UK Politics Thread IX: The Masses Against the Classes

[Ostroeuropa]

Defending people from what jess phillips and the feminist press have pulled here is fine, because the target doesn't matter. What matters is the perpetrators and their behavior is not good for society no matter who their victim is. You'd think that would be obvious, but apparently not.

Uhh... the way I see it, the target does matter. Even from a practical standpoint, if they go after someone already unpopular, defending them only lowers the chance other people will listen to you. I recommend calling them out when they target decent people.

I do then as well. Frankly the notion i'd pass up the opportunity is absurd.

He doesn't think it's funny to hurt people. That's a bad faith representation of what's going on. Jess phillips on the other hand, laughing when she derails mens issues being discussed in parliament, IS her finding it funny to hurt people. She also thinks it's brave and admirable to hurt people if her interaction with Layla is anything to go by.
So long as those people are men ofcourse.

Carl on the other hand finds a joke funny (or more accurately, finds laughing at the media and jess phillips' reaction to the joke funny because of what it says about how they process information, and their total lack of self-awareness. This is because he has a better and more optimistic view of them than I do, and assumes they lack self-awareness, rather than being actively malicious.). You being unable to separate reality from fiction is not a good look for you. See, if you find war films entertaining, it doesn't mean you are a violent psychopath who enjoys the suffering of others.

You get that, right? Apparently not, if we assume you are being serious and not merely acting in bad faith.

But those are the only options, and neither speak well for you being involved in political discussions.

Is there something else that could explain it? Or will this be some other disconnected nonsense attacking your critics rather than taking a moment to self-reflect?

I am pretty sure I remember quite a while ago now you made a point that stuck with me about the whole 'you're gonna get raped in prison' jokes that are prevalent when criminals get sentenced and how deeply unfunny that was and how it normalized something that should be taken very seriously.

It is a real shame to see you now turn around and justify a rape joke because it was made against someone you don't like.

Prisoners do not have power to enact legislation that would lead to recognition of rape for the issue it is, and then use that power to continue the status quo while suppressing criticism of that action through accusing critics of supporting rape in an act of DARVO. It is solely within the context of Jess Phillips being an MP and Carl protesting her behavior over mens issues that I find this acceptable. I don't agree with people doing property damage ordinarily either, but sometimes, when protesting, it is justifiable.

Given also that Carl has been fairly explicit about his reasoning, I don't actually see any problem here.

Intent, target, commentary, and impact are all different from the scenario you lay out.

The only similarity is the tool used.

Your level of essentialism here is similar to up and deciding we cannot depict Swastikas in textbooks because Nazi symbolism, or deciding that hammers are bad because you can use them to bash someones head in.

I do not object to rape jokes as a tool, I object to the circumstances of their use. It is the consequences of an action that make it bad, not anything else. I also have the good sense not to take the side of the politician who has done pretty much the same and worse to other people in this conflict.

It's like if someone called Trump stupid and suddenly everyone was outraged and badgering the opposition over how insults are not okay and its mean and we should be ashamed of ourselves because obviously being crass and rude and insulting is not acceptable. The hypocrisy can only be ignored for so long.

[Caracasus]

Uhh... the way I see it, the target does matter. Even from a practical standpoint, if they go after someone already unpopular, defending them only lowers the chance other people will listen to you. I recommend calling them out when they target decent people.

I do then as well. Frankly the notion i'd pass up the opportunity is absurd.

I am pretty sure I remember quite a while ago now you made a point that stuck with me about the whole 'you're gonna get raped in prison' jokes that are prevalent when criminals get sentenced and how deeply unfunny that was and how it normalized something that should be taken very seriously.

It is a real shame to see you now turn around and justify a rape joke because it was made against someone you don't like.

Prisoners do not have power to enact legislation that would lead to recognition of rape for the issue it is, and then use that power to continue the status quo while suppressing criticism of that action through accusing critics of supporting rape in an act of DARVO. It is solely within the context of Jess Phillips being an MP and Carl protesting her behavior over mens issues that I find this acceptable. I don't agree with people doing property damage ordinarily either, but sometimes, when protesting, it is justifiable.

Given also that Carl has been fairly explicit about his reasoning, I don't actually see any problem here.

Intent, target, commentary, and impact are all different from the scenario you lay out.

The only similarity is the tool used.

Your level of essentialism here is similar to up and deciding we cannot depict Swastikas in textbooks because Nazi symbolism, or deciding that hammers are bad because you can use them to bash someones head in.

I do not object to rape jokes as a tool, I object to the circumstances of their use. It is the consequences of an action that make it bad, not anything else. I also have the good sense not to take the side of the politician who has done pretty much the same and worse to other people in this conflict.

It's like if someone called Trump stupid and suddenly everyone was outraged and badgering the opposition over how insults are not okay and its mean and we should be ashamed of ourselves because obviously being crass and rude and insulting is not acceptable. The hypocrisy can only be ignored for so long.

Shame. I thought that trivialising rape by making cheap jokes about it being pretty universally a bad thing would be something we'd agree on.

I mean yeah, she isn't a particularly nice person, you won't find any argument from me on that. However I wouldn't say she was as bad a person as - for instance - Dylan Roof and I have to say I got pretty sick of people joking that he'd get raped behind bars.

If Carl made a decent rebuttal against her, then why jepordize it by flinging in the rape joke? He must have known that as soon as he said something like that then that's the only thing that would ever be reported on. He can't be that stupid.

I mean, if I were you I'd be absolutely furious at him. Here he is with an actual platform outside of youtube to put forward his (and presumably your) case and what's he done? He has acted like a narcassistic prick more interested in courting controversy and drama.

[Ostroeuropa]

I do then as well. Frankly the notion i'd pass up the opportunity is absurd.



Prisoners do not have power to enact legislation that would lead to recognition of rape for the issue it is, and then use that power to continue the status quo while suppressing criticism of that action through accusing critics of supporting rape in an act of DARVO. It is solely within the context of Jess Phillips being an MP and Carl protesting her behavior over mens issues that I find this acceptable. I don't agree with people doing property damage ordinarily either, but sometimes, when protesting, it is justifiable.

Given also that Carl has been fairly explicit about his reasoning, I don't actually see any problem here.

Intent, target, commentary, and impact are all different from the scenario you lay out.

The only similarity is the tool used.

Your level of essentialism here is similar to up and deciding we cannot depict Swastikas in textbooks because Nazi symbolism, or deciding that hammers are bad because you can use them to bash someones head in.

I do not object to rape jokes as a tool, I object to the circumstances of their use. It is the consequences of an action that make it bad, not anything else. I also have the good sense not to take the side of the politician who has done pretty much the same and worse to other people in this conflict.

It's like if someone called Trump stupid and suddenly everyone was outraged and badgering the opposition over how insults are not okay and its mean and we should be ashamed of ourselves because obviously being crass and rude and insulting is not acceptable. The hypocrisy can only be ignored for so long.

Shame. I thought that trivialising rape by making cheap jokes about it being pretty universally a bad thing would be something we'd agree on.

I mean yeah, she isn't a particularly nice person, you won't find any argument from me on that. However I wouldn't say she was as bad a person as - for instance - Dylan Roof and I have to say I got pretty sick of people joking that he'd get raped behind bars.

If Carl made a decent rebuttal against her, then why jepordize it by flinging in the rape joke? He must have known that as soon as he said something like that then that's the only thing that would ever be reported on. He can't be that stupid.

I mean, if I were you I'd be absolutely furious at him. Here he is with an actual platform outside of youtube to put forward his (and presumably your) case and what's he done? He has acted like a narcassistic prick more interested in courting controversy and drama.

1. There is no actual danger of Carl raping Jess Phillips, and certainly wasn't at the time the joke was made.

2. At the time the joke was made, this was the context; Jess Phillips had just done something shitty and misandrist and derailed discussions on mens issues in parliament, and was receiving a large amount of backlash for it from tens of thousands of people. She and her feminist peers in the press (Whom Jess Phillips explicitly acknowledges form a network she is a part of to collaborate on pushing feminism in her autobiography) went into damage control mode and began completely and totally ignoring this criticism, reporting instead that Jess Phillips had received threats against her (At the time, two. Out of tens of thousands of critics.) for seemingly no reason except the fact she is a woman, no reason at all, nothing she did could have provoked a backlash. They kept this up for a week and even pressured Corbyn and others into saying he stood by Jess Phillips in the incident, something that actually led me toward quitting the Labour party.
Then Jess Phillips began calling the entire backlash a harrassment campaign involving rape threats on the basis of these threats she received (Which, after the press screaming about her receiving rape threats for a week, had climbed from 2 to 600 out of tens of thousands of critics.), and was helped by the press in pushing this narrative too. Carl, explicitly detailing all of this, and going through tweets and comments aimed at Phillips criticizing her behavior, noted that this "Mass internet Harrassment campaign involving rape threats" seemed an awful lot like legitimate criticism and condemnation, wondered just how far Phillips and feminists would be willing to go in their lies and misrepresentations, and so put the comment out there;

"I wouldn't even rape you.", so see if they would count this as a rape threat. And they did.

"If he had a half decent rebuttal", thousands of people did. It doesn't matter, because you can just pretend that doesn't exist, and so long as the press is on your side and pushing their own fucked up parallel reality narrative, that's all that really matters. You know how the press works when it comes to ignoring counter arguments they dislike, especially if you are left wing and sick of the 5 billionth round of "BuT HoW WiLl We PaY FoR iT?".

Initially it was not intended as part of a political campaign, but making a point and a statement about the incident.

Your mistake is in assuming he has any interest in discussion with these people. They are bad faith actors, and no conversation can or should be had with them.

[Juristonia]

"Rape jokes are bad, unless some woman is saying something politically I disagree with" is not a hill you should want to die on, my dude.
It kinda kills what very little reason anyone had left to take you even remotely seriously.

[Ostroeuropa]

"Rape jokes are bad, unless some woman is saying something politically I disagree with" is not a hill you should want to die on, my dude.
It kinda kills what very little reason anyone had left to take you even remotely seriously.

That isn't the position, but it's a good example of how people misrepresent critics of feminism rather than deal with their points. If you're searching for an excuse to ignore what I have to say so you don't have to take criticism of feminism seriously, and you're so lacking in self-awareness that you don't think that's an interesting thing to realize about yourself, then there's not really anything I can say that'd get through to you anyway. It's kind of like how I can explain things to you, but I cannot understand them for you.

See, the problem is, you've got this cariacature in your head that you're relieved to have because it lets you write off the points i've made, and the fact it isn't true doesn't matter because close enough right? Details are for suckers. Why on earth would I care if someone who behaves that way takes me seriously? I can simply point that out to people and note it instead.

I'll note nobody can actually be bothered to articulate why what he did in this context is wrong beyond vaguely flailing at the notion it's somehow bad.

[Caracasus]

Shame. I thought that trivialising rape by making cheap jokes about it being pretty universally a bad thing would be something we'd agree on.

I mean yeah, she isn't a particularly nice person, you won't find any argument from me on that. However I wouldn't say she was as bad a person as - for instance - Dylan Roof and I have to say I got pretty sick of people joking that he'd get raped behind bars.

If Carl made a decent rebuttal against her, then why jepordize it by flinging in the rape joke? He must have known that as soon as he said something like that then that's the only thing that would ever be reported on. He can't be that stupid.

I mean, if I were you I'd be absolutely furious at him. Here he is with an actual platform outside of youtube to put forward his (and presumably your) case and what's he done? He has acted like a narcassistic prick more interested in courting controversy and drama.

1. There is no actual danger of Carl raping Jess Phillips, and certainly wasn't at the time the joke was made.

2. At the time the joke was made, this was the context; Jess Phillips had just done something shitty and misandrist and derailed discussions on mens issues in parliament, and was receiving a large amount of backlash for it from tens of thousands of people. She and her feminist peers in the press (Whom Jess Phillips explicitly acknowledges form a network she is a part of to collaborate on pushing feminism in her autobiography) went into damage control mode and began completely and totally ignoring this criticism, reporting instead that Jess Phillips had received threats against her (At the time, two. Out of tens of thousands of critics.) for seemingly no reason except the fact she is a woman, no reason at all, nothing she did could have provoked a backlash. They kept this up for a week and even pressured Corbyn and others into saying he stood by Jess Phillips in the incident, something that actually led me toward quitting the Labour party.
Then Jess Phillips began calling the entire backlash a harrassment campaign involving rape threats on the basis of these threats she received (Which, after the press screaming about her receiving rape threats for a week, had climbed from 2 to 600 out of tens of thousands of critics.), and was helped by the press in pushing this narrative too. Carl, explicitly detailing all of this, and going through tweets and comments aimed at Phillips criticizing her behavior, noted that this "Mass internet Harrassment campaign involving rape threats" seemed an awful lot like legitimate criticism and condemnation, wondered just how far Phillips and feminists would be willing to go in their lies and misrepresentations, and so put the comment out there;

"I wouldn't even rape you.", so see if they would count this as a rape threat. And they did.

"If he had a half decent rebuttal", thousands of people did. It doesn't matter, because you can just pretend that doesn't exist, and so long as the press is on your side and pushing their own fucked up parallel reality narrative, that's all that really matters. You know how the press works when it comes to ignoring counter arguments they dislike, especially if you are left wing and sick of the 5 billionth round of "BuT HoW WiLl We PaY FoR iT?".

Initially it was not intended as part of a political campaign, but making a point and a statement about the incident.

Your mistake is in assuming he has any interest in discussion with these people. They are bad faith actors, and no conversation can or should be had with them.

Even if we accept your very, very charitable understanding of this, it still doesn't explain why someone who clearly should know how these things works gives the people they are arguing with a massive open goal. I mean, you say he believes these people do not argue in bad faith, so why the hell would you willingly hand them ammunition?

Face it, he's much more interested in creating drama and controversy than anything else. Maybe find someone else to stan for?

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Personally, I think all jokes are acceptable, all of the time, made to anybody.

The most fleeting look at your recent posting history (a mere few days past) shows you partaking in some very salty haranguing over someone using "autistic" in a derogatory way.

But that's none of my business.

Making a political point is not the same as making a joke...if he had made a joke about autistic people that's fair game.

[Ostroeuropa]

1. There is no actual danger of Carl raping Jess Phillips, and certainly wasn't at the time the joke was made.

2. At the time the joke was made, this was the context; Jess Phillips had just done something shitty and misandrist and derailed discussions on mens issues in parliament, and was receiving a large amount of backlash for it from tens of thousands of people. She and her feminist peers in the press (Whom Jess Phillips explicitly acknowledges form a network she is a part of to collaborate on pushing feminism in her autobiography) went into damage control mode and began completely and totally ignoring this criticism, reporting instead that Jess Phillips had received threats against her (At the time, two. Out of tens of thousands of critics.) for seemingly no reason except the fact she is a woman, no reason at all, nothing she did could have provoked a backlash. They kept this up for a week and even pressured Corbyn and others into saying he stood by Jess Phillips in the incident, something that actually led me toward quitting the Labour party.
Then Jess Phillips began calling the entire backlash a harrassment campaign involving rape threats on the basis of these threats she received (Which, after the press screaming about her receiving rape threats for a week, had climbed from 2 to 600 out of tens of thousands of critics.), and was helped by the press in pushing this narrative too. Carl, explicitly detailing all of this, and going through tweets and comments aimed at Phillips criticizing her behavior, noted that this "Mass internet Harrassment campaign involving rape threats" seemed an awful lot like legitimate criticism and condemnation, wondered just how far Phillips and feminists would be willing to go in their lies and misrepresentations, and so put the comment out there;

"I wouldn't even rape you.", so see if they would count this as a rape threat. And they did.

"If he had a half decent rebuttal", thousands of people did. It doesn't matter, because you can just pretend that doesn't exist, and so long as the press is on your side and pushing their own fucked up parallel reality narrative, that's all that really matters. You know how the press works when it comes to ignoring counter arguments they dislike, especially if you are left wing and sick of the 5 billionth round of "BuT HoW WiLl We PaY FoR iT?".

Initially it was not intended as part of a political campaign, but making a point and a statement about the incident.

Your mistake is in assuming he has any interest in discussion with these people. They are bad faith actors, and no conversation can or should be had with them.

Even if we accept your very, very charitable understanding of this, it still doesn't explain why someone who clearly should know how these things works gives the people they are arguing with a massive open goal. I mean, you say he believes these people do not argue in bad faith, so why the hell would you willingly hand them ammunition?

Face it, he's much more interested in creating drama and controversy than anything else. Maybe find someone else to stan for?

That's hardly the charitable interpretation, it's quite literally the order of events.

Do you understand these comments occurred years ago? Before he ran for office?

The point is, the press will always act in bad faith, always lie, always misrepresent, and you should not let them dictate your behavior, because that's how you end up with the dysfunctional mess we call politics today. The only thing to do is to refuse to recognize them as valid arbiters on these matters. That is also something Carl has explicitly said and its what really kicked the hornets nest this time around, that he simply doesn't recognize them as important or their opinions as worth more than other peoples.

When you're protesting an unjust power, "Respectability" politics gets you nowhere, and that's what you're demanding. You will never be good enough for them, because it wasn't about your behavior in the first place, but rather their bad faith participation in the discussion.
When the press demonize someone despite having done worse themselves, you shouldn't let them get away with it. You should keep the focus on the press. Anything less allows this fucked up situation to continue.

The drama and controversy point is also something he's been explicit about. The more attention he gets, the more attention alternatives to the media get. It's about weakening their monopoly.

Now if you want to say that seems mighty convenient for him, i'd agree with you, and think that's a valid criticism of his strategy here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respectability_politics

[Juristonia]

"Rape jokes are bad, unless some woman is saying something politically I disagree with" is not a hill you should want to die on, my dude.
It kinda kills what very little reason anyone had left to take you even remotely seriously.

That isn't the position, but it's a good example of how people misrepresent critics of feminism rather than deal with their points. If you're searching for an excuse to ignore what I have to say so you don't have to take criticism of feminism seriously, and you're so lacking in self-awareness that you don't think that's an interesting thing to realize about yourself, then there's not really anything I can say that'd get through to you anyway. It's kind of like how I can explain things to you, but I cannot understand them for you.

See, the problem is, you've got this cariacature in your head that you're relieved to have because it lets you write off the points i've made, and the fact it isn't true doesn't matter because close enough right? Details are for suckers. Why on earth would I care if someone who behaves that way takes me seriously? I can simply point that out to people and note it instead.

I'll note nobody can actually be bothered to articulate why what he did in this context is wrong beyond vaguely flailing at the notion it's somehow bad.

Maybe you should ask yourself why so many people that have had the pleasure of reading your rambles end up having that caricature of you in their head.
Maybe it has more to do with how you present yourself and less with people on a debate board, where everyone is constantly debating the widest range of topics, for some mysterious reason not being willing to make that effort when it comes to you.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Even if we accept your very, very charitable understanding of this, it still doesn't explain why someone who clearly should know how these things works gives the people they are arguing with a massive open goal. I mean, you say he believes these people do not argue in bad faith, so why the hell would you willingly hand them ammunition?

Face it, he's much more interested in creating drama and controversy than anything else. Maybe find someone else to stan for?

That's hardly the charitable interpretation, it's quite literally the order of events.

Do you understand these comments occurred years ago? Before he ran for office?

The point is, the press will always act in bad faith, always lie, always misrepresent, and you should not let them dictate your behavior, because that's how you end up with the dysfunctional mess we call politics today. The only thing to do is to refuse to recognize them as valid arbiters on these matters. That is also something Carl has explicitly said.

When you're protesting an unjust power, "Respectability" politics gets you nowhere, and that's what you're demanding. You will never be good enough for them, because it wasn't about your behavior in the first place, but rather their bad faith participation in the discussion.
When the press demonize someone despite having done worse themselves, you shouldn't let them get away with it. You should keep the focus on the press. Anything less allows this fucked up situation to continue.

The drama and controversy point is also something he's been explicit about. The more attention he gets, the more attention alternatives to the media get. It's about weakening their monopoly.

Now if you want to say that seems mighty convenient for him, i'd agree with you, and think that's a valid criticism of his strategy here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respectability_politics

Of course, desperately trying to redeem yourself in the eyes of people who will never stop hating you and apologizing for things that were not wrong is not a good idea. However, the existence of smear artists and people who hate your guts is no excuse to throw respectability to the wind and become a total edgelord. There's nothing wrong with presenting your ideas in a respectful manner, apologizing where you did wrong, and breaking bread with your opposition. Humility and admission of mistakes are not weaknesses, they are strengths. Anybody convinced they are weaknesses is self-destructive in the long run.

[Ostroeuropa]

That's hardly the charitable interpretation, it's quite literally the order of events.

Do you understand these comments occurred years ago? Before he ran for office?

The point is, the press will always act in bad faith, always lie, always misrepresent, and you should not let them dictate your behavior, because that's how you end up with the dysfunctional mess we call politics today. The only thing to do is to refuse to recognize them as valid arbiters on these matters. That is also something Carl has explicitly said.

When you're protesting an unjust power, "Respectability" politics gets you nowhere, and that's what you're demanding. You will never be good enough for them, because it wasn't about your behavior in the first place, but rather their bad faith participation in the discussion.
When the press demonize someone despite having done worse themselves, you shouldn't let them get away with it. You should keep the focus on the press. Anything less allows this fucked up situation to continue.

The drama and controversy point is also something he's been explicit about. The more attention he gets, the more attention alternatives to the media get. It's about weakening their monopoly.

Now if you want to say that seems mighty convenient for him, i'd agree with you, and think that's a valid criticism of his strategy here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respectability_politics

Of course, desperately trying to redeem yourself in the eyes of people who will never stop hating you and apologizing for things that were not wrong is not a good idea. However, the existence of smear artists and people who hate your guts is no excuse to throw respectability to the wind and become a total edgelord. There's nothing wrong with presenting your ideas in a respectful manner, apologizing where you did wrong, and breaking bread with your opposition. Humility and admission of mistakes are not weaknesses, they are strengths. Anybody convinced they are weaknesses is self-destructive in the long run.

This is another fine criticism of his actions, save for the fact that he believes in "Being an asshole to people who are themselves assholes" and so on, which makes it a matter of values disparity rather than him simply being a bad person who did something wrong because he's bad. Nonetheless, you have given a reason why one could legitimately disapprove of why he has behaved this way, because of a particular perspective that can be applied consistently to all parties and judge him to be in the wrong.

On the other hand, it ignores that tens of thousands of people did behave respectfully and give criticism of Phillips, and were simply ignored. It comes down to how you think reform works in practice and how much faith you have in the system to operate effectively when it comes to marginalized groups. Making a scene is not in and of itself a bad thing if nothing else works. Crucially, by focusing the discussion on how he could better bring awareness to feminist injustices and misandry and engaging with the situation and the context of it as a whole rather than selectively ignoring parts of it, you are engaging with the situation from a rational perspective in my opinion. It's one where disagreement can be had, but understood.

I'm actually not sure where I fall on this division you've pointed out. I feel like falling on the side Carl has taken begs the question of why you shouldn't go further, but also feel like the "Take the high road" side clearly doesn't actually work. For example, take a look at extinction rebellion and their behavior.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

King Archie I does have a certain ring to it.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Of course, desperately trying to redeem yourself in the eyes of people who will never stop hating you and apologizing for things that were not wrong is not a good idea. However, the existence of smear artists and people who hate your guts is no excuse to throw respectability to the wind and become a total edgelord. There's nothing wrong with presenting your ideas in a respectful manner, apologizing where you did wrong, and breaking bread with your opposition. Humility and admission of mistakes are not weaknesses, they are strengths. Anybody convinced they are weaknesses is self-destructive in the long run.

This is another fine criticism of his actions, save for the fact that he believes in "Being an asshole to people who are themselves assholes" and so on, which makes it a matter of values disparity rather than him simply being a bad person who did something wrong because he's bad. Nonetheless, you have given a reason why one could legitimately disapprove of why he has behaved this way, because of a particular perspective that can be applied consistently to all parties and judge him to be in the wrong.

On the other hand, it ignores that tens of thousands of people did behave respectfully and give criticism of Phillips, and were simply ignored. It comes down to how you think reform works in practice and how much faith you have in the system to operate effectively when it comes to marginalized groups. Making a scene is not in and of itself a bad thing if nothing else works. Crucially, by focusing the discussion on how he could better bring awareness to feminist injustices and misandry and engaging with the situation and the context of it as a whole rather than selectively ignoring parts of it, you are engaging with the situation from a rational perspective in my opinion. It's one where disagreement can be had, but understood.

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, brother. If you be an asshole to an asshole, an onlooker will simply see two assholes.

I have no lover for Jess Phillips either and think the way she laughed at mens issues was disgusting, but Carl's conduct has not succeeded in drawing attention to that, it has only succeeded in making Phillips seem like an innocent victim, and Carl seem like a brutish harasser. I reckon if he calmly and respectfully brought direct attention to Jess Phillips' conduct, a lot more attention would be given to it than it is now.

[Ostroeuropa]

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, brother. If you be an asshole to an asshole, an onlooker will simply see two assholes.

I have no lover for Jess Phillips either and think the way she laughed at mens issues was disgusting, but Carl's conduct has not succeeded in drawing attention to that, it has only succeeded in making Phillips seem like an innocent victim, and Carl seem like a brutish harasser. I reckon if he calmly and respectfully brought direct attention to Jess Phillips' conduct, a lot more attention would be given to it than it is now.

Maybe it does, but a gang of people repeatedly poking out the eyes of pacifists getting one of theirs jabbed out and told you'll get their other one too if they don't knock it off is a different matter.

I disagree based on experience, but you're welcome to think that is the case. Look at extinction rebellion for comparison.

[Thermodolia]

So the poor new royal bastard has been named Archie. The poor fucker

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, brother. If you be an asshole to an asshole, an onlooker will simply see two assholes.

I have no lover for Jess Phillips either and think the way she laughed at mens issues was disgusting, but Carl's conduct has not succeeded in drawing attention to that, it has only succeeded in making Phillips seem like an innocent victim, and Carl seem like a brutish harasser. I reckon if he calmly and respectfully brought direct attention to Jess Phillips' conduct, a lot more attention would be given to it than it is now.

Maybe it does, but a gang of people repeatedly poking out the eyes of pacifists getting one of theirs jabbed out and told you'll get their other one too if they don't knock it off is a different matter.

I disagree based on experience, but you're welcome to think that is the case. Look at extinction rebellion for comparison.

Are you citing Extinction Rebellion as an example of high road tactics or low road tactics?

[Ostroeuropa]

Maybe it does, but a gang of people repeatedly poking out the eyes of pacifists getting one of theirs jabbed out and told you'll get their other one too if they don't knock it off is a different matter.

I disagree based on experience, but you're welcome to think that is the case. Look at extinction rebellion for comparison.

Are you citing Extinction Rebellion as an example of high road tactics or low road tactics?

I'm going to say low road tactics personally, and it demonstrates the issue at hand. Everyone is aware pollution is a problem and will admit it if you press them, but nothing gets done.

Everyone knows misandry is a problem, and yet.

So the poor new royal bastard has been named Archie. The poor fucker

If I was a royal i'd name my kid something ridiculous just so people would copy me and we'd turn into a farce as a country.
...
More of a farce.

[Ifreann]

"Rape jokes are bad, unless some woman is saying something politically I disagree with" is not a hill you should want to die on, my dude.
It kinda kills what very little reason anyone had left to take you even remotely seriously.

That isn't the position, but it's a good example of how people misrepresent critics of feminism rather than deal with their points. If you're searching for an excuse to ignore what I have to say so you don't have to take criticism of feminism seriously, and you're so lacking in self-awareness that you don't think that's an interesting thing to realize about yourself, then there's not really anything I can say that'd get through to you anyway. It's kind of like how I can explain things to you, but I cannot understand them for you.

See, the problem is, you've got this cariacature in your head that you're relieved to have because it lets you write off the points i've made, and the fact it isn't true doesn't matter because close enough right? Details are for suckers. Why on earth would I care if someone who behaves that way takes me seriously? I can simply point that out to people and note it instead.

I'll note nobody can actually be bothered to articulate why what he did in this context is wrong beyond vaguely flailing at the notion it's somehow bad.

You articulated it very succinctly, if unintentionally, in your post from yesterday with the analogy about Sargon's "I wouldn't even rape you" tweet being like a Jew in a concentration camp saying to one of the guards that "I wouldn't even poison the well in your village". We understand by this that typical attitude of a Jew in that situation would be to fully support poisoning a load of Nazis, but there is something exceptional about this Nazi to override that attitude. Something exceptionally negative, not a "You're one of the good ones, I wouldn't poison you" kind of thing. Then in your analogy the Nazis started sputtering furiously about how bad Jews are and how they shouldn't have human rights, which was where I thought the whole thing fell apart. Wouldn't Nazis have just shot dead a back-talking Jew?

But anyway, this analogy reveals what is implicit in Sargon saying "I wouldn't even rape you". By him saying this we understand, as above, that ordinarily Sargon would rape someone like Jess Phillips, but she specifically is so repulsive to him as to override that default attitude. It's the exception proving the rule, which is to say, the fact that there is an exception proves that there is a rule. If someone comments "Ifreann isn't wearing a tie today", you'd understand that normally I do wear a tie, that as a rule I wear a tie and today is an exception.

And now, you can say that your dude doesn't really believe that in his heart of hearts, he was just so mad at Phillips or he was just having a laugh or both or something else. Whatever the content of his thoughts, which only he can ever know, the content of his speech, which was transmitted to many, many people, includes the message "Sexual violence is a weapon to use against those you hate". He doesn't have to really believe that for the message to be there. And that message is way beyond the pale. Whatever about "Bash the fash", no one goes around saying "Rape the fash", that would be insane.

[The Huskar Social Union]

So the poor new royal bastard has been named Archie. The poor fucker

Should have called him Stannis.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Are you citing Extinction Rebellion as an example of high road tactics or low road tactics?

I'm going to say low road tactics personally, and it demonstrates the issue at hand. Everyone is aware pollution is a problem and will admit it if you press them, but nothing gets done.

I am an extremely small sample size, but I've never heard of Extinction Rebellion until you brought it up, so if that's at all a reflection on low road tactics, it's not a good one. At any rate, Carl Benjamin's case is one where low road tactics appear to not be succeeding from where I'm standing.

[Ifreann]

So the poor new royal bastard has been named Archie. The poor fucker

Should have called him Stannis.

They should have called him Earl. He'd be Earl Earl.

[The Grims]

Should have called him Stannis.

They should have called him Earl. He'd be Earl Earl.

Not Ybird?

[Ostroeuropa]

That isn't the position, but it's a good example of how people misrepresent critics of feminism rather than deal with their points. If you're searching for an excuse to ignore what I have to say so you don't have to take criticism of feminism seriously, and you're so lacking in self-awareness that you don't think that's an interesting thing to realize about yourself, then there's not really anything I can say that'd get through to you anyway. It's kind of like how I can explain things to you, but I cannot understand them for you.

See, the problem is, you've got this cariacature in your head that you're relieved to have because it lets you write off the points i've made, and the fact it isn't true doesn't matter because close enough right? Details are for suckers. Why on earth would I care if someone who behaves that way takes me seriously? I can simply point that out to people and note it instead.

I'll note nobody can actually be bothered to articulate why what he did in this context is wrong beyond vaguely flailing at the notion it's somehow bad.

You articulated it very succinctly, if unintentionally, in your post from yesterday with the analogy about Sargon's "I wouldn't even rape you" tweet being like a Jew in a concentration camp saying to one of the guards that "I wouldn't even poison the well in your village". We understand by this that typical attitude of a Jew in that situation would be to fully support poisoning a load of Nazis, but there is something exceptional about this Nazi to override that attitude. Something exceptionally negative, not a "You're one of the good ones, I wouldn't poison you" kind of thing. Then in your analogy the Nazis started sputtering furiously about how bad Jews are and how they shouldn't have human rights, which was where I thought the whole thing fell apart. Wouldn't Nazis have just shot dead a back-talking Jew?

But anyway, this analogy reveals what is implicit in Sargon saying "I wouldn't even rape you". By him saying this we understand, as above, that ordinarily Sargon would rape someone like Jess Phillips, but she specifically is so repulsive to him as to override that default attitude. It's the exception proving the rule, which is to say, the fact that there is an exception proves that there is a rule. If someone comments "Ifreann isn't wearing a tie today", you'd understand that normally I do wear a tie, that as a rule I wear a tie and today is an exception.

And now, you can say that your dude doesn't really believe that in his heart of hearts, he was just so mad at Phillips or he was just having a laugh or both or something else. Whatever the content of his thoughts, which only he can ever know, the content of his speech, which was transmitted to many, many people, includes the message "Sexual violence is a weapon to use against those you hate". He doesn't have to really believe that for the message to be there. And that message is way beyond the pale. Whatever about "Bash the fash", no one goes around saying "Rape the fash", that would be insane.

Uh.

No Iffy, Jews Poisoning wells is an anti-semitic trope that Nazis believe Jews do because the Nazi's head is full of nonsense. The Jew would probably not, in fact, poison any wells. That's something the Nazi believes about Jews because they are a bigot.

Also;
Reminder that Layla Moran, feminist MP who assaulted her husband and then blamed him for it, was supported by these same feminist journalists and by Jess Phillips and called brave and so on.

You do not have to give them the consideration they are demanding. We do not even need to consider whether jokes are harmful and "Normalize violence", because that is a norm they are intending to impose only on men and that is clear from their behavior and prior actions.

we know that they have actively, and very recently, normalized violence against men. That is beyond dispute. It was not a joke. How about, if we're going to discuss whether speech normalizing violence should cause repercussions, we start with the obvious cases first before the controversial ones?

We know why they don't. Because they are not sincere, and this is merely an excuse they have concocted. In that case, why take them seriously at all? Why give their arguments consideration? You do not owe them the presumption of good faith when they have so clearly demonstrated a lack of it.

I see no reason why a man should face consequences for a lesser degree of a behavior for which women face no consequences. The fact they routinely make this kind of demand and impose that dynamic makes it worse.

Nothing Carl has said or done can be as vile as imposing a society with a caste system like these scum have and are aiming to do in this instance as well as others. Collaborating with them in their attempts to do so? Makes you a problem too.

You don't even have to think rape jokes are okay for that to be true. It's merely a matter of you revealing your priorities are broken if you side with them in their attempts.

It's not the first time either. If you keep siding with a system that only ever punishes black people and lets whites get away with it, eventually, we do not need to take you seriously when you say you have a moral stance on how the black persons behavior was wrong.

If you thought that, then you'd be trying to dismantle that system instead of helping it go after people, because so long as you legitimize these people, those behaviors will continue to happen forever.

"Actually maybe I shouldn't defend known and proud Klansmen using the position they have taken over arresting Black people for things far lesser than the crimes the Klan commits on a regular basis. Maybe I should like, help that black person. But then again, they did spraypaint "You're a bunch of twats" on the Klans car, and that's bad, so eh.".

I'm going to say low road tactics personally, and it demonstrates the issue at hand. Everyone is aware pollution is a problem and will admit it if you press them, but nothing gets done.

I am an extremely small sample size, but I've never heard of Extinction Rebellion until you brought it up, so if that's at all a reflection on low road tactics, it's not a good one. At any rate, Carl Benjamin's case is one where low road tactics appear to not be succeeding from where I'm standing.

Extinction Rebellion was semi-big news here in the UK, and managed to get the government to declare a climate change emergency as a result of their shenanigans like glueing themselves to parliament nude, blocking traffic, and so on.

[Hirota]

The most fleeting look at your recent posting history (a mere few days past) shows you partaking in some very salty haranguing over someone using "autistic" in a derogatory way.

But that's none of my business.

Making a political point is not the same as making a joke...if he had made a joke about autistic people that's fair game.

Not to mention the idea of you supposedly indulging in "very salty haranguing" is somehow equivalent to someone publicly calling for someone to be excluded from the political sphere and investigated by law enforcement is just plain stupid.

[Liriena]

Spending multiple days and thousands of words incoherently rationalizing an unfunny rape joke made by a UKIPer imbecile because he directed it at a feminist and feminists are the equivalent of the nazis, and then complaining that everyone who disagrees is an indoctrinated, delusional feminist who just doesn't understand your brilliant comedy critique, is very normal behavior and not at all the peak of tribalistic derangement.