Yeah, it's kind of hard for one to lose something one never had, lol
damnedfurry
joined 10 months ago
How many men are supportive of male librarians or male grade school educators.
99% of them don't give a shit, at all, either way. Same for women, as well.
It was found that in areas of the world that have made much more progress than the US in the are of overall sex equality, that the skews in professional positions are HIGHER, not lower (e.g. engineers are even more male-skewed, nurses are even more female-skewed, etc.). Men and women, when given the free choice to pursue whatever they want professionally, do not make the same choices in aggregate. That is the fact of the matter.
It's literally called the "gender equality paradox" because so many people naively assumed that men and women are exactly the same, blank slates that only differ in any way because of societal pressures, and that only sexism (e.g. society telling men to do job X and women job Y) could be the reason that it's not an exact 50/50 sex split across all jobs/careers. The research that discovered the exact opposite was true flabbergasted them, but the facts are what they are, like it or not.
The fact that those skews become MORE pronounced in societies with MORE equality completely obliterates that assumption.
In 2022, 88.1% of CEOs were men, and 88.8% were Caucasian.
And what percentage of women want/try to be CEOs, compared to men?
That's an important piece of the puzzle that gets ignored far too often. If, for example, one half of the population is 10x more likely to desire/pursue a particular job than the other, a 10 to 1 difference among those who end up in that job is not only not evidence of any sort of bias, but it's exactly the outcome one should expect in the absence of such bias.
Librarians are ~83% women, but it's not because those who are hiring librarians are massively sexist against men.
no joking allowed, I gotta complain here too
Relax, doomer. Or don't and visit one of the thousand threads where serious discussion is happening instead.
Actually, the evidence indicates the opposite.
Please keep in mind as you read the below that punching and doing literally nothing are not the only options, since I get that false dichotomy as a response way too often: "oh, so you think we should just leave them alone and ignore them?" No, oppose them, emphatically. But not violently--making martyrs of them, to their buddies and those they're looking to recruit, by sucker punching them is not going to accomplish what you think it will.
On a purely pragmatic/practical level, it's a bad idea, if your goal is to oppose Nazism.
Experts on extremism/terrorism etc. are all saying the exact same thing.
See for yourself: (emphasis added)
In the case of violent counterprotest tactics — e.g., punching Nazis — experts on extremism say it is likely only to aid the white supremacists’ cause.
The most commonly stated argument in favor of physically disrupting white-supremacist rallies is that society can’t give an iota of legitimacy to these groups. To allow them to spread their message of hate is to offer them a platform to recruit and to glorify their cause. What this logic leaves out is that it may well be the case that hate groups are better able to recruit and glorify their cause when they are able to engage in violence, regardless of how that violence starts, according to researchers in the field of countering violent extremism, or CVE.
“On the one hand, I don’t think these expressions should go unanswered,” David Schanzer, director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security at Duke University, said of the recent white-supremacist gatherings. “But you’re essentially giving them exactly what they want when you try to confront them directly.” That’s because these groups’ efforts to recruit and mobilize supporters rely on a very specific strategy that benefits greatly from violent conflict.
In the U.S., explicitly white-supremacist groups know they are vastly, vastly outnumbered by everyone who hates them — their paltry numbers being an easy thing to forget in the age of social media and especially so this week, in the wake of a real-life white-supremacist murder. So their only hope for relevance is to maximize every potential bit of media coverage. And the best way to do this is to create media moments: scary, evocative images like the torch photos from last weekend, but also as many violently photogenic confrontations with counterprotesters as possible. Producing violence is an underlying, often unstated, goal of many white-supremacist protests and gatherings.
When violence does break out, videos of it race through the internet’s white-supremacist underbelly, serving as incredibly valuable PR material. It doesn’t matter who gets the better of a given confrontation: When the Nazis get punched, it’s “proof” that anti-fascists or liberals or [insert minority group] or whoever else did the punching have it in for “innocent white Americans just trying to protest peacefully.” When the Nazis punch back, it’s proof that their enemies are, to borrow a word from alt-right parlance, “cucks” who are easily bested in the streets. Even when white supremacists lose street fights, they win the long game.
This sort of tactic, said Jeffrey Kaplan, an academic researcher and the author of a number of books on terrorist movements, “is a constant in terrorism or any form of asymmetric warfare,” whether the group in question is jihadist or white supremacist or whatever else. Kaplan, who is an incoming professor at King Fahd Security College in Riyadh, summed up the extremists’ logic like this: “Our numbers are paltry, we are despised by our countrymen and we couldn’t get a date for the life of us, but any action that has enough impact to strike at the heart of the enemy by getting media coverage is a major triumph.” Violent confrontations allow extremists to make a tantalizing offer to the angry, disillusioned young men — they are almost entirely men — whom they hope to groom to become tomorrow’s haters and killers: We are part of a movement to change the world, as you can see from this latest video that movement is working, and you can be a part of it.
Schanzer laid out a fairly straightforward alternative: Counterdemonstrators should respond assertively, vociferously, and in far superior numbers — but at a distance from the extremists themselves. This tactic both prevents the sort of violent conflict American hate groups want, and has the added benefit of drawing at least some media and social-media attention away from the smaller hateful gathering and toward the much larger counterprotest.
“Violence directed at white nationalists only fuels their narrative of victimhood — of a hounded, soon-to-be-minority who can’t exercise their rights to free speech without getting pummeled.” “I would want to punch a Nazi in the nose, too,” Maria Stephan, a program director at the United States Institute of Peace, told him. “But there’s a difference between a therapeutic and strategic response.”
...when mouthpieces for white supremacist ideology are physically assaulted on camera, it becomes a powerful validation of their victimhood complex: in their minds, plain evidence that white people are indeed under attack, and motivation to spread a call to violent response with renewed zeal. This “punch felt round the world” was a great boost to the “alt-right” cause. If you aid and comfort neo-Nazis, which is exactly what punching them in the face does, you are no better than they are. Real life isn’t a fucking Quentin Tarantino movie.
When I was a neo-Nazi skinhead over 2 decades ago, I got beat up as often as I beat anyone else up. It never made me any less violent. In fact, we used to pile into vans and drive from Milwaukee to Chicago for the thrill of brawling fellow devotees of romantic violence like the guy throwing the punch in this video. We lived for violent opposition. We thrived on it. Violence of any sort, no matter how it may be rationalized, is the bread of hatred. We put mustard on that shit and gleefully gobbled it up and clamored for more.
Back in the 1930s, there were gangs of communists who routinely brawled the Nazi brownshirts in the streets of Germany. Their contemporaries would have us believe that if there were more communists who brawled harder than they did back then, that the Holocaust wouldn’t have happened. As a former neo-Nazi, I can attest to how important it is to have violent opposition in order to maintain the hatred necessary to hurt people. The communist gangs helped Hitler’s National Socialist party come to power not only by galvanizing their own members, but more importantly by serving as a crucial ingredient in the overall atmosphere of fear and loathing that led the German general public to look to the Nazi party for order.
Do you also think feathers can't be dark because feathers are light?
https://study.com/academy/lesson/equivocation-fallacy-definition-examples.html
Memes like these exist not to change anyone's mind, but for pseudo intellectuals to stroke each other over.
If you're asserting that they wouldn't ask because it's something they've physically touched, I see your point
Yes (though seeing it 'in person' without touching it also counts), I thought it was obvious that's what I meant.
it's more likely they would ask questions like "what does a dollar mean" or "does someone make decisions about the money"
Exactly. Nothing a kid can just pick up and hold is going to be something they ask "is this pretend?" about, lol.
I beg of the Dems to please stop the cope and start making moves.
Nope, I hate it too.
Also, this premise kind of sucks as a 'game'. Unless mom has experience with being hit on by her son, how would she have any inkling to identify which of the messages is his? 'Oh, that's my boy, I know he's into the massive tits', lol.
This is just 'let's make fun of men for being thirsty' thinly-veiled misandry, plenty of women have sent plenty of cringe DMs to men they've lusted after, too.
Also why would a child ever ask if money is pretend? It's not something they've only heard about in a storybook and never laid eyes on themselves.
Whole post is bullshit, lol.
view more: next ›
I quoted "gender equality paradox" for a reason. It is a real thing, not some concept I conceived of--It has a Wikipedia entry, for fuck's sake. I'll quote the first paragraph, but please stop being so intellectually lazy and actually look up the whole thing yourself, instead of wallowing in your haughty condescension:
No facts you're willing to admit exist, despite being both present and easily-accessible, you mean. You can't will them out of existence, no matter how much you wish you could.
No, what's clear is that you assume any sex disparity is caused by sexism, the sociological version of the creationist's 'god of the gaps' argument, where God is similarly conveniently spackled into any crevice not already filled.