Would You Support a New Egalitarian Movement?

[Dameth]

[quote="Wolfmanne2";p="29386323"][/quote]

Okay, so I read quickly so.
• A woman made allegations of rape.
• SWP holds a kangoroo court and bully into not going into the police.

Yeah, so SWP are assholes. Often the case on pyramidal hierachical orgs.
At not point it means the man is guilty - because, you now...civil rights and stuff. He's not convicted hence he's innocent.
It just means SWP are cunts, and since they are trotks I have zero incentive to defend them. They deal with their own stuff.

[Wolfmanne2]

Okay, so I read quickly so.
• A woman made allegations of rape.
• SWP holds a kangoroo court and bully into not going into the police.

Yeah, so SWP are assholes. Often the case on pyramidal hierachical orgs.
At not point it means the man is guilty - because, you now...civil rights and stuff. He's not convicted hence he's innocent.
It just means SWP are cunts, and since they are trotks I have zero incentive to defend them. They deal with their own stuff.

In that respect, there's been a misunderstanding because I thought you were a SWP member and I have no time for them. Little sticking point, the cult mentality of the SWP meant that woman did not go to the police, who could have resolved the situation via the due process of the law.

[Liriena]

In my own particular case, I support gender equality, and thus feminism, in part out of empathy, in part out of my personal core beliefs, and in part for myself. Out of empathy, insofar as I see women around the world still suffering injustices both great and small, and that doesn't feel the least bit right. Out of my personal core beliefs, because I believe in equality, including gender equality, as necessary for any society to truly have harmony, freedom and prosperity. For myself, because I find machismo irritating, exhausting and asphyxiating on a personal level, as a man who doesn't really care about gender roles, and yet lives in a culture where there's often a severely strict enforcement of those roles.

If you concur with any, or two, or all three of those aspects, feminism deserves your attention. That doesn't mean you have to agree with anything and everything any feminist says (once again, Cathy Brennan exists, and she's terrible). That doesn't mean you have to pretend extremists don't exist or that some men's rights activists don't have legitimate grievances. And that doesn't mean you have to become a radical who sees a patriarchy everywhere. You can always choose to focus on more pressing issues than how many female billionaires exist.

So those are your personal reasons. But what if people don't agree that there are so many injustices that they need to follow ideological approaches to dealing with issues regarding labour, finances, marriages, relations and social interactions? What if they like being manly and notice women like it so they feel it is profitable to keep being so? How would you persuade them otherwise?

If someone truly likes being conventionally masculine, that does not preclude supporting gender equality.

Now, if you do not believe that injustices exist, despite what any piece of hard data or personal testimony might tell you, then there isn't much for me to do.
It's like asking me how I would persuade a climate change denier to take up the environmentalist cause. If they truly don't believe that the problem exists in the first place, no matter what others might say, I can only state the facts as I see them, state my opinion, and leave them be.

How would you persuade the exact same hypothetical people to support your "new egalitarian movement"?

[Wolfmanne2]

No, what's ridiculous is your refusal to even consider that men can be discriminated against in society by using the logic that "well I haven't experienced it so it does not exist". That is like saying "but I am not hungry, so there are no starving people".

Yes, men are discriminated against and men and said discrimination is unfair. It's a radical concept, but I'm sure you can come to grips with it.

Court system, gender quotas,genital integrity, work fatalities, suicide rate, reproductive rights, work quotas, gender representation in political sphere.
Just a few occasions off the top of my head where men are at institutionalized and unfair disadvantage.

I propose we get rid of the word "oppression". That's feminist linguo and doesnt mean anything in gender context. Besides, discriminations against men are not to be experienced to be understood. They are in plain sight for everyone to see. But I guess no matter how bright the colors are, it's no use to discuss them with the blind.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Men's_righ ... _rebuttals

Yeah, about those...

[Dameth]

In that respect, there's been a misunderstanding because I thought you were a SWP member and I have no time for them. Little sticking point, the cult mentality of the SWP meant that woman did not go to the police, who could have resolved the situation via the due process of the law.

Trotskists are annoying anyway. I tried to read my local trotsk newspaper once. God are we still in 1960 ? These guys are out of space and need to come down to earth from time to time. They believe in their stuff, but god, when they talk in meetings, they read papers written by their comitees. It's annoying as all hell and rarely relevant to the issues at hand. They really strike me as honest but ultimately very dumb activists with no connection to reality.

But anyway, that was not the point. That woman should have gone to the police. Rape - and by rape I mean real rape, not the watered down feminist version - is a serious matter that should be handed to justice court, and not private justice.

[Wolfmanne2]

In that respect, there's been a misunderstanding because I thought you were a SWP member and I have no time for them. Little sticking point, the cult mentality of the SWP meant that woman did not go to the police, who could have resolved the situation via the due process of the law.

Trotskists are annoying anyway. I tried to read my local trotsk newspaper once. God are we still in 1960 ? These guys are out of space and need to come down to earth from time to time. They believe in their stuff, but god, when they talk in meetings, they read papers written by their comitees. It's annoying as all hell and rarely relevant to the issues at hand. They really strike me as honest but ultimately very dumb activists with no connection to reality.

But anyway, that was not the point. That woman should have gone to the police. Rape - and by rape I mean real rape, not the watered down feminist version - is a serious matter that should be handed to justice court, and not private justice.

[Dameth]

Yeah, about those...

None your rebuttal is proper. Like, just some lazy copypaste :

Although more women than men attempt suicide, men are almost four times more likely than women to die by suicide. One reason is that men are more likely to use deadlier means — such as firearms — when they set out to take their own lives.

Lady there is a reason why we don't count "attempts" in suicide rates. Mostly because the "victim" get to live. Look I can do 10 attempts a day, if it can inflate statistics. It means nothing. Genuinly wishing to die and attentionwhoring are different things.
Men who want to kill themselves succeed because they use methods which will not fail, and they do so because they want to die. Women do whatever and fail.

The problem with male victims of domestic abuse being arrested instead of their female partners is real.

This is sort of true. Men actually pay less for health insurance, until about age 41[44], but more for auto and life insurance.

kk

Send me more rebuttals like those.

Also I took a look on the sections I'm familiar with. Adherents of MGTOW philosophy are not called either MGTOWer nor miggies, they are called MGTOW (meg-tau). Most of the thing I could cross ref appear to be bollux. Check your sources and if you are unsure, ask away instead of spreading misinformation.

[Kelinfort]

Yeah, about those...

Edit : none your rebuttal is proper. Like, just some lazy copypaste :

Although more women than men attempt suicide, men are almost four times more likely than women to die by suicide. One reason is that men are more likely to use deadlier means — such as firearms — when they set out to take their own lives.

Lady there is a reason why we don't count "attempts" in suicide rates. Mostly because the "victim" get to live. Look I can do 10 attempts a day, if it can inflate statistics. It means nothing. Genuinly wishing to die and attentionwhoring are different things.
Men who want to kill themselves succeed because they use methods which will not fail, and they do so because they want to die. Women do whatever and fail.

The problem with male victims of domestic abuse being arrested instead of their female partners is real.

This is sort of true. Men actually pay less for health insurance, until about age 41[44], but more for auto and life insurance.

kk

Send me more rebuttals like those.

Also I took a look on the sections I'm familiar with. Adherents of MGTOW philosophy are not called eitehr MGTOWer, they are called MGTOW. Most of the thing I could cross ref appear to be bollux. Check your sources and if you are unsure, ask away instead of spreading misinformation.

You don't care about suicide if you consider suicide attempts to be "attentionwhoring."

[Dameth]

You don't care about suicide if you consider suicide attempts to be "attentionwhoring."

One of my friends - feminist hardcore, Woolfe reader mind you - attempted suicide soon before I chose to leave the movement for good. She ate a handful of sleeping pills. Then she realized she was dumb as hell and crawled to the phone and called an ambulance.

In no way that is comparable to the sheer desperation you can find in a man pushing a canon in his mouth and pulling the trigger. Apples and oranges.

We don't even count attempted murders as murder, we shouldn't count attempted suicides as suicide.

[Kelinfort]

You don't care about suicide if you consider suicide attempts to be "attentionwhoring."

One of my friends - feminist hardcore, Woolfe reader mind you - attempted suicide soon before I chose to leave the movement for good. She ate a handful of sleeping pills. Then she realized she was dumb as hell and crawled to the phone and called an ambulance.

In no way that is comparable to the sheer desperation you can find in a man pushing a canon in his mouth and pulling the trigger. Apples and oranges.

We don't even count attempted murders as murder, we shouldn't count attempted suicides as suicide.

The point isn't statistics and a personal anecdote isn't an excuse. Attempted suicide is still a serious problem and while it doesn't result in death, that does not make it easy to dismiss and meaningless. You have no evidence to prove it represents an attention grab beyond your own anecdote.

You do not care about suicide unless you care about attempted suicide as well.

[Minzerland]

Why is it such a ridiculous assertion that men are, in some shape or form, unfairly discriminated against or have issues that are gendered? Despite your anecdotes?

Well, men do have issues. They just aren't necessarily related to discrimination by gender.

...

[Dameth]

You do not care about suicide unless you care about attempted suicide as well.

And I'd like to see your quote on that. I care about suicide to the point I don't want to divert ressources away from people who need them, to give them to people who attempts suicide every time they receive their phone bills. Men have no way to vent their frustration, anger and desperation. There are no men group, no men shelter, and in general no way out for a dude who loses his will to live.

So unless you'd advocate for the creation of those with me, I'll just say "tu quoque" and leave it as that

[Kelinfort]

You do not care about suicide unless you care about attempted suicide as well.

And I'd like to see your quote on that. I care about suicide to the point I don't want to divert ressources away from people who need them, to give them to people who attempts suicide every time they receive their phone bills. Men have no way to vent their frustration, anger and desperation. There are no men group, no men shelter, and in general no way out for a dude who loses his will to live.

So unless you'd advocate for the creation of those with me, I'll just say "tu quoque" and leave it as that

Sure, go ahead and ignore the rest of my post. It sure as hell didn't address your earlier problems, did it?

Why would you have to divert resources away from people who conisder suicide in order to help those who attempt suicide? They suffer from many of the same issues and I don't see why it would cause a dearth of resources for the suicidal.

Yes, there's a clear lack of men's groups and shelters. We must redress this and we cans redress this. As men, it's our duty to help those who have lost hope and establish resources to combat suicide. The national suicide hotline, various Internet forums, and mental health clinics exists for this exact reason. We still need to go further of course, but I don't see what this has to do with attempted suicide. Surely both are suicidal if they both intend to kill themselves.

[Liriena]

First of all, I may disagree with Sarkeesian on an awful lot, but I do not consider her to be a "lunatic" or even necessarily a radical. I don't find her particularly outrageous. As for her and the likes of her being the "new mainstream", I have my doubts.

Why? Her views and views like hers are more prevalent than they ever have been and they're more widely accepted by feminist academics. I am under no illusions as to where the feminist movement is heading.

Yes, feminist critiques like Sarkeesian's are not part of an obscure fringe. After all, disagreeable though she may be, she is not insane. That does not mean she represents the whole world's mainstream feminism, or even American mainstream feminism.

Sure, she gets a lot of attention, but so do feminists like Emma Watson, Malala Yousafzai, Tom Hiddleston, Amy Poehler, Beyoncé and Patric Stewart. Are they not even more mainstream than Sarkeesian could ever hope to be? Don't they and their opinions get far bigger platforms and far more circulation than Sarkeesian?

For one thing, the only actual feminist there is Malala Yousafzai and that is because she faces actual oppression where she lives. Emma Watson and the remainder of the people on there are not feminists. They only say they are because it gives them a good image, especially with regards to the two men you included in that list. If they actually saw what feminists were supporting, the ideas that are promoted and the ultimate end goal of feminism, I can say with confidence that none of them would call themselves feminists, even if it's only lip service.

Oh, no, no, no. You don't get to pull a "no true feminist" on me. You didn't see me deny the fact that Sarkeesian and Cathy Brennan, much as I may criticise them, are nevertheless feminists, so don't try and tell me who is and who isn't an actual feminist to save your own bullcrap

Also... yes, feminists did not go out and suppress the freedom of speech of the extremists in their ranks. So?

So you're enabling the radicalization of the mainstream.

Do you believe that men's rights activists should try to suppress Roosh V and Return of Kings?

Of course. The feminist portrayal of all MRA's as evil, misogynistic women-haters has done a huge amount of damage to the movement. Damage which is extremely difficult to repair purely because of the amount of influence feminism has on modern society. Hell, feminists openly suggest that as a man, if you aren't a feminist, you're sexist. You can't advocate for equality if you approach gender issues from purely one perspective but that is the paternalistic attitude that feminists readily display when it comes to men's rights.

So you are saying that the feminist movement as a whole should enforce political correctness on the entirety of its members?

Again, Emma Watson, Malala Yousafzai, Tom Hiddleston, Amy Poehler, Beyoncé and Patric Stewart, to name just a few. Plus countless others with far less notoriety.

Again, a list of people who, bar one, are not actual feminists.

Again, a pretty parthetic "no true Scotsman".

Feminism is not dominated by radicals with castration or abuse fantasies, despite what whatever self-victimizing figures you have been listening to might have told you.

Think again.

Been there, done that, they still don't dominate the movement. I am around feminists on a regular basis, including activists and academics. Plus, I pay some attention to feminism on other spheres. So far, I've only encountered that sort of extremism in the most obscure fringes, and never outside of social media.

Feminists with castration and abuse fantasies, as far as I can tell, are usually the movement's equivalent of /pol/ trolls.

Are they louder and more numerous than I, and most feminists, would prefer? Yes. Do they get more attention than they deserve (and often from people just actively looking for confirmation of their prejudices)? Yes.

Hence they are the mainstream. What part of that do you not understand?

What I don't understand is how you assume that a loud minority (made even louder by people with an interest in giving a megaphone to the most ridiculous amongst their opponents) that doesn't even get as much attention from feminist-friendly outlets as the moderates and liberals could be considered "mainstream".

Also, speaking as a man myself? Kindly stop that self-victimizing crap.

It's not self-victimizing. Unless you've experienced domestic violence at the hands of a woman or have been raped as a woman and seen absolutely no justice, received no support and have seen nothing but mockery and derision from the people who should have supported you the most, only then can you understand the actual issues that men face.

Do I speak from experience? No. But others here on this forum have. And to sit there and call it an act of "self victimization" is not only insulting to me, it's insulting to them. Unless you are perfectly fine with invalidating their experiences purely because they are men, then you really need to gain a new perspective.

Almost every woman in my life has been sexually harrassed in public at least once in the past couple of years, but not a single one of the men, including myself.

Given that there was a thread where the mere idea of a man approaching a woman and saying "hello" was considered to be sexual harassment and a hate crime, why exactly should I be inclined to believe the opinion of someone who thinks a man's experiences at the hands of abusers and rapists is "self victimization"?

You assume too much. When I say self-victimization, I do not mean that men don't face any sort of injustices whatsoever. I have repeatedly acknowledged the fact that we do, in this thread and elsewhere.

But when you say "not that the rights of men matter much these days anyway", that's going too far for me. As far as I'm concerned, that is a gross exaggeration. We may face injustices, but we are not some sort of oppressed or marginalized minority, and we are certainly not the gender that for centuries, and to this day in many parts of the world, is still refused the right to vote, the right to an education, the right to their own physical integrity, their right to equal treatment under the law, etc., on the argument that we are "naturally" inferior and are meant to live in subjugation. Us suffering some injustices does not negate the fact that we still have a pretty tight grip on several spheres of power in this world.

Male victims of domestic and sexual violence, unfortunately, way too often do not receive the help and the justice they deserve. And that, in part, is the fault of certain feminist individuals and groups, and a political establishment far too complacent and eager to thoughtlessly pander to them. That, I could never deny or minimize. It's all a bloody atrocity, and I recognize the fact that people within the feminist movement are, at least in part, to blame for it.

I see double-standards being applied on a regular basis, and seldom to the detriment of men.

Well you would do, because you are the one applying them.

I acknowledge that men face many injustices due to sexism,

No you don't. Otherwise the victimization comment would not have been made.

Please, don't lie to my face about myself. It's gross.

but I do not use those injustices as a cudgel to beat women's rights with.

I'm not against women's rights. I'm against movements that are inherently hostile to men. That is feminism.

As a whole? Not really.
In terms of specific feminist individuals, groups and philosophies? Certainly.

So excuse me if I don't feel like throwing my belief in gender equality under the bus for the sake of joining the chorus of delusional and rabid anti-feminism.

You can't really claim to believe in gender equality when you also believe in feminism. But hey, I'm sure being castrated sounds like a lot of fun.

Yes, I can. I'm doing it right now.
Also, I'm going to let you in on a little secret: Chances are, nobody is going to castrate you or me anywhere in the near future. The ramblings of an angry blogger seldom see themselves reflected into actual policy, let alone something as blatantly against human rights as forced sterilization... Speaking of which, if I recall correctly, when mass forced sterilization has happened in modern times, it has usually been the mass forced sterilization of women.

Or maybe it stems from a demonstrable racial bias in the criminal justice system persisting to this very day, and sometimes showing itself in the form of brutality against black people.

That would be more the case there. A lack of justice does more to alienate certain minority groups from the legal system than law enforcement officers would.

Oh, but law enforcement officers have also played a significant part in alienating the American black community, as demonstrated by the Department of Justice's report on Ferguson, and the Baltimore Sun's investigation into police misconduct in Baltimore.

No.

So you've gone from pretending that all the radicals are not the mainstream to outright denying it exists. Brilliant.

No.

Oh, are they? I'm sure you have a poll you can cite on the matter?

You only have to look at the social media support for the killings of police officers and for the genocide of white people.

You only have to look at the social media support for the killing of unarmed black "thugs" and for the genocide of Middle Eastern people.

Here's the thing about social media: Awful opinions on social media are plentiful,diverse, widely circulated, and always a siren song to the countless people who genuinely agree, and countless trolls who just want to have some mean-spirited fun.

A bit of a loaded question, don't you think?

It's what you were doing, although you've now decided to outright deny that anything BLM supporters have said is anti-white.

No.

It's not that I "feel the need to diminish the influence" of extremism.

But you are. Instead of acknowledging the radicalization of the mainstream, you're still spouting the same feminist lie that the radicals don't represent the mainstream. They do. Whether or not you're willing to accept facts as facts is your own problem.

No.

It's that, unlike you, I have not been deluded into thinking that the loud voices of the extremists are more numerous and influential than they really are, thanks to years of dishonestly selective coverage, commentary and critique, both by an irresponsible mass media, and by racists and sexists looking for something to excuse their hateful and patronizing preconceptions.

I find it amusing that you call me deluded, yet espouse equally deluded claims that the radicals are still on the fringes and that BLM doesn't include any racism at all.

No.

I mean what else do you have to claim next? That men should be feminists if they know what's good for them?

No.

[Wolfmanne2]

Well, men do have issues. They just aren't necessarily related to discrimination by gender.

...

What I find darkly funny is that you don't seem to care about the oppression of others... but you do care about (what you see as) oppression of yourself (which is actually the rest of society being raised to a more equal level that you hold).

You do not care about suicide unless you care about attempted suicide as well.

And I'd like to see your quote on that. I care about suicide to the point I don't want to divert ressources away from people who need them, to give them to people who attempts suicide every time they receive their phone bills. Men have no way to vent their frustration, anger and desperation. There are no men group, no men shelter, and in general no way out for a dude who loses his will to live.

So unless you'd advocate for the creation of those with me, I'll just say "tu quoque" and leave it as that

Mental health treatment?

Women's shelters exist to protect women who have experienced rape or domestic abuse. They are a specific form of treatment. Men rarely experience rape or domestic abuse. There probably should be a few men's shelter, but if we built the same amount as women's shelters, we'd have a surplus.

Yeah, about those...

None your rebuttal is proper. Like, just some lazy copypaste :

Although more women than men attempt suicide, men are almost four times more likely than women to die by suicide. One reason is that men are more likely to use deadlier means — such as firearms — when they set out to take their own lives.

Lady there is a reason why we don't count "attempts" in suicide rates. Mostly because the "victim" get to live. Look I can do 10 attempts a day, if it can inflate statistics. It means nothing. Genuinly wishing to die and attentionwhoring are different things.
Men who want to kill themselves succeed because they use methods which will not fail, and they do so because they want to die. Women do whatever and fail.

The problem with male victims of domestic abuse being arrested instead of their female partners is real.

This is sort of true. Men actually pay less for health insurance, until about age 41[44], but more for auto and life insurance.

kk

Send me more rebuttals like those.

Also I took a look on the sections I'm familiar with. Adherents of MGTOW philosophy are not called either MGTOWer nor miggies, they are called MGTOW (meg-tau). Most of the thing I could cross ref appear to be bollux. Check your sources and if you are unsure, ask away instead of spreading misinformation.

First, I'm a bloke, but again, you assume that I'm a woman so proceed to talk to me in a condescending manner... which isn't cool.

Kleinfort has explained why attempted suicides do matter, so I won't cover ground there. I also don't care what MGTOW are actually called; they're still morons.

The evidence is there, you seem happy enough to gloss over it. All it really confirms is that MRAs and allies are really no different from people who say things like 'anti-racism = anti-white' and whatnot.

[Big Jim P]

Support a new race to the lowest common denominator? Why? We haven't finished the current on yet.

[Dameth]

Yes, there's a clear lack of men's groups and shelters. We must redress this and we cans redress this. As men, it's our duty to help those who have lost hope and establish resources to combat suicide. The national suicide hotline, various Internet forums, and mental health clinics exists for this exact reason. We still need to go further of course, but I don't see what this has to do with attempted suicide. Surely both are suicidal if they both intend to kill themselves.

By reading that I think I felt peace.

look. Point and case is, men off themselves more often. Just because you can point toward ten times more women who attempt suicide doesn't mean suicide affect women more than men.


There is a gender difference and it's huge

We should of course care for people asking for attention and for care. But we should care a lot more about people who lose their will to live to the point they want to die in flames. It's sad when a woman cuts her wrists then call the hospital. She should see a psychiatrist. When men off themselves, they more often than not do not tell anyone before acting on it - and they rarely fail. When that german dude locked himself in the aircraft cocpit and pulled the lever, he knew full well he would not survive - there would be no surgeon to close his self inflicted wounds, there would be no councelor to talk about his life, there would be no life coach to get his shit together.

There should be some sort of concerted prevention, and it implies we care about them for once in the history of humanity.

[Wolfmanne2]

Support a new race to the lowest common denominator? Why? We haven't finished the current on yet.

I have little reason to agree with this view, but at least it's sincere.

[Alvecia]

Yes, there's a clear lack of men's groups and shelters. We must redress this and we cans redress this. As men, it's our duty to help those who have lost hope and establish resources to combat suicide. The national suicide hotline, various Internet forums, and mental health clinics exists for this exact reason. We still need to go further of course, but I don't see what this has to do with attempted suicide. Surely both are suicidal if they both intend to kill themselves.

By reading that I think I felt peace.

look. Point and case is, men off themselves more often. Just because you can point toward ten times more women who attempt suicide doesn't mean suicide affect women more than men.

Isn't that exactly what it means?
I mean, you could definitionally nitpick and say that men succeed more, but that doesn't mean suicide affects men more, it just means they're more successful.

[Big Jim P]

Support a new race to the lowest common denominator? Why? We haven't finished the current on yet.

I have little reason to agree with this view, but at least it's sincere.

Of course it's sincere. It also happens to be true. No matter how low we get, there is always the option of going lower. Almost frightening when you compare it with the phenomenal levels of redundancy the human species has achieved.

[Dameth]

First, I'm a bloke, but again, you assume that I'm a woman so proceed to talk to me in a condescending manner... which isn't cool.

Ah yeah. I guess calling you lady makes a difference since we're equal or something. Look I don't even know.

I also don't care what MGTOW are actually called; they're still morons.

Point and case, your sources spread misinformation and I have little reason to trust them. Which pains me at some point because most of your "rebuttals" concede the core of the MRA's arguments while dancing around details.

The evidence is there, you seem happy enough to gloss over it. All it really confirms is that MRAs and allies are really no different from people who say things like 'anti-racism = anti-white' and whatnot.

I'm familiar with MRA circles, and the fact "you don't care" is probably the reason why you are on the defensive when talking about their points. Most MRA are egalitarians, who focus on men's issues. I could make a arm long post about the history of the relations between the MRA and the right, but I doubt you'd care enough to read the fine prints.

Also, the fact feminists call MGTOWs morons is pretty much an evidence they are a female advocacy group. MGTOWs are the most hardcore opponents of the status quo and traditional concervatism in gender issues. If anything you should praise them - they are one of the few non-mixed male group to tackle traditionalism.

But whatever, right.

[Liriena]

Support a new race to the lowest common denominator? Why? We haven't finished the current on yet.

I have little reason to agree with this view, but at least it's sincere.

Hey, if anything, you can always count on Jim being brutally honest, which is more than can be said about others.

[Wolfmanne2]

I have little reason to agree with this view, but at least it's sincere.

Of course it's sincere. It also happens to be true. No matter how low we get, there is always the option of going lower. Almost frightening when you compare it with the phenomenal levels of redundancy the human species has achieved.

Stop it, you'll make me a right-winger again.

[Chessmistress]

One of my friends - feminist hardcore, Woolfe reader mind you - attempted suicide soon before I chose to leave the movement for good. She ate a handful of sleeping pills. Then she realized she was dumb as hell and crawled to the phone and called an ambulance.

In no way that is comparable to the sheer desperation you can find in a man pushing a canon in his mouth and pulling the trigger. Apples and oranges.

We don't even count attempted murders as murder, we shouldn't count attempted suicides as suicide.

The point isn't statistics and a personal anecdote isn't an excuse. Attempted suicide is still a serious problem and while it doesn't result in death, that does not make it easy to dismiss and meaningless. You have no evidence to prove it represents an attention grab beyond your own anecdote.

You do not care about suicide unless you care about attempted suicide as well.

I really HATE being on his side, but he's right: counting attempted suicides together with real suicides is just like counting attempted murders and even threats of murders together with real murders.
When people cite statistics, then the point is exactly statistics.
I already had such discussion with Dakini.

[The balkens]

Of course it's sincere. It also happens to be true. No matter how low we get, there is always the option of going lower. Almost frightening when you compare it with the phenomenal levels of redundancy the human species has achieved.

Stop it, you'll make me a right-winger again.

I mean, im a Libertarian, how do you think i stopped being left wing?