Jump to content

It's my duty to battle the Left (split from War Games: Russia Takes Ukraine, China Takes Taiwan. US Response?}


Greg A.
 Share

Recommended Posts

I would be careful in saying 'some men' and not simply 'men', implying all, and in which case you'd be proving Greg A right, with your gender bias.

If I made disparaging comments about women, as some have about men, or a cultural group like Middle Easterners, without stipulating that it is a small subset, I'm sure the usual suspects would be handing out demerit points like Halloween candy.

Just saying ...

BTW, Phi, you really seem attached to this vertical hierarchy vs. horizontal group of equals. I think what is important is not the arbitrary direction that you assign to it, rather, the inherent fairness and equity.
A fair monarchy is more desirable than a Marxist Politburo.
( but maybe I'm still not understanding you properly )

 

Further to Swansont's comments, some are so rich , they can go into orbit in their own rockets in vain attempts to outdo each other ...

Edited by MigL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

BTW, Phi, you really seem attached to this vertical hierarchy vs. horizontal group of equals. I think what is important is not the arbitrary direction that you assign to it, rather, the inherent fairness and equity.

There is nothing arbitrary about those directions: they are descriptions of the degree of fairness and equity of each kind of arrangement.

52 minutes ago, swansont said:

They literally do have structures full of commodities. Perhaps not warehouses, because they're ugly, but to argue essentially that rich people don't own more stuff is just something I can't take seriously. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/nyregion/day-meyer-murray-young-warehouse-of-the-rich.html

Quote

IT sounds like something out of a dime novel, or maybe a Nicolas Cage film. Behind the mute facade of a largely windowless neo-Gothic tower lies an ingenious system of steel vaults traveling on rails. Within those armored containers, which have been in continuous use since the Jazz Age, are stored some of New York City’s most precious objects and, presumably, a good number of its darkest secrets.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

I would be careful in saying 'some men' and not simply 'men', implying all, and in which case you'd be proving Greg A right, with your gender bias.

Really, "not all men"? Until an alpha male toxicity meter is invented that works at least as well as my irony meter, I'm going to assume it's all men. They're free to change my mind by doing more than just talk about equality.

22 minutes ago, MigL said:

If I made disparaging comments about women, as some have about men, or a cultural group like Middle Easterners, without stipulating that it is a small subset, I'm sure the usual suspects would be handing out demerit points like Halloween candy.

I think you make a mistake in taking it personally, rather than accepting that modern patriarchal capitalist societies have created a hostile environment for women and other non-white male groups. You need to understand nobody is calling you a shithead, but they are asking you to help stop shithead behavior by not encouraging it or even accepting it tacitly from your male colleagues/friends/family.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

There is nothing arbitrary about those directions: they are descriptions of the degree of fairness and equity of each kind of arrangement.

I see.
There is nothing arbitrary about vertical fairness, or horizontal fairness.
You can even assign a 'degree' of difference between the two.
You are just one step away from a mathematical relationship bettween angle and 'fairness'.
And I was asking Phi for elaboration, not your 'interpretation'.

 

4 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Until an alpha male toxicity meter is invented that works at least as well as my irony meter, I'm going to assume it's all men.

I guess that includes you; but I suggest you speak for yourself.

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You need to understand nobody is calling you a shithead, but they are asking you to help stop shithead behavior by not encouraging it or even accepting it tacitly from your male colleagues/friends/family.

And I tought that's what I was doing by politely asking some members not to paint a group with the same broad brush.
Not calling anyone a shitheaad; but some of their behaviour ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MigL said:

BTW, Phi, you really seem attached to this vertical hierarchy vs. horizontal group of equals. 

I know, right? It seems to describe so much of what's going on with politics and religion these days.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I think what is important is not the arbitrary direction that you assign to it, rather, the inherent fairness and equity.

Arbitrary?! It's most definitely NOT arbitrary. Alpha on top, lessers below in ranked order. It's like a thermometer, and men are assuming hotter is always better, and you're not hot enough if someone hotter says so. Do you see that as inherently fair and equitable?

1 hour ago, MigL said:

A fair monarchy is more desirable than a Marxist Politburo.
( but maybe I'm still not understanding you properly )

You obviously don't understand me properly if you can argue using this stinky False Dilemma. 

I'm arguing that there are many ways to change our societies to be more inclusive and favorable to the overwhelming majority of people. You can't let the past make you afraid of trying. What kind of scientist says, "Well, they tried a Socialist experiment and it failed. Let's never test THAT again!"

Communism/Marxism was a major smokescreen back in the 50s in the US. We actually didn't hate the Communists so much as we hated that the American Communist Party was siding with women, Jews, gays, and Blacks in the US and threatening to push forward legislation that many white people also favored, like an anti-lynching bill. Anti-communist rhetoric worked so well they used it to erode the Socialist programs we had in the US, like public schools and utilities. So I'm not convinced about your monarchy argument.

 

39 minutes ago, MigL said:

There is nothing arbitrary about vertical fairness, or horizontal fairness.
You can even assign a 'degree' of difference between the two.
You are just one step away from a mathematical relationship bettween angle and 'fairness'.
And I was asking Phi for elaboration, not your 'interpretation'.

The vertical assignment assumes anyone above you is "better", or knows more, or has more power, or is more capable, and anyone below you is "lesser", or knows less, has less power and capability. 

The horizontal assignment is forced to assess the situation and the capabilities of the people involved, and solve problems based on THAT rather than on the say-so of a higher-up.

I keep trying to make this simpler, and I worry that this will continue to fail. OTOH, I'm not convinced a more detailed explanation will help if you really don't want to hear about this.

39 minutes ago, MigL said:

I guess that includes you; but I suggest you speak for yourself.

Of course it includes me, from anyone else's frame of reference. And I can speak for you in this instance too, because from a woman/BIPOC/LGBTQ frame of reference, you and I are identical. 77% of domestic homicide victims are female, and 96% of the suspects are male. 

https://www.womensaid.org.uk/information-support/what-is-domestic-abuse/domestic-abuse-is-a-gendered-crime/

Do you know what hoops some people have to jump through just to please the average 65 year old white male? I can wear my grubbies to the store if I want and still expect everyone to treat me well, but BIPOC people have to be dressed immaculately or they're frowned upon. You and I might say, "You don't need to do anything special for me!", but again, there's no toxicity meters for men, and there's more than you and me, so they have to assume it's all of us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'm saying ( again ) discrimination is bad, no matter who it's applied to. We are all people, and should be treated as such.

You seem to be saying that some are 'priviliged' in our society, and so it is OK to paint all 65 year old white males with the same broad brush as misogynistic, drunk,wife abusers.

The argument seems to be, I want a 'horizontal ' scale applied to bigotry, while you want a 'vertical' scale, with differing levels of bigotry being applicable to different people.

Am I using your terminology accurately ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, MigL said:

And I'm saying ( again ) discrimination is bad, no matter who it's applied to. We are all people, and should be treated as such.

You seem to be saying that some are 'priviliged' in our society, and so it is OK to paint all 65 year old white males with the same broad brush as misogynistic, drunk,wife abusers.

The argument seems to be, I want a 'horizontal ' scale applied to bigotry, while you want a 'vertical' scale, with differing levels of bigotry being applicable to different people.

Am I using your terminology accurately ?

This is the "All lives matter" argument again. It's not bigoted to want the discrimination against women and BIPOC folks by white men to stop. Can you tell me how they're supposed to know how you're a "good white guy"? Did you build a toxicity meter yet? 

Right now, a lot of these folks have to treat all white men the same, because the consequences of misreading which are good is too steep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Perhaps you know of some good studies, Arete, but I think this is exacerbated by the way men specifically tend to organize in a hierarchy with some kind of alpha at the top controlling those below who are stacked vertically the same way. Some men have a hard time letting women be in charge partly because they assume women just want to usurp them in a similar hierarchy.

I think that might be a bit of a stereotype in itself. While there are some studies showing that certain female groups might be more egalitarian, I do not think that it does not seem to be an universal trait and in many cases it may just happened because folks expect it to be as well as because women often were not in a situation to set up power structure (i.e. they were egalitarian because they had to).

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Men worry about being displaced from a pecking order, and don't see a female dominated group as a rearrangement of responsibilities.

I think both genders are affected by status threat. It is more that women generally are associated with lower status and the discrepancy of what folks perceive what their status should be to where they are can exacerbate the status threat.

E.g.  a black woman in power is seen as a bigger threat than a white woman and this applies to both genders. I would have to look but I *think* that the perceived threat was a bit lower in women compared to men, but I am not sure how consistent it was.

There is, however, a strong association between gender stereotypes (especially those supporting the strong man stereotype) and perceived status threat by minorities. This applies to both, men and women. I.e. there is considerable overlap and in my mind we are clearly looked at learned traits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Right now, a lot of these folks have to treat all white men the same, because the consequences of misreading which are good is too steep.

So your solution is to judge theiir 'goodness' by appearance, the same way people have judged blacks, Muslims, gays, etc. in the past ?
I thought we were trying to get away from that; to build a fair equitable society where people are not judged by skin color, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc.
Is that too horizontal ?

 

10 minutes ago, CharonY said:

There is, however, a strong association between gender stereotypes (especially those supporting the strong man stereotype)

Strong association  is much better than blanket statements concerning all men.
Thanks for that.
One of the most attractive women I can think of, is Linda Hamilton in Terminator II, carrying a Franchi SPAS shotgun.
Not exactly a 'shrinking violet' relegated to the kitchen, or raising babies.
Then again, my mother was a strong woman, who, unfortunately passed away young.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MigL said:

And I was asking Phi for elaboration, not your 'interpretation'.

Sorry!

20 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think both genders are affected by status threat. It is more that women generally are associated with lower status and the discrepancy of what folks perceive what their status should be to where they are can exacerbate the status threat.

In a status-ranked society, everyone is affected by status threat, because everyone's interest is intimately tied up in their status. The people with the most at stake in any proposed structural alteration are the ones with the highest accustomed status. In a wealth-based patriarchal society, that would be the richest men, their first-born sons [any women who, through accomplishment, aggression or marriage had made themselves a place in the hierarchy, according to its rules] their wives, brothers, younger sons, daughters, trusty retainers and mistresses - in roughly that order. 

How the wealth-based hierarchy maintains its power over the the lower (wealth-producing) tiers of the society is by constantly keeping the threat in play for all of their minions, and that can best be done by making sure there is always a large pool of no-status people below everyone who has any - slaves, women, undocumented immigrants, homeless, prison populations, unemployables - doesn't matter, as you can make sure each tier knows that somebody is after their position.  

21 minutes ago, MigL said:

One of the most attractive women I can think of, is Linda Hamilton in Terminator II, carrying a Franchi SPAS shotgun.

Let me guess! Fictional? Not exactly somebody likely to compete for your job?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MigL said:

And I'm saying ( again ) discrimination is bad, no matter who it's applied to. We are all people, and should be treated as such.

You seem to be saying that some are 'priviliged' in our society

The history here seems relevant. Certain classes of people are considered “protected,” not privileged, and there’s good reason this had to be.

For decades / centuries they were discriminated against merely for how they were born.

It’s as if someone goes to the doctor for a broken arm and the doctor says, “All bones matter!” Well… yeah. Thx, Dr Einstein. Nobody disagrees with that lovely bumper sticker fitting platitude, but maybe we could focus right now on this broken one since that’s why I’m here?

We agree all people deserve to be treated well and respectfully, but since so many of our fellow citizens can’t seem to get on board with that simple agreement, we need to take extra steps and actively ensure the protection is afforded.

As noted earlier, some white men are mostly noticing the loss off their asymmetric privilege RELATIVE to the privilege thankfully now being experienced by their non-white non-male peers. That doesn’t however, mean that white men are actually losing any rights or facing any discrimination. They’re just enjoying less unearned benefit than before and relative to peers and noticing the difference. 

Many are mad that they can’t keep a job if they fail to perform or are angry that society now calls them out for saying nigger and faggot and retard and related epithets. Well boo fucking hoo, snowflake. Grow a pair and quit whining. 
 

(not directed at you, just commenting on society more broadly).

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed you said "so many of our fellow citizens", "some white men are mostly", and "many are mad".
I guess that means you and CharonY get the point I was trying to make.
Much appreciated.

Oh, and none of this was in any way supportive of Greg A's ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, iNow said:

The history here seems relevant. Certain classes of people are considered “protected,” not privileged, and there’s good reason this had to be.

For decades / centuries they were discriminated against merely for how they were born.

..."protected class" is a designation based on various US laws, most prominently the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And in that law, the classes are not restricted to the "oppressed" classes. Both "men" and "women" are classes that are protected, all religions (including Christianity) are protected, and so on. Explicitly:

"All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.[...]

All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discriniination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof."

Edited by uncool
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simpler point is there’s a reason we needed equal rights amendments and civil rights acts and laws allowing white and black peoples or same sex couples to wed. 

Just saying we’re all equal doesn’t mean those currently in power ensure that’s so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

Oh, and none of this was in any way supportive of Greg A's ideas.

Just as well. Greg A has no ideas. He repeats nonsense he's received from various unreliable sources without bothering to verify or inform himself, because it's just so much easier to be a self-designated victim than a functional citizen.  The insight he provides into such a mind-set has been interesting and somewhat entertaining, but the returns diminish very quickly. 

5 minutes ago, uncool said:

"protected class" is a designation under various US laws, most prominently the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Has the Supreme Court not gotten around to that yet?

Shouldn't be long!

https://civilrights.org/2020/03/23/u-s-supreme-court-rolls-back-historic-civil-rights-protections-in-comcast-ruling/#

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/27/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-00042478

If you think you're protected, start thinking again!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/7/2022 at 11:20 PM, Peterkin said:

Taking the load off a dead donkey doesn't help the load or the donkey.

The burden a welfare state imposes on an economy negates any of the few advantages it provides. 

On 8/7/2022 at 11:20 PM, Peterkin said:

The ones from whom you want to take away even the little power they still have to redistribute wealth through taxation and regulation.

 

The Right rightfully see private enterprise as being the powerhouse of an economy. The biggest employers,  producers, and service providers, which is true. And for that reason sees the need to maintain those that employ us and provide for us our products and services.  

The measure of a fully functional economy would be a flat tax rate. Greater disparity in taxes is not a good thing and measures failings. 

If a top sportsperson gets paid a lot of money is that because they are greedy or because they are good at what they do. This same argument applies to CEOs for example. Greed has nothing to do with it. Income differences don't mean what you think they do as our demands be we rich or poor are not in proportion to our incomes. In fact if the income situation were reversed it would be the former poor who would become truly extravagant and wasteful (in the small time they were in business). 

 

On 8/7/2022 at 11:20 PM, Peterkin said:

If.  

This guy sounds like the innumerate twenty-year-old boys of my generation who read Atlas Shrugged and had their eyes suddenly opened as to why they were not wildly successful in school, work or dating: Because they themselves were exceptionally wonderful and all the lesser people were holding them back. If they were in charge, everything would be just fiiinnnee.

If governments were effective (and they're not because they are elected) there would be full employment. So you are wrong I don't blame the unemployed for unemployment. 

On 8/7/2022 at 11:41 PM, iNow said:

So the civil war was started by white males to destroy… white males?!? 😂 😂 😂 

I am so grateful to you for giving us this transparent view into how addled minds work and how broken so many people have become. It’s like studying chimps at the zoo. 

Sorry to let you down. But, I'd made it clear that it is our 'X' chromosomes that 'can' be held responsible for starting the US Civil War. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

The burden a welfare state imposes on an economy negates any of the few advantages it provides. 

The farts of purple unicorns cause erections in leprechauns. 

See, I can make up anything I want, too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

The burden a welfare state imposes on an economy negates any of the few advantages it provides. 

That depends on how many workers the state looses; try and imagine a world with no sewage workers or bin men or farmer's; sometimes the arsole is the most important part of the body and sometimes it just spouts shit... 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

If governments were effective (and they're not because they are elected) there would be full employment.

Given assertions like this, I trust you’re a massive supporter of Joe Biden and the current congress given that the US economy is right now functionally at full employment. A near century low of unemployment.

Let me guess, though… you don’t. 😂 

21 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

 I'd made it clear that it is our 'X' chromosomes that 'can' be held responsible for starting the US Civil War

I think this may just be even more hilarious the second time. Have you considered doing standup? This is great material!

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That depends on how many workers the state looses;

It also completely fails to account for the actual ROI on the investment and the additional costs poverty imposed on others. It’s like a kindergartners version of economics. He may as well be saying scooby do is needed to prevent crime. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

It also completely fails to account for the actual ROI on the investment and the additional costs poverty imposed on others. It’s like a kindergartners version of economics. He may as well be saying scooby do is needed to prevent crime. 

Indeed, but I assumed he wasn't ready for an extra complication, Scooby is difficult to understand...

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/8/2022 at 12:34 AM, MigL said:

Pssst ... I think he's an incel ...

Pssst ... He

 

On 8/8/2022 at 12:50 AM, swansont said:

Was it true, or did he just say it?

The NIH says that both of these cancers are overfunded relative to their burden on society.

So your brother’s claim doesn’t hold much water. Prostate cancer is not being “pretty much ignored”

 

(Greg hasn’t shown any interest in facts or substantiation of claims, but others who read this do, so here is the link

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3411479/ )

 

P.S. how is this an example of white males being discriminated against?

On 8/8/2022 at 12:50 AM, swansont said:

You could question the source of your beliefs, and confirm them as facts rather than blindly believing things. Make no mistake - this is a choice on your part.

My beliefs are mostly based on observations. Confirm them as facts? Look them up in the text books? Sorry, but the prediction I make is something kinda new, and in fact will never be allowed in any text books anyhow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

Pssst ... He

 

My beliefs are mostly based on observations. Confirm them as facts? Look them up in the text books? Sorry, but the prediction I make is something kinda new, and in fact will never be allowed in any text books anyhow. 

 

no shit.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

My beliefs are mostly based on observations. Confirm them as facts? Look them up in the text books?

I was able to find e.g. the funding numbers for cancer quite easily. The information is out there, if you can be bothered to look. 

Funny thing about observations is that bias creeps into them quite easily. That matters to some of us, who try to be objective.

46 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

Sorry, but the prediction I make is something kinda new, and in fact will never be allowed in any text books anyhow. 

I don't give a FF about your "prediction" and that's not been the focus of any of this discussion. It can't be, because you were forbidden from bringing the topic up in other threads. You can keep your delusion to yourself.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.