The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[West Leas Oros]

E

Why did you post that?

[American Unionn State]

E

Why did you post that?

E

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

"Men and women are enemies," isn't just controversial, it's wrong, but I grow tired of repeating myself.

They are not enemies in the sense that they inherently want to harm each other but they are less and less dependent on each other. Since the stone age, men have fought rivals to court females to pass on their genetic lines. That is no longer a factor since there are 7B people and we dont need more.

Men since medieval times have sought to impress their peers by marrying beautiful women and gain social status. Today social status has no value because its 2018 and your worth is your job.

Men have sought love, sex and devotion which were previously monopolized by women. But with advances in technology that is no longer the case. If you want unconditional love get a dog. If you want sex find a hooker.

Women have previously relied on men to be the breadwinners. Again, its 2018 so that's no longer an issue.

What we can conclude is that the dependency that was once present between men and women is simply no longer there. So even though they arent enemies men and women dont depend on each other anymore. The natural consequence of that being single men and women and the death of the traditional family. This will continue at an increased rate until you can provide sound reason for men and women, two very incompatible beings, to come together again.

I have made my point meticulously, its up to you to counter it now

Men and women still need each other as, they both live in the same society, and, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, a house divided against itself cannot stand. Society would self-destruct. Yes, men and women are less dependent on one another than earlier in history, but a lack of dependence doesn't make one an enemy.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Most of us MRAs aren't like this. #notall pls

I'd wager those of you that aren't crazy should just push for egalitarianism instead of the MRM <3

You speak as if egalitarianism and men's rights advocacy are incompatible. I would argue that along with women's rights advocacy, men's rights advocacy is a vital component of egalitarianism.

[Torrocca]

I'd wager those of you that aren't crazy should just push for egalitarianism instead of the MRM <3

You speak as if egalitarianism and men's rights advocacy are incompatible. I would argue that along with women's rights advocacy, men's rights advocacy is a vital component of egalitarianism.

o shit u right

let's just keep the crazies out of both then <3

[Costa Fierro]

Men and women still need each other as, they both live in the same society, and, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Is this really true though? Think about which sex does all the hard labour that helps build and power Western civilisation. Then consider which sex provides the majority of funding for it. Now, I'm not saying that women are welfare queens or haven't contributed anything at all, but when you consider all the jobs men perform compared with those that women perform, I am calling into question whether or not this assertion that men and women need each other is based in fact and not an idealised worldview.

Society would self-destruct.

Society would self destruct if men simply disengaged, walked off the jobs and stopped paying taxes.

Yes, men and women are less dependent on one another than earlier in history, but a lack of dependence doesn't make one an enemy.

That isn't what Knockturn Alley was saying. He said men and women aren't enemies. He stated that twice.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

How so? The entire idea of patriarchy is that it's not good for men or women.

The whole idea of patriarchy is that men are in charge and women are second class citizens. So when someone points out that men have barely any less problems than women, that idea is seriously called into question. Let's not forget that before mens issues had any recognition, feminists tried to argue that men had no gender-based issues.

Then you're part of the problem.

10/10 rebuttal. You haven't bothered to explain why those statements are wrong, let alone why they're bigoted.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/feminism-project/poll/

The article says that when asked "yes" or "no," only 20% of people identify as feminist, which probably explains what I was thinking of.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

He's also ignoring that historically it was argued patriarchy subjugates all women for the benefit of all men.

Not an argument.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

You speak as if egalitarianism and men's rights advocacy are incompatible. I would argue that along with women's rights advocacy, men's rights advocacy is a vital component of egalitarianism.

o shit u right

let's just keep the crazies out of both then <3

Agreed.

[Costa Fierro]

What is your wider argument that you're so keen on saying is being missed here?

That the idea that Western feminism is about achieving equality is a fallacy and that "peace and love" cannot exist when public figures in Western feminism are advocating for open hatred and mass extermination of half the population.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

What is your wider argument that you're so keen on saying is being missed here?

That the idea that Western feminism is about achieving equality is a fallacy and that "peace and love" cannot exist when public figures in Western feminism are advocating for open hatred and mass extermination of half the population.

Are you sure the majority of Western feminists openly advocate that?

[Costa Fierro]

Are you sure the majority of Western feminists openly advocate that?

Does it matter? The fact remains that there is a difference in the actions and beliefs of what we can consider to be mainstream Western feminism and public perceptions of it. Who advocates for what doesn't matter, because it is nothing more than a deflection.

[Forsher]

I have

Please provide an actual argument. Attacking the poster is not an argument.

No, I have done both. And, actually, criticising what you're doing is an argument. Well, when you give it reasons and a supporting claim.

The way you have acquitted yourself in this thread is a complete disgrace and needs to be highlighted. The idea that this sort of conduct, in any way, is worthy of respect or attention is ludicrous. We have a responsibility to our ideas, if we say something we should stand up and be counted. The ability of posters and people to make vacuous remarks ad infinitum is a key means of asserting victimhood and trying to use that status to not only excuse but to validate rhetoric that doesn't even attempt to support the burdens of claims made. If this sounds pretty much exactly the same as what Hirota told you before this ridiculousness began, that's because it is.

But I have also written three paragraphs addressing directly your BS arguments. In addition to all the ones addressing the BS run-around you've given me and everyone else and the BS reading that Ostro attempted to make in your defence (whilst really just highlighting precisely how much you have not done). But, sure, keep ignoring this:

Absurd in the first instance and wrong in the second.

In general, people have pretty much the same interests... the normie life being to (a) be born, (b) grow up and get a job, (c) make some money, (d) get married (e) buy a house, (f) have kids and (g) die. 'Cause the normie life is heteronormie, men and women not only share the same general goals and ideas about what those goals mean, but quite literally require the other party in order to achieve them!

A more sophisticated point of view, such as any one which acknowledges that normies probably don't actually exist, would reach pretty much the same point of view. What would even count as having divergent interests? Men want to watch the Fast and Furious, women want to watch the Fast and Furious and give Letty some lines???

Groups with divergent interests co-exist without conflict all the time... where I live there is literally a sex shop across the road from a church. A narrow road. And this is the sort of church where you get plenty of Pacific Islanders so it's not a sex positive version of Christianity, you know? No conflict results from this reality. Now, possibly, there used to be some conflict there (like the time the casino led the charge to stop a brothel's from being built) but that was in the BF era so I don't know about it. Does that count? If it doesn't, then this point is also absurd (a true, but trivial claim)... everything will tend to conflict at some point, not because of divergent interests or even divergent ideas about the same interests, but because conflict is just more interesting and humans hate boredom.*

*The causal mechanics will probably come down more to conflict's central role in interpersonal relationships... look up storming, norming and some other stuff in the context of teams.

If you think that's not relevant EXPLAIN WHY. Or find something else to talk about because it's clear you don't want to defend your ideas.

Then state the fucking point directly instead of making half-assed arguments such as, "men and women are enemies!" or, "men and women cannot compromise!" You don't make yourself look clever by doing this disingenuous bullshit.

I did state the point. It was easier for you to go after the controversial statement rather than address the point.

Quote it. Oh, wait...

Were it easy, you'd do it.

Okay, explain how I only focused on one part of the sentence when addressing this specific sentence written by you?

You ignored other responses when I provided further explanation and instead focused on the easy pickings. Men and women being on opposing sides of the fight for equality isn't an argument in of itself, it's part of the wider argument which has been completely ignored.

This isn't how arguments work. Your attendant claims and fundamental reasoning are fair game. Consider:

All Satellites are Made of Cheese.
The Moon is a Satellite.
Therefore, the Moon is Made of Cheese.

Following your ideas, addressing only and exclusively the entire argument, would be deeply problematic. This is a logically sound collection of statement. It falls apart because the original premise is wrong. Taking it holistically ignores that: its error is in its construction.

Now, it must further be said that all you have actually provided are assertions. There is nothing to address except your version of "Therefore, the Moon is Made of Cheese" and your continued insistence that asserting away rebuttal is both valid and effective.

If you find everyone thinks you're the bad guy, 9/10 you are the bad guy.

What is your wider argument that you're so keen on saying is being missed here?

That the idea that Western feminism is about achieving equality is a fallacy and that "peace and love" cannot exist when public figures in Western feminism are advocating for open hatred and mass extermination of half the population.

Fascinating... an idea which has no bearing whatsoever on the problematic claim that everyone is talking about... shocking.

Obviously "peace and love" are difficult outcomes to obtain when people like you advocate openly the impossibility of peace (see: framing, nudging, perception is reality) and people like them spout hateful nonsense and encourage, like you, antagonism of the sexes/genders/races/whatevers. Believing this doesn't tell us anything at all about "men and women" as enemies; it might be said that it provides a causal mechanism for the inevitability of conflict between divergent interests except that would be an illiterate statement to make. After all, if conflict is inevitable, why does it require that there be advocacy for "open hatred and mass extermination"? Perhaps that advocacy is an inevitable outcome of divergent interests, which means that the statement reduces to the same unresolved points I mentioned what seems like a lifetime ago:

• what counts as divergent interest?
• what counts as conflict?
• what time frames are we talking about?

When your context doesn't change anything, it's not relevant. Although, frankly, I would say that you are prepared to say this:

Men and women are enemies. You cannot have two groups with two divergent interests coexisting without conflict.

Probably explains why you', specifically, are willing to say this:

That the idea that Western feminism is about achieving equality is a fallacy and that "peace and love" cannot exist when public figures in Western feminism are advocating for open hatred and mass extermination of half the population.

Of course, you're trying to convince us of the reverse causal direction, which is problematic because people who have been quite vehement in their rejection of the "Enemies Post" are willing to say that Feminism is problematic in the pursuit of equality. I have been saying such things longer than your (current) nation has even existed Costa... and as you are surely aware, in this thread with its regulars, I'd have to be called pro-feminist:

Feminism seeks to address gender equality from one side, these are issues for the other side.

I would disagree with my past self quite strongly on the rest of this post; as should anyone.

[...] if [Feminism] sees an area where women are not on par with men it will attack that area. This is how feminism works in reality. Male inequality doesn't matter.

The definition, however, is different, albeit slightly.

the advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

Essentially my view is correct but it ignores the vital on the ground of the equality of the sexes. Feminists should not give a flying fig aboubt men's rights, that's not what they are about. Likewise they aren't about the inherent superiority of women. They are not female chauvinists. They are also not as common as many think* and most "feminists" are what I term equalists. Certainly the views the espouse confirm that view.

To answer the thread's title [Feminism: Equal Rights or Female Chauvinism?]: no, feminism is neither.

It is rather inconvenient that so many of these threads are locked.

You believe in equal rights? Good. Do you advocate women's rights as a result? Yes? Good, you're a feminist. However, if you advocate equal rights not women's rights you are not a feminist by definition. (You can probably be both a feminist and an equalist, that is to say a person who advocates equal rights.)

I could go on. Somewhere out there I'd find a post explaining how it is necessary to believe in equality to be a feminist, but its defining characteristic is taking that belief and fighting specifically for women's rights. Feminists have to believe in equality but it is not logical to believe that what they do works towards it. Indeed, I have even previously criticised the idea that dedicating effort to one gender at a time when your goal is actually equality (rather than women's or men's rights) is sensible.

Why mention all this? Why quote those posts? Because if I'm willing to get metaphorically shot for attacking Costa's "Enemies" post but find perhaps only a desire for a specific example in his "context" post (indeed having routinely written dozens of posts on basically the same points), then it is obviously the case that the context does absolutely nothing to change the objectionable status of the "Enemies" post. There are plenty of reasons to argue that Western Feminism is a barrier in the path to equality, and some of them stem from the proposition of mutual interests in Man (i.e. all people would prefer equality).

Or, as I've been saying the whole time Costa... you cannot quote an actual argument that is relevant to your controversial "Enemies" post because no such argument exists. You just happened to say something extraordinarily stupid, something which people have criticised ten ways 'till Sunday and rightly so.

Are you sure the majority of Western feminists openly advocate that?

Does it matter? The fact remains that there is a difference in the actions and beliefs of what we can consider to be mainstream Western feminism and public perceptions of it. Who advocates for what doesn't matter, because it is nothing more than a deflection.

No, who says what and how they say it matters.

Some random dude living in Nelson on an internet forum with a low Alexa rank, on a thread which caters to six people who all basically agree, another six people who post intermittently and Chessmistress (if she's even still around) arguing dumb stuff in a dumb way doesn't matter much. Even if he is a feminist. Which he very clearly isn't. Which contrasts with:

But on the other side you have loons getting a platform in a mainstream media outlet saying it's fine to hate men, and I'm not hearing feminists calling out their lunatics.

If Costa was the feminist and the loons Hirota refers to the MRAs (or whoever), then that would matter. It would not just be a deflection. Who wants loop-de-loops and who is actually doing them is relevant. But in both cases, feminists and MRAs should be doing this. I thought that with the Choronzon/Kaylea scandal, and I still think that now.

I really do have to wonder who you think you're talking to in this thread Costa. It skews towards MRAs not feminists (actual labelling and beliefs aside). This thread would be on your side Costa, if only you were saying stuff it could agree with. The big picture battle is won here. This perspectives thing of yours is hardly a new idea either.

[Costa Fierro]

No, I have done both.

You haven't. Provide something that we can actually use for a debate, not an endless series of "lol your stupid".

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Is this really true though? Think about which sex does all the hard labour that helps build and power Western civilisation. Then consider which sex provides the majority of funding for it. Now, I'm not saying that women are welfare queens or haven't contributed anything at all, but when you consider all the jobs men perform compared with those that women perform, I am calling into question whether or not this assertion that men and women need each other is based in fact and not an idealised worldview.

Women are almost as numerous in the workforce as men currently, and what they lack in it, they make up for in child rearing and domestic duties which also drive society. Hard labour =/= the only type of work.

Society would self destruct if men simply disengaged, walked off the jobs and stopped paying taxes.

It would also self-destruct if women simply disengaged as well, hence, we need each other!

That isn't what Knockturn Alley was saying. He said men and women aren't enemies. He stated that twice.

I apologize. It is what you're saying though, very explicitly.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

That the idea that Western feminism is about achieving equality is a fallacy and that "peace and love" cannot exist when public figures in Western feminism are advocating for open hatred and mass extermination of half the population.

Are you sure the majority of Western feminists openly advocate that?

I've heard some western feminists advocate something similar to that, yes, but I'm not sure the majority are pro exterminating half the population (men).

[Costa Fierro]

Women are almost as numerous in the workforce as men currently, and what they lack in it, they make up for in child rearing and domestic duties which also drive society. Hard labour =/= the only type of work.

How does this reinforce your believe about the codependency regarding men and women?

It would also self-destruct if women simply disengaged as well, hence, we need each other!

Enlighten me on how this would occur.

I apologize. It is what you're saying though, very explicitly.

And that's such a massive issue for you for what reason?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

How does this reinforce your believe about the codependency regarding men and women?

Enlighten me on how this would occur.

Without women, nearly half the workforce would disappear and the family situation would be severely crippled.

And that's such a massive issue for you for what reason?

Because it's like saying white people and black people are enemies, but even more incorrect.

[Forsher]

No, I have done both.

You haven't. Provide something that we can actually use for a debate, not an endless series of "lol your stupid".

Absurd in the first instance and wrong in the second.

In general, people have pretty much the same interests... the normie life being to (a) be born, (b) grow up and get a job, (c) make some money, (d) get married (e) buy a house, (f) have kids and (g) die. 'Cause the normie life is heteronormie, men and women not only share the same general goals and ideas about what those goals mean, but quite literally require the other party in order to achieve them!

A more sophisticated point of view, such as any one which acknowledges that normies probably don't actually exist, would reach pretty much the same point of view. What would even count as having divergent interests? Men want to watch the Fast and Furious, women want to watch the Fast and Furious and give Letty some lines???

Groups with divergent interests co-exist without conflict all the time... where I live there is literally a sex shop across the road from a church. A narrow road. And this is the sort of church where you get plenty of Pacific Islanders so it's not a sex positive version of Christianity, you know? No conflict results from this reality. Now, possibly, there used to be some conflict there (like the time the casino led the charge to stop a brothel's from being built) but that was in the BF era so I don't know about it. Does that count? If it doesn't, then this point is also absurd (a true, but trivial claim)... everything will tend to conflict at some point, not because of divergent interests or even divergent ideas about the same interests, but because conflict is just more interesting and humans hate boredom.*

*The causal mechanics will probably come down more to conflict's central role in interpersonal relationships... look up storming, norming and some other stuff in the context of teams.

[Costa Fierro]

Without women, nearly half the workforce would disappear and the family situation would be severely crippled.

With regards to the work force, men were pretty much it prior to the Industrial Revolution, only because the latter provided immense economic growth, tens of thousands of new jobs that needed to be filled, in addition to occurring in a period of changing social beliefs. And even then, it was primarily working class women who actually worked. With regards to the family situation, interestingly enough in the US at least, the number of children being raised in two parent households has decreased from 88% in 1960 to 69% in 2016. In the same period of time, children living with single mothers increased from 8% to 23% and single fathers from 1% to 4%. This of course, does point to one of the main issues that men face in the courts system and in society (being seen as unfit parents), so I raise an interesting question: why do you think the family situation would be crippled?

Because it's like saying white people and black people are enemies, but even more incorrect.

Except it isn't. White men and black men are still subject to the same prejudices and biases because they're men. Black men experience further racial prejudices which white men don't.

[Ostroeuropa]

Are you sure the majority of Western feminists openly advocate that?

I've heard some western feminists advocate something similar to that, yes, but I'm not sure the majority are pro exterminating half the population (men).

Yeah mass-extermination isn't typically the problem, it's conflating erasure of mens issues and female supremacy for equality.

[Ostroeuropa]

Yeah, okay, Costa's statements can't be interpreted as discussing political factions anymore tbh. I understand why he's reached these conclusions, I understand the sentiment and how it feels, but ultimately it's not helpful phrasing, but let's dive into the concept. It's akin to black pantherism, albeit with the notable lack of violence advocacy.

I'd only question whether he thinks men and women have to be enemies, or if this is merely an evaluation of the current dynamic. If it's an analysis of the current dynamic, it's more justified to consider men and women enemies given the widespread denial and hostility among women of mens issues and their passive or active support for feminism, gynocentrism, and the oppression of men, while conflating discussion of those topics with a sexist attack on them as a group. (It's an attack on their privilege, something many deny even exists.)

If a group constantly acts like your enemy, it shouldn't be considered outrageous to note that. That's the same gynocentric impulse that prevents us critically examining womens mindsets and behaviors and noting where they need to improve. The notion that a majority of women can be wrong on a topic is apparently outrageous and scandalous to suggest for gynocentrists, especially when you expand that out to ethically wrong. It's entirely possible for the majority of women to be treating men as a group like their enemy. I'm sorry it's difficult for so many of you to imagine women as capable of wrongdoing, especially collectively, but that's kind of the mindset we're criticizing here, and the fact you all hit the roof over this discussion just highlights how ingrained the problem is.

So the question, the thing you should be discussing rather than clutching your pearls and acting offended over the notion women can behave unethically, is "are women acting like mens enemy and does that make his evaluation justified?" In many ways, yes, they are acting like our enemies. Not all of them, but as a group, yes. They certainly are not being good allies. Most seem hostile to recognizing misandry and mens issues and seem to suppress those discussions or try to control them in such a way as to avoid noting female privilege (thus this is an attempt to maintain it and male disadvantage.)

The pearl-clutching from gynocentrists here opposed to recognizing that possibility and refusing to even discuss the possibility it might be accurate is part of the problem with the overall dynamic on discussing gender issues.

The approach though should be to get them stop being our enemies, rather than responding in kind. As i've noted elsewhere though, eventually, if a group is so totally committed to being an enemy and mistreating you and refuses to discuss changing, negotiation and appeasement become pointless, and we really are just enemies and should act like it in kind. We're at about the 50th year of total denial and refusal to take on board the MRMs criticisms amidst escalating gynocentrism. I can't honestly blame Costa for concluding we're simply enemies and there's no point to trying anymore.

His statements aren't extraordinary, it's a conclusion many oppressed groups have in subfactions of them, and in all honesty, it's a conclusion that becomes more and more valid the longer the issues go unaddressed and the population is mistreated and negotiation is refused. His stance is not shocking or outrageous or even out of the ordinary, it's entirely predictable that some members of an oppressed group turn to something akin to black pantherism and so on. Notably he hasn't suggested violence, and nor has any MRA to my awareness, so we're still ahead of the curve on that one. His statements no more undermine the MRM than statements about black violence being liberating from panthers undermined de-segregation.

[Knockturn Alley]

Men and women still need each other as, they both live in the same society, and, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Is this really true though? Think about which sex does all the hard labour that helps build and power Western civilisation. Then consider which sex provides the majority of funding for it. Now, I'm not saying that women are welfare queens or haven't contributed anything at all, but when you consider all the jobs men perform compared with those that women perform, I am calling into question whether or not this assertion that men and women need each other is based in fact and not an idealised worldview.

Society would self-destruct.

Society would self destruct if men simply disengaged, walked off the jobs and stopped paying taxes.

Yes, men and women are less dependent on one another than earlier in history, but a lack of dependence doesn't make one an enemy.

That isn't what Knockturn Alley was saying. He said men and women aren't enemies. He stated that twice.

So much this.
Its not that all women benefit from all men's labors, but it wouldn't be wrong to say that most women stand to gain from society while most men are responsible for the functioning of society.

As for the argument that without women who would do the child-rearing, in that case simply a new market would open up!
That's the beauty of capitalism, when something is in demand there is someone who will step up to provide it.

And with this standing of things its not surprising that most men are willing to live away from social norms considering they carry all the burden and none of the thanks.
Long may this continue!

[Forsher]

The approach though should be to get them stop being our enemies, rather than responding in kind. As i've noted elsewhere though, eventually, if a group is so totally committed to being an enemy and mistreating you and refuses to discuss changing, negotiation and appeasement become pointless, and we really are just enemies and should act like it in kind.

Let's go back to your misreading, you saw Costa as saying something which is fairly clever, i.e. that there is no mental space for compromise. That idea is the problem with your position here. The ideas that people have access to, control their responses. It's easy to dismiss and invalidate the angry because rationality (and so truth) is cold and dispassionate. It's easy to just stonewall if you've never punished for doing so because people believe in a just world (because people want the world to be just)... those who do wrong things are shown to be wrong and suffer for it. It's easy to claim victimhood, if you're playing into the ideas around, e.g. persecution, and once you do that you get to be right, because victims are right.

When you subvert these ideas, work outside the mental spaces then people also don't know what to do. If you treat someone who expects an enemy in a way they do not expect, they don't know what to do. But when you start behaving the way you're meant to... which is the easy way... then you play the same game... they know how to think about you. And when your enemy defines the game, then you've lost the moment that happens.

We're at about the 50th year of total denial and refusal to take on board the MRMs criticisms amidst escalating gynocentrism. I can't honestly blame Costa for concluding we're simply enemies and there's no point to trying anymore.

This is like all the fans of Killmonger in Black Panther. Just because you've got a sympathetic story, doesn't mean that what you're proposing isn't extremely bad. Honestly, I don't even think most people realise Killmonger and Kipling have exactly the same ideas about the world.

His statements aren't extraordinary, it's a conclusion many oppressed groups have in subfactions of them, and in all honesty, it's a conclusion that becomes more and more valid the longer the issues go unaddressed and the population is mistreated and negotiation is refused. His stance is not shocking or outrageous or even out of the ordinary, it's entirely predictable that some members of an oppressed group turn to something akin to black pantherism and so on. Notably he hasn't suggested violence, and nor has any MRA to my awareness, so we're still ahead of the curve on that one. His statements no more undermine the MRM than statements about black violence being liberating from panthers undermined de-segregation.

The Black Panthers become a Thing and voila... end of the Black Civil Rights era. This may be a coincidence, but I would say it, at the very least, did not help.

There is good and bad marketing. That's a fact. The Black Panthers were off-message. Rarely does that help.

[Ostroeuropa]

The approach though should be to get them stop being our enemies, rather than responding in kind. As i've noted elsewhere though, eventually, if a group is so totally committed to being an enemy and mistreating you and refuses to discuss changing, negotiation and appeasement become pointless, and we really are just enemies and should act like it in kind.

Let's go back to your misreading, you saw Costa as saying something which is fairly clever, i.e. that there is no mental space for compromise. That idea is the problem with your position here. The ideas that people have access to, control their responses. It's easy to dismiss and invalidate the angry because rationality (and so truth) is cold and dispassionate. It's easy to just stonewall if you've never punished for doing so because people believe in a just world (because people want the world to be just)... those who do wrong things are shown to be wrong and suffer for it. It's easy to claim victimhood, if you're playing into the ideas around, e.g. persecution, and once you do that you get to be right, because victims are right.

When you subvert these ideas, work outside the mental spaces then people also don't know what to do. If you treat someone who expects an enemy in a way they do not expect, they don't know what to do. But when you start behaving the way you're meant to... which is the easy way... then you play the same game... they know how to think about you. And when your enemy defines the game, then you've lost the moment that happens.

We're at about the 50th year of total denial and refusal to take on board the MRMs criticisms amidst escalating gynocentrism. I can't honestly blame Costa for concluding we're simply enemies and there's no point to trying anymore.

This is like all the fans of Killmonger in Black Panther. Just because you've got a sympathetic story, doesn't mean that what you're proposing isn't extremely bad. Honestly, I don't even think most people realise Killmonger and Kipling have exactly the same ideas about the world.

His statements aren't extraordinary, it's a conclusion many oppressed groups have in subfactions of them, and in all honesty, it's a conclusion that becomes more and more valid the longer the issues go unaddressed and the population is mistreated and negotiation is refused. His stance is not shocking or outrageous or even out of the ordinary, it's entirely predictable that some members of an oppressed group turn to something akin to black pantherism and so on. Notably he hasn't suggested violence, and nor has any MRA to my awareness, so we're still ahead of the curve on that one. His statements no more undermine the MRM than statements about black violence being liberating from panthers undermined de-segregation.

The Black Panthers become a Thing and voila... end of the Black Civil Rights era. This may be a coincidence, but I would say it, at the very least, did not help.

There is good and bad marketing. That's a fact. The Black Panthers were off-message. Rarely does that help.

Honestly I disagree.

The success of peaceful factions in civil rights and colonialism disputes is often reliant on a violent alternative. That's why established powers begin to boost the profile and cooperate with the peaceful faction, especially if the violent faction is radically anti-elite as was the case there.

The spread of communism forced concessions. It was the threat of force and the massacre of the upper classes through the spread of socialism, communism, and USSR influence that made them deal with the civil rights movement. The collapse of the USSR aligns with the collapse of workers rights in the west.

Without the threat of violence, there was nothing to keep them scared into respecting the rights of workers and their wages and so on.

Gandhi gets ignored until Bose starts talking, then suddenly we're very loudly negotiating with Gandhi. Stalling for time, being insincere, but at least having the conversation and making it front and center in order to drown out Bose and his "Let's hang the british" attitude.

On the ethics of violence, let's look at a specific example; Male domestic violence victims.

So far as I can see, they have no obligation to adhere to the social contract, given that they are subjected to violence, and the state is more likely to escalate that violence against them if they seek redress than it is to end it. They also are provided no means to escape that violence and shelter from it. In strictly ethical terms, society is at war with them and means violence against them, and I don't see any basis to criticize them if they respond in kind.

It may not be ideal, it may not be practical, but so far as I can see, if they decide to do it, it seems to be ethically acceptable. It's similar in substance though lesser in scope to slave revolts.