NationStates

So for those of you who demand sources for this, here are your fucking sources. I was driven to the brink of insanity providing these sources, only for them to be ignored, so here are your fucking academic and newspaper sources (Click link for academic and newspaper sources)
viewtopic.php?p=40294720#p40294720

---

---

---

Now this applies mostly, but not exclusively, to the western world, as other parts of the world have different factors.

So, in my opinion, and in testimonials of those who were radicalised, a significant factor is the us vs them mentality in radicalising people. Now, there doesn't need to be an actual us vs them mentality, there just needs to be a perception, (even an incorrect perception) of one. People hear about male privilege and the like, so what happens is that boys think "I'm not privileged, how am I privileged?" and turn to toxic masculinity which tells them that they aren't privileged, whilst girls hear that and think "ha, so that's why my life sucks" and turn to toxic femineity. According to this YouTube video which seems to be well researched, radical feminists and MRA activists are actually fighting for the same thing, just worded differently

So now this begs the question, what can be done about the us vs them mentality turning men and women against each other?

Things such as going on about "male privilege" is disgruntling men with their place in society. In my opinion, we can talk male privilege all you like, but just watch your wording, otherwise young boys will be lead to believe that they are made out to be the enemy and young girls will be lead to believe that they are by default the victim, leading to toxic masculinity and toxic femineity. Again, it doesn't need to be true, it needs to be perceived.

Other things such as affirmative action will make boys believe that no matter how hard they work for a career, they won't be eligible for it simply because they were born male. It doesn't have to be true, it just has to be believed to be true. Whether or not it's true is irrelevant as long as enough people believe it

So, let's talk about the us vs them mentality, do you think there's any merit to it, and if not, WHY NOT? WHY NOT? And what can we do about it? Discuss

Get ready to have folk talk past you ignore you straw man or mock you.. I tried being honest and emotionally open … Hasn’t worked to well.. Guess im just the enemy

i dont think theres much of an us vs them mentality in the west

Pffft, clearly Anglosphere culture warriors being too dumb to realize they are self-sabotaging is the main "us vs. them" problem, whereas the dozens of ongoing ethnic cleansing campaigns and civil wars elsewhere are inconsequential. So, is this topic about feminism or general intolerance against other groups? The former has its own thread, and the latter doesn't seem to be elaborated upon in the OP. You have handed us a "Sexism" Discuss." and expect a response.

Having a defined enemy isn't always bad, but it usually is or at the very least lacks nuance. Here in the US it's very common for people to treat the 2 parties as polar opposites, refusing to acknowledge any similarities between them out of loyalty for one. Racism and sexism are also good examples of how broken that idea is. Some ideas and actions make unilateral opposition more justifiable, though. Serial killers and war criminals are bad.

How do you radicalize someone? Does it require their consent?

Your observations seem so general that I can’t even say they’re wrong, wrt an “us vs. them mentality” being necessary to radicalization— you can generalize about an “us vs. them mentality” existing for pretty much any political or cultural issue. That you seem to mostly use those observations to justify aimless screeds about male privilege and young boys says something about you, but your prose is so vague that I’m not even sure what.

Things such as going on about "male privilege" is disgruntling men with their place in society. In my opinion, we can talk male privilege all you like, but just watch your wording, otherwise young boys will be lead to believe that they are made out to be the enemy and young girls will be lead to believe that they are by default the victim, leading to toxic masculinity and toxic femineity. Again, it doesn't need to be true, it needs to be perceived.

You are correct in saying that it does not need to be true, but your mistake is assuming that this outrage and insult comes from the people talking about these issues, and not from their opponents who want you to believe that they are insulting you, and benefit from your outrage.

The majority of insult and outrage felt by people like you, is exaggerated, or even just manufactured, by the media you consume.

You can be as careful as it is humanly possible to be when talking about male privilege, and some hack owned by Rupert Murdoch will go on air and lie about what you said. And gullible idiots will believe you said it.

Jabberwocky wrote:How do you radicalize someone? Does it require their consent?

Ernie Ball skateboard wheels

It amazes me, still, that anyone thinks a YouTube video is anywhere near as good a source as actually linking directly to the research in question. Because obviously YouTube personalities won't twist said research to suit their own ends or leave out key details that undermine their argument.

Neu California wrote:It amazes me, still, that anyone thinks a YouTube video is anywhere near as good a source as actually linking directly to the research in question. Because obviously YouTube personalities won't twist said research to suit their own ends or leave out key details that undermine their argument.

Or just reference really shitty "research" and know that most people won't bother to check. (Before it was redacted, the link was to a paper in PubMed outlining the danger of facemasks. Written by an actual doctor... of physiology)

The Us vs Them Mentality

NationStates mfs in one expression.

I posted actual academic resources but you're interested. I don't post any resources and you demand I post resources, I post resources and you accuse me of hiding behind my resources, so you know what. I give up. Some of you are interested in actual discourse and I shall continue with those people, but the vast majority are more interested in dogpiling me than anything else, mostly because you are in some of a radical left-winged cult, which is extremely hostile to outsiders for the sake of hostility. I don't know how to deprogram cult members, but I am not going to argue against you for the same reason I don't argue against Scientologists or Mason Family- there's no point in trying to convince cult members of anything if you don't know how to deprogram them

Australian rePublic wrote:I posted actual academic resources but you're interested. I don't post any resources and you demand I post resources, I post resources and you accuse me of hiding behind my resources, so you know what. I give up. Some of you are interested in actual discourse and I shall continue with those people, but the vast majority are more interested in dogpiling me than anything else, mostly because you are in some of a radical left-winged cult, which is extremely hostile to outsiders for the sake of hostility. I don't know how to deprogram cult members, but I am not going to argue against you for the same reason I don't argue against Scientologists or Mason Family- there's no point in trying to convince cult members of anything if you don't know how to deprogram them

You just Them'ed the hell out of a group of people.

Alcala-Cordel wrote:Having a defined enemy isn't always bad, but it usually is or at the very least lacks nuance. Here in the US it's very common for people to treat the 2 parties as polar opposites, refusing to acknowledge any similarities between them out of loyalty for one. Racism and sexism are also good examples of how broken that idea is. Some ideas and actions make unilateral opposition more justifiable, though. Serial killers and war criminals are bad.

Yep. Having a defined enemy radicalises people toward one side or an other. There are situations which are black and white, but they're few and far between. In most cases, life is full of grey areas and nuisance. Not even grey areas, but also blue, green, purple, red, etc. reducing everything to black and white thinking will force people to chose between black and white

Cannot think of a name wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:I posted actual academic resources but you're interested. I don't post any resources and you demand I post resources, I post resources and you accuse me of hiding behind my resources, so you know what. I give up. Some of you are interested in actual discourse and I shall continue with those people, but the vast majority are more interested in dogpiling me than anything else, mostly because you are in some of a radical left-winged cult, which is extremely hostile to outsiders for the sake of hostility. I don't know how to deprogram cult members, but I am not going to argue against you for the same reason I don't argue against Scientologists or Mason Family- there's no point in trying to convince cult members of anything if you don't know how to deprogram them

You just Them'ed the hell out of a group of people.

Because, as I said, those people aren't interested in actual discourse, but rather dogpiling me. If they were interested in actual discourse, then I'll participate in actual discourse, but they're more interested in dogpiling me. Don't bother trying to explain why I am wrong, but rather mocking me for my "bad" research. That's cult thinking. If I was wrong and my research were bad, then it should be easy to debunk me with simple arguments, but nope, rather dogpiling me and mocking me. Classic cult thinking. I don't want to play us vs them, I am a victim of it. Again, classic cult thinking. Unfortunately, us vs them thinking is part and parcel of being in a cult

Australian rePublic wrote:I posted actual academic resources but you're interested. I don't post any resources and you demand I post resources, I post resources and you accuse me of hiding behind my resources, so you know what. I give up. Some of you are interested in actual discourse and I shall continue with those people, but the vast majority are more interested in dogpiling me than anything else, mostly because you are in some of a radical left-winged cult, which is extremely hostile to outsiders for the sake of hostility. I don't know how to deprogram cult members, but I am not going to argue against you for the same reason I don't argue against Scientologists or Mason Family- there's no point in trying to convince cult members of anything if you don't know how to deprogram them

You just dumped a dozen mostly unrelated links and a 40 minute video with seemingly no line of reasoning besides a vague topical theme and an outlining question. If you have some sadistic drive to force people to spend 2 hours threading random info into a coherent essay only to have it skimmed over and disregarded, then proctor an AP exam or something.

El Lazaro wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:I posted actual academic resources but you're interested. I don't post any resources and you demand I post resources, I post resources and you accuse me of hiding behind my resources, so you know what. I give up. Some of you are interested in actual discourse and I shall continue with those people, but the vast majority are more interested in dogpiling me than anything else, mostly because you are in some of a radical left-winged cult, which is extremely hostile to outsiders for the sake of hostility. I don't know how to deprogram cult members, but I am not going to argue against you for the same reason I don't argue against Scientologists or Mason Family- there's no point in trying to convince cult members of anything if you don't know how to deprogram them

You just dumped a dozen mostly unrelated links and a 40 minute video with seemingly no line of reasoning besides a vague topical theme and an outlining question. If you have some sadistic drive to force people to spend 2 hours threading random info into a coherent essay only to have it skimmed over and disregarded, then proctor an AP exam or something.

Again, any attempts to address what I am actually saying rather than "But your sources bad, bro"

Australian rePublic wrote:

El Lazaro wrote:You just dumped a dozen mostly unrelated links and a 40 minute video with seemingly no line of reasoning besides a vague topical theme and an outlining question. If you have some sadistic drive to force people to spend 2 hours threading random info into a coherent essay only to have it skimmed over and disregarded, then proctor an AP exam or something.

Again, any attempts to address what I am actually saying rather than "But your sources bad, bro"

What the hell are you even talking about? Do you want to explain what you’re arguing in the first place instead of spamming links and expecting everyone to figure it out for you?

El Lazaro wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:Again, any attempts to address what I am actually saying rather than "But your sources bad, bro"

What the hell are you even talking about? Do you want to explain what you’re arguing in the first place instead of spamming links and expecting everyone to figure it out for you?

You're one of the two who most demanded sources.

Here is what I am arguing- toxic masculinity is (at least in part) made popular by the us vs them mentality, partially exacerbated by the left, which makes boys feel disgruntled with their place in society, and and the left has an obligation to stop the us vs them mentality. That one sentence in bold is what I am arguing. So now, your job is to debunk that sentence. That sentence again, (this time in red) is what my argument is toxic masculinity is (at least in part) made popular by the us vs them mentality, partially exacerbated by the left, which makes boys feel disgruntled with their place in society, and the left has an obligation to stop the us vs them mentality . Read the red/bold text and that's my whole argument. The bold/red text is what you're arguing against. Now I am NOT saying that the left are INTENTIONALLY responsible for the us vs them mentality, so please don't interpret it as such, but intentional or otherwise, these are the unintended consequences

I once tried to explain white privilege to my mother by reminiscing on a time that me and my cousin and my parents were driving up the west coast and my dad got pulled over for speeding. I asked her "What were you thinking at the moment?" and she said she was thinking "I told him (my father) he was going too damn fast!" She was pissed off at my dad for not listening to her and getting an expensive ticket (and almost getting arrested for reckless driving because he was just barely under twice the speed limit). And I said "But you weren't worried about Dad getting shot. You didn't worry for one second that me and my cousin would be shot dead in the back seat. That's white privilege. You don't get special eewards for being white, but there are a few things you don't have to worry about that black people do."

Thing is, a decade of watching Tucker Carlson had built a reactionary force field around her, so even though she couldn't refute my point, it had no effect on her. I'm all for choosing words carefully to preempt misconceptions, but at some point, people are too entrenched and it won't make a difference.

Page wrote:I once tried to explain white privilege to my mother by reminiscing on a time that me and my cousin and my parents were driving up the west coast and my dad got pulled over for speeding. I asked her "What were you thinking at the moment?" and she said she was thinking "I told him (my father) he was going too damn fast!" She was pissed off at my dad for not listening to her and getting an expensive ticket (and almost getting arrested for reckless driving because he was just barely under twice the speed limit). And I said "But you weren't worried about Dad getting shot. You didn't worry for one second that me and my cousin would be shot dead in the back seat. That's white privilege. You don't get special eewards for being white, but there are a few things you don't have to worry about that black people do."

Thing is, a decade of watching Tucker Carlson had built a reactionary force field around her, so even though she couldn't refute my point, it had no effect on her. I'm all for choosing words carefully to preempt misconceptions, but at some point, people are too entrenched and it won't make a difference.

It could have also been because what you said was at best a reach and at worst a non-starter. The likelihood of a Black male (who keeps his hands on the steering wheel and is compliant) being shot at a traffic stop is laughably small.

Page wrote:I once tried to explain white privilege to my mother by reminiscing on a time that me and my cousin and my parents were driving up the west coast and my dad got pulled over for speeding. I asked her "What were you thinking at the moment?" and she said she was thinking "I told him (my father) he was going too damn fast!" She was pissed off at my dad for not listening to her and getting an expensive ticket (and almost getting arrested for reckless driving because he was just barely under twice the speed limit). And I said "But you weren't worried about Dad getting shot. You didn't worry for one second that me and my cousin would be shot dead in the back seat. That's white privilege. You don't get special eewards for being white, but there are a few things you don't have to worry about that black people do."

Thing is, a decade of watching Tucker Carlson had built a reactionary force field around her, so even though she couldn't refute my point, it had no effect on her. I'm all for choosing words carefully to preempt misconceptions, but at some point, people are too entrenched and it won't make a difference.

Of coarse, it won't apply to everyone, you're never gonna stop the problem, but at least let's try to mitigate it

The vast majority of this sentiment is born mostly out of people being forced to consider ideas or positions that they are uncomfortable with or which lead them to uncomfortable conclusions. See, for example, the discomfort and lashing out observed when some straight people are told they have privilege as straight people.

It would be a mistake to coddle these people because soothing and reassuring would only reinforce the bad behaviour of the tantrum. As any parent knows, you can't reason with or appease a toddler throwing a tantrum - sometimes you need to gently but firmly correct the behaviour before it becomes a habitual response to doing or experiencing anything uncomfortable.