NationStates

Vassenor wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
It isn't. If it sounds bad this way, it's equally bad when ppl yell "check your cis white male privilege!" It's satire. I'm not even white in america and im growing tired of everyone claiming to be oppressed and it's all the fault of the evil white man. I wish these so called "vulnerable minorities" would visit a north korean labor camp so they could see what real oppression is, as opposed to some neckbeard calling you a sexist name or racist slur online

Are we doing Oppression Olympics again?

No, I'd rather they be cancelled for good so we can focus more on wealth inequality and america overextending itself in foreign wars, and less on "muh transspecies reptilian rights were violated cause some bigot said 'you arent a reptile.' I identify as a crocodile. That bigot is oppressing me"

Rojava Free State wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Are we doing Oppression Olympics again?

No, I'd rather they be cancelled for good so we can focus more on wealth inequality and america overextending itself in foreign wars, and less on "muh transspecies reptilian rights were violated cause some bigot said 'you arent a reptile.' I identify as a crocodile. That bigot is oppressing me"

That's a mighty fine strawman you've got there. Found a field to put it in yet?

Rojava Free State wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Are we doing Oppression Olympics again?

No, I'd rather they be cancelled for good so we can focus more on wealth inequality and america overextending itself in foreign wars, and less on "muh transspecies reptilian rights were violated cause some bigot said 'you arent a reptile.' I identify as a crocodile. That bigot is oppressing me"

Agreed, I'm sick of the constant hunt of "we got to grand a pedestal to this random minority of a minority of a minority..." to ad nauseam.

Vassenor wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
No, I'd rather they be cancelled for good so we can focus more on wealth inequality and america overextending itself in foreign wars, and less on "muh transspecies reptilian rights were violated cause some bigot said 'you arent a reptile.' I identify as a crocodile. That bigot is oppressing me"

That's a mighty fine strawman you've got there. Found a field to put it in yet?

How is wishing people would stop going on about oppression and focus on the really important things in society a strawman?

Lendenburgh wrote:

Costa Fierro wrote:
Among other things, developed countries have a birthrate at the moment that is below the rate of replacement, that is, countries are projected to start shrinking in population rather than grow. Japan and Germany are two of these countries that spring to mind.

This may cause a number of consequences, chief among which is the smaller tax base from which governments can draw the money needed to fund social services, particularly pensions. There's also the issue of having not enough qualified workers in certain industries, these can cause production issues for manufacturing companies and generally have businesses not running effectively.

This should "concern" most people (I obviously don't give a single fuck because I'll be dead before I'm 60) because our generation and those following us will be seeing the effects of this in the future.

Or, we could accept the conventional logic accepted by most human geographers that birth rates fall in developed societies, and the world population will level out around 10 billion, and instead use immigration to fill gaps in the economy. Automation will reduce the need for low-skilled labor anyways, so it doesn't equate that we need more people for labor... and if the economy is constantly improving in productivity and generating more wealth regardless of population (Germany's economy has been growing quite in pace with its comparable counterparts, and Japan's economy isn't exactly crashing either), the need for more native-born people in any given society just... isn't there. Once again, in places like Japan there is a need for labor (at least in the short term) which could arguably be filled by immigration.

In terms of supporting pensioners, immigrants would help balance the age distribution of the population and would lead to more tax-paying citizens. (Specific to America: It would also help if state pensions didn't get raided into trillions of dollars in debt as well)

Why does that have to happen? Why can a nation not intervene in its culture to try to create the circumstances for higher fertility rates? You can't just do maternity leave and call it a day; you have to go even deeper. You need to make sure your next generation is majority non-college educated so they'll have lots of kids. The government should also try to promote traditionalism; another factor in the Third World that leads to them having lots of kids is their cultural conservatism, which I mentioned.

You're probably wondering why bother.

I say, why not bother? Why not try to prevent your country's people from being displaced, or worse, dying out through assimilation? Why not ensure that your country lives on to preserve its culture and identity, instead of becoming a colony of various developing countries(and that's not even to say what said third-worlders will do to your country)

Oh Vassenor, you missed a couple.

Galloism wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
So how does accepting the possibility that someone might have done a thing equal guilty until proven innocent?

If you believe in God, does that mean you accept the possibility of God or that you have full faith that God exists, and accept His existence as real?

If you believe Donald Trump, does that mean you accept the possibility that Donald Trump is telling the truth, or that you have full faith that he is telling the truth, and accept his word as truth?

If you believe in climate change, does that mean you accept the possibility of climate change, or that you have full faith that climate change is a real thing and accept it as a real event?

If you believe your spouse when he/she says he/she was working late, do you accept the possibility they were working late, or that you positively affirmatively accept they were working late and accept it as a real event?

Galloism wrote:

Scomagia wrote:Yes. It's absolutely wrong that anyone ever thought that this is the way law ought to work.

You can think the anti-rape portion of the feminist movement for pushing hard to reverse the burden of proof. (or, more accurately, the anti-rape of women portion. no one cares about men who are raped.)

What was that Vassenor? No one says they want guilty until proven innocent? How did it get in the law they pushed then, and as far back as 1975 at that?

Vassenor wrote:
You mean like the belief that feminists want rape accused to be treated as guilty until proven innocent?

Better start believing, Vassenor.

Petrasylvania wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Or we could, you know, not drag society kicking and screaming back to the nineteenth century.

Wonder how many cried upon realizing The Handmaid's Tale isn't a documentary.

I wonder when you'll realise that there is more than one TV show in existence. We get it, you've got Hulu, well done you. Go watch game of thrones or Vikings or EastEnders and bring that up 40 or 50 times ad nauseum, just for the sheer novelty of bleating on about a different TV show for a change

I mean really, I don't put much value in the whole NPC meme, but when you seem to lack any sort of ability to go beyond the same six responses, it makes me wonder.

Petrasylvania wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Or we could, you know, not drag society kicking and screaming back to the nineteenth century.

Wonder how many cried upon realizing The Handmaid's Tale isn't a documentary.

Reminder that men are still forced into fatherhood, including rape victims, and feminist dystopian fantasy is not a reason to believe their nonsense ideology accurately describes reality, and in fact this is an example of it getting things precisely backwards.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Petrasylvania wrote:Wonder how many cried upon realizing The Handmaid's Tale isn't a documentary.

Reminder that men are still forced into fatherhood, including rape victims, and feminist dystopian fantasy is not a reason to believe their nonsense ideology accurately describes reality, and in fact this is an example of it getting things precisely backwards.

Yet more projection from Gauthier? Quelle suprise!

Hirota wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Reminder that men are still forced into fatherhood, including rape victims, and feminist dystopian fantasy is not a reason to believe their nonsense ideology accurately describes reality, and in fact this is an example of it getting things precisely backwards.

Yet more projection from Gauthier? Quelle suprise!

The feminists worst nightmare is the current state of affairs for men, including imprisonment for failure to do what is demanded of them. But no, misandry doesn't real and so on.

Vassenor wrote:

Hirota wrote:Rojava might be, you might be projecting. Das and I are arguing against indulging in it.

I mean I think saying that we can't debate about problems that may or may not exist in our society because people elsewhere have it worse is kind of stupid.

I agree, but I wouldn't limit it to purely geographical reasons.

Just because demographic X had problems does not mean demographic Y doesn't also experience those problems too.

And the sooner you realise that talking about demographic Y's problems does not automatically mean diminishing or dismissing demographic X's problems, the sooner you might be able to be a constructive contributor to that debate.

I genuinely look forward to the day that starts to happen. Whilst I'm staunchly critical of your aggregate posting at this time, I remain optimistic that you can do better.

Or I might be hopelessly naive - I've been called that on here. I hope you prove them wrong on that.

Hirota wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
I mean I think saying that we can't debate about problems that may or may not exist in our society because people elsewhere have it worse is kind of stupid.

I agree, but I wouldn't limit it to purely geographical reasons.

Just because demographic X had problems does not mean demographic Y doesn't also experience those problems too.

And the sooner you realise that talking about demographic Y's problems does not automatically mean diminishing or dismissing demographic X's problems, the sooner you might be able to be a constructive contributor to that debate.

I look forward to the day that starts to happen.

This kind of segregation isn't helpful and marginalizes people. Issues should be discussed issue by issue and attempts made to include everyone. Allowing there to be "Womens issues" and "Mens issues" disadvantages men because people will not lend support to their demographic, and there studies on prejudice and womens in group bias show that the more sexist a woman is, the more she focuses on womens issues, which means she starts viewing men as more of a threat and having less empathy for their problems, which feeds this vicious cycle.

People who say "it's fine to talk about womens issues, it doesn't detract from mens issues" don't understand that reality disagrees with them and the actual impact of doing that is measurably negative. This dynamic is what has led us into many of our current problems, with mens issues being entirely sidelined, because womens organizations are powerful, well funded, well connected institutions able to drown them out entirely and monopolize attention, which lowers empathy for men and so on. It's a situation akin to if we decided "White people being able to have a political faction of their own is fine." and ignored that this meant everything would always go in white peoples favor and everyone else would be ignored.

Issue by issue is the way to do it.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
Self-hating, much?

'Cause last time I checked, you are white and formerly a male.

When other people criticise white men, it is racism or sexism. When white men criticise other white men, it is self-hatred. Are we so beyond reproach that all criticism is moot?

There are some valid points to be made about the position of white men in the western world. Just like saying that there is a higher crime rate among black youths (mdue to socio-economic conditions), it is also fair to say that there are certain cultural characteristics shared among white men due to socio-economics. It's pretty jarring for women and minorities to see white men claimed that they are oppressed because of their race or gender while the opposite is often the case.

Nobody is claiming that white men are oppressed. White people in general aren't oppressed really. Get off your moral high horse. We're just saying we don't want our lives ruined by greedy girls looking for a payday. Don't believe it happens? Ask Brian Banks, David Riggins, the two football players from sacred heart, and a long list of others.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
Self-hating, much?

'Cause last time I checked, you are white and formerly a male.

When other people criticise white men, it is racism or sexism. When white men criticise other white men, it is self-hatred. Are we so beyond reproach that all criticism is moot?

There are some valid points to be made about the position of white men in the western world. Just like saying that there is a higher crime rate among black youths (mdue to socio-economic conditions), it is also fair to say that there are certain cultural characteristics shared among white men due to socio-economics. It's pretty jarring for women and minorities to see white men claimed that they are oppressed because of their race or gender while the opposite is often the case.

In practice people don't tolerate or allow criticism of women along similar lines, are ambivalent leaning hostile to discussing mens problems at all, and reject any discussion of racism against whites.

What makes it hateful of whites and males is the fact they aren't afforded the same position as women and minorities in this discussion. Just like there's nothing inherently hateful about conscription, but the moment you up and decide it only applies to black people, you've got explaining to do. Only whites and men, and especially white men, are subjected to this kind of criticism, and often it is unfair but that unfairness is dismissed out of hand because criticism of unfair behavior toward whites/men isn't tolerated. So no, it's not "Just criticism.", it's also abuse, gaslighting, and demands for their subjugation framed as "Just criticism." which is beyond reproach.

This is especially relevant because a lot of it boils down to blaming men for the problems women generate for themselves, as well as blaming men for the problems women generate for them.

There is a conversation to be had about eliminating racism and sexism. It's just that the progressive left has made adamantly clear they are not interested in conversation, but rather, asserting dogmatisms and preaching while suppressing criticsm and dissent.

A conversation on these topics that banned progressives and feminists as well as open fascists from participating would be far more productive, because those factions taken as a whole hold as central tenets that others do not deserve representation in the conversation on their experiences.

If you're still the type of person who doesn't understand why openly identifying as a fascist means you're not welcome, that's no longer our problem. Same for feminists. If you don't get it yet, its not our job to educate you.

This thing you are defending:

But now all the poor oppressed white men don't have to fear having their lives ruined when their sexual activities come back to bite them.

Vassenor pulls this shit even when discussing mens issues. They immediately frame it as "White men" and dismiss it by mocking the notion of white men being oppressed, even when the discussion is for instance about the justice gap in sentencing, something that impacts men and minority men most of all. They've done it in reaction to every and any mens issue being raised. You are giving people like Vassenor the license to behave that way.

Not only is it unfair in and of itself for you to defend that attitude with regards to white men, but you are ignoring how it is abused. Ask yourself. Why did Vassenor make this about white men?

there's nothing abotu this issue that makes it about white men. In fact we've consistently pointed out feminist action here harms minorities most of all.

It's because Vassenor is not sincere, and is behaving dishonestly, they are using this thought-terminating cliche you guys have normalized that white men are never oppressed and you don't need to think any further on the topic to shut down discussion of mens issues in general, even ones that mostly effect minority men.

They did this right in front of you and you fell for it immediately. This notion you are supporting is toxic, and I have no doubt in vassenors head they think they're just belittling and dismissing the suffering of white men so that makes it okay, (even though this in itself is disgusting behavior) but the problem is, the framework you guys use is so twisted and dysfunctional in its interaction with reality, it causes you guys to behave like its white men being discussed when no, it's just men.

Explain yourself.

Why did you defend this statement when it is clearly a mischaracerization of the discussion?

Do you understand Vassenor is using your own prejudiced ideological stance against white men to get you to defend them shutting down a topic on mens issues in general?

It is because Vassenor not only hates white men, but cannot bare to admit to themselves that feminism is not merely harming white men like they are perfectly fine with, but harms other men too. So any criticism of feminism must, in their mind, be on behalf of white men. They cannot admit reality to themselves, and so persistently mischaracterize the criticism, and attempt to use progressive prejudice against white males to shut down their own ability to think on the topic and actually understand and engage with the criticism being offered.

And you defended this. It slipped right by you.

THATS why people say you progressives hate whites and men, shit like this.

It'd be like if I dismissed any criticism of capitalism as "Jewish bolshevism" and expected that to be sufficient to get people on my side. Vassenor expected this to work, and it did on you. That's really sad.

This dynamic here? It's what your ideas when put into practice generate. Hatred of white men means hatred of men AND whites. You can't seperate the two, as Vassenor routinely demonstrates with their kneejerk hostility to mens issues and persistent insistence on framing it as "White men", even when the people criticizing feminist discourse on the topic point out at length, it's mostly minority men you are hurting.

It's pretty jarring for women and minorities to see white men claimed that they are oppressed because of their race or gender while the opposite is often the case.

You mean they are prejudiced about a situation and don't want their preconceptions challenged because it makes them uncomfortable. That's kind of the point.

So how about it Vassenor, can you explain why you have this persistent dishonesty in all your posts on the topic? Is it that you're really a deep cover klanperson who wants black men on campus fucked over or something, but realize to do that you've got to gaslight everyone and frame this shit as "White men complaining, nothing to worry about" and then they'll ignore it?

Is it some kind of statement on the lefts racism and 5d chess from you against them?

Or is just simple prejudice and hatred of whites and men, alongside your dogmatic adherence to the progressive movements ideas (Including their absurd notion that only white men would oppose their ideas or have anything to complain about) and you don't bother considering the consequences?

This is a really great example of the problem I always talk about with you Progressives not interacting with reality properly. You are only interacting with the set of scriptures that exists inside your own head, not reality, those scriptures told you it has to be about white men, so thats the silly shit you came out with, because you're deeply uncomfortable and unwilling to accept that progressivism is fucked in general, not just fucked toward white males. That's why you made this mistake. Because you may as well not be here, we could put you on mars entirely alone and you'd still be reciting the same things about your surroundings and what they contain.

The total lack of interaction with the real world in favor of scripturalism is what makes your movement constantly fuck things up, and its why you are dangerous in a very fundamental and very basic way we've known about since the enlightenment.

It's also what makes you impossible to reach and pointless to engage with. Until you become actually skeptical of things, there's no point.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Hirota wrote: Yet more projection from Gauthier? Quelle suprise!

The feminists worst nightmare is the current state of affairs for men, including imprisonment for failure to do what is demanded of them. But no, misandry doesn't real and so on.

Nah, the feminist's worst nightmare is when men start rejecting gender roles.

Costa Fierro wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
The feminists worst nightmare is the current state of affairs for men, including imprisonment for failure to do what is demanded of them. But no, misandry doesn't real and so on.

Nah, the feminist's worst nightmare is when men start rejecting gender roles.

Disagree, the majority of feminists don't actually care about men except in terms of women having maximal power over them and finding excuses to abuse them. Gender roles and policing mens gender expression is one method women can control them, but not the only one, and I think most feminists are comfortable enough in their undemocratic domination of all our major institutions that they just don't care anymore, hence the far more open sexism and misandry and pushing policies the public hates, they just don't give a shit anymore now that they have control over media, education, and law.

Vassenor wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
No, I'd rather they be cancelled for good so we can focus more on wealth inequality and america overextending itself in foreign wars, and less on "muh transspecies reptilian rights were violated cause some bigot said 'you arent a reptile.' I identify as a crocodile. That bigot is oppressing me"

That's a mighty fine strawman you've got there. Found a field to put it in yet?

you're one to talk

South Ccanda wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
That's a mighty fine strawman you've got there. Found a field to put it in yet?

you're one to talk

So when did anyone actually say any of that? Or are you just trying to use the whole NO U! termination cliche?

Vassenor wrote:

South Ccanda wrote:you're one to talk

So when did anyone actually say any of that? Or are you just trying to use the whole NO U! termination cliche?

none of those, its more a "U TOO" cliche, its not really a termination, I'm just calling you on how you do the exact same thing when it's convenient for you. I seem to remember a thread about smoking for an example of this.

Ccanda wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
So when did anyone actually say any of that? Or are you just trying to use the whole NO U! termination cliche?

none of those, its more a "U TOO" cliche, its not really a termination, I'm just calling you on how you do the exact same thing when it's convenient for you. I seem to remember a thread about smoking for an example of this.

(Actually-Fun) Fun fact:Roman Senators did that, it’s called “To quequo” (lit. you also), though some call it a logical fallacy.

Also, Vassenor, there have been some other posts addressed to you previously. I don’t necessarily agree with them, but good will rests on not ignoring the posts you dislike.

Teachian wrote:

Ccanda wrote:none of those, its more a "U TOO" cliche, its not really a termination, I'm just calling you on how you do the exact same thing when it's convenient for you. I seem to remember a thread about smoking for an example of this.

Fun fact:Roman Senators did that, it’s called “To quequo” (lit. you also), though some call it a logical fallacy.

Also, Vassenor, there have been some other posts addressed to you previously. I don’t necessarily agree with them, but good will rests on not ignoring the posts you dislike.

yes, i'm quite aware of the logical fallacy in which I've brought to the table, keep in mind that there are only two people in NS forums that I would ever use these fallacies against, considering they are famous for using fallacies and backwards rhetoric themselves.

Ccanda wrote:yes, i'm quite aware of the logical fallacy in which I've brought to the table, keep in mind that there are only two people in NS forums that I would ever use these fallacies against, considering they are famous for using fallacies and backwards rhetoric themselves.

Fair enough. I wasn’t trying to call anyone out as much as express my nerdy sense of humour that Roman Senators shouted “nu u!” at each other.

Anyone? Someone? No one?

Teachian wrote:

Ccanda wrote:yes, i'm quite aware of the logical fallacy in which I've brought to the table, keep in mind that there are only two people in NS forums that I would ever use these fallacies against, considering they are famous for using fallacies and backwards rhetoric themselves.

Fair enough. I wasn’t trying to call anyone out as much as express my nerdy sense of humour that Roman Senators shouted “nu u!” at each other.

Anyone? Someone? No one?

"This is the comedy police, You're under arrest!"

"I'm not going back to jail!!" *Pulls gun*

Teachian wrote:

Ccanda wrote:none of those, its more a "U TOO" cliche, its not really a termination, I'm just calling you on how you do the exact same thing when it's convenient for you. I seem to remember a thread about smoking for an example of this.

(Actually-Fun) Fun fact:Roman Senators did that, it’s called “To quequo” (lit. you also), though some call it a logical fallacy.

Also, Vassenor, there have been some other posts addressed to you previously. I don’t necessarily agree with them, but good will rests on not ignoring the posts you dislike.

I'm unsure I'll get a reply to my post telling her to do her homework before making broad statements, because she's still making broad statements.

Costa Fierro wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
The feminists worst nightmare is the current state of affairs for men, including imprisonment for failure to do what is demanded of them. But no, misandry doesn't real and so on.

Nah, the feminist's worst nightmare is when men start rejecting gender roles.

Au contraire.

Be gay, do crime, wear make up, talk about your feelings, appropriate pink and fuscia, don't get pressured into sex because it's expected of you, be kindergarden teachers and househusbands, let your girlfriend pay for dinner, etc.