LWDT V: Completing the Five Thread Plan

[Torrocca]

I would love to ask the Lefties on NS this question. Those things “highly intersectional identities” that have a hard time find accepting from the communities they belong to for various reasons turning to political and philosophical individualism as a source of defending their validity? I’ve found that political and philosophical individualism to be the best solution for those with “highly intersectional identities”.

For example, I face mass rejection from my LGBT community due to my body size, my personal appearance, my politics and many other things. So, rather than what I did before, become an anti-LGBT bigot, I adopted a more individualist perspective on life and politics.

The class struggle is a socioeconomic issue and by necessity requires intersectionality. You can't argue that the issues of say, one race of people come before the issues of the working class, or vice versa. They have to come along hand-in-hand in regards to creating positive, lasting change for everyone. This doesn't mean circumventing the idea of individuality, but rather reinforcing it AND the collective all at once; on the individual level in regards to a more egalitarian social culture, wherein people are accepted for who they are regardless of who they are, whether they're a different race, sex, religion, etc., and at the collective level in regards to a more egalitarian economic condition, so that issues like poverty and economic class are done away with.

[Northern Davincia]

How is class struggle not living for others? It is collectivism in its purest form.

What is wrong with living for others? I mean, unless one is a Stirnerite. Roy Bhaskar, the libertarian Marxist founder of critical realism, said that we must work to emancipate ourselves and to help emancipate others. One of the ways we emancipate others is by establishing libertarian communism.

There's nothing inherently wrong with living for others, unless doing so is a detriment upon your own life. There is also nothing that requires you to 'liberate' others after achieving liberation yourself.

[Torrocca]

What is wrong with living for others? I mean, unless one is a Stirnerite. Roy Bhaskar, the libertarian Marxist founder of critical realism, said that we must work to emancipate ourselves and to help emancipate others. One of the ways we emancipate others is by establishing libertarian communism.

There's nothing inherently wrong with living for others, unless doing so is a detriment upon your own life.

Arguably, that's when its the most courageous and right to live for others.

There is also nothing that requires you to 'liberate' others after achieving liberation yourself.

Nothing requiring it, but humanity and common decency would argue you should for the sake of yourself and others.

[The South Falls]

There's nothing inherently wrong with living for others, unless doing so is a detriment upon your own life.

Arguably, that's when its the most courageous and right to live for others.

There is also nothing that requires you to 'liberate' others after achieving liberation yourself.

Nothing requiring it, but humanity and common decency would argue you should for the sake of yourself and others.

That would, but if living for others means your termination/not liberation, why would humanity come in, if you're about to lose yours.

[Torrocca]

Arguably, that's when its the most courageous and right to live for others.



Nothing requiring it, but humanity and common decency would argue you should for the sake of yourself and others.

That would, but if living for others means your termination/not liberation, why would humanity come in, if you're about to lose yours.

It's a dangerous team effort, sometimes you gotta make sacrifices for the greater good of freedom and the like even though it'd be preferable not to. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Northern Davincia]

There's nothing inherently wrong with living for others, unless doing so is a detriment upon your own life.

Arguably, that's when its the most courageous and right to live for others.

There is also nothing that requires you to 'liberate' others after achieving liberation yourself.

Nothing requiring it, but humanity and common decency would argue you should for the sake of yourself and others.

Where do you draw the line of self-sacrifice? At its farthest extreme, you either have human doormats or slaves.

[Ostroeuropa]

I would love to ask the Lefties on NS this question. Those things “highly intersectional identities” that have a hard time find accepting from the communities they belong to for various reasons turning to political and philosophical individualism as a source of defending their validity? I’ve found that political and philosophical individualism to be the best solution for those with “highly intersectional identities”.

For example, I face mass rejection from my LGBT community due to my body size, my personal appearance, my politics and many other things. So, rather than what I did before, become an anti-LGBT bigot, I adopted a more individualist perspective on life and politics.

The class struggle is a socioeconomic issue and by necessity requires intersectionality. You can't argue that the issues of say, one race of people come before the issues of the working class, or vice versa. They have to come along hand-in-hand in regards to creating positive, lasting change for everyone. This doesn't mean circumventing the idea of individuality, but rather reinforcing it AND the collective all at once; on the individual level in regards to a more egalitarian social culture, wherein people are accepted for who they are regardless of who they are, whether they're a different race, sex, religion, etc., and at the collective level in regards to a more egalitarian economic condition, so that issues like poverty and economic class are done away with.

I'd buy this if more people into intersectionality cared about misandry, but it seems like they don't.

[Torrocca]

Arguably, that's when its the most courageous and right to live for others.



Nothing requiring it, but humanity and common decency would argue you should for the sake of yourself and others.

Where do you draw the line of self-sacrifice? At its farthest extreme, you either have human doormats or slaves.

When the risk clearly isn't worth it, either individually or for the collective good.

[Ostroeuropa]

Where do you draw the line of self-sacrifice? At its farthest extreme, you either have human doormats or slaves.

When the risk clearly isn't worth it, either individually or for the collective good.

For a risk to be worth it, chance of success must be known. Often, it isn't. Ultimately, it's a decision for the individual, and no other individual can particular judge them for deciding to do it or deciding not to. People have different threshholds at which point they decide it's a worthwhile action.

[Torrocca]

When the risk clearly isn't worth it, either individually or for the collective good.

For a risk to be worth it, chance of success must be known. Often, it isn't. Ultimately, it's a decision for the individual, and no other individual can particular judge them for deciding to do it or deciding not to. People have different threshholds at which point they decide it's a worthwhile action.

Arguably, fighting for freedom and egalitarianism is always worth it. There's always a rather large chance of success, either on an individual level or at a collective one. It just needs to happen and it needs the support of many individuals.

[Ostroeuropa]

For a risk to be worth it, chance of success must be known. Often, it isn't. Ultimately, it's a decision for the individual, and no other individual can particular judge them for deciding to do it or deciding not to. People have different threshholds at which point they decide it's a worthwhile action.

Arguably, fighting for freedom and egalitarianism is always worth it. There's always a rather large chance of success, either on an individual level or at a collective one. It just needs to happen and it needs the support of many individuals.

I focus on human happiness, knowledge, and our mastery over the universe and controlling our environment. It happens to be the case that a healthy, educated, free, and so on society is conducive to those goals.

[Puldania]

The class struggle is a socioeconomic issue and by necessity requires intersectionality. You can't argue that the issues of say, one race of people come before the issues of the working class, or vice versa. They have to come along hand-in-hand in regards to creating positive, lasting change for everyone. This doesn't mean circumventing the idea of individuality, but rather reinforcing it AND the collective all at once; on the individual level in regards to a more egalitarian social culture, wherein people are accepted for who they are regardless of who they are, whether they're a different race, sex, religion, etc., and at the collective level in regards to a more egalitarian economic condition, so that issues like poverty and economic class are done away with.

I'd buy this if more people into intersectionality cared about misandry, but it seems like they don't.

Misandry is perpetuated by males.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'd buy this if more people into intersectionality cared about misandry, but it seems like they don't.

Misandry is perpetuated by males.

Women too bud. For example, boys in schools are graded lower for the same work and punished more for the same behavior, by women teachers mostly. It's to the point that boys are at least subconsciously aware women teachers discriminate against them, and lower their bets for high marks when told it's a woman teacher as opposed to a man (correctly), whereas girl students overestimate the favoritism male teachers will give them.

There's plenty of other examples.

This dynamic is a large part of the boys crisis in education, disincentivizing boys from taking part because women teachers treat them unfairly.

[West Leas Oros]

I'd buy this if more people into intersectionality cared about misandry, but it seems like they don't.

Misandry is perpetuated by males.

Just when I thought it couldn’t get any weirder.

[Torrocca]

Misandry is perpetuated by males.

Women too bud. For example, boys in schools are graded lower for the same work and punished more for the same behavior, by women teachers mostly. It's to the point that boys are at least subconsciously aware women teachers discriminate against them, and lower their bets for high marks when told it's a woman teacher as opposed to a man (correctly), whereas girl students overestimate the favoritism male teachers will give them.

lmao what

im like 99.99999999999% sure that's not remotely true lmao

[Ostroeuropa]

Women too bud. For example, boys in schools are graded lower for the same work and punished more for the same behavior, by women teachers mostly. It's to the point that boys are at least subconsciously aware women teachers discriminate against them, and lower their bets for high marks when told it's a woman teacher as opposed to a man (correctly), whereas girl students overestimate the favoritism male teachers will give them.

lmao what

im like 99.99999999999% sure that's not remotely true lmao

Here's some stuff:
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/0 ... 81236.html

Female teachers mark male pupils more harshly than they do their female students, research has claimed.

Additionally, girls tend to believe male teachers will look upon them more favourably than female teaching staff, but men treat all students the same, regardless of gender.

"Male students tend to bet less [money] when assessed by a female teacher than by an external examiner or by a male teacher. This is consistent with female teachers' grading practices; female teachers give lower grades to male students.

Well you're a feminist and care about men too, so naturally you've put in precisely zero hours of effort into researching their issues, and your worldview is so backward and nonsensical that you're "99.99999999999%" confident in a PREDICTION about reality that didn't come true. In science, when a "theory" has this happen, we call this, "Being wrong.". Your feminism causes you to be wrong on basically everything relating to men, but I doubt you'll throw it on the scrapheap, because it's not about facts or actually caring about men, (hence your total lack of research) it's about believing in a dogma.

this is hardly groundbreaking. It's years old information and mens groups have been talking about it for a while.
None of your feminist peers, publications, or sources managed to inform you on this issue, it took an MRA to do it. Remember that next time you pretend your peers give a fuck about men.

Here's a general rule of thumb for you in the future, when people who actually put effort into learning about mens issues make a claim about them, don't refer to what your feminist indoctrination tells you might be true about it, maybe believe the people bothering to put the effort in and ask for sources if you feel like it rather than acting incredulous about something your worldview is ill equipped to understand and tells you can't exist because it isn't a description of reality, but an assertion of prejudice.

[Puldania]

lmao what

im like 99.99999999999% sure that's not remotely true lmao

Here's some stuff:
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/0 ... 81236.html

Female teachers mark male pupils more harshly than they do their female students, research has claimed.

Additionally, girls tend to believe male teachers will look upon them more favourably than female teaching staff, but men treat all students the same, regardless of gender.

"Male students tend to bet less [money] when assessed by a female teacher than by an external examiner or by a male teacher. This is consistent with female teachers' grading practices; female teachers give lower grades to male students.

Well you're a feminist and care about men too, so naturally you've put in precisely zero hours of effort into researching their issues, and your worldview is so backward and nonsensical that you're "99.99999999999%" confident in a PREDICTION about reality that didn't come true. In science, when a "theory" has this happen, we call this, "Being wrong.". Your feminism causes you to be wrong on basically everything relating to men, but I doubt you'll throw it on the scrapheap, because it's not about facts or actually caring about men, (hence your total lack of research) it's about believing in a dogma.

this is hardly groundbreaking. It's years old information and mens groups have been talking about it for a while.
None of your feminist peers, publications, or sources managed to inform you on this issue, it took an MRA to do it. Remember that next time you pretend your peers give a fuck about men.

Men being equal about gender in a school environment? Go peddle your bullshit elsewhere.

[Torrocca]

lmao what

im like 99.99999999999% sure that's not remotely true lmao

Here's some stuff:
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/0 ... 81236.html

Female teachers mark male pupils more harshly than they do their female students, research has claimed.

Additionally, girls tend to believe male teachers will look upon them more favourably than female teaching staff, but men treat all students the same, regardless of gender.

"Male students tend to bet less [money] when assessed by a female teacher than by an external examiner or by a male teacher. This is consistent with female teachers' grading practices; female teachers give lower grades to male students.

Well you're a feminist and care about men too, so naturally you've put in precisely zero hours of effort into researching their issues, and your worldview is so backward and nonsensical that you're "99.99999999999%" confident in a PREDICTION about reality that didn't come true. In science, when a "theory" has this happen, we call this, "Being wrong.". Your feminism causes you to be wrong on basically everything relating to men, but I doubt you'll throw it on the scrapheap, because it's not about facts or actually caring about men, (hence your total lack of research) it's about believing in a dogma.

this is hardly groundbreaking. It's years old information and mens groups have been talking about it for a while.
None of your feminist peers, publications, or sources managed to inform you on this issue, it took an MRA to do it. Remember that next time you pretend your peers give a fuck about men.

>huffington post

ah yes the precipice of researched and sourced arguments, with lines like:

"Female teachers mark male pupils more harshly than they do their female students, research has claimed."

Really pegged me there with an astoundingly good source, mate.

[Puldania]

Here's some stuff:
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/0 ... 81236.html





Well you're a feminist and care about men too, so naturally you've put in precisely zero hours of effort into researching their issues, and your worldview is so backward and nonsensical that you're "99.99999999999%" confident in a PREDICTION about reality that didn't come true. In science, when a "theory" has this happen, we call this, "Being wrong.". Your feminism causes you to be wrong on basically everything relating to men, but I doubt you'll throw it on the scrapheap, because it's not about facts or actually caring about men, (hence your total lack of research) it's about believing in a dogma.

this is hardly groundbreaking. It's years old information and mens groups have been talking about it for a while.
None of your feminist peers, publications, or sources managed to inform you on this issue, it took an MRA to do it. Remember that next time you pretend your peers give a fuck about men.

>huffington post

ah yes the precipice of researched and sourced arguments, with lines like:

"Female teachers mark male pupils more harshly than they do their female students, research has claimed."

Really pegged me there with an astoundingly good source, mate.

Osto is the poster child for Confirmation-Bias

[Valgora]

Misandry is perpetuated by males.

Women too bud. For example, boys in schools are graded lower for the same work and punished more for the same behavior, by women teachers mostly. It's to the point that boys are at least subconsciously aware women teachers discriminate against them, and lower their bets for high marks when told it's a woman teacher as opposed to a man (correctly), whereas girl students overestimate the favoritism male teachers will give them.

There's plenty of other examples.

This dynamic is a large part of the boys crisis in education, disincentivizing boys from taking part because women teachers treat them unfairly.

I have literally never heard of this.
I've never though "it's a female teacher, she's going to grade me lower cause I'm a male" and I've never heard anyone else say that at all.

If were talking about schools, how about dress codes being harsher for females because "males could get distracted"?

[Ostroeuropa]

Men being equal about gender in a school environment? Go peddle your bullshit elsewhere.

It's a study. Do you have a different one, or merely a bunch of feminist anecdotes and assertions, perhaps some cherry picked examples of womens issues without discussing mens to argue they're oppressed?

The study shows girls expect better treatment from the men but they don't give it, and instead treat everyone equally. This is in line with the study showing women being treated equally makes them think they're being discriminated against, which is likewise in line with the women are wonderful study. (Women have a huge in group bias, men don't, they are slightly biased in favor of women, but not as much as women are.)

https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/handle/10012/6958

Subjects were shown several vignettes of men interacting with men or men interacting with women.

Men who treated women better than they treated men were seen as not sexist. Men who treated women the way they treat men were seen as hostilely sexist.

[Puldania]

Women too bud. For example, boys in schools are graded lower for the same work and punished more for the same behavior, by women teachers mostly. It's to the point that boys are at least subconsciously aware women teachers discriminate against them, and lower their bets for high marks when told it's a woman teacher as opposed to a man (correctly), whereas girl students overestimate the favoritism male teachers will give them.

There's plenty of other examples.

This dynamic is a large part of the boys crisis in education, disincentivizing boys from taking part because women teachers treat them unfairly.

I have literally never heard of this.
I've never though "it's a female teacher, she's going to grade me lower cause I'm a male" and I've never heard anyone else say that at all.

If were talking about schools, how about dress codes being harsher for females because "males could get distracted"?

Yes indeed. School dress-codes are centered around policing girls for the simple fact that grown men could be attracted to them.

Also, teachers in my schools mostly assumed all girls were dumbasses. The would always assign a boy to them in group projects because they didn't think the girls could be intellectual about anything.

[Ostroeuropa]

Here's some stuff:
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/0 ... 81236.html





Well you're a feminist and care about men too, so naturally you've put in precisely zero hours of effort into researching their issues, and your worldview is so backward and nonsensical that you're "99.99999999999%" confident in a PREDICTION about reality that didn't come true. In science, when a "theory" has this happen, we call this, "Being wrong.". Your feminism causes you to be wrong on basically everything relating to men, but I doubt you'll throw it on the scrapheap, because it's not about facts or actually caring about men, (hence your total lack of research) it's about believing in a dogma.

this is hardly groundbreaking. It's years old information and mens groups have been talking about it for a while.
None of your feminist peers, publications, or sources managed to inform you on this issue, it took an MRA to do it. Remember that next time you pretend your peers give a fuck about men.

>huffington post

ah yes the precipice of researched and sourced arguments, with lines like:

"Female teachers mark male pupils more harshly than they do their female students, research has claimed."

Really pegged me there with an astoundingly good source, mate.

So basically anti-intellectualism then. Got any studies arguing the opposite? This isn't the only study that shows it, it's prevalent and has been repeated.
Like i said, your refusal to interact with reality when it goes against your dogma doesn't justify your incredulity.

Women too bud. For example, boys in schools are graded lower for the same work and punished more for the same behavior, by women teachers mostly. It's to the point that boys are at least subconsciously aware women teachers discriminate against them, and lower their bets for high marks when told it's a woman teacher as opposed to a man (correctly), whereas girl students overestimate the favoritism male teachers will give them.

There's plenty of other examples.

This dynamic is a large part of the boys crisis in education, disincentivizing boys from taking part because women teachers treat them unfairly.

I have literally never heard of this.
I've never though "it's a female teacher, she's going to grade me lower cause I'm a male" and I've never heard anyone else say that at all.

If were talking about schools, how about dress codes being harsher for females because "males could get distracted"?

They seem at least subconsciously aware of it. Class consciousness among boys for sexism against their demographic is low, discussion of oppression is not necessary for it to exist, not be noted on a subconscious level.

Osto is the poster child for Confirmation-Bias

So you don't actually have an argument beyond not wanting to accept reality because it goes against your worldviews narrative about it. This is precisely why so many feminists are a problem.

[The Parkus Empire]

I have literally never heard of this.
I've never though "it's a female teacher, she's going to grade me lower cause I'm a male" and I've never heard anyone else say that at all.

If were talking about schools, how about dress codes being harsher for females because "males could get distracted"?

Yes indeed. School dress-codes are centered around policing girls for the simple fact that grown men could be attracted to them.

Also, teachers in my schools mostly assumed all girls were dumbasses. The would always assign a boy to them in group projects because they didn't think the girls could be intellectual about anything.

Being intellectual does not mean you're smart.

[Puldania]

Men being equal about gender in a school environment? Go peddle your bullshit elsewhere.

It's a study. Do you have a different one, or merely a bunch of feminist anecdotes and assertions, perhaps some cherry picked examples of womens issues without discussing mens to argue they're oppressed?

The study shows girls expect better treatment from the men but they don't give it, and instead treat everyone equally. This is in line with the study showing women being treated equally makes them think they're being discriminated against, which is likewise in line with the women are wonderful study. (Women have a huge in group bias, men don't, they are slightly biased in favor of women, but not as much as women are.)

https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/handle/10012/6958

Subjects were shown several vignettes of men interacting with men or men interacting with women.

Men who treated women better than they treated men were seen as not sexist. Men who treated women the way they treat men were seen as hostilely sexist.

It's almost like people expect to be treated according to their actual identity!
Are you too obtuse to pick up that men and women think and act differently in regards to social interaction?