The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Senkaku]

What I mostly mean by 'the left' are the fanatics and hardliners who seem to dominate nearly all leftist thought these days.

"Nearly all leftist thought"? Pretty bold assertion there (I suspect there will be many more as I continue).

Those who are focused on how words and identity are the only things that matter in social justice,

and who see the history of Europe, the Americas and the Anglosphere as just a long terrible litany of oppression.

Those who think capitalism has never done anyone worthwhile any good.

Those who believe that women are basically better than men but are held back by stupid rules which need to be eliminated.

Those who think that all white people need to be humbled and need to recompense all people of color and sit down and shut up.

Those who believe that any attempt to find common ground with others is stupid and dangerous

that peopel who are right wing or moderate are genetically disposed to be evil.

So first we got told that certain "fanatics" "dominate" "leftist thought" (each part of that phrase being left quite vague, really), and now we're being told what their specific (and apparently dominant among leftists) beliefs are (apparently veering away from feminism and just into your general reactionary gripes with "muh SJWs"). I assume you have some proof indicating that the aforementioned fanatics and hardliners who supposedly hold all of these positions "dominate leftist thought"?

Or are you just setting up an enormous strawman of all the various political positions you don't like so you can continue tilting at windmills? Because that seems more like what's going on here.

Those people.

Mhm, my strawman spidey senses are tingling. Seems to me like we're making some pretty hilariously massive generalizations for the sake of argument and a certain truthy/trumpy emotional dislike of "muh SJWs."

The majority of Western journalists,

[citation needed]

academics

[citation needed]

and social justice activist leaders.

Citation needed, after you provide a definition of whatever "social justice activist leader" is supposed to mean (I imagine something incredibly narrow designed only to highlight the extremists to fit into your narrative).



Let's face it, Edom, you're not interested in making real arguments about feminism here. You're just interested into going into long reactionary screeds against "those people", the SJWs of all stripes who you apparently so detest who apparently have launched a sinister operation to take over journalism and academia.

I have had this kind of discussion with you before. Your response tends to be "You're insane and don't know what you are talking about."

You've had it with a good percentage of NSG posters at this point, I imagine.

When you assert that the "majority of Western journalists and academics" believe "capitalism has never done anything good", "white people need to be humbled", "any attempt to find common ground with others is stupid and dangerous", and see the "history of Europe, the Americas, and the Anglosphere as just a long terrible litany of oppression" (in a thread that, by the way, is supposed to be about feminism and gender/sex issues, not your personal political boogeymen), then yes, people are going to call bullshit and tell you you don't know what the fuck you're on about. Your apparent lack of ability to form a cogent rebuttal to Mattopilos beyond whatever this is is rather telling, frankly.

I find this tiresome because I know what comes next: I cite examples, you disagree that they are representative,

Maybe find some representative examples and actual data for once, then.

and I have to provide even more examples, and then you don't say much and stop talking for a while.

"It's so frustrating for me that people realize how pointless it is to argue with me"

Unless it's going to be productive

Given your rather idiosyncratic ideas of what proof and debating are, I doubt it.

and there's going to be some respect for all that I've done on this site,

"All that you've done"? I fucking laughed. You've posted rambling rants on the evils of various different fucking meme versions of some ill-defined SJW-ism, occasionally tried to argue for men's rights before quickly veering off into misogyny and ill-informed reactionary tirades against your nebulously-defined "leftist" boogeymen, and sometimes agreed with better-informed, more civil, and more coherent posters like Gallo who actually do the hard work to represent some of your less lunatic opinions on things like men's rights well and back them up with data.

I don't want to do this. So: is this going to be productive?

Neither does anyone else, and no.

[Mattopilos II]

I have had this kind of discussion with you before. Your response tends to be "You're insane and don't know what you are talking about." I find this tiresome because I know what comes next: I cite examples, you disagree that they are representative, and I have to provide even more examples, and then you don't say much and stop talking for a while. Unless it's going to be productive and there's going to be some respect for all that I've done on this site, I don't want to do this. So: is this going to be productive?

Because they aren't representative - they are from fringe sites and groups. That, and they tend to claim they are part of fringe groups anyway. So yeah, because you seem to have something akin to yelling NAZI at the sign of leftism, I don't think this will be productive. You admit your bias, and then somehow attempt to pin the issues with bias on me. You showing """""citations""""" really, if anything, shows me what you think of feminism and leftism by the way you attempt to lampshade-fallacy the fuck out of the argument.

[New Edom]

What I mostly mean by 'the left' are the fanatics and hardliners who seem to dominate nearly all leftist thought these days.

"Nearly all leftist thought"? Pretty bold assertion there (I suspect there will be many more as I continue).

Those who are focused on how words and identity are the only things that matter in social justice,

and who see the history of Europe, the Americas and the Anglosphere as just a long terrible litany of oppression.

Those who think capitalism has never done anyone worthwhile any good.

Those who believe that women are basically better than men but are held back by stupid rules which need to be eliminated.

Those who think that all white people need to be humbled and need to recompense all people of color and sit down and shut up.

Those who believe that any attempt to find common ground with others is stupid and dangerous

that peopel who are right wing or moderate are genetically disposed to be evil.

So first we got told that certain "fanatics" "dominate" "leftist thought" (each part of that phrase being left quite vague, really), and now we're being told what their specific (and apparently dominant among leftists) beliefs are (apparently veering away from feminism and just into your general reactionary gripes with "muh SJWs"). I assume you have some proof indicating that the aforementioned fanatics and hardliners who supposedly hold all of these positions "dominate leftist thought"?

Or are you just setting up an enormous strawman of all the various political positions you don't like so you can continue tilting at windmills? Because that seems more like what's going on here.

Those people.

Mhm, my strawman spidey senses are tingling. Seems to me like we're making some pretty hilariously massive generalizations for the sake of argument and a certain truthy/trumpy emotional dislike of "muh SJWs."

The majority of Western journalists,

[citation needed]

academics

[citation needed]

and social justice activist leaders.

Citation needed, after you provide a definition of whatever "social justice activist leader" is supposed to mean (I imagine something incredibly narrow designed only to highlight the extremists to fit into your narrative).



Let's face it, Edom, you're not interested in making real arguments about feminism here. You're just interested into going into long reactionary screeds against "those people", the SJWs of all stripes who you apparently so detest who apparently have launched a sinister operation to take over journalism and academia.

I have had this kind of discussion with you before. Your response tends to be "You're insane and don't know what you are talking about."

You've had it with a good percentage of NSG posters at this point, I imagine.

When you assert that the "majority of Western journalists and academics" believe "capitalism has never done anything good", "white people need to be humbled", "any attempt to find common ground with others is stupid and dangerous", and see the "history of Europe, the Americas, and the Anglosphere as just a long terrible litany of oppression" (in a thread that, by the way, is supposed to be about feminism and gender/sex issues, not your personal political boogeymen), then yes, people are going to call bullshit and tell you you don't know what the fuck you're on about. Your apparent lack of ability to form a cogent rebuttal to Mattopilos beyond whatever this is is rather telling, frankly.

I find this tiresome because I know what comes next: I cite examples, you disagree that they are representative,

Maybe find some representative examples and actual data for once, then.

and I have to provide even more examples, and then you don't say much and stop talking for a while.

"It's so frustrating for me that people realize how pointless it is to argue with me"

Unless it's going to be productive

Given your rather idiosyncratic ideas of what proof and debating are, I doubt it.

and there's going to be some respect for all that I've done on this site,

"All that you've done"? I fucking laughed. You've posted rambling rants on the evils of various different fucking meme versions of some ill-defined SJW-ism, occasionally tried to argue for men's rights before quickly veering off into misogyny and ill-informed reactionary tirades against your nebulously-defined "leftist" boogeymen, and sometimes agreed with better-informed, more civil, and more coherent posters like Gallo who actually do the hard work to represent some of your less lunatic opinions on things like men's rights well and back them up with data.

I don't want to do this. So: is this going to be productive?

Neither does anyone else, and no.

So you support the achievements of Marxism such as Pol Pot, Stalin, Tito, and Lenin? Please go on.

[Senkaku]

"Nearly all leftist thought"? Pretty bold assertion there (I suspect there will be many more as I continue).







So first we got told that certain "fanatics" "dominate" "leftist thought" (each part of that phrase being left quite vague, really), and now we're being told what their specific (and apparently dominant among leftists) beliefs are (apparently veering away from feminism and just into your general reactionary gripes with "muh SJWs"). I assume you have some proof indicating that the aforementioned fanatics and hardliners who supposedly hold all of these positions "dominate leftist thought"?

Or are you just setting up an enormous strawman of all the various political positions you don't like so you can continue tilting at windmills? Because that seems more like what's going on here.

Mhm, my strawman spidey senses are tingling. Seems to me like we're making some pretty hilariously massive generalizations for the sake of argument and a certain truthy/trumpy emotional dislike of "muh SJWs."


[citation needed]

[citation needed]

Citation needed, after you provide a definition of whatever "social justice activist leader" is supposed to mean (I imagine something incredibly narrow designed only to highlight the extremists to fit into your narrative).



Let's face it, Edom, you're not interested in making real arguments about feminism here. You're just interested into going into long reactionary screeds against "those people", the SJWs of all stripes who you apparently so detest who apparently have launched a sinister operation to take over journalism and academia.


You've had it with a good percentage of NSG posters at this point, I imagine.

When you assert that the "majority of Western journalists and academics" believe "capitalism has never done anything good", "white people need to be humbled", "any attempt to find common ground with others is stupid and dangerous", and see the "history of Europe, the Americas, and the Anglosphere as just a long terrible litany of oppression" (in a thread that, by the way, is supposed to be about feminism and gender/sex issues, not your personal political boogeymen), then yes, people are going to call bullshit and tell you you don't know what the fuck you're on about. Your apparent lack of ability to form a cogent rebuttal to Mattopilos beyond whatever this is is rather telling, frankly.

Maybe find some representative examples and actual data for once, then.

"It's so frustrating for me that people realize how pointless it is to argue with me"

Given your rather idiosyncratic ideas of what proof and debating are, I doubt it.

"All that you've done"? I fucking laughed. You've posted rambling rants on the evils of various different fucking meme versions of some ill-defined SJW-ism, occasionally tried to argue for men's rights before quickly veering off into misogyny and ill-informed reactionary tirades against your nebulously-defined "leftist" boogeymen, and sometimes agreed with better-informed, more civil, and more coherent posters like Gallo who actually do the hard work to represent some of your less lunatic opinions on things like men's rights well and back them up with data.

Neither does anyone else, and no.

So you support the achievements of Marxism such as Pol Pot, Stalin, Tito, and Lenin? Please go on.

fucking lmao this is some galaxy-brain shit right here folks

[Parcia]

Bro...


I may not agree with many of the things this thread stands for...but wholly shit you just got burned worse them half of Nam during Rolling Thunder.

[Hirota]

lampshade-fallacy

I'm not familiar with that fallacy, and a swift google search doesn't bring anything up either. Can you elaborate?

[Hirota]

Just a question, when feminist call for equality, does this normally mean equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?

Depends on which sect of feminist you talk about, and only if you rely on talking in broad and vague terms.

With that said, I think (perhaps with some nostalgia) of second wave feminism as more interested in empowering women and demonstrating they are capable of reaching the same level as men - I'd guess you would call that equality of opportunity. Third wavers tend to be looking for equality of outcome because they tend to hold a (what I'd call regressive) view that women have an inherent disadvantage against men, and therefore to bring about equality have to give women an advantage to counter.

I call it regressive because it tends to portray women as incapable of reaching the same level as men without being given an advantage, more akin to victorian english views of women as incapable wallflowers incapable of doing anything as well as a man for no reason beyond they are a woman. It's ironic that a view that would be considered misogynistic in the first and second waves is now considered a boon in the third.

This view of being inherently disadvantaged has some advantages - within the current zeitgeist everyone likes to be the victim of oppression as it earns you a degree of status. It's not limited to feminism, but some of its most vocal proponents tend to use it amongst the most.

[Icirus]

What even is this thread?

Are there any continuity regarding the discussion? - or is it just a place for everyone to vent at this point?

[Ostroeuropa]

Another child was raped by a woman and forced to pay child support for the resulting child, or at least, another one got news coverage. In one or two papers.
State enforced shit like this doesn't cause national scandals and campaigns from celebrities. How curious.

Just a hypothetical, can we imagine a scenario where men rape young girls, get them pregnant (Assume abortion either isn't an option or wasn't taken, although even here we see the problem as it stands. Lack of reproduction rights for males, lack of legal parental surrender.), don't go to prison, and then by virtue of being adults retain custody of the child, then force the girl to pay child support?

Can you envision that scenario happening without every feminist in the west flipping their lid?

Any feminist you see in papers or on television is a liar or a hypocrite. They do not have principles, they merely have enemies, or if they do, their priorities are so skewed as to be alien to reason and humanities interests.

The lack of action on scandals like this and the lack of protest means whenever they claim to be for both genders it can confidently be considered a duplicitous lie by supremacists attempting to hide their nature.

You "Not like that" feminists, if you bother liking any of the scoundrels in the media and supporting them, their causes, or their arguments, you're not really any better. You're a "Racial egalitarian" who likes and shares all of richard spencers posts.

Sorry, forgot, richard spencer is at least honest about his intentions.

Yeah yeah.
"Hey man, nothing wrong with getting out the vote. Why shouldn't I support Richard Spencers drive to get white people to the polls? We're talking about whites right now."

[Ors Might]

Another child was raped by a woman and forced to pay child support for the resulting child, or at least, another one got news coverage. In one or two papers.
State enforced shit like this doesn't cause national scandals and campaigns from celebrities. How curious.

Just a hypothetical, can we imagine a scenario where men rape young girls, get them pregnant (Assume abortion either isn't an option or wasn't taken, although even here we see the problem as it stands. Lack of reproduction rights for males, lack of legal parental surrender.), don't go to prison, and then by virtue of being adults retain custody of the child, then force the girl to pay child support?

Can you envision that scenario happening without every feminist in the west flipping their lid?

Any feminist you see in papers or on television is a liar or a hypocrite. They do not have principles, they merely have enemies, or if they do, their priorities are so skewed as to be alien to reason and humanities interests.

The lack of action on scandals like this and the lack of protest means whenever they claim to be for both genders it can confidently be considered a duplicitous lie by supremacists attempting to hide their nature.

Can I get a source on this? If true, this is fucking disgusting and something needs to be done about it. No one, whether they be a man, a woman, and especially if they’re a child, should have to pay their rapist anything.

[Ostroeuropa]

Another child was raped by a woman and forced to pay child support for the resulting child, or at least, another one got news coverage. In one or two papers.
State enforced shit like this doesn't cause national scandals and campaigns from celebrities. How curious.

Just a hypothetical, can we imagine a scenario where men rape young girls, get them pregnant (Assume abortion either isn't an option or wasn't taken, although even here we see the problem as it stands. Lack of reproduction rights for males, lack of legal parental surrender.), don't go to prison, and then by virtue of being adults retain custody of the child, then force the girl to pay child support?

Can you envision that scenario happening without every feminist in the west flipping their lid?

Any feminist you see in papers or on television is a liar or a hypocrite. They do not have principles, they merely have enemies, or if they do, their priorities are so skewed as to be alien to reason and humanities interests.

The lack of action on scandals like this and the lack of protest means whenever they claim to be for both genders it can confidently be considered a duplicitous lie by supremacists attempting to hide their nature.

Can I get a source on this? If true, this is fucking disgusting and something needs to be done about it. No one, whether they be a man, a woman, and especially if they’re a child, should have to pay their rapist anything.

It's recorded as happening to men a few times, and twice for children that i've seen in the papers.

https://mensrightsandfeminism.wordpress ... d-support/


A write up of it.

Worth noting that child support reform has feminists as the primary opposition.

There's apparently a mens studies activist doing a paper on it.

Legal Studies Research Paper Series

Fatherhood by Conscription: Nonconsensual Insemination and the Duty of Child Support

Prof Michael J. Higdon

Nathaniel is the first case that was documented to my knowledge.

According to the court, “Victims have rights. Here, the victim also has responsibilities.”

These men include males who became fathers as a result of statutory rape and also adult males who became fathers either as a result of sexual assault or having their sperm stolen and used by a woman for purposes of self-insemination. In all such cases, these “fathers” have been held liable for child support.

All.
As in, guaranteed.
It's the law, clear as day. Male rape victims are forced to "raise" children as a result of it. They have less rights than the theocratic republicans want to offer women and gets screamed at as anti-woman.

"Gosh, we can get rid of it if it's the result of rape? Sign us up."
v
"That's so regressive! It's a step backwards!" (Left unspoken; A step backwards toward equality. Not good equality, but equality.)

But no, abortion rights are clearly an example of womens equality being threatened, and not merely another example in a long line of examples where there's a complete lack of actual thought given to the subject, and merely defaulting to assuming women are oppressed. (They aren't.)

The fact that republicans want to remove on-demand abortion and bring in abortion only in cases of rape?
They're demanding a lesser form of female privilege, but it's still female privilege.

The issue is that many women and men have been indoctrinated into not noticing how privileged women are, and how most areas of society are tilted in their favor.


Notably, the dynamic reveals the lie about child support too.

A woman can up and decide to artificially inseminate, and the child is not entitled to the mans income.
A woman can up and decide to rape a man, and he is.
A woman can up and decide not to name a father, and she isn't violating the childs rights. The excuse being this would harm rape victims if women were jailed or fined for not naming a father, and thus denying the child support it is "entitled" to. (See above for evidence on how this is not a sincere principle of this system, merely a rationalization for giving women privileges and power over men.)
Women can also up and decide to abandon children and drop-off centres.

The difference is that these scenarios benefit women and give them more options or power. The pretense that child support is "For the child" is only enforced where the childs presumed interests align with the womans, and hers always come first. The mans interests are never represented.

This entire system was instituted as a result of feminist lobbying. The glaring holes in it are either evidence of a vicious and supremacist mindset, or a total lack of awareness and concern for men and their lives, and either of those demonstrates that the feminist movement and its ideological frameworks are simply not fit for purpose, and can be argued to be sexism.

[Cekoviu]

lampshade-fallacy

I'm not familiar with that fallacy, and a swift google search doesn't bring anything up either. Can you elaborate?

I couldn't even find it on RationalWiki, so it must be really obscure.

[Proctopeo]

I'm not familiar with that fallacy, and a swift google search doesn't bring anything up either. Can you elaborate?

I couldn't even find it on RationalWiki, so it must be really obscure.

Seems like it was made up on the spot.
Google turned up absolutely nothing, and after using Bing and Yahoo, all I found besides this thread was a thread on /lgbt/ that doesn't provide any help to what it actually means. Both Bing and Yahoo, when searching without quotes, coughed out "Imitative fallacy", "lump of labor fallacy", and "pathetic fallacy", none of which apply in the given context.

I'll try more sleuthing with more search engines, but it seems like Mattopilos made it up.

[New Edom]

So you support the achievements of Marxism such as Pol Pot, Stalin, Tito, and Lenin? Please go on.

fucking lmao this is some galaxy-brain shit right here folks

You and others have suggested that I ought not to generalize. But the fact is, Marxists have generally more people than Nazis, and we dont' find Nazis acceptable. So do you find Marxism acceptable or not?

[Cekoviu]

fucking lmao this is some galaxy-brain shit right here folks

You and others have suggested that I ought not to generalize. But the fact is, Marxists have generally more people than Nazis, and we dont' find Nazis acceptable. So do you find Marxism acceptable or not?

What? I don't follow at all. How in the world does having a larger base make them the same as Nazis?

[Ors Might]

Can I get a source on this? If true, this is fucking disgusting and something needs to be done about it. No one, whether they be a man, a woman, and especially if they’re a child, should have to pay their rapist anything.

It's recorded as happening to men a few times, and twice for children that i've seen in the papers.

https://mensrightsandfeminism.wordpress ... d-support/


A write up of it.

Worth noting that child support reform has feminists as the primary opposition.

There's apparently a mens studies activist doing a paper on it.

Legal Studies Research Paper Series

Fatherhood by Conscription: Nonconsensual Insemination and the Duty of Child Support

Prof Michael J. Higdon

Nathaniel is the first case that was documented to my knowledge.

According to the court, “Victims have rights. Here, the victim also has responsibilities.”

These men include males who became fathers as a result of statutory rape and also adult males who became fathers either as a result of sexual assault or having their sperm stolen and used by a woman for purposes of self-insemination. In all such cases, these “fathers” have been held liable for child support.

All.
As in, guaranteed.
It's the law, clear as day. Male rape victims are forced to "raise" children as a result of it. They have less rights than the theocratic republicans want to offer women and gets screamed at as anti-woman.

"Gosh, we can get rid of it if it's the result of rape? Sign us up."
v
"That's so regressive! It's a step backwards!" (Left unspoken; A step backwards toward equality. Not good equality, but equality.)

But no, abortion rights are clearly an example of womens equality being threatened, and not merely another example in a long line of examples where there's a complete lack of actual thought given to the subject, and merely defaulting to assuming women are oppressed. (They aren't.)

The fact that republicans want to remove on-demand abortion and bring in abortion only in cases of rape?
They're demanding a lesser form of female privilege, but it's still female privilege.

The issue is that many women and men have been indoctrinated into not noticing how privileged women are, and how most areas of society are tilted in their favor.


Notably, the dynamic reveals the lie about child support too.

A woman can up and decide to artificially inseminate, and the child is not entitled to the mans income.
A woman can up and decide to rape a man, and he is.
A woman can up and decide not to name a father, and she isn't violating the childs rights. The excuse being this would harm rape victims if women were jailed or fined for not naming a father, and thus denying the child support it is "entitled" to. (See above for evidence on how this is not a sincere principle of this system, merely a rationalization for giving women privileges and power over men.)
Women can also up and decide to abandon children and drop-off centres.

The difference is that these scenarios benefit women and give them more options or power. The pretense that child support is "For the child" is only enforced where the childs presumed interests align with the womans, and hers always come first. The mans interests are never represented.

This entire system was instituted as a result of feminist lobbying. The glaring holes in it are either evidence of a vicious and supremacist mindset, or a total lack of awareness and concern for men and their lives, and either of those demonstrates that the feminist movement and its ideological frameworks are simply not fit for purpose, and can be argued to be sexism.

This makes me feel physically ill.

[Wysten]

It's recorded as happening to men a few times, and twice for children that i've seen in the papers.

https://mensrightsandfeminism.wordpress ... d-support/


A write up of it.

Worth noting that child support reform has feminists as the primary opposition.

There's apparently a mens studies activist doing a paper on it.



Nathaniel is the first case that was documented to my knowledge.





All.
As in, guaranteed.
It's the law, clear as day. Male rape victims are forced to "raise" children as a result of it. They have less rights than the theocratic republicans want to offer women and gets screamed at as anti-woman.

"Gosh, we can get rid of it if it's the result of rape? Sign us up."
v
"That's so regressive! It's a step backwards!" (Left unspoken; A step backwards toward equality. Not good equality, but equality.)

But no, abortion rights are clearly an example of womens equality being threatened, and not merely another example in a long line of examples where there's a complete lack of actual thought given to the subject, and merely defaulting to assuming women are oppressed. (They aren't.)

The fact that republicans want to remove on-demand abortion and bring in abortion only in cases of rape?
They're demanding a lesser form of female privilege, but it's still female privilege.

The issue is that many women and men have been indoctrinated into not noticing how privileged women are, and how most areas of society are tilted in their favor.


Notably, the dynamic reveals the lie about child support too.

A woman can up and decide to artificially inseminate, and the child is not entitled to the mans income.
A woman can up and decide to rape a man, and he is.
A woman can up and decide not to name a father, and she isn't violating the childs rights. The excuse being this would harm rape victims if women were jailed or fined for not naming a father, and thus denying the child support it is "entitled" to. (See above for evidence on how this is not a sincere principle of this system, merely a rationalization for giving women privileges and power over men.)
Women can also up and decide to abandon children and drop-off centres.

The difference is that these scenarios benefit women and give them more options or power. The pretense that child support is "For the child" is only enforced where the childs presumed interests align with the womans, and hers always come first. The mans interests are never represented.

This entire system was instituted as a result of feminist lobbying. The glaring holes in it are either evidence of a vicious and supremacist mindset, or a total lack of awareness and concern for men and their lives, and either of those demonstrates that the feminist movement and its ideological frameworks are simply not fit for purpose, and can be argued to be sexism.

This makes me feel physically ill.

But remember women are the real oppressed ones here/s

[Ors Might]

This makes me feel physically ill.

But remember women are the real oppressed ones here/s

People getting pissy over which demographic is the most oppressed does nothing at best and prevents us from doing anything useful at worst. If you see a problem, you do your damndest to fix it. Doesn’t matter what their genitals are or what their skin tone is.

[Hirota]

You and others have suggested that I ought not to generalize. But the fact is, Marxists have generally more people than Nazis, and we dont' find Nazis acceptable. So do you find Marxism acceptable or not?

What? I don't follow at all. How in the world does having a larger base make them the same as Nazis?

You are missing the wider point. Edom is drawing parallels between Pol Pot, Stalin, Tito, and Lenin for Marxism, and Hitler, Idi Amin, Mussolini et al for Facism. He's using the same tactics often used against those who advocate right wing beliefs to ridicule those who might ignore the sins of the left.

Unless I'm mistaken and Edom is making a different point.

[Cekoviu]

But remember women are the real oppressed ones here/s

People getting pissy over which demographic is the most oppressed does nothing at best and prevents us from doing anything useful at worst. If you see a problem, you do your damndest to fix it. Doesn’t matter what their genitals are or what their skin tone is.

I think it's funny how the right gets their panties in a twist over "oppresion Olympics," but then turn around and do the same thing.

[Ors Might]

People getting pissy over which demographic is the most oppressed does nothing at best and prevents us from doing anything useful at worst. If you see a problem, you do your damndest to fix it. Doesn’t matter what their genitals are or what their skin tone is.

I think it's funny how the right gets their panties in a twist over "oppresion Olympics," but then turn around and do the same thing.

However true that may be, that the other side is doing it too is no defense against wrong behavior. I don’t care whether women or men are the oppressed sex. If wrong is done, fix it.

[Ostroeuropa]

People getting pissy over which demographic is the most oppressed does nothing at best and prevents us from doing anything useful at worst. If you see a problem, you do your damndest to fix it. Doesn’t matter what their genitals are or what their skin tone is.

I think it's funny how the right gets their panties in a twist over "oppresion Olympics," but then turn around and do the same thing.

What indication has anyone in the thread given to you to think we're right wing? Unless you were making a general observation.

[Cekoviu]

I think it's funny how the right gets their panties in a twist over "oppresion Olympics," but then turn around and do the same thing.

However true that may be, that the other side is doing it too is no defense against wrong behavior. I don’t care whether women or men are the oppressed sex. If wrong is done, fix it.

Oh yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you.

[The Ides of March]

Feminism is useless if a classless society is achieved. It divides the people into sexes and creates division where there should be none is what it does nowadays in regards to the western world.

[The Blaatschapen]

Feminism is useless if a classless society is achieved. It divides the people into sexes and creates division where there should be none is what it does nowadays in regards to the western world.

But a classless society has not been achieved, so is it then useful?