It's Okay To Be White campaign

[Holy Tedalonia]

Try saying that again, but with less conspiracy theorism. I'll wait.


I disregard your opinion not because it's subjective, but because there are multiple possible interpretations, all equally subjective, and purporting one interpretation as right because of what is, in essence, a gut feeling is invalid.

This is not conspiratorial. It is enough to go to the forums that those kinds of people behind the campaign go to to recognize that they literally have this existential dread and feel as if there is even a conspiracy that persecutes white people.
I mean, understanding that as a basis of their opinions isn't difficult, it's enough to hear them speak.

No. There is no "many interpretations that are equally relevant"- this is some "Cartesian Evil Demon" level of mistrust of your senses and empirical analysis.

Thats BS and you know it. Their plan was to simply troll, they don't really have hate, and they intend to show the BS your promoting.

http://archive.is/klFIy

5. normies tune in to see what's going on, see the posters saying "it's okay to be white" and the media & leftists frothing at the mouth

They are literally using this to just piss you off

How your reacting to this is EXACTLY their intention and is EXACTLY what they want. It's to literally to prove that white people can't start campaigns without being called neo-nazis or white nationalist. You fell for their trap and you know it. Right now they're looking at reactions LIKE YOURS and laughing their balls off.

#PoliticallyIncorrect

[Kibbutz Unions]

First of all, the Catholics in the UK aren't in a position of power. So no, it's not at all the same.

What leads to this far-right sentiment is that historically privileged groups are afraid of losing their privilege. This is how it always is.

This is- by the way, was the same here in Israel when Ashkenazi hegemony was questioned. (Except that no far-right Ashkenazi supremacist groups formed, but many people were still really angry about it).

It depends on the institutions and situations we're discussing. You're acting like the left wing political institutions aren't a power structure, and that they don't protect their own interests and ideological convictions from upstarts.

mens rights, for instance.

Ultimately, you allude to the fundamental bigotry at the heart of the progressive ideology. Do you think parliament being mostly men is more important to women, or parliament being mostly pro-womens rights? Your ideology asserts that their demography matters and Catholics "Not holding power" would be important, as opposed to Catholicism holding power. (As an example, foreign influence over minor nations of protestant inclination.)

In that context, check the number of parliamentarians who have stood up for mens rights on the issues of domestic violence and such, compared to the number who go to bat for womens rights.

Now look at academia and the media, and note the consistent anti-white rhetoric and arguments used.

Your assertions are based in the notion that peoples demography matters more than their actions, and that is why you have come to racist conclusions such as "It's okay to be white" being an objectionable statement.

"The media regularly pushes anti-white narratives" ummmmm... no. What are you even talking about? They only do so when it is a hot topic at the moment, like events that involve BLM (Which is, by the way, part of why they are necessary).

You concede the media is anti-white "When it's a hot topic."
And it's a hot topic now. so you have already conceded that institutions are anti-white racist on occasion.

Why don't you support the campaign then?

First of all, I wrote too quickly and didn't notice. When I wrote about a hot topic I forgot to wrote that it's not anti-white sentiment but rather that it is falsely perceived as such by some. So sorry for the wrong statement.
What I meant to say is that on the most part the media is a tool to perpetuate the status-quo and that it only reports various issues regarding the oppression of black people when it is a hot topic because of groups like BLM.

I hope that I clarified.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's been explained to you why your explanation is merely more racist sentiment.
This is like saying "Women being as good as men is female supremacist." and then rattling off an explanation for how, actually, in context, they "aren't as good" for reasons X Y and Z.

...
No dude, you're pretty much just proving their point.

If you object to the statement "It's okay to be white" it's because you're harboring racist memes. You might have explanations for it, you might have arguments, but those are in themselves the problem we're talking about.

Your insistence of looking at the statement from a particular lens and no other is the problem. It's like you're a person who owns only one book, and that's never a good sign.

Ultimately, this is performance art, and you're insisting you have the Official Valid And True interpretation. It's revealing of how far down the rabbit hole you've gone as a result of progressive ideology and propoganda.

Yes, I have something called "The Social Sciences" as my "lens".
I already told you that your examples are very different, the context is different and your reasons to proclaim them are different. So no.

The social sciences are pretty ideological rather than materialistic tbh, a source on that:

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gende ... d%208-.pdf

So you aren't using "Social science" as your lens. You're using a particular variant of it. As I said, like someone who only owns one book.

Very well. Suppose the campaign were this.

"Ashekenazi can be caring too."

Would you oppose this?

[Ostroeuropa]

It depends on the institutions and situations we're discussing. You're acting like the left wing political institutions aren't a power structure, and that they don't protect their own interests and ideological convictions from upstarts.

mens rights, for instance.

Ultimately, you allude to the fundamental bigotry at the heart of the progressive ideology. Do you think parliament being mostly men is more important to women, or parliament being mostly pro-womens rights? Your ideology asserts that their demography matters and Catholics "Not holding power" would be important, as opposed to Catholicism holding power. (As an example, foreign influence over minor nations of protestant inclination.)

In that context, check the number of parliamentarians who have stood up for mens rights on the issues of domestic violence and such, compared to the number who go to bat for womens rights.

Now look at academia and the media, and note the consistent anti-white rhetoric and arguments used.

Your assertions are based in the notion that peoples demography matters more than their actions, and that is why you have come to racist conclusions such as "It's okay to be white" being an objectionable statement.




You concede the media is anti-white "When it's a hot topic."
And it's a hot topic now. so you have already conceded that institutions are anti-white racist on occasion.

Why don't you support the campaign then?

First of all, I wrote too quickly and didn't notice. When I wrote about a hot topic I forgot to wrote that it's not anti-white sentiment but rather that it is falsely perceived as such by some. So sorry for the wrong statement.
What I meant to say is that on the most part the media is a tool to perpetuate the status-quo and that it only reports various issues regarding the oppression of black people when it is a hot topic because of groups like BLM.

I hope that I clarified.

I note you didn't address the rest of it.

If it helps, try conceptualizing the progressive refusal to accept whites and males suffer from institutional oppression too as an aspect of white/male supremacy mindsets.
The refusal to believe the inferior could possibly hold power over us, etc.

[Kibbutz Unions]

Even the stereotypes, that may on first glance sound somewhat negative in fact tends to hold some characteristics of superiority (I assume you are referring here to "Middle-Class" America and not Rednecks, their stereotypes are most definitely negative but they are also a more specific group with stereotypes that are different from "White proper").
I am an Ashkenazi Jew in Israel (The White People equivalent of Israel) - we have stereotypes of us as well, they may many times sound negative but overall they cement our public image as eventually "less fun people, but more reliable. less warm, but more rational. etc.".

That constitutes oppression in some circumstances and in some institutional ways, for instance, applying for a job in a field where you're expected to care for others, and being rejected as a result.
The progressive left is loathed to acknowledge this because they base their mentality in Class Conflict models of how oppression works, rather than admitting it's more complicated than that, that most groups and peoples have some form of institutional oppression against them, and unequal treatment ultimately results in unequal treatment for all. (The only exception being, perhaps, the rich.)
It crafts the rod for our own backs when it occurs.

The progressive class conflict mentality will mean that Ashekenazis and Whites won't be able to combat those prejudices because they'll be shouted down for going against the progressive nonsense, leading to eventualities like feminism has caused. (Duluth model of domestic violence, etc.)

It is a toxic way to view demography relations.

This "both parties are harmed" model IS the progressive conflict-theory model! It says that part of the reasons that equality is desirable is BECAUSE the "oppressors" are harmed by the inequality too. If you learned more about it you would know.

For example, men, because they are expected to be strong and stoic and never show weakness and emotion, are mocked whenever they say they were raped or sexually harassed, especially if it was by a woman. So feminism (Except for factions that most feminists despise) also wants to change that and make society sympathetic and understanding to those men too and to destroy the stereotypes so that men would not be mocked for showing emotion.

Please read more about it, I'm saying this because I truly think that you misunderstand progressivism and its' aim and point of view and that maybe if you did you might even agree. I'm, unfortunately, not a good enough orator (or writer in this case) to be able to do this well-researched and nuanced political ideology justice.

[Ostroeuropa]

That constitutes oppression in some circumstances and in some institutional ways, for instance, applying for a job in a field where you're expected to care for others, and being rejected as a result.
The progressive left is loathed to acknowledge this because they base their mentality in Class Conflict models of how oppression works, rather than admitting it's more complicated than that, that most groups and peoples have some form of institutional oppression against them, and unequal treatment ultimately results in unequal treatment for all. (The only exception being, perhaps, the rich.)
It crafts the rod for our own backs when it occurs.

The progressive class conflict mentality will mean that Ashekenazis and Whites won't be able to combat those prejudices because they'll be shouted down for going against the progressive nonsense, leading to eventualities like feminism has caused. (Duluth model of domestic violence, etc.)

It is a toxic way to view demography relations.

This "both parties are harmed" model IS the progressive conflict-theory model! It says that part of the reasons that equality is desirable is BECAUSE the "oppressors" are harmed by the inequality too. If you learned more about it you would know.

For example, men, because they are expected to be strong and stoic and never show weakness and emotion, are mocked whenever they say they were raped or sexually harassed, especially if it was by a woman. So feminism (Except for factions that most feminists despise) also wants to change that and make society sympathetic and understanding to those men too and to destroy the stereotypes so that men would not be mocked for showing emotion.

Please read more about it, I'm saying this because I truly think that you misunderstand progressivism and its' aim and point of view and that maybe if you did you might even agree. I'm, unfortunately, not a good enough orator (or writer in this case) to be able to do this well-researched and nuanced political ideology justice.

Okay, so you concede that, then I only need cover this from your argument that the harm the "oppressors" suffer from exists, but is a result of what they do to "The oppressed" rather than their own issues that need addressing as their own issues.

Functionally, this means that they can up and decide the issues that harm men aren't as important to them as the ones that directly harm women.
By saying it's all about them, they are giving themselves the right to prioritize.
It's not merely an ideological nonsense, it's an aspect of the supremacist mindset.
By claiming the reason men aren't taken seriously in DV situations because of some slight women receive, they can up and decide to place that close to the bottom of the list, because it doesn't actually fucking impact their lives as much as other shit that happens to them.
It's a hateful maneuver. You should point out the MECHANICS of what she is arguing, and how it inevitably means that she's arguing for mens suffering to be of lesser importance than womens.
After pointing out the mechanics of what she is arguing and what it implies, you can then ask if such a mechanism could be brought about by a worldview that treated both sexes as equals and their concerns as valid, and point out that the function of her worldview is supremacist, because the ideology itself is supremacist. Tell her to look at the effects of her argument and what it would mean we have to act like, and work backwards.

Your mindset is functionally supremacist, it has led to mens issues being sidelined for decades as well as whites issues, on assertions about how their suffering isn't as important because of narratives and the way we talk about history.

When you allege that mens issues are a result of womens treatment and "Men aren't oppressed" but women are, the above is what you are doing.
It is the fundamental problem with the progressive mindset.

This is why groups for mens issues and whites issues should be legitimized, on their own basis, and recognized as legitimate. Not merely as some means to help other groups, or able to be told what to prioritize, NOR how to frame their advocacy for their issues to be taken seriously.

[Kibbutz Unions]

No. We will never see the end of racism unless the apparatus perpetuating it ceases.

Your proposition for us to ignore historically relevent content and ignore group-specific issues is a proposition meant to perpetuate the oppression and to silence the oppressed because it isn't comfortable to you that their identity and circumstances are different than you and that because of that they never truly achieved social equality.

I don't propose we ignore group specific issues. I'm proposing we acknowledge every group should be able to advocate for its issues and oppose vilification of itself, put forward campaigns about how it's okay to be X, etc.

I don't propose silencing the oppressed. I propose you stop silencing whites, males, etc, and allow them a seat at the table, without a priori dismissing their issues as illegitimate.

I would argue the progressive lefts hostility to institutions and groups forming around those demographics has kept their discourse stunted, and then you've used that as excuses to shut them up further.

I would wager the first black slaves to get angry enough to rebel about things said very objectionable things.

Allowing whites and males to organize groups for their own issues and such would eventually mature their discourse, as it has in the MRM, despite the best efforts of feminists to crack down on it.

Suppose it was only today we saw Black people arguing for their equality and their issues to be taken seriously, and there was none of the history or the historical arguments.

Suppose that any time they said something mildly objectionable to whites in the process of that, we cracked down and called them racists and said all the discourse progress made thus far was tainted and they had to start over. That, regardless of what else they said, that mistake meant they could never again advocate for equality because they'd now been branded "Racist.", so someone else had to do it. Note, someone else, without any of the experience thus far.

Would that retard progress, or assist it?

I am very much willing for Whites to talk about certain issues that concern them. I am, however, unwilling to do so with White-Supremacists.

And by the way, there are a lot of issues worth fighting for that concern Men's Rights however a huge amount (if not a majority of the movement) instead of focusing on real concerns they reject gender-conflict theory and many times even outright spout misogynistic nonsense.
They typically don't even know what feminists are aiming for, what gender conflict theory even is and so on. They believe this sort of a hollow caricature provided to them by some YouTubers instead of what Feminists ACTUALLY THINK.

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't propose we ignore group specific issues. I'm proposing we acknowledge every group should be able to advocate for its issues and oppose vilification of itself, put forward campaigns about how it's okay to be X, etc.

I don't propose silencing the oppressed. I propose you stop silencing whites, males, etc, and allow them a seat at the table, without a priori dismissing their issues as illegitimate.

I would argue the progressive lefts hostility to institutions and groups forming around those demographics has kept their discourse stunted, and then you've used that as excuses to shut them up further.

I would wager the first black slaves to get angry enough to rebel about things said very objectionable things.

Allowing whites and males to organize groups for their own issues and such would eventually mature their discourse, as it has in the MRM, despite the best efforts of feminists to crack down on it.

Suppose it was only today we saw Black people arguing for their equality and their issues to be taken seriously, and there was none of the history or the historical arguments.

Suppose that any time they said something mildly objectionable to whites in the process of that, we cracked down and called them racists and said all the discourse progress made thus far was tainted and they had to start over. That, regardless of what else they said, that mistake meant they could never again advocate for equality because they'd now been branded "Racist.", so someone else had to do it. Note, someone else, without any of the experience thus far.

Would that retard progress, or assist it?

I am very much willing for Whites to talk about certain issues that concern them. I am, however, unwilling to do so with White-Supremacists.

And by the way, there are a lot of issues worth fighting for that concern Men's Rights however a huge amount (if not a majority of the movement) instead of focusing on real concerns they reject gender-conflict theory and many times even outright spout misogynistic nonsense.
They typically don't even know what feminists are aiming for, what gender conflict theory even is and so on. They believe this sort of a hollow caricature provided to them by some YouTubers instead of what Feminists ACTUALLY THINK.

No mate. They look at institutions run by feminists and criticize those, as well as the laws lobbied for, and the media.
The average feminist is neither here nor there when concerned with the ideology in practice and how it effects men.
Further, the above post about "actually impact their lives" covers how many rank and file feminists are still part of the problem
What they are aiming for is irrelevant if they have the wrong idea of how to get there.

We're in agreement over the whites issue then.

[Holy Tedalonia]

This is not conspiratorial. It is enough to go to the forums that those kinds of people behind the campaign go to to recognize that they literally have this existential dread and feel as if there is even a conspiracy that persecutes white people.
I mean, understanding that as a basis of their opinions isn't difficult, it's enough to hear them speak.

No. There is no "many interpretations that are equally relevant"- this is some "Cartesian Evil Demon" level of mistrust of your senses and empirical analysis.

Thats BS and you know it. Their plan was to simply troll, they don't really have hate, and they intend to show the BS your promoting.

http://archive.is/klFIy

5. normies tune in to see what's going on, see the posters saying "it's okay to be white" and the media & leftists frothing at the mouth

They are literally using this to just piss you off

How your reacting to this is EXACTLY their intention and is EXACTLY what they want. It's to literally to prove that white people can't start campaigns without being called neo-nazis or white nationalist. You fell for their trap and you know it. Right now they're looking at reactions LIKE YOURS and laughing their balls off.

I'm just going to let you know he's been ignoring my post... ;_;

[Kibbutz Unions]

This is not conspiratorial. It is enough to go to the forums that those kinds of people behind the campaign go to to recognize that they literally have this existential dread and feel as if there is even a conspiracy that persecutes white people.
I mean, understanding that as a basis of their opinions isn't difficult, it's enough to hear them speak.

No. There is no "many interpretations that are equally relevant"- this is some "Cartesian Evil Demon" level of mistrust of your senses and empirical analysis.

Cock up before conspiracy.
I agree with many of their grievances, and oppose the conspiracy narrative. I think it's merely an ideological error, not a conspiracy.

The reason they jump to conspiracy is the blatant intellectual dishonesty the adherents of progressivist causes like feminism and racial equality sometimes engage in, especially in the media. You cannot blame people for thinking you are deliberately misleading them under those circumstances, even if it is a little archaic to think so.

Personally I think its just dogmatism and refusal to critically examine the ideology they believe in, they don't consciously act dishonest because they view the ideology as The Truth, rather than something to be measured against material reality.

Honestly, I don't think we are getting anywhere with this.
They recognize what this was meant to achieve, it is obvious what this was meant to achieve, it is enough to just look at the reasoning behind it and thus they acted in protest.

And left-wing dogma is being constantly criticized and changed in accordance to the facts- I mean, this is a lot of what people do in academia in the social sciences and humanities. (And let's face it, philosophy and sociology most definitely reinforces the left as a more accurate response to the issues presented by those fields).

[Kibbutz Unions]

This is not conspiratorial. It is enough to go to the forums that those kinds of people behind the campaign go to to recognize that they literally have this existential dread and feel as if there is even a conspiracy that persecutes white people.
I mean, understanding that as a basis of their opinions isn't difficult, it's enough to hear them speak.

No. There is no "many interpretations that are equally relevant"- this is some "Cartesian Evil Demon" level of mistrust of your senses and empirical analysis.

Thats BS and you know it. Their plan was to simply troll, they don't really have hate, and they intend to show the BS your promoting.

http://archive.is/klFIy

5. normies tune in to see what's going on, see the posters saying "it's okay to be white" and the media & leftists frothing at the mouth

They are literally using this to just piss you off

How your reacting to this is EXACTLY their intention and is EXACTLY what they want. It's to literally to prove that white people can't start campaigns without being called neo-nazis or white nationalist. You fell for their trap and you know it. Right now they're looking at reactions LIKE YOURS and laughing their balls off.

#PoliticallyIncorrect

Let them laugh. The aim of the political is to fight for the souls of the undecided, I don't intend to appeal to those 4channers. My arguments are made for the frail centrists and Liberals so that they won't be swayed rightwards.

[Vassenor]

You have to remember that everything that happens is somehow a victory for the right because reasons.

Candidate wins an election? They win because they have power.

Candidate loses? They win because it proves they're being oppressed by the establishment or some nebulous liberal conspiracy that totally exists.

[Kibbutz Unions]

Yes, I have something called "The Social Sciences" as my "lens".
I already told you that your examples are very different, the context is different and your reasons to proclaim them are different. So no.

The social sciences are pretty ideological rather than materialistic tbh, a source on that:

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gende ... d%208-.pdf

So you aren't using "Social science" as your lens. You're using a particular variant of it. As I said, like someone who only owns one book.

Very well. Suppose the campaign were this.

"Ashekenazi can be caring too."

Would you oppose this?

"Ashkenazi can be caring too" is not at all a problematic statement, in fact, it challenges the general perception instead of reinforcing the existing stereotype.

And I use the variant relevant to our subject and use it in accordance to the aims I find most noble. That's all.

[Ostroeuropa]

You have to remember that everything that happens is somehow a victory for the right because reasons.

Candidate wins an election? They win because they have power.

Candidate loses? They win because it proves they're being oppressed by the establishment or some nebulous liberal conspiracy that totally exists.

This is true of basically everyone tbh. It's an aspect of maintaining morale. Not ideal, and not even very useful for reform if reform is needed, but few people are willing to take a loss as a signal that something is wrong with their ideology and they need to change.

A loss, like, say, the far-right growing day by day, rising KKK membership, etc.

[Kibbutz Unions]

First of all, I wrote too quickly and didn't notice. When I wrote about a hot topic I forgot to wrote that it's not anti-white sentiment but rather that it is falsely perceived as such by some. So sorry for the wrong statement.
What I meant to say is that on the most part the media is a tool to perpetuate the status-quo and that it only reports various issues regarding the oppression of black people when it is a hot topic because of groups like BLM.

I hope that I clarified.

I note you didn't address the rest of it.

If it helps, try conceptualizing the progressive refusal to accept whites and males suffer from institutional oppression too as an aspect of white/male supremacy mindsets.
The refusal to believe the inferior could possibly hold power over us, etc.

There are certain views that thus criticize some of the treatment of those issues as being themselves patronizing in that sense.

[Ostroeuropa]

The social sciences are pretty ideological rather than materialistic tbh, a source on that:

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gende ... d%208-.pdf

So you aren't using "Social science" as your lens. You're using a particular variant of it. As I said, like someone who only owns one book.

Very well. Suppose the campaign were this.

"Ashekenazi can be caring too."

Would you oppose this?

"Ashkenazi can be caring too" is not at all a problematic statement, in fact, it challenges the general perception instead of reinforcing the existing stereotype.

And I use the variant relevant to our subject and use it in accordance to the aims I find most noble. That's all.

Then if you view the statement "It's okay to be white" as an attack on anti-white sentiment where it exists, what is the problem?

[Kibbutz Unions]

This "both parties are harmed" model IS the progressive conflict-theory model! It says that part of the reasons that equality is desirable is BECAUSE the "oppressors" are harmed by the inequality too. If you learned more about it you would know.

For example, men, because they are expected to be strong and stoic and never show weakness and emotion, are mocked whenever they say they were raped or sexually harassed, especially if it was by a woman. So feminism (Except for factions that most feminists despise) also wants to change that and make society sympathetic and understanding to those men too and to destroy the stereotypes so that men would not be mocked for showing emotion.

Please read more about it, I'm saying this because I truly think that you misunderstand progressivism and its' aim and point of view and that maybe if you did you might even agree. I'm, unfortunately, not a good enough orator (or writer in this case) to be able to do this well-researched and nuanced political ideology justice.

Okay, so you concede that, then I only need cover this from your argument that the harm the "oppressors" suffer from exists, but is a result of what they do to "The oppressed" rather than their own issues that need addressing as their own issues.

Functionally, this means that they can up and decide the issues that harm men aren't as important to them as the ones that directly harm women.
By saying it's all about them, they are giving themselves the right to prioritize.
It's not merely an ideological nonsense, it's an aspect of the supremacist mindset.
By claiming the reason men aren't taken seriously in DV situations because of some slight women receive, they can up and decide to place that close to the bottom of the list, because it doesn't actually fucking impact their lives as much as other shit that happens to them.
It's a hateful maneuver. You should point out the MECHANICS of what she is arguing, and how it inevitably means that she's arguing for mens suffering to be of lesser importance than womens.
After pointing out the mechanics of what she is arguing and what it implies, you can then ask if such a mechanism could be brought about by a worldview that treated both sexes as equals and their concerns as valid, and point out that the function of her worldview is supremacist, because the ideology itself is supremacist. Tell her to look at the effects of her argument and what it would mean we have to act like, and work backwards.

Your mindset is functionally supremacist, it has led to mens issues being sidelined for decades as well as whites issues, on assertions about how their suffering isn't as important because of narratives and the way we talk about history.

When you allege that mens issues are a result of womens treatment and "Men aren't oppressed" but women are, the above is what you are doing.
It is the fundamental problem with the progressive mindset.

This is why groups for mens issues and whites issues should be legitimized, on their own basis, and recognized as legitimate. Not merely as some means to help other groups, or able to be told what to prioritize, NOR how to frame their advocacy for their issues to be taken seriously.

There are some feminists who only believe in furthering women's rights, but they are a minority (And not a very liked one). Women's issues aren't more important than men's but rather that their issues are more outreaching, anyway, treating one issue doesn't mean that you have to ignore the other.
And this is where the Men's Rights group comes in- you see, the way of legitimizing men's rights isn't to have some misogynistic people laugh at feminists, misinterpreting them and mocking queers. I am all for groups who genuinely want to tackle issues that harm men, and I would recommend you to actually read Feminist books and see that they actually many times address those issues and recognize how men suffer too under the patriarchy. I do agree that Social Justice jargon is very misleading, patriarchy, for those who haven't actually read what it means, might get a false perception that men just kinda sit together in some chambers and conspiring on how to harm women.

I think that a lot of the conflict and disagreement is on misunderstandings of leftist jargon. Kinda like the conflict between Marxists and Anarchists and the fact that practically they are way more similar than they think and that part of the issue is that they have different ideas of what a "state" even is.

[Kibbutz Unions]

I am very much willing for Whites to talk about certain issues that concern them. I am, however, unwilling to do so with White-Supremacists.

And by the way, there are a lot of issues worth fighting for that concern Men's Rights however a huge amount (if not a majority of the movement) instead of focusing on real concerns they reject gender-conflict theory and many times even outright spout misogynistic nonsense.
They typically don't even know what feminists are aiming for, what gender conflict theory even is and so on. They believe this sort of a hollow caricature provided to them by some YouTubers instead of what Feminists ACTUALLY THINK.

No mate. They look at institutions run by feminists and criticize those, as well as the laws lobbied for, and the media.
The average feminist is neither here nor there when concerned with the ideology in practice and how it effects men.
Further, the above post about "actually impact their lives" covers how many rank and file feminists are still part of the problem
What they are aiming for is irrelevant if they have the wrong idea of how to get there.

We're in agreement over the whites issue then.

I am not going to defend the corporate media nor "pop feminism". But actual, academic feminism and it's "adherents" are being awfully misrepresented by antifeminist YouTubers and Right-Wing media.

[Kibbutz Unions]

Thats BS and you know it. Their plan was to simply troll, they don't really have hate, and they intend to show the BS your promoting.

http://archive.is/klFIy


They are literally using this to just piss you off

How your reacting to this is EXACTLY their intention and is EXACTLY what they want. It's to literally to prove that white people can't start campaigns without being called neo-nazis or white nationalist. You fell for their trap and you know it. Right now they're looking at reactions LIKE YOURS and laughing their balls off.

I'm just going to let you know he's been ignoring my post... ;_;

Calm down, I need to reply to a lot of posts. I do them chronologically.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Thats BS and you know it. Their plan was to simply troll, they don't really have hate, and they intend to show the BS your promoting.

http://archive.is/klFIy


They are literally using this to just piss you off

How your reacting to this is EXACTLY their intention and is EXACTLY what they want. It's to literally to prove that white people can't start campaigns without being called neo-nazis or white nationalist. You fell for their trap and you know it. Right now they're looking at reactions LIKE YOURS and laughing their balls off.

#PoliticallyIncorrect

Let them laugh. The aim of the political is to fight for the souls of the undecided, I don't intend to appeal to those 4channers. My arguments are made for the frail centrists and Liberals so that they won't be swayed rightwards.

Then how is this racist, if you know trollers are running it for shits and giggles then how can you say this is racist?

[Kibbutz Unions]

"Ashkenazi can be caring too" is not at all a problematic statement, in fact, it challenges the general perception instead of reinforcing the existing stereotype.

And I use the variant relevant to our subject and use it in accordance to the aims I find most noble. That's all.

Then if you view the statement "It's okay to be white" as an attack on anti-white sentiment where it exists, what is the problem?

Because people don't say that it's NOT OKAY.

Your Ashkenazi statement is a way of challenging an existing opinion that "Ashkenazim are uncaring".

[Kibbutz Unions]

Let them laugh. The aim of the political is to fight for the souls of the undecided, I don't intend to appeal to those 4channers. My arguments are made for the frail centrists and Liberals so that they won't be swayed rightwards.

Then how is this racist, if you know trollers are running it for shits and giggles then how can you say this is racist?

This is for "shits and giggles" but most definitely also has a far-right agenda behind it. Having one doesn't mean the other isn't present.

[Ostroeuropa]

Okay, so you concede that, then I only need cover this from your argument that the harm the "oppressors" suffer from exists, but is a result of what they do to "The oppressed" rather than their own issues that need addressing as their own issues.



Your mindset is functionally supremacist, it has led to mens issues being sidelined for decades as well as whites issues, on assertions about how their suffering isn't as important because of narratives and the way we talk about history.

When you allege that mens issues are a result of womens treatment and "Men aren't oppressed" but women are, the above is what you are doing.
It is the fundamental problem with the progressive mindset.

This is why groups for mens issues and whites issues should be legitimized, on their own basis, and recognized as legitimate. Not merely as some means to help other groups, or able to be told what to prioritize, NOR how to frame their advocacy for their issues to be taken seriously.

There are some feminists who only believe in furthering women's rights, but they are a minority (And not a very liked one). Women's issues aren't more important than men's but rather that their issues are more outreaching, anyway, treating one issue doesn't mean that you have to ignore the other.
And this is where the Men's Rights group comes in- you see, the way of legitimizing men's rights isn't to have some misogynistic people laugh at feminists, misinterpreting them and mocking queers. I am all for groups who genuinely want to tackle issues that harm men, and I would recommend you to actually read Feminist books and see that they actually many times address those issues and recognize how men suffer too under the patriarchy. I do agree that Social Justice jargon is very misleading, patriarchy, for those who haven't actually read what it means, might get a false perception that men just kinda sit together in some chambers and conspiring on how to harm women.

I think that a lot of the conflict and disagreement is on misunderstandings of leftist jargon. Kinda like the conflict between Marxists and Anarchists and the fact that practically they are way more similar than they think and that part of the issue is that they have different ideas of what a "state" even is.

The MRM has a higher level of LGBT persons than the public. They don't "Mock queers."
I suspect you have merely been reading feminist propaganda about how their movement isn't hateful and the criticism of the MRM (Based on their historical actions, the laws they lobby for, and what feminist organizations get up to) is wrong, and in any case MRAs are evil people because (lie,lie,lie.)
It's fairly common these days.

Some 25% of MRAs are bisexual, gay, lesbian, or trans, according to their internal polling.
Disproportionately white too, unfortunately, though that could be because many mens issues are miscast as race issues.

Consider why you believed this lie and who told you it.

Nor do they merely laugh at feminists, much work has been done, despite the resistance received from feminist groups and institutions.

We do not misrepresent feminists. The schism began in the 60s when NOW (The largest feminist organization in the world) backed default primary custody for women when they seek it. This alarmed many male feminists who were subsequently vilified for opposing it, and this prompted the birth of the mens rights movement.

It is an incident that has repeated itself routinely. You are not misrepresented. You are misunderstanding the institutions of feminism and confusing them for the propoganda. Like institutions of ultra-right capitalism waffling about freedom.

Their ACTIONS speak louder to MRAs than the WORDS you hear.

I have read plenty of feminist nonsense.

The jargon is an aspect of the hatefulness.

The real problem with the term toxic masculinity is their total inconsistency with terms like it.
When a woman holds sexist views that fuck her and other people over, it's internalized misogyny. (Something done to her. She is a victim of it.)
When a man holds sexist views that fuck him and other people over, it's toxic masculinity. (Something he does to other people. He is toxic, or his masculinity is.)
You will never see feminists discussing toxic femininity or internalized misandry. This is because of their gynocentric understanding of the situation.
The use of the terms "Toxic" and "Internalized" serves as part of a general miasma of misandry and hatred that the feminist movement oozes through its general existence, holding men and women to different standards of agency for their culpability in sexism, the use of gendered terms, one hostile and judgemental, such as toxic, one sympathetic and highlighting victimhood, such as internalized. Another example of this general miasma of hatred is the term Patriarchy. Essentially all feminist discourse and terminology is absolutely littered with these problems, and it warps their minds and outlooks into being sexist through steady indoctrination into the idea that women have problems, and men are a problem. It's also self-perpetuating in general, and people who have become infected with this type of worldview will start coining terms like it. "Manspreading." is another example.
It's why there's always immediate skepticism when someone says they are a different kind of feminist. Merely by using the discourse and terminology, you are a part of the problem. It is a rancid and cancerous doctrine. You get the sense like someone just came up to you and said they don't have the bad kind of leprosy. It's a matter of time, and perhaps you are just a typhoid mary. (Though, leprosy is not as contagious as people may think. I'm using this for analogy.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoid_Mary
(Notice how this kind of "Disease" terminology, rhetoric, and symbolism makes you feel contempt, disgust, and hatred for feminists. This is akin to how they talk about men constantly. This is their frame of reference.)

That you defend the Jargon as "Not really meaning that" shows you're aware of the problem, but don't want to confront the effects of it.

Feminisms historical treatment of men makes it clear that it is indefensible, especially when you note the "Jargon" problem which you accepted, but don't seem to have properly thought about to its logical conclusion.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Then how is this racist, if you know trollers are running it for shits and giggles then how can you say this is racist?

This is for "shits and giggles" but most definitely also has a far-right agenda behind it. Having one doesn't mean the other isn't present.

I agree that it has an agenda, and its to show how reactionary and over-reactive the left really is. If this gets under your skin, then aren't you going to far?

[Kibbutz Unions]

There are some feminists who only believe in furthering women's rights, but they are a minority (And not a very liked one). Women's issues aren't more important than men's but rather that their issues are more outreaching, anyway, treating one issue doesn't mean that you have to ignore the other.
And this is where the Men's Rights group comes in- you see, the way of legitimizing men's rights isn't to have some misogynistic people laugh at feminists, misinterpreting them and mocking queers. I am all for groups who genuinely want to tackle issues that harm men, and I would recommend you to actually read Feminist books and see that they actually many times address those issues and recognize how men suffer too under the patriarchy. I do agree that Social Justice jargon is very misleading, patriarchy, for those who haven't actually read what it means, might get a false perception that men just kinda sit together in some chambers and conspiring on how to harm women.

I think that a lot of the conflict and disagreement is on misunderstandings of leftist jargon. Kinda like the conflict between Marxists and Anarchists and the fact that practically they are way more similar than they think and that part of the issue is that they have different ideas of what a "state" even is.

The MRM has a higher level of LGBT persons than the public. They don't "Mock queers."
I suspect you have merely been reading feminist propaganda about how their movement isn't hateful and the criticism of the MRM (Based on their historical actions, the laws they lobby for, and what feminist organizations get up to) is wrong, and in any case MRAs are evil people because (lie,lie,lie.)
It's fairly common these days.

Some 25% of MRAs are bisexual, gay, lesbian, or trans, according to their internal polling.
Disproportionately white too, unfortunately, though that could be because many mens issues are miscast as race issues.

Consider why you believed this lie and who told you it.

Nor do they merely laugh at feminists, much work has been done, despite the resistance received from feminist groups and institutions.

We do not misrepresent feminists. The schism began in the 60s when NOW (The largest feminist organization in the world) backed default primary custody for women when they seek it. This alarmed many male feminists who were subsequently vilified for opposing it, and this prompted the birth of the mens rights movement.

It is an incident that has repeated itself routinely. You are not misrepresented. You are misunderstanding the institutions of feminism and confusing them for the propoganda. Like institutions of ultra-right capitalism waffling about freedom.

Their ACTIONS speak louder to MRAs than the WORDS you hear.

I have read plenty of feminist nonsense.

The jargon is an aspect of the hatefulness.

The real problem with the term toxic masculinity is their total inconsistency with terms like it.
When a woman holds sexist views that fuck her and other people over, it's internalized misogyny. (Something done to her. She is a victim of it.)
When a man holds sexist views that fuck him and other people over, it's toxic masculinity. (Something he does to other people. He is toxic, or his masculinity is.)
You will never see feminists discussing toxic femininity or internalized misandry. This is because of their gynocentric understanding of the situation.
The use of the terms "Toxic" and "Internalized" serves as part of a general miasma of misandry and hatred that the feminist movement oozes through its general existence, holding men and women to different standards of agency for their culpability in sexism, the use of gendered terms, one hostile and judgemental, such as toxic, one sympathetic and highlighting victimhood, such as internalized. Another example of this general miasma of hatred is the term Patriarchy. Essentially all feminist discourse and terminology is absolutely littered with these problems, and it warps their minds and outlooks into being sexist through steady indoctrination into the idea that women have problems, and men are a problem. It's also self-perpetuating in general, and people who have become infected with this type of worldview will start coining terms like it. "Manspreading." is another example.
It's why there's always immediate skepticism when someone says they are a different kind of feminist. Merely by using the discourse and terminology, you are a part of the problem. It is a rancid and cancerous doctrine. You get the sense like someone just came up to you and said they don't have the bad kind of leprosy. It's a matter of time, and perhaps you are just a typhoid mary. (Though, leprosy is not as contagious as people may think. I'm using this for analogy.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoid_Mary
(Notice how this kind of "Disease" terminology, rhetoric, and symbolism makes you feel contempt, disgust, and hatred for feminists. This is akin to how they talk about men constantly. This is their frame of reference.)

That you defend the Jargon as "Not really meaning that" shows you're aware of the problem, but don't want to confront the effects of it.

Feminisms historical treatment of men makes it clear that it is indefensible, especially when you note the "Jargon" problem which you accepted, but don't seem to have properly thought about to its logical conclusion.

First of all is that even though queers do exist in anti-feminist circles and that a lot aren't anti-LGBT too, however there is an alarming amount of people influential in those circles that are. And on top of that, even though Bi. Homo or Trans people are slowly being more accepted non-binary people, for example, are being mocked and memed to a grotesque extent.

Also, what you don't get, is that the majority of feminists are more like me (I hope I am not excessively vain to regard myself as a good example) than the caricature that you're used to in those circles and that Men's Rights and Feminism are compatible. I generally tend to support moving to new branding, it's kinda like how I don't go around saying that "I want to create the dictatorship of the proletariat", when talking to non-Marxists I don't refer to dialectics, historical materialism or use all of that jargon. Hell, I don't use the term "patriarchy" anymore unless in an academic debate. I think this current jargon makes the wrong perception that the oppressed group is the only one suffering and the only one to benefit of the breaking of the gender norms and the achievement of social equality and the only reason I came back to the Feminism term (I just called myself a supporter of Gender Equality and Social Justice) is as a protest against the toxic antifeminists.