Serious PC thread

[brokenshoelace]

it's known that a lot of these crimes are vastly under-reported by men. We've talked about this already.

If I had done some of the things women have done to me, I would have a criminal record. Because for sure they would have reported me to the police. But that's the thing.... women are allowed to get away with so much. When a woman gropes a man it's ok, hell! Some would say he's lucky.

They're also vastly underreported by women.

Simple question: Who do you think is on the receiving end of sexual assault more, men or women? Just a one word answer please.

 

[brokenshoelace]

so true. And I wanted to say it (I've said it before, the peer review systems is corrupt now, as ideologues have infiltrated universities), but felt it would be called an excuse

Fortunately, you stuck with the super reputable TikTok videos.

I mean what are we doing here? Is peer reviewed academia the bible? No, obviously. You guys don't seem to understand the difference between proof and evidence. I'm not attempting to "prove" anything. We're having a discussion. Could these articles be flawed? They most likely are. But they are exhaustive and noteworthy.

You haven't offered anything resembling "proof" either nor should you. But being hellbent on winning the argument is boring.

 

[brokenshoelace]

OK, so I presume you're coming at this from a Marxist angle based on the Gramsci reference. You argue that capitalism forces us into consumerist habits but you can actually limit your participation in many things related to consumerism. I'm not suggesting you can be completely free of it, but you can certainly manage your involvement and change how you interact with it - i.e. Buy refurbished goods, use sharing platforms, support the “right‑to‑repair” campaign, and simply limit consumption.

If we tie that to our own habits using a specific example, I'll ask you a question (you don't actually need to answer - just think about it)... how many smartphones have you gone through? And you may think, in the grand scheme of things, this is meaningless, but micro‑actions by the many soon add up and get noticed, because each device embeds us deeper in a global extractive system.

Anyway back to Marxism. My understanding is that Marx sees it as lifecycle process - feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism. Right?

Now (as it stands), the issue with Marxism for me is that (in my opinion) you have to eliminate desire... and the state cannot do it. Only individuals can eliminate desire - the ability to conquer yourself, if you will. Marx doesn't say this, it's my theory - and why Marxism will never have a smooth landing. Marx focuses on alienation... but many can also get alienated by the loss of property or goods if they've spent their life working for it in a different system. So will be alienated by Marxism...

Also, the problem is many adherents to his principles can seem to be angry revolutionaries who (if successful) have (historically) imposed an ideology by force upon populations who are not in a position to accept it. The worst examples from some self-identified Marxist regimes have involved millions of deaths carried out by an authoritarian state - i.e The Bolsheviks, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao.

Then we get the excuse of "that wasn't real communism, they got it wrong, we'll do it better next time".
Admittedly we could differentiate between Marxism and State Socialism, but even so...it will seem that until the populace conquers itself, Communism can never work in the long term unless held together by force.

You mentioned Late Stage Capitalism in an earlier post, so changing the focus slightly - a lot of people are noticing the long march through the institutions as espoused by the Marxist Doctrine, the degradation of civic institutions, Common Purpose masquerading as something it isn't, degradation of the family units.

Couple this with the fact that history rhymes - many feel something is rather off. The oligarchs know. Stakeholder Capitalism has already been identified by the WEF as the incoming replacement. To me, this reads as fascism for the few governing communism for the many. No middle class. It rather seems like serfdom revisited.

What would work? Maybe you'll say it's Pure Marxism. I disagree for the reasons outlined above. More likely a hybrid blend of several doctrines. Capitalism won't work on its own as it eats its own tail, and Marxism hasn't worked in the past because its had to be enforced by a bloated state (IMO). I always believed in a mixed economy with strong antitrust commissions, robust environmental legislation, and public ownership of essential assets such as electricity and water. Basically strong checks and balances against exploitation of people and resources.

I agree with all of this. I'm not a Marxist by any means although I feel like his analysis of Capitalism has largely proven to be spot on. The way you laid out your understanding of Marxism is not wrong in the broad sense but a bit too simplistic, although I get it, this is not a leftist convention so we're not going to delve into all the details.

I've always been on the side of hybrid. Socialist elements are absolutely essential to a functioning society and I truly don't think this is negotiable. Communism doesn't work, but neither does Capitalism and we have a plethora of evidence on both sides.

 

[Federberg]

Fortunately, you stuck with the super reputable TikTok videos.

I mean what are we doing here? Is peer reviewed academia the bible? No, obviously. You guys don't seem to understand the difference between proof and evidence. I'm not attempting to "prove" anything. We're having a discussion. Could these articles be flawed? They most likely are. But they are exhaustive and noteworthy.

You haven't offered anything resembling "proof" either nor should you. But being hellbent on winning the argument is boring.

lol! Nope I just added the tiktok because it came on my stream as I was reading your response. Thought it was a funny coincidence. You can try to invalidate my points, but... you really didn't

 

[Federberg]

Fortunately, you stuck with the super reputable TikTok videos.

I mean what are we doing here? Is peer reviewed academia the bible? No, obviously. You guys don't seem to understand the difference between proof and evidence. I'm not attempting to "prove" anything. We're having a discussion. Could these articles be flawed? They most likely are. But they are exhaustive and noteworthy.

You haven't offered anything resembling "proof" either nor should you. But being hellbent on winning the argument is boring.

you haven't really offered anything either. The gender pay gap is debunked nonsense. And as @mrzz pointed out, the social sciences have been a mess for years. This is what happens when activists take over academia

 

[brokenshoelace]

lol! Nope I just added the tiktok because it came on my stream as I was reading your response. Thought it was a funny coincidence. You can try to invalidate my points, but... you really didn't

Just honestly wondering, what did you offer other than anecdotal evidence, personal experiences, TikTok videos, and "LOL this has been debunked!"...not to mention lots of projection and insecurity but that's a can of worms neither one of us wants to delve into.

 

[Federberg]

They're also vastly underreported by women.

Simple question: Who do you think is on the receiving end of sexual assault more, men or women? Just a one word answer please.

Actually the data on violence is pretty clear, men are more likely to be the victims of violence. Men are less safe going out at night than women. Regarding sexual assault it's actually incredibly close. There isn't a statistically significant difference. The issue is that one gender's victimisation is promoted vastly more than the other. Can you imagine for one minute what would happen if the suicide rates were flipped over and it was women dying more than men? There would be national outrage. Let's get back to the topic at hand which was the so called patriarchy. I guess you felt the ground was moving under you so you've switched? Smart tactic!

 

[brokenshoelace]

Actually the data on violence is pretty clear, men are more likely to be the victims of violence. Men are less safe going out at night than women. Regarding sexual assault it's actually incredibly close. There isn't a statistically significant difference. The issue is that one gender's victimisation is promoted vastly more than the other. Can you imagine for one minute what would happen if the suicide rates were flipped over and it was women dying more than men? There would be national outrage. Let's get back to the topic at hand which was the so called patriarchy. I guess you felt the ground was moving under you so you've switched? Smart tactic!

The most predictable part of this is you completely dodging the question.

You mentioned sexual assault and rape being under-reported by men, which I agree with and it's not really a debate. I asked a simple question: who is more likely to be raped/sexually assaulted or the victim of domestic violence.

You answered with "well, actually" only to answer a completely different question (who is more likely to be the victim of violence, which is not only not the question, it's irrelevant for this particular conversation since men are more likely to be victims of violence...by other men!) and then proceed to try and bring us back "on topic". My favorite part is the "smart tactic" post ender when you literally refuse to answer the question. Like honestly, which part of our interactions over the years convinced you I'd be stupid enough to fall for this bullshit?

Yes, let's get back to patriarchy. So my claim is, our society is patriarchal. Statistically, the two violent crimes you are most likely to get away with are rape/sexual assault and domestic violence. Again, this is not something I'm making up. These are stats and if you'd like I'd be happy to provide you with the numbers.

So my question to you is simple: who is typically the victim in the two aforementioned crimes? Men or women? This is not a question about whether men could also be the victims. We agree they can be. So simple question. Could you please answer?

 

[brokenshoelace]

"Men also rape, kill and beat up other men, not just women" is not the argument you think it is.

 

[Murat B.]

Weren't they?

Most likely, although it is a bit deceiving if you just go by numbers. Behind every powerful men....

 

[Federberg]

"Men also rape, kill and beat up other men, not just women" is not the argument you think it is.

lol! Look at you trying to anticipate me. Well you make a good point. I don't think any reasonable person would try to avoid the obvious fact that men are more aggressive than women. The problem with people who argue like you is that, it doesn't mean women can't be aggressive. As with most things regarding our species, women tend to be in the middle of the curve, while men tend to populate the extremes. Which means that yes... men are often the victims of men, just like women are. But let's go back to the question you think I avoided, which I really didn't. I believe I mentioned somewhere that the numbers are actually closer than you think. The big problem is that men are far less likely to report, and women are sadly more likely to make false reports. This isn't really surprising because men and women express their mal-actions differently. Male mal-actions are more likely to be physical : violence/sexual assault; while women tend to use social destruction more often. Let me be clear, because the frustration with this sort of debate is that it's easy to assume those of us arguing the point are somehow diminishing female victims. No! I would wager that we're more likely to be harsh with genuine criminals, but objectivity matters. Recognising evil for what it is matters. Understanding that our species is capable of serious wrong doing, regardless of gender matters. Genuinely believing in the human species and not getting caught up in gender bias is important if you want to seriously advocate for justice. It's time to stop this over-correction that's plaguing society

 

[brokenshoelace]

lol! Look at you trying to anticipate me. Well you make a good point. I don't think any reasonable person would try to avoid the obvious fact that men are more aggressive than women. The problem with people who argue like you is that, it doesn't mean women can't be aggressive. As with most things regarding our species, women tend to be in the middle of the curve, while men tend to populate the extremes. Which means that yes... men are often the victims of men, just like women are. But let's go back to the question you think I avoided, which I really didn't. I believe I mentioned somewhere that the numbers are actually closer than you think. The big problem is that men are far less likely to report, and women are sadly more likely to make false reports. This isn't really surprising because men and women express their mal-actions differently. Male mal-actions are more likely to be physical : violence/sexual assault; while women tend to use social destruction more often. Let me be clear, because the frustration with this sort of debate is that it's easy to assume those of us arguing the point are somehow diminishing female victims. No! I would wager that we're more likely to be harsh with genuine criminals, but objectivity matters. Recognising evil for what it is matters. Understanding that our species is capable of serious wrong doing, regardless of gender matters. Genuinely believing in the human species and not getting caught up in gender bias is important if you want to seriously advocate for justice. It's time to stop this over-correction that's plaguing society

When did I state women can't be aggressive? By agreeing with you that sexual assault and domestic violence is underreported among men, I'm agreeing that women can be the perpetrators.

As for the numbers being "a lot closer than we think," maybe, but right now, there is no evidence to that. There is evidence that women violence is more frequent than we think, sure. But that the two are close? There's nothing solid to suggest that. Keep in mind, there's the obvious counterpart of how much sexual assault/rape/domestic violence against women goes underreported due to the shame/stigma/fear/etc...

 

[Federberg]

I don't know whether this should be here or in the PC BS thread as it's almost comedic. But it's also serious...

 

[Federberg]

When did I state women can't be aggressive? By agreeing with you that sexual assault and domestic violence is underreported among men, I'm agreeing that women can be the perpetrators.

As for the numbers being "a lot closer than we think," maybe, but right now, there is no evidence to that. There is evidence that women violence is more frequent than we think, sure. But that the two are close? There's nothing solid to suggest that. Keep in mind, there's the obvious counterpart of how much sexual assault/rape/domestic violence against women goes underreported due to the shame/stigma/fear/etc...

I don't know if you've been paying attention in the age of social media mate, but shame, fear stigma? Victimisation is currency now mate. There's far too much over-sharing now. I think that the social conditions that existed before where fear or shame would prevent reporting is well and truly over!

 

[brokenshoelace]

I don't know if you've been paying attention in the age of social media mate, but shame, fear stigma? Victimisation is currency now mate. There's far too much over-sharing now. I think that the social conditions that existed before where fear or shame would prevent reporting is well and truly over!

This is a touch unhinged. Yeah, social media is a poison and it created a slippery slope of false accusations, victimization, and attention seeking. But how does this exactly invalidate a woman's shame when she experiences very real rape? Yes, I'm sure some have been encouraged to speak up but we're living in two different worlds if you believe the stigma of rape, the shame the victim feels, internalizing the pain, the self-blame, etc... are gone just because of Twitter. We have a century of psychological research regarding the damage rape causes. To think this all goes away because of "#MeToo" is comically shallow.

 

[Federberg]

This is a touch unhinged. Yeah, social media is a poison and it created a slippery slope of false accusations, victimization, and attention seeking. But how does this exactly invalidate a woman's shame when she experiences very real rape? Yes, I'm sure some have been encouraged to speak up but we're living in two different worlds if you believe the stigma of rape, the shame the victim feels, internalizing the pain, the self-blame, etc... are gone just because of Twitter. We have a century of psychological research regarding the damage rape causes. To think this all goes away because of "#MeToo" is comically shallow.

lol! No... it doesn't invalidate shame. I'm suggesting to you that shame isn't what it used to be. One of the fascinating things about social media is that anything seems to go now, there is no shame anymore. Being a victim, legitimately or otherwise seems to be the most valuable currency. Are you seriously telling me you haven't noticed this?

And no it doesn't diminish the seriousness of rape, it's just that what caused mortal shame generations ago doesn't do the same anymore. You can't be this ignorant surely? A century ago, a woman would be shamed, and her family would be mortified if it appeared that she was even talking to a strange man. Now we have women going on platforms bragging about making a fortune on OnlyFans or shagging 100 men in one day. Times have changed. If you think this hasn't impacted what this era defines as embarrassing then my dear friend, please crawl out from under that rock

 

[brokenshoelace]

lol! No... it doesn't invalidate shame. I'm suggesting to you that shame isn't what it used to be. One of the fascinating things about social media is that anything seems to go now, there is no shame anymore. Being a victim, legitimately or otherwise seems to be the most valuable currency. Are you seriously telling me you haven't noticed this?

And no it doesn't diminish the seriousness of rape, it's just that what caused mortal shame generations ago doesn't do the same anymore. You can't be this ignorant surely? A century ago, a woman would be shamed, and her family would be mortified if it appeared that she was even talking to a strange man. Now we have women going on platforms bragging about making a fortune on OnlyFans or shagging 100 men in one day. Times have changed. If you think this hasn't impacted what this era defines as embarrassing then my dear friend, please crawl out from under that rock

Finding a way to bring in porn into an argument about how a violent rape victim would feel tells me I may not be the ignorant one here.

But yeah, I'm outraged that women are bragging about making money out of shagging 100 men in one day. Bragging about the amount of people you shag is so shameful. Fortunately, men have never ever done this.

And my favorite part in all of this is instead of you championing that women supposedly no longer feel shame when they get raped, and actually step forward, you say "And no it doesn't diminish the seriousness of rape, it's just that what caused mortal shame generations ago doesn't do the same anymore. You can't be this ignorant surely? A century ago, a woman would be shamed, and her family would be mortified if it appeared that she was even talking to a strange man. Now we have women going on platforms bragging about making a fortune on OnlyFans or shagging 100 men in one day."

But please, tell us more about yourself, you absolute creep.

 

[brokenshoelace]

The oddest part in these conversations is that I'm literally agreeing with the premise of many of what someone is suggesting "yes, women can also do awful things. Yes, social media has definitely changed the dynamic", I just disagree with the extent he thinks this goes to. Yeah, no shit the theory of collective narrative support is valid. There's ample evidence to suggest as much.

But it doesn't take a genius to think that social media or not, a victim of rape is very possibly going to go through psychological turmoil since it's one of the worst crimes anyone can suffer...and I get called an ignorant as a result. It's really eye opening.

And the funniest part, is the analysis is so fucking shallow. In fact, many real victims resort to posting online about their sexual assault/rape exactly BECAUSE they didn't receive the support from their loved ones, or they were shamed, or told they were lying, weren't taken seriously by professionals etc... thus proving that all the stigma still very much exists. Social media just provides one avenue but it's hardly enough if the fucking cops don't take you seriously. Again, this has been researched extensively but if your divorced golf buddy never shared it on the Whatsapp group, I'm not surprised you've never read about it.

 

[Federberg]

Finding a way to bring in porn into an argument about how a violent rape victim would feel tells me I may not be the ignorant one here.

But yeah, I'm outraged that women are bragging about making money out of shagging 100 men in one day. Bragging about the amount of people you shag is so shameful. Fortunately, men have never ever done this.

And my favorite part in all of this is instead of you championing that women supposedly no longer feel shame when they get raped, and actually step forward, you say "And no it doesn't diminish the seriousness of rape, it's just that what caused mortal shame generations ago doesn't do the same anymore. You can't be this ignorant surely? A century ago, a woman would be shamed, and her family would be mortified if it appeared that she was even talking to a strange man. Now we have women going on platforms bragging about making a fortune on OnlyFans or shagging 100 men in one day."

But please, tell us more about yourself, you absolute creep.

are you having your period? I'm playing into your performative outrage there.

You know perfectly well that wasn't what I said, and this nonsense doesn't move me in the slightest. Your outrage is simply a cover to avoid what is blatantly obvious in this day and age of social media. Norms are different. The confluence of social media and identity politics seems to have immunised people from things that would have been considered shaming in past eras. That's just a fact. Now if anything it's the currency that earns validation on platforms. I'm not endorsing it, I'm merely stating something factual. If you can't handle a debate without these games we're not going to get anywhere with this.

I think it's fair to say that we all support the real victims of violent/ sexual crimes. What's in dispute is if there are systemic failures which create a bias against women. For that to be the case then the guilty would be getting away with it. But the reality is that those who have been falsely accused still have their lives destroyed. The taint of the accusation is so powerful that some have committed suicide, and those who falsely accuse often aren't even punished. That's the reality of the world we live in. Look at Benjamin Mendy, a footballer, who was accused by multiple women. We were all outraged. Where there's smoke there's fire right, at least one of those cases had to have been real right? Turns out the police, after years of investigation and the effective end of the guy's career, discovered that all those women knew each other and colluded to falsely accuse the guy. His career will never be the same again, he's still playing, but not in a top league (unless something's changed recently). As for the colluders? I believe some have been punished, but not as seriously as he would have been for the alleged crime. So miss me with your outrage. Evil exists and it's genderless.

Mate, if you can't handle a debate that's fine. But try to control your oestrogen, it's just an exchange of views

 

[brokenshoelace]

are you having your period? I'm playing into your performative outrage there.

You know perfectly well that wasn't what I said, and this nonsense doesn't move me in the slightest. Your outrage is simply a cover to avoid what is blatantly obvious in this day and age of social media. Norms are different. The confluence of social media and identity politics seems to have immunised people from things that would have been considered shaming in past eras. That's just a fact. Now if anything it's the currency that earns validation on platforms. I'm not endorsing it, I'm merely stating something factual. If you can't handle a debate without these games we're not going to get anywhere with this.

I think it's fair to say that we all support the real victims of violent/ sexual crimes. What's in dispute is if there are systemic failures which create a bias against women. For that to be the case then the guilty would be getting away with it. But the reality is that those who have been falsely accused still have their lives destroyed. The taint of the accusation is so powerful that some have committed suicide, and those who falsely accuse often aren't even punished. That's the reality of the world we live in. Look at Benjamin Mendy, a footballer, who was accused by multiple women. We were all outraged. Where there's smoke there's fire right, at least one of those cases had to have been real right? Turns out the police, after years of investigation and the effective end of the guy's career, discovered that all those women knew each other and colluded to falsely accuse the guy. His career will never be the same again, he's still playing, but not in a top league (unless something's changed recently). As for the colluders? I believe some have been punished, but not as seriously as he would have been for the alleged crime. So miss me with your outrage. Evil exists and it's genderless.

Mate, if you can't handle a debate that's fine. But try to control your oestrogen, it's just an exchange of views

This is some funny levels of gaslighting. I called you a creep. I mean, you are. The above isn't really helping your case. Please show me where in any post did I come off as being angry, outraged, or out of control, because this is akin to arguing with a toddler.