[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 57 KB, 500x667, 1379793030899.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5214859 No.5214859[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Ok - which one of you was this?

>http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/30/richard-dawkins-what-on-earth-happened-to-you

Do you feel her sentiment properly encapsulated (or at least to a certain degree) that which is 'scientism' which is what she appeared to allude to in her article?

>> No.5214876
File: 67 KB, 581x623, Feeling Good.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5214876

>>5214859
>Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.
#rekt

>> No.5214877

The whole left wing is retarded :DDD

>> No.5214885

Why should anyone give a fuck about her opinion or Dawkins'?

>> No.5214897 [DELETED] 

>>5214876

Please define what you mean by "theology."

Because this is a worthless critique unless you define that. If we go by wikipedia, it's
>Theology is the systematic and rational study of concepts of God and of the nature of religious truths

There are too many problems with such a definition to even begin to take it serious. What is even meant by "nature of religious truths?" What religions? For that matter, what god are talking about?

This "u know nuffin bout theology pleb" argument has never made sense to me. What does it even MEAN to "know" theology?

>> No.5214899

>>5214885
Dawkins' has a cult of personality and disagreeing with him makes his followers go nuts
The woman is a feminist of some sort, and disagreeing with feminists makes them as a communal mind go nuts

Best to just avoid the internet, imo

>> No.5214901

>>5214897
Means the same thing as knowing anything else, plebowitz

>> No.5214902

>>5214876
Please define what you mean by "theology."

Because this is a worthless critique unless you define that. If we go by wikipedia, it's
>Theology is the systematic and rational study of concepts of God and of the nature of religious truths

There are too many problems with such a definition to even begin to take it seriously. What is even meant by "nature of religious truths?" What religions? For that matter, what god are talking about?

This "u know nuffin bout theology pleb" argument has never made sense to me. What does it even MEAN to "know" theology?

>> No.5214903

Dawkins is not a moron, but his extreme vocation of obviously fallacious conclusions makes him somewhat analogous to a moron. That said, I agree with his statements about date rape and pedophilia, and I have felt times when coming to my own conclusions where I wanted to tell people something similar to 'go away and learn how to think' when individuals reject something that is plainly factual due to their own intellectual laziness.

That doesn't mean I or he should say such things if we are attempting to engender something such as a 'worthy' society.

She, however, is actually a moron. But The Guardian is not exactly the zenith of newspapers.

>> No.5214924

>>5214903
The Guardian is Labour's Daily Mail, yeah? That's the idea I seem to get from newspaper snobs on it

>> No.5214930

>>5214924
I wouldn't exactly call myself a newspaper snob, I don't know enough of them to be capable of doing that honestly. I would call The Guardian a pretender's newspaper. Than again, Labour are pretenders.

>> No.5214931

>>5214902
Read a fucking book, pleb.

>> No.5214932

>>5214902

u know nuffin bout theology pleb.

>> No.5214933

>>5214924
>Labour's Daily Mail, yeah?
No, that's the Mirror. The Guardian is a middle class left-liberal paper that's recently taken a shift towards the Huff Post model, focusing on opinion pieces more & more.

>> No.5214938

>>5214899

So basically, two different lunatic fringes are going after each others throats?

>> No.5214940

>>5214931

Nice retort faggot.

>> No.5214945

>>5214902

Asking someone to define an extremely difficult subject that would require 600 pages just to explain the basics.

>> No.5214948

>>5214938
Pretty fucking much

>> No.5214950

>>5214940
That's the best you can do, ninny.

>> No.5214951
File: 259 KB, 583x1522, queenoflit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5214951

All the feminsts are piling on Dawkins suddenly

Blood in the water?

>> No.5214955

>>5214945

That's the thing. It isn't true. There is nothing to say about it. You faggots just pretend like it's a deep subject and it should be respected as an academic discipline. In reality, though, it's just vacuous, empty meaningless bullshit.

But have fun rationalising your ideas with pseudointellectual gibberish, using this mysterious "theology club" of yours as a sort of "sorry, you're not intelligent to 'get' it."

It's ironic too because it's the sort of high horse crap you people criticise atheists for.

>> No.5214960

>>5214951
You do realize that there are more feminists than just Laurie Penny, right?

>> No.5214967

>>5214933
>focusing on opinion pieces more and more
Oh, that shit. What's up with that? Is it just as an appeal to the younger demographic, or is this part of some philosophical thing?

>> No.5214968
File: 26 KB, 320x320, 1376944031814.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5214968

>>5214955
>Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don’t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could. When it comes to theology, however, any shoddy old travesty will pass muster. These days, theology is the queen of the sciences in a rather less august sense of the word than in its medieval heyday.

>> No.5214969
File: 51 KB, 642x386, 6a00d83451675669e2014e89e72397970d-800wi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5214969

>>5214960
You mean the ones Penny gets fired because they have the audacity to not be her clone?

>> No.5214970

has twitter just reduced everybody to message board arguments? ie, arguments for show which lead to no change

>> No.5214976

>>5214955
>That's the thing. It isn't true. There is nothing to say about it. You faggots just pretend like it's a deep subject and it should be respected as an academic discipline. In reality, though, it's just vacuous, empty meaningless bullshit.

Great argument.

>> No.5214981

>>5214968
>Jean Meslier
>priest
>made essentially the same arguments against religion as Dawkins

>The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be

Lyl'd. Blatantly untrue, and your response doesn't even make sense.

>> No.5214986

>>5214981
It's Eagleton on Dawkins' book.

>> No.5214989

>>5214976
I still haven't heard a single argument from you either. Give me, for example, a current "problem" in theology? Or anything worth talking about that could be categorized as theology?

Go ahead faggot. Let me hear it.

No? Because here on /lit/ and for you people "theology" is just a buzzword in order bar any reasonable debate because you immediately imply that your opponent is too stupid for you, and the ugly truth is that you have no idea about science either.

>> No.5214991

>>5214970
Twitter is democracy, my friend. Individual opinions and actions seem futile until they snowball out of control you end up with a beheaded king.

>> No.5214996

>>5214931
>>5214950
Oh buzz off.
Bottom line, a scientist can bitch about religion if he wants. Nobody needs to study theology to know it's bullshit

>> No.5214999

>>5214989
>and the ugly truth is that you have no idea about science either.
Prove it.

>> No.5215014

>>5214996
>know
I believe you mean "think" or "feel"

>> No.5215033

My whole thing is this:
3rd wavers talk about microaggression and male on female rape more than ANY other topics by FAR.

Why do men rape women way more than women rape men?

is it because of culture?
No, it is not. In fact I can tell you why male on female rape happens so often.

okay, drumroll please...
it's...
because...
MEN...
HAVE...
PENISES!!!!!

DING DING DING DING
call me an asshole but i just think 3rd wavers are malcontents. they are People who have a need to be angry. look you can chant "End bullying" until youre blue in the face and crying. but at the end of the day, you're campaigning for a platitude, youre thinking that we all are owed the world of our daydreams. But the world is real. And what can you do? The world sucks.

>> No.5215035

>>5215014
. . . No. We know it's bullshit.

>> No.5215070

>>5215035
Prove the following wrong, kid:
>Christian God
>Jewish G-d
>Allah
>Norse Pantheon
>Roman Pantheon
>Greek Pantheon
>Dharma
>Nirvana
>Shinto silliness
>any Native American religion
>Ghosts
>Niggers
>Vampires
>Demons
>Superman
>power of meditation
>multiverse
>Robert Lanza's biocentrism
>New age shit
>Wicca
>tarot card magic
>astrology
You can not, mi amigo, you can stinkin' not

>> No.5215076

>>5215033
by "third wavers" do you mean "15 year olds on tumblr" lmao

>> No.5215089

>>5215076
you cant distinguish between them at this point. everybody knows that feminists who are serious and thoughtful feel alienated from the movement and are just holding on to their tenure then going home to hide in their condos and wonder where it all went wrong

>> No.5215091

Online Blog/Comment sections are a cancer upon journalism.

>> No.5215106

>>5215076
Also on reddit, Huffington Post, Gawker, Buzzfeed, Salon, university/college campuses, and anywhere you might meet leftists under the age of 40

>> No.5215109

>>5214967
The Guardian is odd because it's owned by a trust; there's no real owner or shareholders to call it to account for the money it's been losing for years. The Guardian management calls the broader strategy "open journalism" but really it's deprofessionalized journalism. The idea being keep people arguing online and sell advertising. It's not working so well, though.

>> No.5215118

What's better:

The neutering of the left through its transformation into nonstop whining about men saying benis on elevators?

OR

The progressiver-than-thou instinct that makes them all eat each other for not being 100% up to date on the latest pronouns and shit to pretend is patriarchy?

>> No.5215119

>>5215106
so, on the internet and in freshman gender studies classes? not really seeing how this is different from any ideology college kids latch onto to look empathetic

>> No.5215126

>>5215109
>"open journalism"
It's a philosophical thing then :\
Oh well, maybe all this shit'll just be a fad in the long run

>> No.5215127

>>5215118
The second is funnier to watch.

>> No.5215140

No such thing as serious theology.

>> No.5215147

>>5215118
>>5215127
>that endless cycle of sanctimony

Who else is waiting for the day that Laurie Penny tweets
>This is silly. People shouldn't fuck children!
and a horde of Penny2.0's reply
>What a shame that the once-great paragon of progressivism Ms. Penny is apparently a stodgy old anti-childlove National Socialist.

>> No.5215153

>>5215119
It's also creeping into television and magazines, I haven't seen it in printed newspapers, though. It basically ruined Occupy Wall Street.

Are you trying minimize this shit to me, or is this denial for your own benefit?
Are you really going to write off the entire internet when so many young Americans use it as their soul source of information?

>> No.5215164

>>5215070
>All human inventions
>"You can't say all of them aren't from divine inspiration. Surely one of them came from god."

You forgot Santa Clause.

>> No.5215179

>>5215140

Really? Tell me what theology books have to read to support that conclusion?

>> No.5215180

>>5215070
But fedora-carrying atheists like Dawkins or Hawking love multiverse theory.

>> No.5215190

>>5215153
>It basically ruined Occupy Wall Street.

fucking this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7cwWegXCU

>> No.5215192

>>5215153
I'm saying that teenagers are really aggressive about all of their opinions and its no different for feminism and not special at all

>> No.5215199

>>5215140
Why not?

>> No.5215201

>>5215190
Can someone in the know give me an ~opinion~ of what Occupy could have been without this Tumblr shit ruining it?

Could it have existed without the Tumblr shit to begin with? Was that a huge source of its numbers?

Any actual left-y activists here?

>> No.5215208
File: 983 KB, 390x219, gooby pls.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5215208

>>5215164
Prove there's no Santa Claus, kid

>> No.5215213

>>5215190
Wait... why are feminists protesting an anarchist meeting of all places?

>> No.5215220

>>5215201
The May Day Riot

>> No.5215227

>>5214968
terry eagleton sounds so mad

>> No.5215229

>>5215201
I was involved to an extent at one occupy action in the UK. There were real limits to what it could have achieved. What worked was creating a space where different ideas could be discussed and connections made between different or rival ideologies and causes. It was never really capable of mobilizing in the name of any specific programme, though; even the smallest occupy was too diverse for that and resisted the kind of mechanisms that would have been required for it. The main problem, INHO, was that after a while the focus became on protecting the physical space of the occupy movements - they became real eyesores after a few weeks and authorities were understandably unwelcoming - and this took a lot of energy away from other things.

>> No.5215232

>>5214924
>newspaper snobs not realising the guardian is the best newspaper
inb4 the independent

>> No.5215233

>>5215033
>because...
>MEN...
>HAVE...
>PENISES!!!!!
you're completely ignoring gender and personalities that are constructed through it

>> No.5215234

>>5215213
That's because everything is about abusing women because MUH PATRIARCHY.

>> No.5215237

>>5215232
torygraph is obviously best

>> No.5215244

>>5215213
They received reports of toxic, unchecked privilege.

>> No.5215249

>>5215201
The whole thing started as rage over the bailouts, it could have been something that wasn't exactly left or right wing, but could have instead been something that all Americans could've got together on. The right-wing despised the bailouts as socialism and the left despised the bailouts as helping the rich instead of the poor. When it was still developing, there were people from both sides there, the lefties pushed the Paultards and conservatives out first, then the weird lefties pushed the sane ones out

This is my observation as somebody who showed up to Zucotti Park when the thing was still developing, though, not as somebody who was involved with the social media aspect.

>> No.5215257

>>5215234
But wouldn't anarchists be in favor of dismantling any sort of patriarchal system, or any arrangement where men hold illegitimate power over women? It seems like they're fighting people who would agree with them anyway.

Who was that Kristian Williams guy? Why is he considered a "rape apologist" and "victim blamer"?

>> No.5215260

>>5215257
He refuses to suck tranny penis

>> No.5215261

>>5215237
no
their critics have shit taste in everything

>> No.5215273

>>5215249
This is why I can't take self-identifying "anarchists" seriously at all.
None of them come even close to the level of understanding or critising Bakunin or Kropotkin.

They just saw a Chomsky lecture and they went all hurp durp gubbmint bad. They're just as bad as lelbertarians.

>> No.5215274

>>5215257
>But wouldn't anarchists be in favor of dismantling any sort of patriarchal system, or any arrangement where men hold illegitimate power over women?
There are priorities.
People can't live without money but they can live with women being beaten. This is easy.

>It seems like they're fighting people who would agree with them anyway.
If feminist activists were rational they wouldn't showed up on Occupy with an agenda that was tangetial at most.

>Who was that Kristian Williams guy? Why is he considered a "rape apologist" and "victim blamer"?
Is he a man? If yes, then both and because he is a man.

>> No.5215280

>>5215260
But there are quite a few feminists hate transexuals. Y'know, because feminism isn't a monolithic political ideology out to ruin video games and post gifs on tumblr or whatever you think they do.

>> No.5215283

>>5215257
>anarchists be in favor of dismantling any sort of patriarchal system, or any arrangement where men hold illegitimate power over women
they are supposed to be, but that's often not the case. there are plenty of ignoramuses on the left, everything from marxists to feminists.

>> No.5215288

>>5215257
>Who was that Kristian Williams guy? Why is he considered a "rape apologist" and "victim blamer"?

He wrote this:
http://towardfreedom.com/29-archives/activism/3455-the-politics-of-denunciation

The protesters reacted thusly:
https://libcom.org/forums/general/feminist-opposition-kristian-williams-shut-down-law-disorder-2014-17052014#comment-538327

>> No.5215290

>>5215280
then why hasn't it done anything else

>> No.5215294

>linking Guardian clickbait

shiggy diggy

>> No.5215297

wait, people don't seriously believe in a 'patriarchy' do they? they actually think men are out to get them on purpose? i thought it was all a meme or something

>> No.5215301

>>5215297
It's what happens when you go to college and drop out first year of women's studies

>> No.5215304

>>5215257
He wrote an essay called The Politics of Denunciation, which was basically a mild critique of tumblr bullshit. his friend was accused of emotionally abusing his spouse (they are both organizers, apparently), and some shit went down because of that.

basically he said that the mindset is now for believing anything that a person who claims to be a victim says and making everything out to be a really over-the-top witch trial in which people fear being ostracized for not placating others, rather than taking it seriously and trying to stay clam about it

>> No.5215305

>>5215280
>Feminists are so gloriously inconsistent! You'll never be as perfectly divided as we are, bigots!

>> No.5215307

>>5215290
Actually I'm pretty sure there are actually feminists out there who are actually organising and pushing for equal rights, equal pay, etc. Especially in the third world you have women in places like India protesting against systemised sexism. Because the internet, and the middle class western women on it, does not reflect the real world.

>> No.5215313

>>5215305
What the fuck are you on about?

>> No.5215320

>>5215307
CORRECTIVE RAPE FOR MIDDLE CLASS WESTERN WOMEN ON THE INTERNET

CONGRATULATIONS AND FLORAL WREATHS FOR FEMINISTS IN THE THIRD WORLD

>> No.5215323

>>5215304
So he makes a reasonable argument about a complicated issue, and people's feelings get hurt and throw a tantrum. Got it.

Seriously, I consider myself a feminist, but that was some serious bullshit. I find it highly ironic that they used silencing tactics to protest "victim silencing". Couldn't even finish watching it.

>> No.5215324

>>5215313
Your NAFALT'ing

>> No.5215326

>>5215320
You ask me what 'feminists are doing' and I tell you and you reply with this? I don't know what you want from me.

>> No.5215336

>>5215326
JOKES

J O K E S

J ~ O ~ K ~ E ~ S

CoMeDy

_ H U _ M O _ U R _

W-I-T

J @ O @ K @ E @ S

SiLLiNeSs

~~ RIBALDRY ~~

_ / MERRIMENT \_

..
..
.
..
.
.
..
VAGINAS

>> No.5215337

>>5215324
Why are you using an MRA term? Of course not all feminists are like that, feminism is a fucking huge ideology. A Liberal feminist and a Socialist feminist and a radical feminist would have quite a lot to argue about. This is like conflating the Labour party with Stalinism just because they're both vaguely socialist.

>> No.5215363
File: 23 KB, 476x349, ngbbs5128c7e808f8a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5215363

>>5215033
>When men rape it's because they have penises
>When women rape it's because...
>because...!
>because...!
Please go.

>> No.5215372

>>5215363
men rape more often because their bodies are more suited to it
it's more difficult to rape a man as a woman

>> No.5215374

>>5215118
What's best is that people like you think you know what's going on.

>> No.5215377

>>5215323
>Seriously, I consider myself a feminist,


understand that they dont care.

Never apologize to people in identity politics.

Here is what they want you to do:
1. Make you prostrate yourself before them

And that's it

Don't respond to what they have to say unless youre trying to troll. Theres no point. Its mob rule, a witch trial by permanent 15 year olds. I have to hold back the temptation to discuss these things with them. Its not about the argument itself, its about them strategically asserting power over you because they think that you need to be knocked down a peg, their self esteem, stuff like that

>> No.5215390

>>5214859
Well, "scientism" in the Dawkins sense is pretty stupid. But science is absolutely the most important codified method humans have created and people should pay it proper respect

>> No.5215397

>>5215363
The guy is dumb for not knowing that rape is all about dominating and owning someone and that in certain societies women are as likely to rape as men, even if cases are not reported in similar numbers.
Let him.

>> No.5215401

I wonder what would happen if feminists - or women in general, for that matter - were anything like the way they are portrayed by alienated and angry boys on 4chan...

>> No.5215403
File: 159 KB, 254x384, hades heh heh.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5215403

>>5215227
>h-he's mad!

>> No.5215405

>>5215337
Aye, but saying "leftists are losing their shit over the prospect of a coming war over Serbia" in 1914 doesn't need a response of "UMMM, leftists like Benito Mussolini are patriotic and want their country in the war! Shut up and stop talking mean words about us!"

The left lost its shit when the war was coming.

>> No.5215409

>>5215397
what societies

tell me about these societies

>> No.5215412

>>5215372
but i'm a man and i have never raped anybody! how can that be???

>> No.5215421

>>5215412
i'm a man too

>> No.5215422

>>5215409
murrkan

>> No.5215426

>>5215421
and you have never raped anybody too???!!?!?

>> No.5215429

>>5215422
no really

I dont know

some matriarchal caribbean society that believes in spirits? i have no god damn idea

>> No.5215442

>>5215412
I thought MRAs accused feminists of thinking all men are rapists, but it turns it's the MRA types that think all men are rapists by nature. What a disgusting ideology.

>> No.5215444

>>5215426
well obviously i have, how else would i establish my dominant role in the patriarchy

>> No.5215445

Men rape because men are horny and women are tarting around 600000% more than they did in any previous generation.

There are always going to be criminals and other people with little regard for the social contract. Their number hasn't gone up. "Rape culture" isn't a thing - it's just that any group has assholes and sociopaths in it. Women have been enticing the fuck out of that relatively constant number per capita, though, slutting it up and showing off their desirable bits (which personally I enjoy and encourage, but apparently the rapists find it irresistable).

I mean, you can blame INDIVIDUAL rapists. And we do, with crime and punishment. That's what the laws are there for. But on the systemic level, ironically it's "Women" as a group who are to blame for the majority of rapes these days. They're the only ones who could curb systemic behaviours that cause rape. "Men" as an abstract group can't really do anything more than they are doing to rein in the individual criminals, but women could stop enticing them. I hope they don't though, I like all the boobies.

>> No.5215448

>>5215405
Not that guy but I don't have the slightest clue what you're on about.

>> No.5215451

>>5215442
b-b-buh MRA arnt monolith

>> No.5215455

>>5215445
>>>/pol/

>> No.5215460

>>5215455
>posting on /pol/

What is this, 2012?

>> No.5215461

>>5215405
I'm just saying. There are quite a few shitty feminists who aren't helping. But there are just as many, if not more, feminists who are actually working towards a more equal society. I just think that a lot of the criticism of these tumblr feminists and SJWs are coming from the wrong angle. I'm not saying 'anyone who criticises feminism is a sexist pig' or whatever (although some of them are, you have to admit).

>> No.5215465
File: 15 KB, 579x523, 1392292546905.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5215465

>>5215297
The 'patriarchy' isn't supposed to be a understood as a set of natural persons, like, for example, the Illuminati. The patriarchy is a construct.

To find out more, read a fucking book

>> No.5215466

>>5215445
>tarting

Opinion: disregarded

>> No.5215473

>>5215465
>To find out more, read a fucking book
>Rightists
>Reading

>> No.5215474

>>5215445
This. It's hilarious how "rape culture" is entirely created and perpetuated by women. The only "rape culture" men engage in is actually punishing rapists.

>> No.5215475

>>5215473
i'm not a rightist lol i'm for equality not women's dominance

>> No.5215476

>>5215445
You only were almost right about outcasts.
The rest was dumb.

>> No.5215478

>>5215465
Why do I get the feeling you haven't actually read any Feminist literature

>> No.5215493

>>5215448
That not every criticism of the way people who identify with an ideology behave needs somebody to point out that not everybody supporting that ideology behaves the same way?
>Nazis are anti-Semitic
but muh Jews in the Wehrmachts!
>Nazis are right-wing fascists
but muh Strasserites!!

The fact the Strasserites existed didn't make the mainstream of the Nazi party any less fascistic
The fact radscum exist doesn't make today's feminism any less pro-tranny

>> No.5215494

>>5215473
My social and political views are right wing, and I read quite a bit. At least above average, maybe not as much as some on /lit/ though. I also hate /pol/ and am not a conspiracy retard, for whatever that matters

>> No.5215495

>>5215442
look who he is better equipped to rape a person, a person with genitalia that hang out or someone with genitalia that are tucked in

our society teaches us to assert our will over others. The person with the bigger sword will consistently be the one more confident with their ability to hurt people with it. Sociopath women who could be rapists dont have a sword, thats the only difference between a sociopath man who is a rapist and a sociopath woman.

jesus fucking christ

>> No.5215498

>>5215474
even as someone who was a strong feminist, i didn't realize the level of "lol who cares" a rape victim received until i was on that end.

>> No.5215499

>>5215478
I don't know. Why do you believe that is?

>> No.5215505

>>5215493
>nazi is right wing
top lel

>> No.5215506

>>5215494
what is some sociological right-wing literature?

>> No.5215511

>>5215505
omg claiming the nazis were socialist is just wrong

>> No.5215518

>>5215511
No he's one of these
>Hitler didn't go far enough
kids

>> No.5215527

>>5215493
Ok, comparing the Nazis to feminists is just ridiculous. You're not helping your argument.

Can you understand that there are many branches and ways of thinking within the umbrella ideology of feminism?

>> No.5215528

>>5215461
>anyone who criticizes feminism is a sexist pig
I'd agree with that statement to be honest, except in the obvious cases where people within feminism criticize certain aspects of feminism, or the former feminists who get fed up with movement and turn against it.

But, I think calling someone a sexist pig as a pejorative is a feminist equivalent to calling leftists pink commies or calling right-wingers fascists. They seem to come down to being nothing more than pejoratives for people's different opinions

>> No.5215535

>>5215506
Hobbes and Nietzsche are large influences on my views, but I've read enough of criminal justice literature to know that it's complicated.

It's important to distinguish what right-wing is

>> No.5215538

>>5215527
>Can you understand that there are many branches and ways of thinking within the umbrella ideology of feminism?
Many different slogans, the same bitchy pouting.

>> No.5215541

>>5215511
>>5215518
So, you two are stupid enough to divide politics in right and left but still feel smart to correct others?

>> No.5215544
File: 934 KB, 978x686, poll.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5215544

>>5215494
>2014
>hating /pol/

It's like you chose the blue pill on purpose.

brb, building my ebola-safe bunker

it's happening

>> No.5215548

>>5215518
No, I definitely think Hitler went too far. I'm more of a "Mussolini should've joined the allies" kid. I actually like democracy, and the fact that we have both a right and a left wing. I think it's good the right exists as a check for the left, and vice versa.
>>5215527
I was not comparing the two. And yes, of course there's more than one stream of feminism, just like any other ideology, religion, belief system, etc., but bringing it up as a deflection whenever somebody criticizes some aspect of feminism is SHIT.

>> No.5215553

>>5215109
>>5215126

>but really it's deprofessionalized journalism

The website has. It's got the same lack of self-awareness that almost all social-media platforms have at this point in time. It should stop updated itself constantly with pointless features.

A mix of conjecture and news is welcoming but The Guardian has too much content that it just de-values its worthwhile content.

>> No.5215555

>>5215541
just fuck off

>> No.5215558

>>5215288
Speaking as someone who holds fairly moderate views about feminism as compared to your typical 4channer (e.g. I have no problem admitting that there is a lot of subtle misogyny in society, in media, and so forth), this article perfectly encapsulates my feelings about the much-maligned 'SJW' stereotype that seems to have taken such hold of the internet these past few years. It's brilliant, really.

>What it offers, instead, is a reassuring dualism in which survivors and abusers exist, not only as roles we sometimes fill or positions we sometimes hold, but as particular types of people who are essentially those things, locked forever into one or the other of these categories, and (not incidentally) gendered in a conventional, stereotyped binary.

>> No.5215562

>>5215528
To be honest I would agree, but I was trying to give the guy I was talking to something. And then he came out and said that his problem with feminism is that they're 'pro-tranny' even though my point was that radfems' problem is that they're anti-tranny. I wasn't aware that this thread was populated by MRAs, which strangely has a cross-section with fascist apologists, as with >>5215548
I'm done.

>> No.5215564

>>5215535
I consider myself to be left-wing (no stinking liberalist) and I'm also a fan of Nietzsche. Not that much of Hobbes though, exactly because of Nietzsche. Hobbes still equated power with recognition.

Have you ever read any sociological works? What is your opinion on sociology as a field of study?

>> No.5215568

>>5215555
lol u mad

>> No.5215576

>>5215568
yh

>> No.5215579

>>5215562
Both the people you quoted were me :--)))
I'm not an MRA, but I am definitely a Fascist apologist. Learn me pronouns, bigot

>> No.5215596

>>5215495
That's bullshit though. First off, it propagates the myth that arousal is somehow a choice in all situations (which is the only reason at all that rape would be more difficult for women than men based on the shape of their genitalia). Arousal can be a response against the choice of the aroused.

Further, it ignores rape of a child, by an adult. The child may not have been unwilling, but he certainly wasn't capable of consenting. (and more often than not he was unwilling, or confused)

>> No.5215613

>>5215596
What im talking about corroborates your second point, what the hell are you on about. Theres no such thing as a child raping an adult. These are things which simply are

>> No.5215619

>>5215596
A woman can also commit sexual predation in ways other than diving on some guy's dick with her flappy rapist pussy. So there's that, too.

>> No.5215649

>>5215596
>consent
As someone who is a fan of feminism and also read some Derrida, I have to say that this concept of consent is a blind alley for feminism. It's even a bit fascist. What makes more sense to me is saying that rape is bad for a victim, it reduces victim's power and their will to life. In *certain contexts* I want to be an object of sex without consent (e.g. waking up to my dick getting sucked).

>> No.5215653

>>5215619
but it doesnt happen as often. Only Mras are going to pretend at that shit. My problem is that feminists think that this is culture in action, when it is just the way we are physically made.

Female on male rape almost always means several people holding some guy down.

You would do well to keep in mind that women know biology fucked them over, that is why a lot of women have barely repressed anger and resentment for men

>> No.5215681

>>5215613
How the fuck do you get child raping an adult out of that?

>>5215619
Yep. But people like the poster I responded to contribute to the erasure of those victims.

>>5215649
You can consent to that in advance. And there's a big difference between waking up to your girlfriend's vacuum of a mouth and a teacher taking advantage of her middle school student. Like you said, context matters, but it can also help evaluate whether there is consent. Thus I don't see the problem with the concept of consent given your objections so far.

>> No.5215713

>>5215564
I uh, have not read a significant amount of it. I'm guessing it mostly contradicts right wing views?

>> No.5215716

>>5215596
Surely if the child is willing and understands the circumstances, is there a crime ?

>> No.5215728

Since when does Richard Dawkins discuss "theology" ??

>> No.5215761

>>5215681
>Thus I don't see the problem with the concept of consent given your objections so far.
Yeah, I wasn't clear at all. I mentioned Derrida because of his view on communication i.e. there is always misunderstanding. If I want to be sure that I'm not raping somebody, I have to directly ask them and even then I can't be sure because they might be giving in due to pressure. So what I do is develop these rules of recognizing consent, but even these can be misused, so I need to develop stricter rules and so on in a spiral. At the end there's no spontaneity left.
I'm not saying we should get rid of the concept, just that we should at least recognize some limits of it and try to develop better ones.

>> No.5215765

>>5215288
I so love this. If you google Kristian Williams, one of the first results is this SJW blog:

http://emateapot.wordpress.com/2014/05/17/rape-apologist-kristian-williams-being-no-platformed-at-anarchist-conference/

Wherein the blogger reposts this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7cwWegXCU

The title of the blog post is: "Rape apologist Kristian Williams being no-platformed at anarchist conference"

Only, the video itself comes from a youtube channel owned by a rightwinger, entitled "laughing at liberals."

Did I say "I love this"? I meant that I despise this. When will these internet 'progressives' learn that their crybaby identity politics are tearing the movement apart? The left is dead. The left killed it.

>> No.5215787

>>5215716
I idea is that a child isn't capable of demonstrating free will in a relationship with an adult because of the asymmetrical power structure inherent in it and lakes the capacity to fully understand the circumstances and consequences.

>> No.5215796

>>5215713
There are right-wing sociologists and they did have some important and good ideas about society. I just notice a lack of certain perspective that sociology gives you when it comes to most (not all) right-wingers.

>> No.5215821

>>5215728
Since The God Delusion, plus he brings it up on Twitter all the time.

https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/324171554491596803

>> No.5215841

>>5215821
Theology is worthless, though.

Before people wrote fanfiction about whether Goku could beat up Superman, monks argued about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, or whether Jesus ever laughed.

There is no truth that theology provides exclusive access to. All understanding of religion is properly gained through a combination of anthropological, archeological, historical, and sociological study. All understanding of ethics and morality is better approached from a humanistic perspective. Theology is redundant, at best -- actively harmful at worst.

>> No.5215843

>>5215796
Who might be worth looking up?

>> No.5215870

>>5215843
There were many that I've read so I forgot some names, but the most important right-wing strand of sociology is functionalism, the one that kind of started sociology itself. Check Durkheim and Talcott Parsons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_functionalism

>> No.5215994

>>5214989
The point is that he has, in the past, used the texts of various religions against them. If he doesn't even have a child's knowledge of these texts, then how can he put forth arguments concerning them? Also, theology is quite closely related to philosophy, which is another field in which Dawkins doesn't exactly excel.

>> No.5216011

>>5215761
I mean, that's fair, and should probably be done with every concept.

>> No.5216070

>>5216011
Exactly. But the problem is that pop-feminism uses the concept of consent without any critical distance, the constant and uncritical use of it is getting out of control and seems to point to a future where people will have to officially agree to have sex together unless they want to be prosecuted. I'm exaggerating a bit here but that's why I see a potential for fascism in it.

>> No.5216097

>>5216070
That's already happened in some academic circles. They've been appropriately humiliated for it too.

Antioch university once had a policy that people estimated would require a couple to get consent several dozen times to round third base. You can read about it. SNL made a pretty good skit about it too, called Is it Date Rape.

Antioch is a dying school now (for a variety of reasons, all linked to its very SJWey policy makers)

The crazies are largely a minority, and where they take hold, they're swiftly eliminated by virtue of policy developed by crazy people very rarely working out.

>> No.5216103

>he understands the scientific method, a process intended to mitigate the interference of human subjectivity in data collection, as a universally applicable way of understanding not just the physical world but literally everything else as well
But this is correct. If something leaves no effect on the physical world, it doesn't exist.