No, being a man is not 'easy mode'.

Status
Not open for further replies.

lyraseven

Found the path to Fillory
#1
Though I really don't like the guy much, the article does ring true. If you're white and you're straight, you play the game of life on the lowest difficulty setting; so stop complaining about the tired, the poor, the huddled masses. If not for dumb luck, you might be them.
Utter bullshit. For a start it assumes as true a lot of common complaints about being a woman, gay, an ethnic minority and so on that I just don't agree with, but straight while males have it no easier than those groups claim to, they just have it differently. I'd say they have it harder than some.

Attitudes like that one for example, this smug dismissing of them and their problems while every other group is taken seriously is part of the problem, as is the fact that straight white men are basically expected to take on and solve the 'problems' other groups insist they face - because it's a straight white man's world, goes the 'logic' - but let's look at some other issues faced by this so-called easy-mode group.

Primarily, men suffer as much from expected and often imposed gender roles as women do. There's no getting around this; women are louder about it and our advocacy groups are treated with undue respect while theirs are considered surplus to requirements, but the male gender role does exist and they're under extraordinary pressure to live up to it. The expectations put upon women might be patronizing but they aren't difficult.

Men are expected to be the financial providers and I know for a fact some of the men on this very forum find that an extraordinarily difficult and unfair position to be put in in this day and age. In return, they're expected to take less of a role in the family - or maintain an equal role and their job/s - and their opinion often counts for less among outside observers of any given family. In extremis, this includes the rate at which women are given sole or primary custody of any shared children - and the fact that this is considered normal and correct.

Men are expected to keep their emotions to themselves, and when they don't they're treated as weak at best and dangerous at worst. In instances of actual domestic violence, men are always assumed to be the aggressor despite studies showing women are the instigators just as much or more, and in any situation with a woman assaulting a man, if the man defends himself in any way he's treated as having gone too far by peers and often the law.

Males are often given harsher sentences for crimes a woman might get away with entirely - instances of statutory rape involving older women are often treated with a slap on the wrist and it's assumed the boy 'wanted it', while those involving older men are treated by society as the worst thing imaginable. Then there's the differences between mens' prisons and womens' prisons.

Speaking of which, a man who wants to work with children and isn't gay is automatically suspect, often to the point of being discriminated against in childcare professions or even by total strangers in public.

Similarly a woman can ruin a man's life with a rape accusation; whether or not he goes to prison his social standing is irrevocably ruined, particularly in this day and age when everything is forever on the internet. A man who accuses a woman of rape is often laughed at, as though such a thing is impossible or if it is, cute - because men can't possibly not want sex.

Men are required by US law (and often elsewhere) to sign up for military conscription programs such as the American 'Selective Service', while women aren't.

Almost no male-only domestic abuse or rape crisis centers exist, despite the woman largely responsible for bringing the importance of those organizations to public awareness, Erin Pizzey, insisting that they're needed just as much. Men accused of domestic violence have far less emotional or financial support available to them, and fewer fall-back recourses if required to leave their homes - something which they're disproportionately asked to do by police in cases of accused domestic violence where no arrest can yet be made.

Male children are routinely mutilated at birth in the US, and it's legal to do it to them in most Western nations too, while it's not only illegal to mutilate female childrens' genitals here, the taxpayer - including men - is expected to fund government programs to put a stop to it elsewhere too.

Men have no say in whether or not accidental or otherwise unwanted pregnancies go ahead, and often have no rights to waive responsibility in cases where the woman unilaterally decides to give birth. They can be expected to pay child support whether they wanted the child or not, and where neither party in a casual sex scenario wants the unwanted child it's considered the man's 'fault' and responsibility to pay for an abortion. Indeed, women are not required by law to inform the biological father that he's going to be one at all. Ever.

Let's not get started on what happens to men after divorce. Let's just point out that 'alimony' exists and we all know who benefits from it.

Fewer opportunities for free rides - a black woman essentially gets five routes into university while a white man might get three. Athletics or academic excellence programs exist for anyone to use, as does the traditional way (i.e. paying) but getting two extra rolls of the dice due to gender and color is insurmountable.

Likewise many private businesses have voluntarily adopted 'diversity' policies which give members of loud victim-employees of the exact same quality or less than their white male colleagues an inherent and unearned advantage in being considered for the same position.

In the UK, we have a 'minister for women' but no such position for men. This means womens' advocacy groups have a direct line to someone who can make their absurd demands happen while men just have to hope enough MPs are willing to take on their issues - and since we talked above about how mens' rights are considered a joke, MPs don't.

This is not an exhaustive list.


EDIT: another example occurs to me; in my town we have a women-only gym and our local council's accessible fitness center - the one subsidized by taxpayers male and female - has women-only sessions for its swimming pool. Needless to say, there is no male-only gym nor male-only swimming sessions.
 
Last edited:

lyraseven

Found the path to Fillory
#2
Ah! Good move. I was about to quote your final comment "This is not an exhaustive list" and reply that yes it was - at least, I am exhausted trying to get through it!
Clearly there are issues here on which you feel very strongly - but a less vehement post, preferably shorter - or a collection of shorter posts - might get your points across more clearly.
This is another part of the problem. Talk about womens' rights and people fall over themselves to agree with you, regardless of tone. Get a little annoyed at the dismissal of mens' problems and face yet more dismissal.

People are free to read as much or as little of the post as they like, of course, which is why I made it a new thread. But how can you possibly respond to a claim like that being a man is 'easy mode' without getting a little lengthy?
 
Last edited:

Sir Arthur

Journeyed there and back again
#3
Well @lyraseven, I agree. I spent a year as a stay at home dad, and still have the responsibility of dropping off and picking up my daughter from daycare, and cooking dinner when we get home. I constantly deal with ignorant attitudes of coworkers when I have to leave to take care of her. The world is structured for mother and child, not father and child.
My wife makes more money than I do, she has better benefits, and her career has a higher ceiling. Other men often insinuate this is somehow emasculating. An archaic attitude I don't understand.
 

Sparrow

Journeyed there and back again
#5
Where to even begin, other than saying this will be the easiest debate I've ever taken up.

Let us first start with the halls of power, you know it's where laws are made and passed that effect our daily lives.
This is the US Senate, arguably the most powerful 100 people in the world, check the demographics out...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2014-midterms/senate-demographics/
... that's right, no surprises there. Almost all older straight white men.
Presidents, Prime Ministers, Dictators... in the Western World nearly all straight white men. This is due to the obvious reasons, cultural and historical, and the not so obvious reasons like biology.
The political season is upon us once again and the first excellent opportunity for a woman to be elected President of the USA might come about... eight years ago I contributed to the Hillary Clinton campaign, and I'll do so again. The conservatives hate her, no big surprise... however it's amazing to me how many liberal women don't like her because she doesn't behave to their modern standards of womanhood.

Now let's explore popular culture.
As a straight white man I have never ever worried about, nor even considered the possibility of being raped, or even taken seriously being harassed in any real way by women. Certainly I've had unwanted attention, but heck, even then I'm usually flattered on some primal level. There is no ceiling in most workplaces that hinder straight white men, no roadblocks to a college education, no prejudices when being considered for a mortgage loan, when being stopped by a police officer, etc.

Want to talk about Women's Rights?
Women have all the rights they need in writing, the laws are on the books... too bad most women don't accept or even wish to be equal.

Life is hard for everyone, less hard for a straight white man.
We are rarely treated as tokens, never denied agency and well represented on every level of society. We are privileged.

Now Lyra... run off and get me a beer, sweetie.
 

SuperDuper

Knows how to pronounce Kvothe
#6
Where to even begin, other than saying this will be the easiest debate I've ever taken up.

Presidents, Prime Ministers, Dictators... in the Western World nearly all straight white men. This is due to the obvious reasons, cultural and historical, and the not so obvious reasons like biology.
The political season is upon us once again and the first excellent opportunity for a woman to be elected President of the USA might come about... eight years ago I contributed to the Hillary Clinton campaign, and I'll do so again. The conservatives hate her, no big surprise... however it's amazing to me how many liberal women don't like her because she doesn't behave to their modern standards of womanhood.

Now let's explore popular culture.
As a straight white man I have never ever worried about, nor even considered the possibility of being raped, or even taken seriously being harassed in any real way by women. Certainly I've had unwanted attention, but heck, even then I'm usually flattered on some primal level. There is no ceiling in most workplaces that hinder straight white men, no roadblocks to a college education, no prejudices when being considered for a mortgage loan, when being stopped by a police officer, etc.

Want to talk about Women's Rights?
Women have all the rights they need in writing, the laws are on the books... too bad most women don't accept or even wish to be equal.

Life is hard for everyone, less hard for a straight white man.
We are rarely treated as tokens, never denied agency and well represented on every level of society. We are privileged.

Now Lyra... run off and get me a beer, sweetie.
This makes a lot of sense. I've heard a lot of this before. It's not always about some huge advantage but that there are less disadvantages which is itself an advantage, plus no ceiling and all that. Not sure about the "get me a beer thing", though?
 

lyraseven

Found the path to Fillory
#7
Let us first start with the halls of power, you know it's where laws are made and passed that effect our daily lives.
This is the US Senate, arguably the most powerful 100 people in the world, check the demographics out...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2014-midterms/senate-demographics/
... that's right, no surprises there. Almost all older straight white men.
Irrelevant; most elected officials being men is not a condition women are 'subjected to'; it's merely a thing. Women aren't harmed by it and nor is it any form of oppression, and finally women are just as responsible for the demographics of elected officials as men are, what with that whole suffrage thing we got a while back.
The political season is upon us once again and the first excellent opportunity for a woman to be elected President of the USA might come about
Thank you for affirming the sentiment I expressed here:
Likewise many private businesses have voluntarily adopted 'diversity' policies which give members of loud victim-employees of the exact same quality or less than their white male colleagues an inherent and unearned advantage in being considered for the same position.
Not only are private businesses adopting these sexist promotion prioritizations, voters are.
As a straight white man I have never ever worried about, nor even considered the possibility of being raped, or even taken seriously being harassed in any real way by women. Certainly I've had unwanted attention, but heck, even then I'm usually flattered on some primal level.
Also irrelevant; the point is that men are raped, and when they are there is (1) public perception that they must have wanted it, (2) little emotional or financial support by advocacy groups and (3) varying degrees of disbelief that a woman could rape a man. Just look at how you've made the issue of male rape about you and how you're not concerned about it and might be flattered by unsolicited attention.
There is no ceiling in most workplaces that hinder straight white men, no roadblocks to a college education, no prejudices when being considered for a mortgage loan, when being stopped by a police officer, etc.
These things are increasingly false. White men are experiencing a ceiling in workplaces with diversity quotas; the very definition of diversity quotas divides opportunities by demographic.

Quotas or 'affirmative action' also form roadblocks to certain college experiences; colleges have so many places for students per year and every student who gets in based on demographic who would otherwise not have gotten in on their academic merits alone is a roadblock to another student. Those people will still be able to go to a college, yes, but they might have wanted to go to the one they were turned away from because X spots are reserved for minorities.

Everyone experiences harassment by police officers, but there are accounts by policemen of letting women go with a warning where they might otherwise have fined a man, and accounts by women of deliberately attempting to engineer this situation.

Life is hard for everyone, less hard for a straight white man.
No. It's not, and that kind of dehumanizing attitude is a large part of why. My first post was not a debate, it was a list of facts. A list of ways straight white men experience discrimination just like any other demographic. That you don't feel you have experienced them doesn't mean they don't exist - mens' rights support and/or discussion groups online can provide a multitude of examples of how the system has screwed straight white men for being straight white men.

In England and Wales in 2010 there were 7,500 beds for abused women who need refuge from abusive situations.

There were 60 for men.

Acknowledging that straight white men don't have a cakewalk doesn't mean you have to let go of your beliefs about how other demographics experience life. You do not need to write off an entire demographic's unique experiences to care about other demographics.

As for beer - I'll give you a beer all right. I hope you like bottles.
 
Last edited:

Sparrow

Journeyed there and back again
#8
Irrelevant; most elected officials being men is not a condition women are 'subjected to'; it's merely a thing. Women aren't harmed by it and nor is it any form of oppression, and finally women are just as responsible for the demographics of elected officials as men are, what with that whole suffrage thing we got a while back.
Also irrelevant; the point is that men are raped, and when they are there is (1) public perception that they must have wanted it, (2) little emotional or financial support by advocacy groups and (3) varying degrees of disbelief that a woman could rape a man. Just look at how you've made the issue of male rape about you and how you're not concerned about it and might be flattered by unsolicited attention.
Straight white men are raped by who?.. women?
I'm having some difficulty imagining the scenario in which a woman I don't want to have sex with is going to force me to get an erection. Assuming of course that "rape" means intercourse. Anyhow, when I say yes I mean yes, when I say maybe I mean yes, and when I say no... usually means I've had too much to drink and I'll take a rain check.

Quotas or 'affirmative action' also form roadblocks to certain college experiences; colleges have so many places for students per year and every student who gets in based on demographic who would otherwise not have gotten in on their academic merits alone is a roadblock to another student. Those people will still be able to go to a college, yes, but they might have wanted to go to the one they were turned away from because X spots are reserved for minorities.
I'm fine with affirmative action and quotas; as a way to set straight past inequities and injustice. Perhaps it's not fair to impose these things on folks who had no hand in the past, but no matter the affirmative action program a straight white man still has the advantage.

No. It's not, and that kind of dehumanizing attitude is a large part of why. My first post was not a debate, it was a list of facts. A list of ways straight white men experience discrimination just like any other demographic. That you don't feel you have experienced them doesn't mean they don't exist - mens' rights support and/or discussion groups online can provide a multitude of examples of how the system has screwed straight white men for being straight white men.
There's actually mens' rights support groups taking up the cause of the downtrodden straight white male?.. straight white pussies are what they are.

As for beer - I'll give you a beer all right. I hope you like bottles.
ah-ha... bottles are fine.
Unless that was sexual innuendo, in which case I feel as though I've been raped.;)
 

Anti_Quated

Journeyed there and back again
#9
It would nice to excise all privilege, to create a more level playing field, but you'll still have inequality regardless of how you tinker and fuck with the system and the framework. Life has tribulations for everyone, and I'd argue a little resilience goes a long way. If you want to play the game, use the tools you have at your disposal, acquire wisdom, train yourself to be a reflective practitioner. Take advantage of whatever assistance is available. I think anyone that truly wants to survive, succeed, and prosper in any world (not just the white man's), can and will find a way of doing so, in spite of the hegemony. Law of the jungle, survival of the fittest.

Fundamentally we are animals; animals compete in order to survive. The strongest animal will thrive at the expense of those it dominates. It has never and will never be an even playing field in this little old garden, it's nonetheless noble and benevolent to want to try and create a little less pain and inequality in it, even if I don't always agree with the sentiments behind either perspective.
 

lyraseven

Found the path to Fillory
#10
I'm having some difficulty imagining the scenario in which a woman I don't want to have sex with is going to force me to get an erection.
Your imagination is not required. You are not entitled to an opinion about this. You are not being debated with here, you are being informed. Males get raped, by both women and other men.
no matter the affirmative action program a straight white man still has the advantage.
How?

Honestly, how can you possibly come to the conclusion that despite governments and businesses overtly and systematically discriminating against white males, white males somehow have the advantage? Just because they used to doesn't mean that oppressing them in turn now isn't, by the literal definition of the word, disadvantaging them.
There's actually mens' rights support groups taking up the cause of the downtrodden straight white male?.. straight white pussies are what they are.
Did you not see the giant list of ways straight white men are disadvantaged? Do you not think that perhaps maybe some of those issues could, should and WOULD be changed if society would give them the time of day?

@Anti_Quated Personally, as a libertarian I completely agree with what you're saying, but unfortunately we have governments and while we do we should certainly demand equality and fairness from it. So private businesses can hire and promote whomever they like (even if I disapprove), but state-funded colleges have no right to prefer a black woman over a more deserving white man just because she's the only one who applied to whatever course and they have quotas.
 
Last edited:

Sparrow

Journeyed there and back again
#11
It would nice to excise all privilege, to create a more level playing field, but you'll still have inequality regardless of how you tinker and fuck with the system and the framework. Life has tribulations for everyone, and I'd argue a little resilience goes a long way. If you want to play the game, use the tools you have at your disposal, acquire wisdom, train yourself to be a reflective practitioner. Take advantage of whatever assistance is available. I think anyone that truly wants to survive, succeed, and prosper in any world (not just the white man's), can and will find a way of doing so, in spite of the hegemony. Law of the jungle, survival of the fittest.
Fundamentally we are animals; animals compete in order to survive. The strongest animal will thrive at the expense of those it dominates. It has never and will never be an even playing field in this little old garden, it's nonetheless noble and benevolent to want to try and create a little less pain and inequality in it, even if I don't always agree with the sentiments behind either perspective.
Personally, as a libertarian I completely agree with what you're saying, but unfortunately we have governments and while we do we should certainly demand equality and fairness from it. So private businesses can hire and promote whomever they like, but state-funded colleges have no right to prefer a black woman over a more deserving white man just because she's the only one who applied to whatever course and they have quotas.
Libertarianism/Objectivism is the last refuge of the narcissist, the selfish, the cruel-hearted.
Human societies should not be ruled by the laws of the jungle or left to the survival of the fittest. We take care of those who are disadvantaged, those who are sick of mind and spirit. We do so not simply out of kindness, but because it makes society as a whole stronger, more resilient and compassionate. Where there is injustice and inequity, do we watch from the ideological sidelines or intervene?
 

lyraseven

Found the path to Fillory
#12
Libertarianism/Objectivism is the last refuge of the narcissist, the selfish, the cruel-hearted.
No, it's about liberty. The clue's kind of in the name. Also, libertarianism and Objectivism are not the same thing.

One can be a libertarian and charitable. I'm not especially so, but I did volunteer for the better part of a year while my health allowed for it, eventually working up to seven days a week for Barnardos, so there's that.

The point is that people have a right to be narcissistic, selfish and cruel-hearted if they want to, as long as they are not taking action that directly harms others or others' property. Pre-emptively, inaction is not harming others.

There's no getting around survival of the fittest. It's how reality works. The only difference between my outlook on it and yours is that your definition of 'fittest' includes the group who can pool the most resources to fund the most mercenaries to force people like me to participate in your systems. You're no better, not even different than @Anti_Quated or I.
 
Last edited:

Amaryllis

Journeyed there and back again
#13
As a straight white man I have never ever worried about, nor even considered the possibility of being raped, or even taken seriously being harassed in any real way by women.
As a straight white man, I have been raped by a woman. Do you feel sympathy for me? Probably not. Not many other people did either (and not that I ever told very many people outside of an anonymous setting). And to be honest, I already knew not to expect anyone to, even when I was 15. I don't even feel sympathy for myself.

I'm fine with affirmative action and quotas; as a way to set straight past inequities and injustice. Perhaps it's not fair to impose these things on folks who had no hand in the past, but no matter the affirmative action program a straight white man still has the advantage.
I'll admit that I'm torn on this. This is either a stupid statement, or the most unintentionally brilliant summation of the entire argument ever written. It claims to want to fix past unfairness (with a subtext of assuaging guilt), then shoots itself in the foot immediately by admitting to being unfair itself, then declares its own uselessness outright: no matter the affirmative action program a straight white man still has the advantage. Then why fucking bother? If that's TRUE, then flagellating yourself about it only hurts you and has no chance whatsoever of actually fixing the problem, which can never be fixed no matter what, and if it's FALSE (which it is), then it's an admission that no concession will ever be enough, and thus the people conceding would be better served by not paying attention to the people making demands of them, because no matter how much they give, not only will their debt never be discharged, but it won't even do any good anyway. No wonder you people seem like such nihilists. There is seriously no good outcome possible in this situation.

Libertarianism/Objectivism is the last refuge of the narcissist, the selfish, the cruel-hearted.
Human societies should not be ruled by the laws of the jungle or left to the survival of the fittest. We take care of those who are disadvantaged, those who are sick of mind and spirit. We do so not simply out of kindness, but because it makes society as a whole stronger, more resilient and compassionate. Where there is injustice and inequity, do we watch from the ideological sidelines or intervene?
All this really proves is that you don't know the meaning of the words you use. And your idea of charity is terribly one-dimensional, and based exclusively on empty feel-good talking points rather than anything even vaguely resembling reality.

Now Lyra... run off and get me a beer, sweetie.
For being the guy trying to drive the identity politics train through this forum, you sure seem to make the most crass and boorishly sexist comments I ever see on it.
 

Sparrow

Journeyed there and back again
#14
As a straight white man, I have been raped by a woman. Do you feel sympathy for me? Probably not. Not many other people did either (and not that I ever told very many people outside of an anonymous setting). And to be honest, I already knew not to expect anyone to, even when I was 15. I don't even feel sympathy for myself.
You got that much right, I do not feel an ounce of sympathy for you.
Were you wearing something provocative at the time?.. you might have had it coming.


I'll admit that I'm torn on this. This is either a stupid statement, or the most unintentionally brilliant summation of the entire argument ever written. It claims to want to fix past unfairness (with a subtext of assuaging guilt), then shoots itself in the foot immediately by admitting to being unfair itself, then declares its own uselessness outright: no matter the affirmative action program a straight white man still has the advantage. Then why fucking bother? If that's TRUE, then flagellating yourself about it only hurts you and has no chance whatsoever of actually fixing the problem, which can never be fixed no matter what, and if it's FALSE (which it is), then it's an admission that no concession will ever be enough, and thus the people conceding would be better served by not paying attention to the people making demands of them, because no matter how much they give, not only will their debt never be discharged, but it won't even do any good anyway. No wonder you people seem like such nihilists. There is seriously no good outcome possible in this situation.
In America the collective government policies of the last five decades have done much to make up for past misdeeds.
Progress is made little by little... we have a black man elected twice to be our President, the Supreme Court recently ruled favorably in regards to same sex marriage.
The process is neither elegant or quick, but gains have been made and will continue.

All this really proves is that you don't know the meaning of the words you use. And your idea of charity is terribly one-dimensional, and based exclusively on empty feel-good talking points rather than anything even vaguely resembling reality.
I know exactly what defines Libertarianism and Objectivism, and there is no separating the two in the United States.
Whose running for the nomination of the Republican Party?.. that would be Rand Paul (Libertarian). Gosh, I wonder where he got his first name from... guessing he was named for that Russian Witch who concocted Objectivism.

For being the guy trying to drive the identity politics train through this forum, you sure seem to make the most crass and boorishly sexist comments I ever see on it.
Does this mean you're not going to 'friend' me?
 

Amaryllis

Journeyed there and back again
#17
We do so not simply out of kindness, but because it makes society as a whole stronger, more resilient and compassionate.
You got that much right, I do not feel an ounce of sympathy for you.
Don't like to be the bearer of bad news, but it doesn't appear to be working for you. Clearly it means you aren't giving enough.

In America the collective government policies of the last five decades have done much to make up for past misdeeds.
Progress is made little by little... we have a black man elected twice to be our President, the Supreme Court recently ruled favorably in regards to same sex marriage.
The process is neither elegant or quick, but gains have been made and will continue.
Gains for what? You seriously just said it was an impossible objective, which means that in your own words (not mine), this is a waste of time. So which is it? You can't occupy both positions. Not that I expect anything resembling a coherent point from you. You don't seem capable of actually engaging in the 'debate' you claimed was going to be so easy, because you've said nothing that doesn't look like you found it in a facebook meme. At this stage, I think the only reason to remain in this topic with you would be entertainment (assuming the mods don't lock it, lol). But...

Does this mean you're not going to 'friend' me?
If you're going to throw out passive aggressive snark like this, can you try to be witty or clever or...really anything but 'fucking stupid?' Like, honestly. Of the many statements that could be made to express your bemused and callous detachment, this one doesn't even make any sense. It wasn't even on the table. But to answer the question, no, I probably won't be 'friending' you. My friends list is not currently recruiting for an oafish sexist who writes barely readable pointless nonsense and engages in open hypocrisy and crassly dismisses the problems of others while striking the pose of a moral authority, and even if that position was open, I probably still wouldn't call you. There are other people out there on the internet who are at least kind of funny about it, or who seem like okay people when not on their soapbox, while the tone of nearly all of your posts that I've seen gives the impression that you'd be unpleasant even if we agreed on everything.
 

Silvion Night

Sir Readalot
Staff member
#18
As a straight white man, I have been raped by a woman. Do you feel sympathy for me? Probably not. Not many other people did either (and not that I ever told very many people outside of an anonymous setting). And to be honest, I already knew not to expect anyone to, even when I was 15. I don't even feel sympathy for myself.
That's messed up. For what it's worth, I sympathize. Even if I don't know you, this is something I don't wish to happen to anybody.

On topic: I don't know of the particulars in the US or the UK, but in the Netherlands positive discrimination does exist and it tends to favour women and minorities. I don't think this is fair. Should we now punish white men because they were advantaged in the past? This doesn't seem logical to me. I am leaning towards @lyraseven in this debate (even though I don't agree with her Libertarian world view, but that's a different discussion). Also, and it has to be said, I don't really understand why you are so vicious and vitrilioc in your posts @Sparrow. It's hard to agree with you because of your tone, even if your arguments would be solid (which they are not in this discussion).
 

lyraseven

Found the path to Fillory
#19
I don't know about anyone else - doesn't seem like it, given what other people my age believe in these days - but when I was younger I was taught that two wrongs don't make a right, and I agree with that sentiment. We should have punishment, yes, but committing 'wrongs' as punishment isn't just arbitrarily acting out because you feel bad about how you or someone you care about was wronged. It's justice.

'Affirmative action' - a phrase I use here for convenience, it isn't a term I approve of and I generally refuse to use it because not only is it an example of the principles of Newspeak in action, it is overtly so - isn't justice. It's injustice. Injustice designed to make people feel better about previous injustice. It isn't going to work.

Not least because it just breeds resentment on one side and entitlement on the other as one might expect from a society where some are more equal than others, but because the issue is more complex than "whites oppressed blacks" or "men oppressed woman", or at least has been for the lifetimes of anyone who's been around to experience 'affirmative action'. Individual white men might still oppress individual black men, or individual men might still oppress individual women, but what could anyone else possibly do about it?

Oppressing other individuals on the opposite side of the fence might seem to neatly balance the scales if you have a siege mentality, us vs them, women vs men, one man is as bad as another so it doesn't matter which man we punish when women are passed over for being women, but that way of thinking is exactly how tensions become outright hostilities.

So no, 'affirmative action' doesn't work, and it isn't really intended to work anyway. It isn't intended to equalize discrimination, it's a Newspeak term intended to force our brains to think a certain way because we can't conceptualize what it represents without unconsciously attaching positive connotations from its name.
 

l3gacy

Dr. Awesomesauce
Staff member
#20
Have either of you ever convinced someone holding the opinion of your adversary in this thread that you were right or that your points had merit? I'm guessing no, because you are both so far up your own asses neither of you can give the other a single concession. This is one of the stupidest fucking threads that has ever been on this board. Go back to tumblr and reddit with this SJW flamewar hogshit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.