My grevience is a very basic application of social Marxism.
I’m saying that the “most abusive subgroup of men” aren’t born, they’re made through propaganda and charlatans. That makes them victims, which I have some sympathy for, even if they go on to perpetuate an awful cycle of misogyny. I’m just critical of these kinds of arguments like the OP which place the blame on the perpetuaters instead of the sources.
Despite this, shame is still a valid application of positive punishment to active participants of an abusive subgroup.
Go be the carrot to somebody who needs a philosophy 101 course to justify defending actively harmful forms of propoganda from criticism. I’m not your guy, I have my own objectives in this discourse.
Ultimately, none of this invalidates the observation of an ironic use of a victim complex.
“Valid” in what sense? Of course you’re allowed to shame people who perpetuate terrible actions/thoughts against women. But when that group was literally created by and has grown through pre-existing, socially reinforced thoughts of shame and inadequacy, I’m going to hold you slightly responsible for that problem continuing.
I’m going to hold you responsible for defending them from criticism they need to face.
These men already face the criticism, that is the driver pushing them further to become abusive and self-abusive.
What you are suggesting is cornering an animal, and then saying “Hey, we should corner it more because it’s acting aggressively.” and then acting surprised when it attacks you.
We need to offer these men a healthy way out which is culturally appropriate.
What you are suggesting is cornering an animal, and then saying “Hey, we should corner it more because it’s acting aggressively.” And then acting surprised when it attacks you.
I really like this line of logic because it highlights how the insipid manosphere’s propaganda directly targets the most animalistic part of the brain - the amygdala - and uses fear and anger to propel antisocial behaviour much as a cornered animal lashes out against its captor. It’s a very apt metaphor beyond the simplistic reasoning it suggests.
My grevience is a very basic application of social Marxism.
I’m saying that the “most abusive subgroup of men” aren’t born, they’re made through propaganda and charlatans. That makes them victims, which I have some sympathy for, even if they go on to perpetuate an awful cycle of misogyny. I’m just critical of these kinds of arguments like the OP which place the blame on the perpetuaters instead of the sources.
Despite this, shame is still a valid application of positive punishment to active participants of an abusive subgroup.
Go be the carrot to somebody who needs a philosophy 101 course to justify defending actively harmful forms of propoganda from criticism. I’m not your guy, I have my own objectives in this discourse.
Ultimately, none of this invalidates the observation of an ironic use of a victim complex.
“Valid” in what sense? Of course you’re allowed to shame people who perpetuate terrible actions/thoughts against women. But when that group was literally created by and has grown through pre-existing, socially reinforced thoughts of shame and inadequacy, I’m going to hold you slightly responsible for that problem continuing.
I’m going to hold you responsible for defending them from criticism they need to face. You are creating a safe space for abusive ideologies to fester.
These men already face the criticism, that is the driver pushing them further to become abusive and self-abusive.
What you are suggesting is cornering an animal, and then saying “Hey, we should corner it more because it’s acting aggressively.” and then acting surprised when it attacks you.
We need to offer these men a healthy way out which is culturally appropriate.
I really like this line of logic because it highlights how the insipid manosphere’s propaganda directly targets the most animalistic part of the brain - the amygdala - and uses fear and anger to propel antisocial behaviour much as a cornered animal lashes out against its captor. It’s a very apt metaphor beyond the simplistic reasoning it suggests.
Translation: “I can’t refute your core argument so I’ll attack the way it was delivered.”
Returning to the idea of rehabilitating these men, I leave you with a quote:
“You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.”
Sorry, what? I was agreeing with you. I’m not the other poster you were arguing with.