The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I provided evidence that the CIA promoted it already.

That's fair: I didn't read it because the Chicago tribune doesn't know how to GDPR correctly. But my VPN got around it.

Let's assume Steinem is telling the truth and she was involved in the CIA. You still have not shown evidence that the CIA was seeking to damage the left. It's supposition empty of evidence. Indeed, the opinion piece suggests that Steinem was recruited with the intention to act as a bulwark against the Soviets, strengthening the moderate left rather than weakening it.

Orostan probable doesn't want the moderate left to be strengthened against the radical left.

[Autarkheia]

What are "liberal reactionaries?" And what do they have to do with feminism?

It's Marxist jargon. Tankies are a unique species who use "liberal" to mean "anything insufficiently communist", and "reactionary" to mean "anyone I disagree with".

They don't seem to have any idea what they're talking about either because they said Gloria Steinem is a famous third wave feminist. She is clearly a second waver since she has been active since the 1960s.

[Orostan]

I provided evidence that the CIA promoted it already.

That's fair: I didn't read it because the Chicago tribune doesn't know how to GDPR correctly. But my VPN got around it.

Let's assume Steinem is telling the truth and she was involved in the CIA. You still have not shown evidence that the CIA was seeking to damage the left. It's supposition empty of evidence. Indeed, the opinion piece suggests that Steinem was recruited with the intention to act as a bulwark against the Soviets, strengthening the moderate left rather than weakening it.

I’d be interested to see if there’s a study that says on the median women are paid the same as men for the same job.

The wage gap is a tricky one to discuss, but the burden of proof is upon feminists to prove it exists, as opposed to others disproving it exists. The studies that normally demonstrate a wage gap generally have some pretty shoddy methodology, and/or project some confirmation bias when they attempt to explain why it happens (ignoring womens choices and differences in fields of employment tend to be ignored).

1) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

The FBI/CIA has been attacking the American left for long time. When they go to support liberals, like Steinem, their objective is to weaken the actual left wing by destroying it with identity politics. Liberals are not any “moderate left”. They are not even leftists.

2) That is why I specified I’d like to see a “good study”.

That's fair: I didn't read it because the Chicago tribune doesn't know how to GDPR correctly. But my VPN got around it.

Let's assume Steinem is telling the truth and she was involved in the CIA. You still have not shown evidence that the CIA was seeking to damage the left. It's supposition empty of evidence. Indeed, the opinion piece suggests that Steinem was recruited with the intention to act as a bulwark against the Soviets, strengthening the moderate left rather than weakening it.

Orostan probable doesn't want the moderate left to be strengthened against the radical left.

Socdems are ‘moderate’ left. The US government doesn’t like those either.

What are "liberal reactionaries?" And what do they have to do with feminism?

It's Marxist jargon. Tankies are a unique species who use "liberal" to mean "anything insufficiently communist", and "reactionary" to mean "anyone I disagree with".

They don't seem to have any idea what they're talking about either because they said Gloria Steinem is a famous third wave feminist. She is clearly a second waver since she has been active since the 1960s.

Firstly, you have no idea what any of those words mean. Secondly, I never said Steinem was a third wave feminist. I said she was a feminist and a liberal who helped create this modern nonsense.

[West Leas Oros 2]

On the topic of feminist laws being exploitative and subjugating men, we're about to witness the ultimate incarnation of that and how they have produced erratic and unjustifiable results as a result of gynocentric focus.

The richest person on the planet is about to change. The current richest person is going to go through a divorce in a state where his wife is guaranteed at least half, and alimony. In addition to that she is likely to receive child custody, and consequently, child support. This will mean she receives over half of his income henceforth.

She has never worked for Amazon. She in fact has written two novels. "Traps", and "The testing of Luther albright."

One of them sells for twelve pence currently.

Suffice to say, she has done nothing to earn this money beyond marry a man in a feminist society and subsequently divorce him. The process of the feminist takeover of society is usually fairly insidious and progresses over generations, but occasionally you see jumps like this one.

When the richest person on the planet is merely a beneficiary of sexist laws and dynamics that benefit one sex at the expense of the other, will that finally be enough for you guys to admit this movement was nonsense?

Just how much gender privilege do you need exactly?

At least men who were at the top of society for sexist reasons did things to generate wealth or govern, rather than simply be a particular sex.

And why should I be mad about Bezo's money being taken? His "generated wealth" was taken from the labor of his workers. She shouldn't get it, but that doesn't mean he should.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

On the topic of feminist laws being exploitative and subjugating men, we're about to witness the ultimate incarnation of that and how they have produced erratic and unjustifiable results as a result of gynocentric focus.

The richest person on the planet is about to change. The current richest person is going to go through a divorce in a state where his wife is guaranteed at least half, and alimony. In addition to that she is likely to receive child custody, and consequently, child support. This will mean she receives over half of his income henceforth.

She has never worked for Amazon. She in fact has written two novels. "Traps", and "The testing of Luther albright."

One of them sells for twelve pence currently.

Suffice to say, she has done nothing to earn this money beyond marry a man in a feminist society and subsequently divorce him. The process of the feminist takeover of society is usually fairly insidious and progresses over generations, but occasionally you see jumps like this one.

When the richest person on the planet is merely a beneficiary of sexist laws and dynamics that benefit one sex at the expense of the other, will that finally be enough for you guys to admit this movement was nonsense?

Just how much gender privilege do you need exactly?

At least men who were at the top of society for sexist reasons did things to generate wealth or govern, rather than simply be a particular sex.

And why should I be mad about Bezo's money being taken? His "generated wealth" was taken from the labor of his workers. She shouldn't get it, but that doesn't mean he should.

It wasn't taken by the labour of his workers. His workers helped him to get where he is today, and in exchange they got paid a wage, not his whole fortune.

[Torrocca]

And why should I be mad about Bezo's money being taken? His "generated wealth" was taken from the labor of his workers. She shouldn't get it, but that doesn't mean he should.

It wasn't taken by the labour of his workers. His workers helped him to get where he is today, and in exchange they got paid a wage, not his whole fortune.

Nobody should hold wealth in the hundreds of billions from the backs of a few thousand workers. That's outright insanity and injustice.

EDIT: it's also pretty irrelevant to the FDT, so I'll leave this at that.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

It wasn't taken by the labour of his workers. His workers helped him to get where he is today, and in exchange they got paid a wage, not his whole fortune.

Nobody should hold wealth in the hundreds of billions from the backs of a few thousand workers. That's outright insanity and injustice.

I'm afraid it's theirs to hold and do what they want with. The workers never claimed ownership of it.

[Torrocca]

Nobody should hold wealth in the hundreds of billions from the backs of a few thousand workers. That's outright insanity and injustice.

I'm afraid it's theirs to hold and do what they want with. The workers never claimed ownership of it.

BRB, transferring this to the LWDT where it's much more relevant.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I'm afraid it's theirs to hold and do what they want with. The workers never claimed ownership of it.

BRB, transferring this to the LWDT where it's much more relevant.

Worried about being a reverse Ostro? Talking about leftism in the feminism thread while he talks about feminism in the leftist thread?

[Autarkheia]

Secondly, I never said Steinem was a third wave feminist

Here is an article about Gloria Steinem, one of the popular people of third wave feminism

[Knockturn Alley]

Secondly, I never said Steinem was a third wave feminist

Here is an article about Gloria Steinem, one of the popular people of third wave feminism

Oof

[Ostroeuropa]

On the topic of feminist laws being exploitative and subjugating men, we're about to witness the ultimate incarnation of that and how they have produced erratic and unjustifiable results as a result of gynocentric focus.

The richest person on the planet is about to change. The current richest person is going to go through a divorce in a state where his wife is guaranteed at least half, and alimony. In addition to that she is likely to receive child custody, and consequently, child support. This will mean she receives over half of his income henceforth.

She has never worked for Amazon. She in fact has written two novels. "Traps", and "The testing of Luther albright."

One of them sells for twelve pence currently.

Suffice to say, she has done nothing to earn this money beyond marry a man in a feminist society and subsequently divorce him. The process of the feminist takeover of society is usually fairly insidious and progresses over generations, but occasionally you see jumps like this one.

When the richest person on the planet is merely a beneficiary of sexist laws and dynamics that benefit one sex at the expense of the other, will that finally be enough for you guys to admit this movement was nonsense?

Just how much gender privilege do you need exactly?

At least men who were at the top of society for sexist reasons did things to generate wealth or govern, rather than simply be a particular sex.

And why should I be mad about Bezo's money being taken? His "generated wealth" was taken from the labor of his workers. She shouldn't get it, but that doesn't mean he should.

It's less about being mad and more about recognizing the hierarchy as it actually exists. Reminder that women own more of the wealth in the west than men do, and soon the richest person will be a woman too.

And why should I be mad about Bezo's money being taken? His "generated wealth" was taken from the labor of his workers. She shouldn't get it, but that doesn't mean he should.

It wasn't taken by the labour of his workers. His workers helped him to get where he is today, and in exchange they got paid a wage, not his whole fortune.

Amazon dodges taxes and uses its power to push corporatism. It's one of the worst companies to work at and treats its workers very poorly, including hiring illegals on the basis they can't complain and then exploits them.

Even for a capitalist company, it's an awful one.
It's a pyramid of exploitation, with a woman at the top of it now.

[Orostan]

Secondly, I never said Steinem was a third wave feminist

Here is an article about Gloria Steinem, one of the popular people of third wave feminism

Alright, my mistake. Does not change the fact that she's been promoting the same or similar things.

[Hirota]

Alright, my mistake. Does not change the fact that she's been promoting the same or similar things.

The problem with your evidence is you are claiming evidence of actions in the sixties and seventies, during the Cold War, demonstrate that the CIA created third wave feminism in the 1990s, whilst the Soviet Union was in collapse, and COINTELPRO had ceased in 1971 according to your wiki source. It doesn’t follow.

I think you might have meant second wave - an honest mistake. But it’s hard to argue for or against something that currently reads as nonsensical. If you can clarify what you mean we can have another go at this.

The Cointelpro stuff and Steinem/CIA stuff was pretty... Entertaining stuff btw. Think I spent a good 40 minutes going down that rabbit hole.

[Orostan]

Alright, my mistake. Does not change the fact that she's been promoting the same or similar things.

The problem with your evidence is you are claiming evidence of actions in the sixties and seventies, during the Cold War, demonstrate that the CIA created third wave feminism in the 1990s, whilst the Soviet Union was in collapse, and COINTELPRO had ceased in 1971 according to your wiki source. It doesn’t follow.

I think you might have meant second wave - an honest mistake. But it’s hard to argue for or against something that currently reads as nonsensical. If you can clarify what you mean we can have another go at this.

The Cointelpro stuff and Steinem/CIA stuff was pretty... Entertaining stuff btw. Think I spent a good 40 minutes going down that rabbit hole.

The CIA didn't end COINTELPRO, they just said they did. I have absolutely no doubt that it is still going on, and that they have a lot of information that isn't public yet. My argument is basically that the CIA backs liberalism to undermine the left, I used Steinem as an example of this. I also referenced some events during the OWS protests.

[Proctopeo]

The problem with your evidence is you are claiming evidence of actions in the sixties and seventies, during the Cold War, demonstrate that the CIA created third wave feminism in the 1990s, whilst the Soviet Union was in collapse, and COINTELPRO had ceased in 1971 according to your wiki source. It doesn’t follow.

I think you might have meant second wave - an honest mistake. But it’s hard to argue for or against something that currently reads as nonsensical. If you can clarify what you mean we can have another go at this.

The Cointelpro stuff and Steinem/CIA stuff was pretty... Entertaining stuff btw. Think I spent a good 40 minutes going down that rabbit hole.

The CIA didn't end COINTELPRO, they just said they did. I have absolutely no doubt that it is still going on, and that they have a lot of information that isn't public yet. My argument is basically that the CIA backs liberalism to undermine the left, I used Steinem as an example of this. I also referenced some events during the OWS protests.

So, in summary, you're a conspiracy theorist.

[Des-Bal]

The CIA didn't end COINTELPRO, they just said they did. I have absolutely no doubt that it is still going on, and that they have a lot of information that isn't public yet. My argument is basically that the CIA backs liberalism to undermine the left, I used Steinem as an example of this. I also referenced some events during the OWS protests.

You've got this almost totally wrong. The CIA didn't run COINTELPRO the FBI did. COINTELPRO also didn't involve "backing" liberalism it involved infiltrating organizations and screwing them by airing their dirty laundry or sometimes just shooting them. The CIA does most (and allegedly all) of it's shit outside of the USA. Steinem wasn't a plant to ruin feminism she was being used as a propaganda tool to spread american values in areas we feared communism spreading

So, in summary, you're a conspiracy theorist.

He does appear to be but it's not "Donald Rumsfeld is a lizard" level shit. COINTELPRO was a thing so the conspiracy he's selling is basically that it hasn't stopped and that it's somehow different now.

[Proctopeo]

The CIA didn't end COINTELPRO, they just said they did. I have absolutely no doubt that it is still going on, and that they have a lot of information that isn't public yet. My argument is basically that the CIA backs liberalism to undermine the left, I used Steinem as an example of this. I also referenced some events during the OWS protests.

You've got this almost totally wrong. The CIA didn't run COINTELPRO the FBI did. COINTELPRO also didn't involve "backing" liberalism it involved infiltrating organizations and screwing them by airing their dirty laundry or sometimes just shooting them. The CIA does most (and allegedly all) of it's shit outside of the USA. Steinem wasn't a plant to ruin feminism she was being used as a propaganda tool to spread american values in areas we feared communism spreading

So, in summary, you're a conspiracy theorist.

He does appear to be but it's not "Donald Rumsfeld is a lizard" level shit. COINTELPRO was a thing so the conspiracy he's selling is basically that it hasn't stopped and that it's somehow different now.

Tbf there isn't much difference between "Donald Rumsfeld is a lizard!" and "COINTELPRO is still happening!". It's tinfoil hats either way.

[Des-Bal]

Tbf there isn't much difference between "Donald Rumsfeld is a lizard!" and "COINTELPRO is still happening!". It's tinfoil hats either way.

Actually there's quite a bit of difference since one involves a whole bunch of other shit being crazy and the other just involves the FBI, which explicitly does investigate domestic groups being unscrupulous.

[Orostan]

The CIA didn't end COINTELPRO, they just said they did. I have absolutely no doubt that it is still going on, and that they have a lot of information that isn't public yet. My argument is basically that the CIA backs liberalism to undermine the left, I used Steinem as an example of this. I also referenced some events during the OWS protests.

You've got this almost totally wrong. The CIA didn't run COINTELPRO the FBI did. COINTELPRO also didn't involve "backing" liberalism it involved infiltrating organizations and screwing them by airing their dirty laundry or sometimes just shooting them. The CIA does most (and allegedly all) of it's shit outside of the USA. Steinem wasn't a plant to ruin feminism she was being used as a propaganda tool to spread american values in areas we feared communism spreading

So, in summary, you're a conspiracy theorist.

He does appear to be but it's not "Donald Rumsfeld is a lizard" level shit. COINTELPRO was a thing so the conspiracy he's selling is basically that it hasn't stopped and that it's somehow different now.

FBI and CIA both did that kind of thing. I say CIA a lot because they did a lot of this too. Besides that, COINTELPRO did involve backing liberalism. The first thing on the wikipedia list of methods is "Infiltration" and "negatively redirect action". I also provided an example of a liberal backed by the CIA. I can get many more examples if you like. I don't call myself or consider myself to be any kind of "conspiracy theorist" because this stuff doesn't require much theorizing at all and is a fairly open secret.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_CHAOS

You've got this almost totally wrong. The CIA didn't run COINTELPRO the FBI did. COINTELPRO also didn't involve "backing" liberalism it involved infiltrating organizations and screwing them by airing their dirty laundry or sometimes just shooting them. The CIA does most (and allegedly all) of it's shit outside of the USA. Steinem wasn't a plant to ruin feminism she was being used as a propaganda tool to spread american values in areas we feared communism spreading
He does appear to be but it's not "Donald Rumsfeld is a lizard" level shit. COINTELPRO was a thing so the conspiracy he's selling is basically that it hasn't stopped and that it's somehow different now.

Tbf there isn't much difference between "Donald Rumsfeld is a lizard!" and "COINTELPRO is still happening!". It's tinfoil hats either way.

Here are the facts as I understand them:

1) The FBI has recently carried out operations against left wing groups using COINTELPRO tactics
2) Assuming we know everything the FBI did or is doing is incorrect.
3) With the data we have we must assume that the FBI has some form of COINTELPRO still active.

https://www.democracynow.org/2012/12/27 ... ecret_docs

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... own-occupy

[Autarkheia]

Well COINTELPRO is well-established to have been a real thing whereas there is no evidence of lizard people outside of weird YouTube videos, so they aren't the same. I agree it does sound conspiratorial though.

Also I'm not sure Steinem is in fact a liberal but again, tankies would probably call Hitler a liberal.

[Des-Bal]

FBI and CIA both did that kind of thing. I say CIA a lot because they did a lot of this too. Besides that, COINTELPRO did involve backing liberalism. The first thing on the wikipedia list of methods is "Infiltration" and "negatively redirect action". I also provided an example of a liberal backed by the CIA. I can get many more examples if you like. I don't call myself or consider myself to be any kind of "conspiracy theorist" because this stuff doesn't require much theorizing at all and is a fairly open secret.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_CHAOS

[

The only instance I know where the FBI tried to control a group involved trying to keep the socialist workers party away from anti-war movement. I haven't seen anything about them propping up leaders to make the movement look dumb and a nebulous statement on wikipedia is not sufficiently persuasive evidence.

You're also missing the point about the CIA backing Steinem, they weren't sabotaging feminism they were using feminism to sabotage communism.

A theory wherein a group is perpetrating a conspiracy is a conspiracy theory.

[Orostan]

Well COINTELPRO is well-established to have been a real thing whereas there is no evidence of lizard people outside of weird YouTube videos, so they aren't the same. I agree it does sound conspiratorial though.

Also I'm not sure Steinem is in fact a liberal but again, tankies would probably call Hitler a liberal.

As a certified tankie, Hitler was not a liberal. He was a fascist. Words have meanings, and liberal does not equal literally hitler.

FBI and CIA both did that kind of thing. I say CIA a lot because they did a lot of this too. Besides that, COINTELPRO did involve backing liberalism. The first thing on the wikipedia list of methods is "Infiltration" and "negatively redirect action". I also provided an example of a liberal backed by the CIA. I can get many more examples if you like. I don't call myself or consider myself to be any kind of "conspiracy theorist" because this stuff doesn't require much theorizing at all and is a fairly open secret.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_CHAOS

[

The only instance I know where the FBI tried to control a group involved trying to keep the socialist workers party away from anti-war movement. I haven't seen anything about them propping up leaders to make the movement look dumb and a nebulous statement on wikipedia is not sufficiently persuasive evidence.

You're also missing the point about the CIA backing Steinem, they weren't sabotaging feminism they were using feminism to sabotage communism.

A theory wherein a group is perpetrating a conspiracy is a conspiracy theory.

Have you read anything else in my post? I gave links which outright stated that the FBI infiltrating OWS was public knowledge. This is also not a theory, it is fact.

[Des-Bal]

Have you read anything else in my post? I gave links which outright stated that the FBI infiltrating OWS was public knowledge. This is also not a theory, it is fact.

The problem is where you think this means anything. The accusation isn't that the FBI investigates domestic groups it's that the FBI is "backing" people or setting up puppet infiltrators to take down movements. That is the shit you are selling and that is the shit you need to support.

[Orostan]

Have you read anything else in my post? I gave links which outright stated that the FBI infiltrating OWS was public knowledge. This is also not a theory, it is fact.

The problem is where you think this means anything. The accusation isn't that the FBI investigates domestic groups it's that the FBI is "backing" people or setting up puppet infiltrators to take down movements. That is the shit you are selling and that is the shit you need to support.

I just provided evidence that the FBI infiltrates movements with the intent to damage them. It's in their literal playbook.