"Get Off Of My Side!": Embarrassing Allies

[The Emerald Dragon]

White Nationalists..

Yeah, most are too hardcore and not at all like me. (Not interested in Ethnicity, Religion, Ebul Jewz owning the WURLD!!!111)

I really don't know how to justify myself, except by trolling Stormfront.

But then again, I also support Multiculturalism...

So, I don't know whether I AM a White Nationalist - maybe a very liberal one sure.

Ok, after thinking about it, I'm not a White Nationalist after all.

[Imperializt Russia]

Just explaining why /s didn't mean anything to me.

It's not solely an Urban Dictionary thing. It's fairly common here.

I've never seen it conveyed that way (only as /sarcasm or imitating BBCode with [sarcasm][/sarcasm]), but as a native anglophone, I found it very easy to pick up. Especially given the contrarian nature of the post.

[Stalwart Allies]

I am a Christian and a libertarian. Both ideologies are run rampant with conspiracy theories. I hate that.

[Galloism]

It's not solely an Urban Dictionary thing. It's fairly common here.

I've never seen it conveyed that way (only as /sarcasm or imitating BBCode with [sarcasm][/sarcasm]), but as a native anglophone, I found it very easy to pick up. Especially given the contrarian nature of the post.

Well, English is not my first language.

[Imperializt Russia]

I've never seen it conveyed that way (only as /sarcasm or imitating BBCode with [sarcasm][/sarcasm]), but as a native anglophone, I found it very easy to pick up. Especially given the contrarian nature of the post.

Well, English is not my first language.

Hence why I added that bit, as I remembered you and others are not.

[Blood Wine]

I'm a MRA and I hate it when they overgeneralize feminism - I'm more in it for the proper presentation of men in major debates rather then letting the bystander effect take it's course

[Imperializt Russia]

I'm a MRA and I hate it when they overgeneralize feminism - I'm more in it for the proper presentation of men in major debates rather then letting the bystander effect take it's course

Like "men's rights" required "activism" lol

[Narland]

I am a Christian and a libertarian. Both ideologies are run rampant with conspiracy theories. I hate that.

Same here--conspiracy theorists, but also "caged" calvinists

[Ethel mermania]

Frankly I feel you are insulting the putz's of the world with the trump comparison. But when he and I are on the same side, I cringe.

I don't know why anyone still takes him seriously.

He is suing on of the casinos he use to own for continuing to use his name, but not meeting his high standards. I don't understand that one at all

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... ty-casinos

[Meryuma]

This is the problem with society at the moment. When feminism gets painted with a broad-ass brush that makes people, men and women (et al) want to distance themselves when they're actually after a common goal (through different means of course, which is presumably where differences arise).

Well, firstly, I feel like I can't or shouldn't be a "feminist" because, hell, I'm a white, middle-class, cisgendered male. How could I when I'm, like, the source of the problem?

Secondly, I fear that mainline feminism is getting much too radical, what with this talk about "the oppressor" and all.

Self-identified "radical feminism" is generally a cesspool of hatred but radicalism against injustice is a positive.

Also anyone can be a feminist if they're, y'know, a feminist. Your main obstacle in that department isn't being born into a privileged identity but rather the fact that you seem to believe that the concept of women being oppressed is hyperbolic.

White Nationalists..

Yeah, most are too hardcore and not at all like me. (Not interested in Ethnicity, Religion, Ebul Jewz owning the WURLD!!!111)

I really don't know how to justify myself, except by trolling Stormfront.

But then again, I also support Multiculturalism...

So, I don't know whether I AM a White Nationalist - maybe a very liberal one sure.

Ok, after thinking about it, I'm not a White Nationalist after all.

Why do you associate yourself with white nationalism in the first place? If you're just mildly anti-immigration or something I don't know why you'd choose to throw in your lot with a movement full of literal Nazis.

[The Serbian Empire]

Stefan Molyneaux... the guy probably cuts the appeal of libertarianism in half with his rhetoric.

[Muinordgrad]

I'm a Christian and a leftist, so where do we even begin on bad allies...

[Vecherd]

Stefan Molyneaux... the guy probably cuts the appeal of libertarianism in half with his rhetoric.

What about muh men's rights and muh white cops??

[Galloism]

I'm a MRA and I hate it when they overgeneralize feminism - I'm more in it for the proper presentation of men in major debates rather then letting the bystander effect take it's course

Like "men's rights" required "activism" lol

This attitude is part of the problem, and one of the embarrassing things about many feminists on NSG and their conservative allies.

We can prove that the female/male divide in treatment by the criminal justice system is greater than the white/black divide, but systematic discrimination is only important if the victim is an acceptable victim.

We also have a systematic social and legal ignorance regarding male victims of rape, even though they probably make up 40-50% of all rape victims, but this is not important if they are not the acceptable victim.

This is a very serious problem among many NSG feminists and their conservative allies.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

It's not solely an Urban Dictionary thing. It's fairly common here.

I've never seen it conveyed that way (only as /sarcasm or imitating BBCode with [sarcasm][/sarcasm]), but as a native anglophone, I found it very easy to pick up. Especially given the contrarian nature of the post.

I thought of /surety or /sincerity

Then again, we use -s or /s for "sim", meaning "I'm positive of that", with -t being maybe (talvez), -n no (não) and -q good-spirited sarcasm/WTFness third dimension (why did we add -qqqqq after absurd shit to make it funny in the late 2000s? I don't know, I don't even know what reduced word -q actually meant).

[Distruzio]

Dominionists.

They embarrass me yet i dont, necessarily disagree with thejr aims.

[Imperializt Russia]

Like "men's rights" required "activism" lol

This attitude is part of the problem, and one of the embarrassing things about many feminists on NSG and their conservative allies.

We can prove that the female/male divide in treatment by the criminal justice system is greater than the white/black divide, but systematic discrimination is only important if the victim is an acceptable victim.

We also have a systematic social and legal ignorance regarding male victims of rape, even though they probably make up 40-50% of all rape victims, but this is not important if they are not the acceptable victim.

This is a very serious problem among many NSG feminists and their conservative allies.

I have honestly yet to be exposed to an "MRA" movement that is not acting entirely as a troll/annihilation movement against feminism.

[Galloism]

This attitude is part of the problem, and one of the embarrassing things about many feminists on NSG and their conservative allies.

We can prove that the female/male divide in treatment by the criminal justice system is greater than the white/black divide, but systematic discrimination is only important if the victim is an acceptable victim.

We also have a systematic social and legal ignorance regarding male victims of rape, even though they probably make up 40-50% of all rape victims, but this is not important if they are not the acceptable victim.

This is a very serious problem among many NSG feminists and their conservative allies.

I have honestly yet to be exposed to an "MRA" movement that is not acting entirely as a troll/annihilation movement against feminism.

Oh I don't think the MRA movement, as a group, is worth a damn - as I said earlier.

But whether there are men's rights issues that need activism is a whole other thing. That's a resounding and trumpeting "yes!"

[Shaggai]

I have honestly yet to be exposed to an "MRA" movement that is not acting entirely as a troll/annihilation movement against feminism.

Oh I don't think the MRA movement, as a group, is worth a damn - as I said earlier.

But whether there are men's rights issues that need activism is a whole other thing. That's a resounding and trumpeting "yes!"

Honestly, it's a problem with a lot of things. Any decent discussion needs reasonable people on both sides. Unfortunately, some sorts of discussions have all too few reasonable people on one or more sides.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I was originally asking for specific examples of individuals, but since the conversation has shifted in a more general direction, I'll chime in:

I'm a huge advocate for the legalization of cannabis, and not just for medical use. However, I dislike the cultlike status attained by the plant, with people making claims that it can do things that there is no proof of whatsoever. Yes, it shows great promise in pain management, appetite stimulation, and as one way to address certain types of cancer, though there is an enormous amount of research left to do to see how far that goes. IT DOES NOT CURE CANCER. It will not suddenly bring peace to the world. Even if marijuana is legalized and taxed, the deficit will not magically disappear overnight. And, no, it's not significantly safer to drive while stone than it is to drive while drunk.

[Jinos]

Feminists: When I'm trying to argue against conservatives and the GOP for woman's reproductive (abortion) rights and contraceptive coverage, as well as on justice for rape victims - they have a nasty habit of getting entirely too dogmatic about their opinions, on patriarchy, gender norms, "objectification" and the like, and basically making mountains out of mole hills. They also victimize women to the nth degree and I find it offensive they seem to think women are rarely if ever victimizers themselves, and or men be victims.

Conservatives: For when I argue against Feminists as exampled above. Because common, they're usually racist religious fundamentalists.

Greenpeace: Yes, we need to be more aware of the environment, yes corporations are too pollutive. But Greenpeace is just terrible, again - dogmatic, they also like to lie and make up things to make stuff they fight against (IE their "expose on Nuclear power"). And frankly they're too camera happy for my taste.

[California Prime]

Maybe you should respect the fact that other people don't have your sensibilities. You display the same thinking as the types that I pointed out, no understanding of degrees of application of force, you might as well be arguing that a shove is equal to a punch in the face with brass knuckles, after all, in your overly simplistic view violence is violence.

As far as a kid is concerned that's an utterly valid position to hold. Further more violence is violence. The lesson a kid learns is that if you're mad, it's ok to hit someone, that might makes right, and that violence is an acceptable means to resolve a dispute. Better to err on the side of not doing it at all.

Accepted psychological analysis and child development theories say that you are full of it but that's fine, some hippie naturalist author disagrees with that so you should go follow that advice.

[Olivaero]

I was originally asking for specific examples of individuals, but since the conversation has shifted in a more general direction, I'll chime in:

I'm a huge advocate for the legalization of cannabis, and not just for medical use. However, I dislike the cultlike status attained by the plant, with people making claims that it can do things that there is no proof of whatsoever. Yes, it shows great promise in pain management, appetite stimulation, and as one way to address certain types of cancer, though there is an enormous amount of research left to do to see how far that goes. IT DOES NOT CURE CANCER. It will not suddenly bring peace to the world. Even if marijuana is legalized and taxed, the deficit will not magically disappear overnight. And, no, it's not significantly safer to drive while stone than it is to drive while drunk.

Yeah also the preaching of the chilling nature of the drug, don't get me wrong I'm 100% in favour of legalization but I know for an absolute fact it can have not so nice effects on people and they aren't fun at all, and this should be able to be acknowledged without people decrying the person who talks about it as some type of destroyer of freedom.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Oh, and as someone gravely concerned over police abuse, especially in minority communities, I roll my eyes at anyone who casually tosses around the term "pigs" in reference to police.

[The Serbian Empire]

Oh I don't think the MRA movement, as a group, is worth a damn - as I said earlier.

But whether there are men's rights issues that need activism is a whole other thing. That's a resounding and trumpeting "yes!"

Honestly, it's a problem with a lot of things. Any decent discussion needs reasonable people on both sides. Unfortunately, some sorts of discussions have all too few reasonable people on one or more sides.

Yep, that's true. The MRA argument is little more than the feminists have gotten too radical and then proceed to become almost as misogynistic as the radical feminists are misandrist.