LWDT V: Completing the Five Thread Plan

[Ostroeuropa]

Essentially your entire point is that men having rights is too inconvenient for women since it makes it hard to jail them without evidence. That's the argument feminists advanced by using those statistics, that's the rationale they're flirting with, and that's why their solution ultimately was found to violate due process and the human rights of the accused male students, or accused males in general in the united kingdom.

That's authoritarian, that's hateful, that's prejudiced, and it is a matter of fact and historical record. This is why the left wing in the west, to come back to the original point, has strong authoritarian tendencies in its mainstream movements.

[Ostroeuropa]

So you refused to actually engage with the point and just waffled some more about how Versailles was unfair.
What about any of what you just said is an argument against the fact that courts found the campus courts instituted by the feminist movement violated due process rights?

I'll keep asking it like Paxman if I have to. Your refusal to answer a straight question and just pull out more rationalizations for human rights abuses doesn't make you right, you know.

Additionally, you're flirting with the implication that the rape stats are disproportionately men raping women. Men have an even harder time reporting and getting their rapes dealt with, but are vilified as the primary perpetrators by the feminist movement despite close-to-equal levels of perpetration. In addition to that, feminism instituted a campus court system that targetted men and violated their rights, sometimes even expelling male rape victims.

Not only are you waffling about versailles being unfair, you're erasing mens side of the rape issue to pretend women are oppressed on it and that makes the notion of male oppression ridiculous to propose, another common feminist gaslighting tactic.

So no, it's not "Ridiculous" to view men as oppressed here. The things you cited?
They apply to male victims to, but feminism made the situation even worse for them, including the male rape victims. (As I said, there's cases of rape victims being expelled by feminist campus courts.)

You also use womens issues to act like the FACT that men WERE persecuted and had their due process rights violated is "Absolutely ridiculous.". This is what feminism does to people, by the way, for observers. These incoherent thought patterns i'm pointing out here? It's the result of indoctrination.

Courts absolutely discriminate against male victims in rape cases. I am not going to deny that. My argument is not simply that courts don't take women seriously (though this not taking them seriously is part of why female rapists aren't taken seriously by them), but that our criminal justice system protects rapists, universities protect rapists, and our cultural by and large normalizes and excuses rape. Rape culture and the protection of it by our criminal justice system absolutely hurts men. Any feminist that actually bothers to examine our society for a moment understands that patriarchy hurts men as well as women and nonbinary people.

I am not trying to in any way dismiss male rape victims or the deny the reality of women rapists. I was sexually assaulted by a woman. I am far more aware than you are of how possible that is. What I am arguing against is your ridiculous idea that the criminal justice system favors women over men in rape cases when we know these cases rarely result in the men actually being punished. To argue otherwise is to ignore clear statistics. Similarly, getting angry that I am mostly talking about men in this is ignoring that yes, despite the fact that there are absolutely women and nonbinary rapists, it is overwhelmingly men committing rapes, and it is usually women who are victimized. It's not saying we can't address male victims or female or nonbinary rapists, but it is recognizing that there is absolutely a gendered dimension to this.

Again, if the system was operating how you said it was, rape cases would actually be resulting in far more convictions. Women wouldn't be so scared of reporting what happens to them.

I'm specifically discussing the campus courts feminists instituted which violated due process rights, and you're refusing to acknowledge that happened despite it being found to have done so by the US court system. You're pretending i'm talking about courts in general despite me explicitly talking about the campus courts, is that because you don't understand the point, or is that because you are being deliberately duplicitous?

You've once again refused to answer the question and started talking about something else. Why is that? Why can't you address the point? Why do you feel the need to derail the subject onto something else, rather than actually defend or address the human rights abuses your movement committed against men? None of what you have said is an argument against the point. Why do you keep referring to Versailles instead of dealing with the accusation of prejudice and either proving it didn't happen or justifying it?

It is not overwhelmingly men who commit rapes and women who are the victims, when you use a gender neutral definition, that fact is clear. The best you can get to is 40% of victims are men, and they overwhelmingly report women rapists.

What I am arguing against is your ridiculous idea that the criminal justice system favors women over men in rape cases when we know these cases rarely result in the men actually being punished.

Women are favored over men. Men are even less likely to see their rapist convicted. In rape cases, women are favored over men both in terms of being more likely to see justice, and more likely to escape justice. Women rape victims are favored over men who are rape victims, and women rapists are favored over men who are rapists.

You're also focusing on the US and pretending i'm talking about the court system there, when the UK example is extremely relevant too and completely upends your nonsense. due process violations caused by feminist demands are a fact in the UK, as well as the US, merely the former with the justice system, and the latter with Campus courts.

You're also ignoring that the campus courts disproportionately targeted minority males. They were tools for prejudice, misandry and racism, and nothing more, that's what your movement accomplished on this issue with its campaigning.

[Cekoviu]

Heyo, there's a thread all about this type of stuff right here. Maybe you should migrate over there.

[Ostroeuropa]

Two-thirds of britons back an across the board increase in income taxes to fund the NHS, according to a new poll.

This includes 63% of Conservative voters.

75% of them think Politicians are avoiding dealing with the NHS properly because they're scared of controversy, but the poll shows it isn't controversial. The public want it funded and are prepared to pay for it.


What's ridiculous about it is that the "Austerity" focused Conservatives appear to be gearing up for a cash injection to the NHS which will be covered by borrowing money, since they don't want to propose tax rises. This represents an issue Labour could and should go to war over and keep bringing up, since it reveals the Tories austerity shit isn't really about balancing budgets, and their refusal to raise taxes to fund the NHS despite public demand and support for it is poorly serving the public, running up a debt and kicking the problem down the road unnecessarily for future generations to deal with. This is one example where borrowing money is completely unacceptable.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 01546.html

[Mattopilos II]

Heyo, there's a thread all about this type of stuff right here. Maybe you should migrate over there.

You are asking too much of them :^)
They will likely go on about something something IT FITS... even though they could use the other thread anyway.
I swore I was following the feminist page just now lol

[Serrus]

So I've noticed 3 things.

1. Other political threads have a Discord.
2. We don't.
3. I'm no good at public server management.
Therefore, I think we should get a discord. And if I make it I ought to pull some competent volunteers to set the thing up.
If nobody wants one please ignore me.

[Mattopilos II]

So I've noticed 3 things.

1. Other political threads have a Discord.
2. We don't.
3. I'm no good at public server management.
Therefore, I think we should get a discord. And if I make it I ought to pull some competent volunteers to set the thing up.
If nobody wants one please ignore me.

We technically do have a discord, just not named LWDT.

It's called the NSG Soviet. I am sure one of the mods (wink wink) would be happy to set you up.

[Dumb Ideologies]

So I've noticed 3 things.

1. Other political threads have a Discord.
2. We don't.
3. I'm no good at public server management.
Therefore, I think we should get a discord. And if I make it I ought to pull some competent volunteers to set the thing up.
If nobody wants one please ignore me.

We technically do have a discord, just not named LWDT.

It's called the NSG Soviet. I am sure one of the mods (wink wink) would be happy to set you up.

*ponders how to sneak past anarchist gatekeepers*

[Serrus]

So I've noticed 3 things.

1. Other political threads have a Discord.
2. We don't.
3. I'm no good at public server management.
Therefore, I think we should get a discord. And if I make it I ought to pull some competent volunteers to set the thing up.
If nobody wants one please ignore me.

We technically do have a discord, just not named LWDT.

It's called the NSG Soviet. I am sure one of the mods (wink wink) would be happy to set you up.

Alrighty then, please do.

[United Muscovite Nations]

So I've noticed 3 things.

1. Other political threads have a Discord.
2. We don't.
3. I'm no good at public server management.
Therefore, I think we should get a discord. And if I make it I ought to pull some competent volunteers to set the thing up.
If nobody wants one please ignore me.

We technically do have a discord, just not named LWDT.

It's called the NSG Soviet. I am sure one of the mods (wink wink) would be happy to set you up.

It's cliquey as shit though.

[Cekoviu]

So I've noticed 3 things.

1. Other political threads have a Discord.
2. We don't.
3. I'm no good at public server management.
Therefore, I think we should get a discord. And if I make it I ought to pull some competent volunteers to set the thing up.
If nobody wants one please ignore me.

Slack > Discord

[Mattopilos II]

We technically do have a discord, just not named LWDT.

It's called the NSG Soviet. I am sure one of the mods (wink wink) would be happy to set you up.

It's cliquey as shit though.

r00d

*ponders how to sneak past anarchist gatekeepers*

I am sure the mods would be fine with you :^)

Alrighty then, please do.

Will quickly discuss with mods, then telegram an invite.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's cliquey as shit though.

r00d

Conscientia basically doesn't let me in there because he doesn't like me, even though several people there, including a moderator have vouched for me. And he can't even use the excuse that I was right wing because he allows Napkiraly there even though Nap is more right wing than I am.

[Mattopilos II]

r00d

Conscientia basically doesn't let me in there because he doesn't like me, even though several people there, including a moderator have vouched for me. And he can't even use the excuse that I was right wing because he allows Napkiraly there even though Nap is more right wing than I am.

I don't know the situation well enough to judge that, and said person isn't in there atm due to their own uh... quarrelling.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Conscientia basically doesn't let me in there because he doesn't like me, even though several people there, including a moderator have vouched for me. And he can't even use the excuse that I was right wing because he allows Napkiraly there even though Nap is more right wing than I am.

I don't know the situation well enough to judge that, and said person isn't in there atm due to their own uh... quarrelling.

Isn't he the head mod?

[Mattopilos II]

I don't know the situation well enough to judge that, and said person isn't in there atm due to their own uh... quarrelling.

Isn't he the head mod?

I meant Nap, not Conscientia.
And all mods have equal power.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Isn't he the head mod?

I meant Nap, not Conscientia.
And all mods have equal power.

Ah. My bad.

[The East Marches II]

So you refused to actually engage with the point and just waffled some more about how Versailles was unfair.
What about any of what you just said is an argument against the fact that courts found the campus courts instituted by the feminist movement violated due process rights?

I'll keep asking it like Paxman if I have to. Your refusal to answer a straight question and just pull out more rationalizations for human rights abuses doesn't make you right, you know.

Additionally, you're flirting with the implication that the rape stats are disproportionately men raping women. Men have an even harder time reporting and getting their rapes dealt with, but are vilified as the primary perpetrators by the feminist movement despite close-to-equal levels of perpetration. In addition to that, feminism instituted a campus court system that targetted men and violated their rights, sometimes even expelling male rape victims.

Not only are you waffling about versailles being unfair, you're erasing mens side of the rape issue to pretend women are oppressed on it and that makes the notion of male oppression ridiculous to propose, another common feminist gaslighting tactic.

So no, it's not "Ridiculous" to view men as oppressed here. The things you cited?
They apply to male victims to, but feminism made the situation even worse for them, including the male rape victims. (As I said, there's cases of rape victims being expelled by feminist campus courts.)

You also use womens issues to act like the FACT that men WERE persecuted and had their due process rights violated is "Absolutely ridiculous.". This is what feminism does to people, by the way, for observers. These incoherent thought patterns i'm pointing out here? It's the result of indoctrination.

Courts absolutely discriminate against male victims in rape cases. I am not going to deny that. My argument is not simply that courts don't take women seriously (though this not taking them seriously is part of why female rapists aren't taken seriously by them), but that our criminal justice system protects rapists, universities protect rapists, and our cultural by and large normalizes and excuses rape. Rape culture and the protection of it by our criminal justice system absolutely hurts men. Any feminist that actually bothers to examine our society for a moment understands that patriarchy hurts men as well as women and nonbinary people.

I am not trying to in any way dismiss male rape victims or the deny the reality of women rapists. I was sexually assaulted by a woman. I am far more aware than you are of how possible that is. What I am arguing against is your ridiculous idea that the criminal justice system favors women over men in rape cases when we know these cases rarely result in the men actually being punished. To argue otherwise is to ignore clear statistics. Similarly, getting angry that I am mostly talking about men in this is ignoring that yes, despite the fact that there are absolutely women and nonbinary rapists, it is overwhelmingly men committing rapes, and it is usually women who are victimized. It's not saying we can't address male victims or female or nonbinary rapists, but it is recognizing that there is absolutely a gendered dimension to this.

Again, if the system was operating how you said it was, rape cases would actually be resulting in far more convictions. Women wouldn't be so scared of reporting what happens to them.

The problem with your last paragraph is Feminists are too incompetent to manage rigging courts properly. They can get the police to hide evidence to rack up the conviction rate but they still fuck it up and get outed. Just as their so called administrative trials are so hilariously biased that most reasonable people can see through them. I am enjoying men reporting women first if things look dicey and they enjoying the benefits of the system sexists raised.

Really, you are the best advocate for the rights of defendants. Your desire for the perversion of justice hurts those you purport to care about, the disadvantaged. It's not the rich kids with money who get crucified by your bad joke. Then again, thinking of consequences has never been a strong point of feminism.

[Jelmatt]

We technically do have a discord, just not named LWDT.

It's called the NSG Soviet. I am sure one of the mods (wink wink) would be happy to set you up.

It's cliquey as shit though.

It is a bit, yeah, but to be fair I'm not sure it makes sense to promote it as the LWDT discord in the first place.

[MERIZoC]

So I've noticed 3 things.

1. Other political threads have a Discord.
2. We don't.
3. I'm no good at public server management.
Therefore, I think we should get a discord. And if I make it I ought to pull some competent volunteers to set the thing up.
If nobody wants one please ignore me.

We technically do have a discord, just not named LWDT.

It's called the NSG Soviet. I am sure one of the mods (wink wink) would be happy to set you up.

link this shit b

[Attempted Socialism]

This will be a somewhat long response to Ostroeuropa, but as the topic is tangential to the thread here, I recognise that a continuation of the discussion could be better placed in the Feminism thread. However, as Ostroeuropas posts are here, I will post my response here and suggest that if you feel like continuing, we migrate this particular discussion over to the Feminism thread afterwards (Send me a link to your reply if so).

I will begin with saying that there are a lot of outlandish claims in your posts. Instead of repeating [citation needed] in some form or another throughout, I will state for the record that I don't actually believe most of your claims on your word alone. Since you have a habit of saying things that could be true (Like throwing out court cases) and inferring from that both who pressured the prosecution, who villified whom, and a number of other things that sounds entirely like your biased opinion, you mix what are potentially facts together with a boatload of interpretation or, seems to me, made-up conclusions. For this response I will often simply grant you your statements of facts even though I don't actually believe many of them.

changes to the justice system and the collapse of due process following a feminist push to increase rape convictions (...) they're having to throw out hundreds of cases as it's emerged the police were pressured into withholding exculpatory evidence

First, most societies prosecute crimes. It's not a specific feminist thing to desire rape allegations to be investigated and prosecuted depending on the evidence. To say that due process is collapsing because crime allegations are investigated, prosecuted and thrown out is simply misunderstanding what due process is. Police withholding exculpatory evidence happens all the time as well - that's the role of a prosecutor, presenting the best possible case for conviction (Courts are what's called 'adversarial', you argue for your own position before a neutral court). If that is enough for the collapse of due process, we have never had due process.

the feminist demands of Alison Saunders

I was unaware that a demand for justice was particularly feminist. Rechtsstaats rely on investigation allegations and prosecuting accordingly.

In the US you've likewise got due process violations on university campuses

To my knowledge US universities are entities capable of setting their own code of conduct and expelling or firing people that do not follow that. It's not a court.

the sex-negative faction and its influence on porn laws

Funny, I have never heard that. All sex-negative porn laws I have ever heard of came from very religious and/or conservative groups and parties. My experience from some 15 years in a decidedly feminist, leftist party is that we're generally sex-positive, free-loving and non-kink-shaming.

a good example of the kind of anti-free speech laws progressives have passed

Ah yeah, the very progressive UK governments that we've seen, starting with Thatcher. It's one long list of Who's Who of British Marxists on that PM list, eternally supported by their cohort of card-carrying Marxists in Parliament.

due process seems pretty sufficient to prove the point

It wouldn't be, though. Even if what you're telling me is true, we see investigations, prosecutions and then no convictions. If your worst nightmare is that innocent men aren't convicted for crimes, I don't think you have much to worry about.

in order to persecute your demographic and live up to the expectations and prejudices of dogmatic bigots

Yeah that would be terrible. Good thing it's something you made up, and not something that happens in reality.

their need to pretend rape is more prevalent than it actually is

This seems like a repeated misunderstanding you've made.
Rape, like many other crimes, is potentially vastly underrepresented in crime statistics. When random samples of people are asked anonymously whether they have experienced e.g. unwanted sexual attention or forced intercourse without their consent, they respond with 'yes' in much higher numbers than rape investigations indicates. Since the surveys correspond better with lived experience, we might ask if there are any reasons rape victims would not want to turn to the police. With rape being a very traumatic experience, both police and society often responding with slut-shaming or blaming the victim, and women have had several generations of being asked how the rape was their own fault, there are good reasons to believe that official rape investigations are underrepresenting the actual number of rapes, even before we need to consider e.g. rape in relationships or friend groups.
Now, as any society based on justice and law would do, this leads human in general to consider how to get more women to report the rape allegations and police to take them serious enough to investigate, so these dark numbers at least get lessened and fewer rapists roam the streets. Like with any crime, I would want 100% of rapes to be reported, 100% of rapes investigated, 100% of rapes prosecuted and 100% of rapes leading to convictions. The current problem with people like you blaming the victims of rape for destroying society and being authoritarian is that it will diminish the numbers of reports, investigations and eventual convictions, leaving more criminals to repeat their crime.
(This last point was known already in the 1970'ies. I had a few chapters of a book - I think this one looking at how social norms in rape influence statistics in a course a few years ago)

In both, it's a matter of fact. It is not up for dispute. Both countries justice systems have concluded due process was violated.

You have so far failed to connect the due process violation to anything feminist or progressive, so clearly a lot of your conclusion is in dispute.

For more general evidence of an authoritarian and anti-freedom mindset being prevalent, check the protests by feminists against mens rights groups,

How is using one's freedom to protest itself anti-freedom? Nevermind that MRAs are responses to losses of privilege (I.e. extending rights to women that were them formerly denied), which is by definition increasing freedoms.

To pretend feminism as it exists in the UK and US isn't an authoritarian hate movement requires ignoring what it actually gets up to and erasing the victims of their activities.

This comes across as either Drudge/Breitbart regurgitation, or as somewhat paranoid-schizophrenic. I don't think imagined actions and made-up victims are reasons to label a thin ideology or a political movement as an authoritarian hate group.

So i'll ask you;

Do you support due process, and do you accept that courts have found the campus trials are violating due process, and do you accept feminism instituted those campus trials?

Yes; not without evidence; not without evidence.
I like your phrasing, though. "Do you accept that you ought to stop beating your wife?"-esque questions are not loaded at all.

It's as bad as if I started rattling off terrorism stats to justify persecution of muslims and violating their rights. (...) You're on the same level of discourse as a Nazi when it comes to justifying their behavior, you realize that, right?

I'm not sure you want to continue debating this way.

Constant reference to womens grievances is not an argument for why feminism isn't a hate movement that discriminates against men and violates their rights. Know what would be? Showing it doesn't routinely violate mens human rights, but you can't do that because that's what the movement routinely does, and then excuses their abuses and atrocities because women have issues.

The argument for why it's not a hate movement that doesn't violate mens rights is that it's not a hate movement and it doesn't violate mens rights.

Additionally, you're flirting with the implication that the rape stats are disproportionately men raping women. Men have an even harder time reporting and getting their rapes dealt with, but are vilified as the primary perpetrators by the feminist movement despite close-to-equal levels of perpetration.

Err, yeah the rape statistics are very clear that men are the perpetrators of rape. There's no doubt about the fact that men absolutely dominate the rapist-side. You may think that's because men would not report rapes committed against them by other men or women, leading to unknown dark numbers that would not figure in the statistics, but that logic is what you earlier put like this:

their need to pretend rape is more prevalent than it actually is

I don't think men are raped to anywhere near the same extend as women (At least it doesn't look like that in surveys or my own lived experience), but due to social pressure, they're probably even more underrepresented in rape victim statistics. Should we not make sure these rapes are reported, investigated and prosecuted?

In addition to that, feminism instituted a campus court system that targetted men and violated their rights, sometimes even expelling male rape victims.

Yeah, I think I saw that Breitbart article as well.

Essentially your entire point is that men having rights is too inconvenient for women since it makes it hard to jail them without evidence. That's the argument feminists advanced by using those statistics, that's the rationale they're flirting with, and that's why their solution ultimately was found to violate due process and the human rights of the accused male students, or accused males in general in the united kingdom.

That's authoritarian, that's hateful, that's prejudiced, and it is a matter of fact and historical record. This is why the left wing in the west, to come back to the original point, has strong authoritarian tendencies in its mainstream movements.

This is a neat strawman, but all it shows is that you can't actually justify your original claim, that the feminist and progressive movements should be authoritarian. You have to make up a new feminist movement to hold authoritarian views for that argument to make sense even to yourself.

[Benuty]

It's only the plural that's dangerous. That's when you get parades, riots, and, worst of all, marriage. One-hundred years ago, the traditionalists working to keep things free of colors, had no clue that we would be coping with rainbows tomorrow. It's like a pinko Skynet

My goodness. You really believe that, don't you?

Parkus is the perfect avatar for my regime of orderly, and global authoritarianism to be quite honest.

I wouldn't earn the crown of madness otherwise if I didn't have a champion worthy of enforcing my claim.

[Benuty]

The feeling when this darkest timeline has made you into an unironic, and unapologetic authoritarian of the highest degree.

[Dumb Ideologies]

The feeling when this darkest timeline has made you into an unironic, and unapologetic authoritarian of the highest degree.

I sympathise, albeit from a different ideological direction than yourself. By disposition I'm one of the people you'd least likely imagine to be authoritarian or revolutionary, but even I'm becoming hostile to doctrinaire "anything goes" social liberalism and increasingly ambivalent to democracy, at least during a transitional stage.

The economic power of the rootless class of the hyper-rich renders democracy increasingly irrelevant and makes solutions like social democracy very difficult to sustain without substantial tariffs and actively favouring domestic industry and business. And if you get to that point you might as well just seize all large foreign enterprises before they collapse and stick them under the control of the existing staff, supported with funding and advice from a national investment bank. And then people aren't gonna just let you seize their stuff and large sections of the police may be reluctant to be complicit in what some consider theft, so the use of force and compulsion - perhaps even using paramilitiaries - might be necessary, along with a prolonged ideological war and use of propaganda.

In the past, this was the point where I'd sigh and pretend nothing could be done without becoming the bad guy, but now I'm increasingly thinking only losers give a shit about being nice and that no omelette is made without breaking a few eggs.

[Cekoviu]

The feeling when this darkest timeline has made you into an unironic, and unapologetic authoritarian of the highest degree.

I sympathise, albeit from a different ideological direction than yourself. By disposition I'm one of the people you'd least likely imagine to be authoritarian or revolutionary, but even I'm becoming hostile to doctrinaire "anything goes" social liberalism and increasingly ambivalent to democracy, at least during a transitional stage.

The economic power of the rootless class of the hyper-rich renders democracy increasingly irrelevant and makes solutions like social democracy very difficult to sustain without substantial tariffs and actively favouring domestic industry and business. And if you get to that point you might as well just seize all large foreign enterprises before they collapse and stick them under the control of the existing staff, supported with funding and advice from a national investment bank. And then people aren't gonna just let you seize their stuff and large sections of the police may be reluctant to be complicit in what some consider theft, so the use of force and compulsion - perhaps even using paramilitiaries - might be necessary, along with a prolonged ideological war and use of propaganda.

In the past, this was the point where I'd sigh and pretend nothing could be done without becoming the bad guy, but now I'm increasingly thinking only losers give a shit about being nice and that no omelette is made without breaking a few eggs.

Nooooo, don't go into the dark of anti-democracy!