to mind is probably a far right ideologue.

I absolutely think its part of progressive thought in particular if you define progressive (as liberals often do) as meaning something like Third Way or otherwise anti-socialist. Or you think progress is inevitable and it doesn't matter if some eggs get smashed on the way to the Fukuyama rainbow omelette. Progressivism has a definite bias towards social causes over economic ones and sees social injustice as often apart or unrelated to the material reality of things, and will always tend to be reformist rather than revolutionary which is bad when things are particularly dire (like mental health, housing crisis, anti-black police violence...)

A lot of these in-group attitudes and men appropriating feminist rhetoric to browbeat other men went into the "brosocialist" smear against Corbyn and Sanders supporters, for example. A lot of bullshit about basement dwellers, gross shit about autism and depression, etc. tends to come out when that sort of middle or media class sneering starts and you start to really see class based antagonist stand out loud and clear in the male on male pecking order anxiety.

TrenterPercenter

#128
Quote from: Retinend on April 26, 2021, 09:09:19 PM
You asked for an example and I gave a mild one. Why list everything I found worth learning in the lectures if the answer will always be "you could have learned it from someone else"?

What makes him a compelling intellectual, to myself and others, is that he talks about a variety of things, most of which were new ideas to me and sold me on a way of thinking which is less materialistic - less scientistic: by encompassing Heidegger and Dosoyevsky and so on, but also about the validity of Freud and Jung.

But I'll stop going on about myself. I am not an academic like you and have nothing important to share about the field of psychology, nor did I claim to - I'm just a hobby reader.

No; sorry I think this is fair enough and you absolutely answered my question, thank you for your reply.  Zetetic and myself are perhaps sounding a bit sneery in this "oh didn't you know about Jungian metaphysics"; it's not meant to be.  The problem is that what Peterson is doing is exactly as you say; simplifying things and making things accessible; if he just stopped there then no-one would have any problems but he isn't; he is inserting his own ideologies and biases as he takes you on his intellectual ride.  He is a very sophisticated grifter; he knows enough about psychology from his training to employ it; like a surgeon might know enough about his training to cut up his victim.

let me give you a well known example;

In his infamous interview with Cathy Newman; he behaved in an incredibly hostile fashion for one but he also acted as though he had had some gotcha moment when he unveiled the term "multi-variate" analysis (wow) this after admitting that the pay gap was real(ish) but but had multiple factors.  Ok.  Well everything in the real world has multiple factors; if the gender pay gap is real, as he admits then presumably it is about gender, and he says this is about women's agreeableness rather that any sexism at play.  It's a load rubbish; he blindsided everyone with some obvious statistical method of analysis but never told you anything about how much agreeableness was an explanatory variable in his "multi-variate" analysis.  It hardly takes Einstein to see that measures of female agreeableness might be related to experiences of sexism but he doesn't bother investigating this; he has no interest in presenting a balanced argument, or someone that cared about the data, if he did he would highlight what this data says (which if I remember correctly that something like 22% of the variance in these multi-variate analyses is explained by gender.

So an honest person would say; the gender pay gap is real, gender contributes the single biggest variable to this gap but what makes up gender and how it impacts on jobs etc...is made up like most things of a variety of things; experience of or fear of sexism being a contributing factor (and of course to agreeableness).

Now all I heard for weeks, months even were it's a  "multi-variate analysis" from people that don't know what on earth they are talking about; that is what he does; he knows what he is doing; no one seriously interested in these things behaves like this.  Multi-variate was his woo; it's just sophisticated because yes it is a thing but he lies and misuses these things to suit and relies on people not really understanding but nodding along to them (its also why he talks so fast so you you don't have time to consider what is being said).

He is a straight up grifter; as mentioned just like a surgeon can be a murderer a psychologist can be a conmen.

Kankurette

Quote from: JaDanketies on April 26, 2021, 09:16:01 PM
It's not like it's a part of progressive thought explicitly, it's just said unthinkingly by progressives. Some people pay lip service to ideas about male mental health or male wellbeing but they shut you down very quickly when you start talking about it.

If I say "Working class men are being left behind. Who is really advocating for working class white males?" then it sounds like I'm making an alt-right argument. Worst of all, if you've got an answer to the question, the first person who comes to mind is probably a far right ideologue.

But frankly, the issue too is just how much radfems like arguing and how vicious and misandrist they can be. And how they have a relatively privileged position on the internet. 'Liberal' feminists might quietly encourage men to talk about their issues, but it's easier to remember that time a thousand radfems mocked your male tears.
And if they're trans men, they just pity them for being lesbians in denial who are brainwashed by the EVIL TRANS CULT.

Not all left-wing men are 'brocialists' but the likes of Comrade Delta and the people who defended him are exactly the kind of left-wing men I want to avoid. Rape is not somehow better when it's someone on 'your' side. And there are some left-wing men out there who think feminism is just a bourgeois concern and something that belongs on the back burner. What you've got to remember with radfems is that they are a loud minority, like Trots. I admit on here that I do water myself down a bit because I worry I'll get mistaken for radfem/misandrist, even though people who know me know I don't hate men.

The sneering about autistic people makes me uncomfortable because I am one. Autistic women exist. And shock horror, we're not all like Chris-chan. Also, what about intersectionality? Disabled white men? White Jewish men? Gay/bi/trans white men? To name but three.

ETA: I am a white middle-class woman. I am also mentally ill. Even if I was a princess, I'd still be mentally ill. I think something in my head is just broken.

evilcommiedictator

Hey I do maths and the whole point of diagrams is to convey information, if yours doesn't work then your diagram is shit.

Where is my youtube and global worldwide following? Oh, yes, *mumbles something about toilets and a meat based diet*

Buelligan

On the Comrade Delta thing.  I used to trust news generally.  Now I understand that there are people out there who will tell any lie, concoct any smear, for political advantage. 

Think about Assange.  Think about why people whose politics threaten the Establishment are so often rapists or racists.  Think about undercover police officers encouraging "terrorism", just the ones we know about.

I know bugger-all about Delta, not bound to him or his in any way at all but I no longer believe completely in the rede as it is wrote on that one.  Simply because the writers, the Establishment, have shown themselves to be liars, liars who'll exploit rape, genocide, racism, anything, to discredit their enemies.

And where there are genuine victims (and I'm sure there are), their case too is undermined, they too are thrown onto the bonfire of convenience by these awful people who run the world.

Kankurette

So in other words, you think the woman in the Comrade Delta case was lying.

Fucking hell, and people wonder why so many rape victims don't report it.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: JaDanketies on April 26, 2021, 09:16:01 PM
It's not like it's a part of progressive thought explicitly, it's just said unthinkingly by progressives. Some people pay lip service to ideas about male mental health or male wellbeing but they shut you down very quickly when you start talking about it.

If I say "Working class men are being left behind. Who is really advocating for working class white males?" then it sounds like I'm making an alt-right argument. Worst of all, if you've got an answer to the question, the first person who comes to mind is probably a far right ideologue.

Agreed with you all the way up to here; the problem is you talk about male MH and responses will be to close down the conversation/change it/remind people that men are actually arseholes etc... but basically see it as some massive uncomfortable thing to discuss that needs some special energy or space of it's own.  It doesn't it is neither as rare or wildly different from any other groups concerns about mental health; it should just slot in; but there is a combination of it being appropriated by bad faith actors such as MRAs and for some women to accept it would mean a perceived loss of power in the way they behave around gender issues.

QuoteBut frankly, the issue too is just how much radfems like arguing and how vicious and misandrist they can be. And how they have a relatively privileged position on the internet. 'Liberal' feminists might quietly encourage men to talk about their issues, but it's easier to remember that time a thousand radfems mocked your male tears.

This is where this goes wrong to me; radfems are usually considered as leftwing radical socialist feminists; I know you are talking about the likes of Valenti, but what is radical about her; feminism has a great history with socialism just like a lot of things the socialist element was removed when 3rd wave feminists collided with liberalism and grrrrl power.  It became commodified and this is a massive problem for women as part of the social-marxist feminist movement was about realising the commodification of women; to control and extract their labour; 3rd wave appears to actively embrace this; the misandry that accompanies this (just like in other culture wars) is of course all just a distraction from anything tangible; set yourself a goal of eradicating sexism and you can bang that drum for as long as you want; just keep finding the worst of the worst examples, jimmy the stats into something eye catching and ££££ you've a got a job for life selling people anger and divisive attitudes. Why so many men and women that consider themselves leftwing fall for this is really what I suspect VGF2K was getting at.

Buelligan

Quote from: Kankurette on April 27, 2021, 09:13:41 AM
So in other words, you think the woman in the Comrade Delta case was lying.

Fucking hell, and people wonder why so many rape victims don't report it.

No I don't think that.  How can I possibly know, how can I possibly judge?  What I'm trying to say is that I no longer simply trust what I'm told by the media. Think about political parties across the western world.  Think about how many of them have had a person of high standing in them who has committed a criminal act, how many of those parties has been summarily written off, forever, because of that one thing (real or not)?

Don't you find it strange that mainstream centrist parties or right wing parties can have criminals in their ranks, actual criminals, and suffer very little, if at all, as a result?  I do.


JaDanketies

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on April 27, 2021, 09:32:10 AM
This is where this goes wrong to me; radfems are usually considered as leftwing radical socialist feminists; I know you are talking about the likes of Valenti, but what is radical about her; feminism has a great history with socialism just like a lot of things the socialist element was removed when 3rd wave feminists collided with liberalism and grrrrl power.

I might be incorrect, but I believe the feminists that are calling for tearing social structures down wholesale and rebuilding them in an egalitarian light are called 'liberal feminists' these days, and 'radical feminists' are the ones saying that there should be 50% female CEOs and trans women are full of innate male violence.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: JaDanketies on April 27, 2021, 10:18:48 AM
I might be incorrect, but I believe the feminists that are calling for tearing social structures down wholesale and rebuilding them in an egalitarian light are called 'liberal feminists' these days, and 'radical feminists' are the ones saying that there should be 50% female CEOs and trans women are full of innate male violence.

You are not wrong it's just if you say to someone "radfem" they will generally think of a leftwing reactionary feminist that wants to ban sex; whilst in reality these radfems are people more like JK Rowling; giving non-radicals the cover of radicalism and right-wingers the ability to lump all of these people in to one nice anti-leftwing sexist narrative is problematic.  This is largely how self-sustaining culture wars operate.

Btw; what is wrong with 50% female CEOs? That is an actual radical idea and would change things; there, to my mind, is nothing wrong with this and socialist causes must be born out of representation; it is usually liberal-conservative feminists that have a problem with this.  Affirmative action is good thing imo when done sensibly and there are clear biases towards groups occurring.

JaDanketies

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on April 27, 2021, 01:24:18 PM
Btw; what is wrong with 50% female CEOs? That is an actual radical idea and would change things; there, to my mind, is nothing wrong with this and socialist causes must be born out of representation; it is usually liberal-conservative feminists that have a problem with this.  Affirmative action is good thing imo when done sensibly and there are clear biases towards groups occurring.

There's nothing 'wrong' with 50% female CEOs, or 50% female warlords. But it will only improve the lot of a tiny % of already-rich women. Imo it makes no difference to the average person whether or not the person cutting their cheques is a woman or not. If half of the people in FTSE boardrooms were women, there's no reason to think that women in care professions wouldn't still be underpaid, or that women would be expected to take on the bulk of housework. It would make no difference  to the lives of almost every normal woman.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: JaDanketies on April 27, 2021, 01:40:03 PM
There's nothing 'wrong' with 50% female CEOs, or 50% female warlords. But it will only improve the lot of a tiny % of already-rich women. Imo it makes no difference to the average person whether or not the person cutting their cheques is a woman or not. If half of the people in FTSE boardrooms were women, there's no reason to think that women in care professions wouldn't still be underpaid, or that women would be expected to take on the bulk of housework. It would make no difference  to the lives of almost every normal woman.

Hmmmm not sure if I agree with this; I would start from the premise of do I believe that 50% of women are not there on merit and that there hasn't been historical and contemporary sexism at play.  I don't believe that isn't the case so affirmative action here creates change.  Women by dint of their experience will diversify boardrooms somewhat; even better if they come from working class backgrounds.  Boardrooms are already largely elitist in there nature so I'm not sure what getting women to engage in the same process of "making it to the top" does anything; but we don't have to be either or here; this is just one measure of many that could be introduced.  Putting 50% female CEOs in place would counter one particular problem not solve all of lives ills (care professions?!).  I completely disagree also that it would make no difference to the lives of almost every normal woman; it would serve a very good reminder that society can do things about sexist practices if it wants.

JaDanketies

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on April 27, 2021, 03:00:05 PMI completely disagree also that it would make no difference to the lives of almost every normal woman; it would serve a very good reminder that society can do things about sexist practices if it wants.

Suppose that's arguable. It's a bit like the question, "what would be better for UK women? Theresa May as PM, or Corbyn making structural changes throughout society to improve the opportunities for everyone?"

If the woman CEOs are still part of an exploitative capitalist agenda, then I'm not convinced that it's a worthwhile use of energy. Not like I'm appalled by people using their time to push for 50% female FTSE boardrooms. But I'm not joining them in the fight. Tear down the boardrooms and put their heads on pikes!

Like I'm a little bit invested in Labour electing a woman, but I'm much more invested in them electing a feminist.

AllisonSays

Historically, what more women becoming CEOs has inspired is surely the continued fiction of meritocracy under capitalism - 'lean-in feminism' and all that. Nike's advertising slogan as a political mantra.

chveik

girlboss crap. better to get rid of CEOs altogether

Buelligan

Do we have enough lamp posts?  Hope so.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: JaDanketies on April 27, 2021, 03:12:55 PM
Suppose that's arguable. It's a bit like the question, "what would be better for UK women? Theresa May as PM, or Corbyn making structural changes throughout society to improve the opportunities for everyone?"

These are very different questions.  Reductionism is to reduce someone down to a basic characteristic i.e gender or race; saying Corbyn cannot make structural changes to woman's lives because he is a man is reductionist; saying black and white people have fundamentally different psychological dispositions is reductionist; saying you would expect in a population in that something exists "all things being equal" the constituents of that somethings population should be there or there about representative of the population isn't.

QuoteIf the woman CEOs are still part of an exploitative capitalist agenda, then I'm not convinced that it's a worthwhile use of energy. Not like I'm appalled by people using their time to push for 50% female FTSE boardrooms. But I'm not joining them in the fight. Tear down the boardrooms and put their heads on pikes!

I think this is missing the point; in a nepotistic old boy game; the fact women are so poorly represented there and as I've pointed out this is at odds with what we would expect "all things being equal" then this is a scalp of them having to deal with that problem.  Sexism is not completed at this stage and yes fully democratise boardrooms (you are not going to get rid of them and you don't need too) and get other forms of representation in there - this is part of that process.