The Red Pill

[SciFi Chick]

Something to keep in mind if any of you decides to go down the rabbit hole. We've probably all heard of it, but it never hurts to be reminded. The Backfire Effect.

[SciFiFisher]

Something to keep in mind if any of you decides to go down the rabbit hole. We've probably all heard of it, but it never hurts to be reminded. The Backfire Effect.

I actually have heard of it. I am not sure if it was referred to as the "backfire effect". I do like how this was presented. Interesting factoid about George Washington.

[Cyborg Girl]

Arriving (again) a bit late (again)... I am looking at this thread and seeing this:

"Don't knock a book/documentary until you've read/watched it, you have to form an unbiased opinion."

This sounds true but a lot of times it isn't.

You cannot have an unbiased opinion on perpetual motion without first learning about thermodynamics.

You cannot have an unbiased opinion on anti-AGW media without first learning about climate science.

You cannot have an unbiased opinion on Protocols of the Elders of Zion without first learning about the history of Antisemitism.

And, if you actually do know the background... then chances are high that you will dismiss such material promptly, without reading or watching it. In all of the above cases.

I probably sound pompous saying this, but: not knowing the whole story behind something != not being biased. A lot of times, quite the opposite.

(e.g. Antisemitism again has a history of being really, really Truthy and attractive for people who don't know its history, including people both on the right and on the left. And no, I'm not talking about Israel criticism, I'm talking about Antisemitism; they are in fact different things, though they are not incompatible.)

[Cyborg Girl]

Also, from a purely anecdotal standpoint...

I understand that actual no-kidding hatred of men is a thing. I've seen it. To be honest, I've felt the anger at men myself at times, and could see where people would generalize it to actual hatred. I've also been to the opposite place, dragged on destructive guilt-trips by aspects of some of the worse feminist ideologies.

However, in a decade or so living and presenting as an adult man plus a bit more as a teenaged boy, I have NEVER in day-to-day life seen anti-male bias that actually originated in feminism. Ever. It was all "sissy" this, "faggot" that, "wimp" this, "pussy" that. And I have never, ever, on any occasion, in any space Internet or physical, been attacked by someone for being too *much* of a man.

Yeah. Anecdotal. But still: there are insults for butch women, insults for femme men, and insults galore for femme women (including some from radical feminists!). When was the last time you heard a real hateful, hurting, punch-in-the-gut insult for unironically masculine guys?

[Cyborg Girl]

Also? I'm just gonna put this here:

http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2016/ ... nt-page-4/

We Hunted The Mammoth is obviously not neutral on this (blogger is a feminist sympathizing guy who despises MRA/PUA guys). However, this IMO is kind of like Pat Buchanan appearing on The Political Cesspool. When you sit down and chew the fat with a guy like Matt Forney on his own show, you're showing what kind of person you really are and what level of bullshit you really tolerate.

So yeah. I'm gonna go with The Red Pill being propaganda.

[SciFi Chick]

You know me. You know vendic. Every time we EVER discuss feminism with you, you minimize, in particular, my opinion, all while claiming to celebrate women. You try to cast me as a victim, as someone who can't think for herself, as someone who is just living in a fantasy land thinking that I'm not a victim of sexism. We've had more than one fight about it.

So, I'm not lying when I say this is the EXACT response I expected from you. A feminist makes a movie about the men's rights movement and gives equal time to feminists, but it's automatically biased and evil and I'm sure racism will be thrown around in there somewhere.

You may have spent a decade studying this, but clearly, you spend all your time on the fringe aspect of men's rights while ignoring everything evil that feminists are doing. You don't even acknowledge it or respond to quote after quote after quote. I'm not going to sit here and detail the movie for you. You don't want to watch it? Fine.

Keep comparing the whole movement to fascism, anti-semitism and whatever other hate you want to drag out.

But you are wrong. I don't expect people who are uninterested in the subject to watch this movie. But when you're an apologist for feminism, and you won't even hear out the other side, you're abandoning critical thinking altogether. But I understand. It's very difficult to challenge one's own world view. I've done it twice now resulting in huge paradigm shifts in my thinking each time. It was never easy, and I foolishly thought most people would be willing to do the same. Statistics show me to be completely wrong on that.

I, confess, that though I'm not surprised by your response, I am disappointed by it.

[vendic]

That is about the most prejudiced arrogant condescending attitude I have seen you ever take gj.
Have a think about this. You are dismissing what both sfc and I have said about the movie and our research, literally refused to even consider that we may be competent in that research, refused to look at any evidence, refused to consider that your pov might not be absolutely correct , condemned anyone with guilt by association and you are proud of it.

Here's a little bit of information you might not know or conveniently are happy to apologise for:
The very first a voice for men speech organised was shut down due to a bomb threat. Paul Elam was an unknown at the time. Yet he was already shut down. There's a great start for someone that simply wanted to address relevant issues that no one seems to want to discuss.

Erin Pizzey the woman who opened the world's first shelter for domestic abuse victims is no longer even allowed to be mentioned in the history of the shelter she founded because she dared to correctly claim both men and women are victims and perpetrators. She had her life threatened, her family threatened, her daughters wedding had a bomb threat called in, her dog was killed, and she fled her country to seek refuge becoming destitute after every thing she did. They killed her dog for fucks sake!

Yet here you are preaching how you won't listen because you know its propaganda.
You call them hate groups etc. Here's how the real nasty's get into power gj, they get there by stopping people from having free speech. They do it by convincing others that it's ok to do so. They convince their followers to not accept any opinion that might show them to have anything wrong within their ranks. This is not discussion. This is fanaticism.

If you are so afraid of listening to a different persons pov then they have well and truly used propaganda to great effect. There is a fundamental problem anytime one group preaches and expects their mindless minions to not look at the ugly side of their organisation and tries to shut down others through actual violence and won't openly discuss differing opinions.

But feel free to bury your head into the sand while claiming that you are open minded and let facts speak for themselves. As someone that professes to support science your attitude here is beyond hypocrisy. It is appearing to be complete fanaticism.
I'm more than happy to discuss the issues so long as we stick to actual verifiable facts. Because in my research I have found far too much fabrication used as actual data then propagated, including misleading research. All of it must be open to examination.
Lastly, as someone who has been a victim of gaslighting and deliberate manipulation, the one thing I can tell you is how to spot it. Keeping you within control is the primary method. So don't read shit that might make you question or lose your faith. Ignore any views that challenge your primary belief. Anyone that has arguments that question your motives you attack by adhomien means. This religious indoctrination in action.

Look back at your posts, your arguments consist of attacking the messenger not the message, yet, I seriously doubt that you actually researched what the people actually said. Rather you more likely read opinion pieces manufactured by others to make your mind up about someone without going to the actual source. If someone threatened me or my family, you can bet I will respond in kind. Probably far harder than he or Erin and many others have. They have shown immense restraint given the circumstances. I doubt you yourself would take kindly to that behavior if it was directed at you or your family and loved ones. I write this because you yourself admitted you agree with writing hit pieces, because they are so evil and deserve nothing less.

Don't forget, you were the one that wanted to believe that any woman having consensual sex with a man was actually being raped. You stated so on this very forum. That is making every man who has sex with a woman a rapist. Period. You were actually willing to discuss and entertain this bullshit, but, here you are not even willing to consider the notion that men have issues that should be addressed because it's a dangerous path to go down and must be shut down.
Think about that. You are happy to label all men rapists, and then say that men have nothing that is worth listening to. That their suicide rates are extremely high, that the drop out rate of males from school is higher than women and getting worse, that they die in the workplace by orders of magnitude higher than women.None of this is important to you.
You are acting like the author of the article on women getting murdered in the workplace by their partners. Where he is all concerned with 23 deaths a year of women but ignoring the same data that shows over 4000 men dying a year. This attitude reminds me of communism in action. We apparently cannot even remotely address any issues of men until there is not a single female death, not a single female rape, not a single female being a victim of sexism in the world. It is lunacy.
But hey, micro aggression's and sexism in the Oxford dictionary are the real issues that need to be addressed and we have such a long way to go.
Check your biases. They are seriously skewed.

People have issues that need resolving, both men and women. Learning about them is the way to do it, hearing the issues is the answer. Threatening the lives of people pointing this out, killing their pets, calling in bomb threats, forcing them to leave their countries and getting them fired from work then re-writing history are not the way to do it. If you willingly ignore that this is happening and is fundamentally destructive to society while telling those that have been threatened that they have no right to be heard, then you have actively chosen to support evil. I expected far more of you. To at least have the willingness to look at an issue without bias or condemnation.

Oh, for the record, many feminists have now watched the movie. You can read their reviews. Most are telling people that it is not propaganda. But hey, you know better. Better than the women that have seen the film, better than the people you know who have seen the film and are telling you that it is not propaganda.

If this sounds harsh, yes it fucking is. SFC and I have known you for over a decade. You know that we don't abide hate groups, racism, sexism, white supremacy or propaganda. Yet even though we have both seen the film and tell you that it is not what you are claiming, you who refuse to even consider watching it, reject our opinion with no problem because you know better. You might as well have had a great big dump on the both of us and claimed you were just helping us grow.

Wake up.

[Cyborg Girl]

Lastly, as someone who has been a victim of gaslighting and deliberate manipulation, the one thing I can tell you is how to spot it. Keeping you within control is the primary method. So don't read shot that might make you question or lose your faith. Its religious dogma in action.

It can also be a defensive mechanism against manipulation.

I've dealt with gaslighting too. And someone good at it WILL convince you. Sometimes the only option is to shut out and ignore them completely.

Same IMO applies for really clever propaganda. This is how millions of random normal people get swayed by the likes of Hitler or Mussolini. The people who design propaganda are always more clever about manipulation than we are.

So no, it's not just fanaticism.

As for Paul Elam, these are direct quotes from the guy:

http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2013/ ... own-words/

Do you trust him worth anything with that?

Oh,no, let me guess, it's satire so it's okay. Just like with Valerie Solanas and the more violent radfems. Right?

[vendic]

Lastly, as someone who has been a victim of gaslighting and deliberate manipulation, the one thing I can tell you is how to spot it. Keeping you within control is the primary method. So don't read shot that might make you question or lose your faith. Its religious dogma in action.

It can also be a defensive mechanism against manipulation.

I've dealt with gaslighting too. And someone good at it WILL convince you. Sometimes the only option is to shut out and ignore them completely.

I'm not relying on Paul Elam to form my opinions, I have no idea why you even thought that.
You however are using him to dismiss the entirety of people who are trying to address men's issues.

Same IMO applies for really clever propaganda. This is how millions of random normal people get swayed by the likes of Hitler or Mussolini. The people who design propaganda are always more clever about manipulation than we are.

So no, it's not just fanaticism.

It is fanaticism. Look up Erin Pizzey. Can you me that what she went through is ok because she dared make the claim that men are victims and women are perpetrators as well as the other way around. IOW, she is saying it's not a men's issue in domestic violence, its a people issue.

As for Paul Elam, these are direct quotes from the guy:

http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2013/ ... own-words/

Do you trust him worth anything with that?

Oh,no, let me guess, it's satire so it's okay. Just like with Valerie Solanas and the more violent radfems. Right?

Seriously?
You are comparing Elam to a woman who tried to kill a person. You are condemning him because you don't like his satire. You are ignoring that he had bomb threads and had his family threatened, his livelihood threatened because, he wrote some satirical works where he explicitly stated that they were satirical. Comedy and satire has always been used to highlight social issues. Always. You want to redefine that now because it offends you? Well too bad. So you don't like his comedy.
Has he threatened anyone?
Has he called in bomb threats to shut down speeches by women?
Has he actively tried to get women fired from their work place?
Has he threatened anyone's families?

Funny, all those things happened to him and many others, many whom are women. Yet you ignore that but condemn him and by proxy everyone in the movement because of him writing satire.

Let me tell you a story about a little war that my family had to suffer through. Armed soldiers came into their village. The village were mainly farmers and their families were being executed by the soldiers. One night, they organised to retaliate. They used what they had available to them. Shovels, picks, sickles etc.
You know what the headlines were?
Peace keepers massacred by villagers using farming tools.
It went on to condemn the farmers. No mention of why they did it. That they had their families executed under principles founded in racism by a genocidal regime.
Oh no. None of that was mentioned. They murdered "peace keepers".

Now look above at what I wrote about what happened to Elam and what you are condemning him for. See the similarity?
You are condemning legally deliberately satirical words that he even stated in the articles were satirical, while excusing illegal acts of violence.
Furthermore, you are using one person to dismiss an entire movement.

I don't really give a shit about Elam. He literally means nothing to me. But, I can look through the works and timelines and who did what then come up with a well researched opinion on if he is getting a fair representation or is being vilified. He is being vilified. Not one of the people condemning him ever point out what has happened to him in those articles. So if you want to read biased articles, feel free to do so. Just don't sit there preaching to me that you researched it when clearly you researched only half of it or are dismissing the other half deliberately.

So I ask, if you reject a movement based on one person, then why do you not do the same for feminism when it has a history of violent women in its ranks?

Now, why don't you address Erin Pizzey for me?
Do you also want to shut down the voice of a woman who's life mission was to prevent domestic violence, because she refuses to accept that it's simply a men's issue, that only men can be violent, and publicly stated that.
This is the woman who's family was threatened, she was threatened, her daughters wedding had a bomb threat called in, her dog was killed and she fled the country in fear. Tell me how it is acceptable to you that you shut down her voice because Paul fucking Elam made some satirical pieces that you didn't like? What happened to her and many others is criminal. Literally criminal. Why aren't you addressing that instead of satirical works. Priorities GJ, I think you missed the boat.

Most of all, science teaches us to not look consider the person that is giving the facts but rather the facts themselves. You by dismissing an entire movement based on your ignorance of the circumstances relating to one person is a perfect example of nothing to do with science or facts. It is hate presented as opinion and that opinion is willfully biased. So how can I or anyone legitimately give any credence to your opinion?

You aren't even willing to entertain the thought you might be wrong. That is the one fundamental thing I have decided to do in my life. Check everything I believe I know so I am informed with facts, not opinions or others biases. As such, if there is no supporting evidence, I throw it out. It has been hard. Fucking hard. Yet here you are telling me that you have it right and aren't even willing to do the leg work to check. That's how sure you are of yourself. That's a huge difference between you and me. I don't trust my opinions and check them now regularly in case I was working on incorrect data. You are happy to dig your trench deeper when confronted with something that offends what you currently accept as true and are reveling in it.

When you make a stand with such conviction that you are already right so don't need to check, while other people are telling you that you are wrong, people that have seen the movie, people that you've known for years, what you are doing is shitting on them. Not because you don't want to see the movie. But because you refuse to accept their opinion might have merit, even though they have. Instead it's easier for you to believe that we have somehow been brainwashed and you are right. That is messed up GJ. We are not brainwashed. We simply decided to double check the opinions that we held. Brain washing doesn't allow that behaviour.

When a person is being gaslighted, they don't check facts and data. If they do, then they are soon going to find out what the real situation is. That's what we did. The only thing watching the movie did for me is realise that I refused to even take the time to hear the MRA's issues in the past because I was conditioned to accept that they were a hate group. So I checked, then double checked, then triple checked. Multiple sources, I read literally several dozen papers start to end dating back to the 70's. Then I cross referenced and checked the claims of falsification and saw them to be true. The rabbit hole is real and it is deep. You don't have to go down it. You can sit in your echo chamber and I won't have an issue with it. It's not something that is easy to accept. The backfire effect is all too real.
What I won't however do is not challenge you.

Your opinions are not the same as my facts, and I have a fucking shit load of them for anyone willing to accept the remote possibility that what they have been told and what they have believed may not be the truth and nothing but the truth.
Many I have already posted. I'm betting you didn't even check them. Even though there are literally over 200 independent studies showing domestic violence is similar between men and women.

Your call. You can sit in your little bubble or you can maybe just possibly in the teeniest tiniest way question your infallibility, by researching without bias. Your call. I won't condemn you either way.
Just please stop telling us something that we saw is propaganda when you clearly refuse to even watch it. That is rude, arrogant and hypocritical. You might just hurt a lot of SFC's feelings and you may hurt my one feeling too. Because you know, men only have one or two of them...

[SciFi Chick]

Oh,no, let me guess, it's satire so it's okay.

As a matter of fact, yes.

1.
the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2.
a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
3.
a literary genre comprising such compositions.

Definition 1 fits what Elam wrote perfectly. It doesn't have to be funny to be satire.

[Tarragon]

Something to keep in mind if any of you decides to go down the rabbit hole. We've probably all heard of it, but it never hurts to be reminded. The Backfire Effect.

Also fitting in here is Cognitive Dissonance and perhaps sociology of religion. If something works against a belief, it creates a sense of unease, and so people will do something, often delegitimizing opponents, in order to resolve the dissonance. Sociology of religion researches have observed that people will start to defend friends and acquaintances against counter-arguments, even when they don't share their beliefs. Overtime, this defense causes them to take on those beliefs. It's a cost of ownership thing. If you choose to put the effort into arguing in favor of something, you'll eventually decide to believe in it to justify this behavior, otherwise it generates dissonance.

Another way was shown in the Milgrim studies, that people will harm other people if a person in a position of apparent authority tells them it's OK. Milgrim was researching how Nazis convinced people to follow illegal orders and commit genocide. However, committing acts of emotional, intellectual or even physical violence against people based on what some professor claims is Truth follows the same pattern.

[SciFi Chick]

However, committing acts of emotional, intellectual or even physical violence against people based on what some professor claims is Truth follows the same pattern.

What is intellectual violence?

[Cyborg Girl]

vendic, SFC: I can't say "Oooh maybe someone should assassinate the Prime Minister of Freedonia, maybe with a letter bomb or anthrax, ha ha just kidding only not really" and reasonably expect no legal consequences, public anger, or violence by weirdos who took me seriously. This is the same thing we talked about during the 2016 campaign season, when Trump implied (twice) that maybe Clinton should be assassinated. Veiled threats, plausibly deniable indications for violence, and generalized hate speech are not fucking satire. Same applies to feminists and the left, PETA, and everyone else.

Also, vendic, didn't you criticize Andrea Dworkin and her ilk earlier for similar tactics?

[Cyborg Girl]

https://newrepublic.com/article/139004/ ... till-nazis

As for Nazis, so for misogynists IMO. Please stop defending bigotry as Important Free Speech, okay?

[Tarragon]

However, committing acts of emotional, intellectual or even physical violence against people based on what some professor claims is Truth follows the same pattern.

What is intellectual violence?

Like that cartoon above shows, when someone's beliefs are assaulted, it's like they themselves feel they are under attack, even when there's no clear emotional trigger or target.

[SciFi Chick]

However, committing acts of emotional, intellectual or even physical violence against people based on what some professor claims is Truth follows the same pattern.

What is intellectual violence?

Like that cartoon above shows, when someone's beliefs are assaulted, it's like they themselves feel they are under attack, even when there's no clear emotional trigger or target.

I don't consider that actual violence. Violence can't be based solely on how someone feels.

[vendic]

https://newrepublic.com/article/139004/ironic-nazis-still-nazis

As for Nazis, so for misogynists IMO. Please stop defending bigotry as Important Free Speech, okay?

You have equated men's rights advocates with Nazi's, then proceeded to claim defending them is like defending Nazi's so I am defending bigotry.
And you are accusing me of defending bigotry!

sexism: The belief that one sex (usually the male) is naturally superior to the other and should dominate most important areas of political, economic, and social life. Sexist discrimination in the United States in the past has denied opportunities to women in many spheres of activity.

sexism: prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

sexism: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women. 2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex.

If you note, even the definition of sexism everywhere now states, against women, perpetrated by men. This is opinion, rather than definition. There was a time when sexism was defined as, treating anyone differently based on gender.

You are treating women's groups differently than men's groups. One is put on a pedestal, the other is vilified as a hate group. That is you practicing sexism.

Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

You are condemning men's groups because you hold a differing opinion to them. You are doing it to such a point that you refuse to even hear their views and you want to stop them from expressing their view based on your own opinion. That is you practicing bigotry.

Prejudice: 1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. 2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable. 3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding an ethnic, racial, social, or religious group.

You are refusing to listen to any points men's groups are trying to make while actively condemning them. You cannot have a balanced view if you refuse to even hear the other party. Therefore, you are making willfully preconceived opinions on a social group. That is you practicing prejudice.

This is not the first time either. I point back to when you were claiming that all consensual sex between a man and a woman, was rape, because the women is incapable of providing consent. Everyone on this board tried to tell you that you were wrong and that your view was both insulting and condescending towards women. Many many other times you have held similar skewed views, to the point where you pretty much hated yourself for being a male. This is a result of systematic conditioning. This is a classically ironic case of you being oppressed and defending it. Maybe you have Stockholm's syndrome. I don't know.

Yet here you are accusing me of supporting bigotry when I am doing none of the "biased" things above while you are and have a history of doing so on this issue.

Now I'm not trying to make you feel bad, I want you to actually use the perfectly capable mind that you have and activate the logical, reason side of it and start from scratch, using critical thinking to verify the facts, and check your opinions outside of echo chambers that you frequent.
Till you can do that, please don't sit there and tell me I am defending bigotry.

[SciFi Chick]

vendic, SFC: I can't say "Oooh maybe someone should assassinate the Prime Minister of Freedonia, maybe with a letter bomb or anthrax, ha ha just kidding only not really" and reasonably expect no legal consequences, public anger, or violence by weirdos who took me seriously. This is the same thing we talked about during the 2016 campaign season, when Trump implied (twice) that maybe Clinton should be assassinated. Veiled threats, plausibly deniable indications for violence, and generalized hate speech are not fucking satire. Same applies to feminists and the left, PETA, and everyone else.

Also, vendic, didn't you criticize Andrea Dworkin and her ilk earlier for similar tactics?

Please stop fighting against free speech. Our society will collapse if we continue to base every decision on who has the most "victimhood." You are actually engaging in and helping Marxism and fascism to take root in our society. I could prove it, but since you refuse to read or watch anything outside your world view, I'm not entirely certain how to engage you in debate. You see, the purpose of debate is to see if an idea has merit. It is healthy to look at it from all sides, even if it offends you. Suppressing speech does not help society.

It leads to things like cartoonists being killed for satire.

[vendic]

I'll try a different approach.
Here's a lecture by a Canadian IPV (Intimate Partner Violence) researcher. She is a self identified feminist who has serious issues with the way IPV is being misrepresented and manipulated by special interest groups to show what they want as opposed to sticking with the facts and the data. The video is 45 minutes and goes on to discuss 10 big fallacies regarding domestic violence.

If you don't want to watch that, here is a research group that took 1700 peer reviewed studies in domestic violence, then collated the findings. The net result was that any bias in any individual paper was removed through the averaging process.
Link

In this unprecedented undertaking, a total of 42 scholars and 70 research assistants at 20 universities and research institutions spent two years or more researching their topics and writing the results. Approximately 12,000 studies were considered and more than 1,700 were summarized and organized into tables. The 17 manuscripts, which provide a review of findings on each of the topics, for a total of 2,657 pages, appear in 5 consecutive special issues of Partner Abuse published between April, 2012 and April, 2013. All conclusions, including the extent to which the research evidence supports or undermines current theories, are based strictly on the data collected.

Basically, it is the single largest, least biased report ever made on the issue of domestic violence. The results do NOT agree with the mainstream/feminist view of domestic violence that it is just "wife beating".

If you find that you still don't accept the findings, refuse to accept, or struggle with taking this in after being of the belief that you were so right, and are now being placed in a position that makes you question the validity of your opinion, then welcome to the Red Pill journey SFC and I did.

The findings, in summary form:

Overall, 24% of individuals assaulted by a partner at least once in their lifetime (23% for females and 19.3% for males)

Rates of female-perpetrated violence higher than male-perpetrated (28.3% vs. 21.6%)

Among large population samples, 57.9% of IPV reported was bi-directional, 42% unidirectional; 13.8% of the unidirectional violence was male to female (MFPV), 28.3% was female to male (FMPV)

Among school and college samples, percentage of bidirectional violence was 51.9%; 16.2% was MFPV and 31.9% was FMPV

Does this even hint that you might be wrong GJ???
That men's advocates have very valid points?
Let me show you how deep that rabbit hole goes...

[Tarragon]

However, committing acts of emotional, intellectual or even physical violence against people based on what some professor claims is Truth follows the same pattern.

What is intellectual violence?

Like that cartoon above shows, when someone's beliefs are assaulted, it's like they themselves feel they are under attack, even when there's no clear emotional trigger or target.

I don't consider that actual violence. Violence can't be based solely on how someone feels.

Except that's the nature of reality. It's always about context. A kiss can be the epitome of love in one context, and a betrayal in another. This is the crux of the issue in sexual harassment and feminism in general, where one groups thinks an act or word means one thing and another group thinks is means another. It's not just about physical touch, but the meaning of words. Do you see how defensive some people get when you threaten their beliefs with mere contradictory evidence? Take this thread for example.

[vendic]

Except that's the nature of reality. It's always about context. A kiss can be the epitome of love in one context, and a betrayal in another. This is the crux of the issue in sexual harassment and feminism in general, where one groups thinks an act or word means one thing and another group thinks is means another. It's not just about physical touch, but the meaning of words. Do you see how defensive some people get when you threaten their beliefs with mere contradictory evidence? Take this thread for example.

This is why I like science and engineering. A fact is a fact. The problem I'm seeing lately is that if the facts disagree with a persons opinion, they get offended and they suggest that the solution is to never discuss the facts, or to not fund research into things we might not like the answers to. The very people that have complained about conservatives de-funding science because they don't like the possible findings, are the the same ones that have been doing it for decades and getting away with it.

Lets put this in straight no bullshit terms:
Those who are wanting to protect people from hearing alternate views are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths if not more.
Why?
They are shutting down speech/research that would otherwise have provided support networks for those in need. When someone says they don't want to hear about men's rights advocates, they are ultimately affecting policy. Policy that allows humans to die based on their sex.
One men's shelter compared to 2000 women's shelters in the USA and as I have shown in a post above, the domestic violence abuse rate is similar between the sexes. Men die at a far higher rate in terms of suicides every year and there are reasons for this that are not being allowed to be addressed. This is largely due to no support structure, because some snowflakes would get offended if their views are challenged. To me, they are complicit in killing thousands while pretending it's ok and right and justified. All due to willful ignorance. They even use physical violence to stop speech.

Worst of all, their are feminist organisations pushing to hide the statistics and distort them because they "might" lose funding. IOW, they are selecting who lives and who dies based on gender, while at the same time making a nice little living out of it for themselves. Then the same people doing all this try to claim feminism is about equality. No the fuck it isn't if you do those things. It's about money, greed, power.

[Tarragon]

Except that's the nature of reality. It's always about context. A kiss can be the epitome of love in one context, and a betrayal in another. This is the crux of the issue in sexual harassment and feminism in general, where one groups thinks an act or word means one thing and another group thinks is means another. It's not just about physical touch, but the meaning of words. Do you see how defensive some people get when you threaten their beliefs with mere contradictory evidence? Take this thread for example.

This is why I like science and engineering. A fact is a fact. The problem I'm seeing lately is that if the facts disagree with a persons opinion, they get offended and they suggest that the solution is to never discuss the facts, or to not fund research into things we might not like the answers to. The very people that have complained about conservatives de-funding science because they don't like the possible findings, are the the same ones that have been doing it for decades and getting away with it.

Lets put this in straight no bullshit terms:
Those who are wanting to protect people from hearing alternate views are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths if not more.
Why?
They are shutting down speech/research that would otherwise have provided support networks for those in need. When someone says they don't want to hear about men's rights advocates, they are ultimately affecting policy. Policy that allows humans to die based on their sex.
One men's shelter compared to 2000 women's shelters in the USA and as I have shown in a post above, the domestic violence abuse rate is similar between the sexes. Men die at a far higher rate in terms of suicides every year and there are reasons for this that are not being allowed to be addressed. This is largely due to no support structure, because some snowflakes would get offended if their views are challenged. To me, they are complicit in killing thousands while pretending it's ok and right and justified. All due to willful ignorance. They even use physical violence to stop speech.

Worst of all, their are feminist organisations pushing to hide the statistics and distort them because they "might" lose funding. IOW, they are selecting who lives and who dies based on gender, while at the same time making a nice little living out of it for themselves. Then the same people doing all this try to claim feminism is about equality. No the fuck it isn't if you do those things. It's about money, greed, power.

I don't disagree with you. If this is about me recognizing a thing I call intellectual violence, that doesn't mean I have a problem with using it. In the right circumstances (and sometimes the wrong ones) I'm open to using intellectual, emotional, or physical forms of violence. (It's why I try to be precise in my use of language.)

[SciFi Chick]

I don't disagree with you. If this is about me recognizing a thing I call intellectual violence, that doesn't mean I have a problem with using it. In the right circumstances (and sometimes the wrong ones) I'm open to using intellectual, emotional, or physical forms of violence. (It's why I try to be precise in my use of language.)

Nowadays, I have to check and see if people are using words correctly or if they've redefined a word with their own views in mind. I've OD'd on this lately, and I forgot who I was talking to for a moment.

[Rommie]

If you note, even the definition of sexism everywhere now states, against women, perpetrated by men. This is opinion, rather than definition. There was a time when sexism was defined as, treating anyone differently based on gender.

Perhaps a nitpicky detail, but when was it actually defined like that?

My precursory search of "sexism definition" in Google and most are consistent with Webster, "prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women." The Wikipedia page also starts off similar, with citations, saying it can affect both genders but is particularly documented as affecting women- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism Which I will agree with.

Further, per Wiki, looks like the word likely first came into being in the sixties, with regards to rights for women. Which I thought was right, when I was in school I learned that discrimination against men was misandry.

[SciFi Chick]

Further, per Wiki, looks like the word likely first came into being in the sixties, with regards to rights for women. Which I thought was right, when I was in school I learned that discrimination against men was misandry.

Misandry is the opposite of misogynist, and both are considered worse than sexism, because they involve hatred.