To Learn About the Far Right, Start With the ‘Manosphere’

[Ironclad43 131]

hahaha the manosphere being far right oh boy you need to dig a lot deeper than that

[Boris Farage 353]

1 hour ago, laylalex said:

I don't think being ridiculous is confined to being progressive. There are any number of so-called conservatives with the most ridiculously hypocritical points of view. I'm sure that there are middle of the road people who could be accused of that too. Hypocrisy isn't a left-right issue.

 

Yes, there are those who call themselves "conservative" who are hypocrites. But being a hypocrite isn't a conservative quality, so they're not really being conservatives are they?

 

So-called progressives, however, are a completely different nut. While true conservatives rely on decades or more of policy and philosophy, progressives just want to do what "feels" good.

 

The progressive logic goes thusly:

• You want to be a girl? Great.
• You want to actually change all official documentation to change the history of your birth, despite the fact that you were biologically born a male? Yes, let's rewrite history because then we would feel good about it.
• Would you like us to force this man to make a cake for you, because it would make us feel good, even though he doesn't want to do it? Yes, let's do that, and let's call the baker a racist, or homophobic, or whatever makes him feel bad, because he is not one of us. That's the progressive way.
• It's the 50th anniversary of the moon landing. Let's rewrite history to make everyone involved a raging misogynist who hated women. Tear down our heroes, that's the progressive way.
• Oh did little Johnny not win? That's ok, everyone gets a trophy so that nobody feels bad.

Unlike conservatism, there's no philosophy, no policy, no logic for progressives to fall back on. It's just whatever makes you feel good, or whatever spares somebody's feelings. Bollocks.

[yuna628 9,530]

6 minutes ago, Boris Farage said:

 

Yes, there are those who call themselves "conservative" who are hypocrites. But being a hypocrite isn't a conservative quality, so they're not really being conservatives are they?

 

Being a hypocrite is a human quality. Political ideology doesn't really enter into it, which means you'll find hypocrites all over the place, no matter where you look and even yourself, if one takes a moment for self-reflection.

[Boris Farage 353]

3 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Being a hypocrite is a human quality. Political ideology doesn't really enter into it, which means you'll find hypocrites all over the place, no matter where you look and even yourself, if one takes a moment for self-reflection.

I'm several tumblers in to a nice Scotch so my judgment may be a tad off, but I do believe I've just been insulted. 😉

 

Being a hypocrite is indeed a human quality. Some are more prone than others. In my experience, those prone to hypocrisy tend, in general, to gravitate to the left of the political spectrum. (I say again, in general. Because yes, there are some hypocrites on the right. Fortunately they don't last long.) Which makes sense, really. You don't hear Donald Trump, a billionaire who, let's face it, would like to continue being a billionaire, saying wealth should be redistributed. But you hear Bernie Sanders say it all the time. Meanwhile, instead of distributing his own wealth, he collects it, is a millionaire, and then makes excuses for it. The progressive liberal agenda is unsustainable, and so the only way it's kept propped up is through hypocrisy.

 

 

[fip & jim 452]

Try being sincerely nice without an agenda. It reaps many rewards. 

 

[laylalex 7,247]

4 minutes ago, fip & jim said:

Try being sincerely nice without an agenda. It reaps many rewards. 

 

That's lovely, and nicely said.  

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Guns don't kill people.   People kill people.  I cannot say whether or not these mentally ill people hate women or not.  Never met anyone of them to know.  But from the little I have read about many of them, they come from broken homes.

[yuna628 9,530]

8 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

Guns don't kill people.   People kill people.  I cannot say whether or not these mentally ill people hate women or not.  Never met anyone of them to know.  But from the little I have read about many of them, they come from broken homes.

Guns are typically the preferred tool. It's the easy way to do it. Doesn't require much thought to kill someone that way. And these boys aren't big into the whole thinking thing. Did you hear about the kid they arrested with 10,000 rounds? Whew.. the stuff he was into with his 'followers' was pretty low on using brain cells. I can say that in several of these cases, and particularly the Ohio case, intense hatred of women was a factor. But I guess that would all depend on what multiple personality mood he was in at the time. I don't know if he had a broken home, he does seem to have had an accomplice helping him funnel money and guns. The El Paso guy though.. there does seem to be an odd parental situation. His dad also sounded like a real winner.

[laylalex 7,247]

So we should blame single moms for this? If we only all lived in two parent families, if every family had a dad and mom in their traditional roles, everything would be fine? I feel like we're looping back into the manosphere now...

 

My fiancé came from a home without a father -- his dad died quite suddenly when he (my fiancé) and his sister were 8. He can hardly remember his father. What my fiancé did have was a loving mother, and a home that valued his education. He grew up knowing he wasn't going it alone (having a twin helped). He was a weirdo and a loner as a kid, played a lot of video games, dressed oddly and didn't fit in. But he didn't have access to guns and he had a mother who was keenly interested in what kind of man he was becoming. It isn't as simple as broken homes = broken kids.

 

This recent LA Times article discusses some interesting commonalities between mass shooters though, going back to 1966: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-08-04/el-paso-dayton-gilroy-mass-shooters-data

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

I am always amazed when people equate a single parent household as lacking a father. I know quite a few men that are custodial parents. They can braid hair, wash clothes and everything, just like real girls. Amazingly enough, I can cook, wash clothes and tend to children and willingly do so. It would be nice if the populace in general realized this is more then the popular misconception of inept, bumbling men out scouting new tail to conquer

Edited August 14, 2019 by Randyandyuni

[Steeleballz 7,550]

9 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

Guns don't kill people.   People kill people.  I cannot say whether or not these mentally ill people hate women or not.  Never met anyone of them to know.  But from the little I have read about many of them, they come from broken homes.

 

   In any given murder "people kill people". Nobody has ever made the argument that guns are anything more than a proximate cause. It's just an inane slogan meant to end any actual discussion . The statement has no bearing on whether guns should be regulated or not. Just realize every time you say "guns don't kill people...", you are essentially saying "I am avoiding the subject."

[laylalex 7,247]

6 minutes ago, Randyandyuni said:

I am always amazed when people equate a single parent household as lacking a father. I know quite a few men that are custodial parents. They can braid hair, wash clothes and everything, just like real girls. Amazingly enough, I can cook, wash clothes and tend to children and willingly do so. It would be nice if the populace in general realized this is more then the popular misconception of inept, bumbling men out scouting new tail to conquer

I completely agree with you. I think we don't talk enough about these men. But that's not what articles about "mass shooters come from broken homes" are saying. I literally googled "do mass shooters come from broken homes" and a whole bunch of articles from last year came up specifically referring to fatherless homes, or homes where dad wasn't around much, or where there was a stepdad. This isn't to downplay the importance of single dads, I just want to add. They really should be more appreciated. 

[yuna628 9,530]

Some killers come from broken homes. Some killers come from single parent homes for other reasons. Some killers come from perfectly normal homes, so 'normal' the parents are completely oblivious. It is hard to say if any of these factors contribute - if the person experienced violence or abuse as a child, combined with psychological issues, and pent up rage and a general hatred toward one or both parents. With many killers there does seem to be hatred of women, there is likely a whole host of psychological factors regarding that. Unfortunately the radicalization of that evil hatred is more commonplace.

[beloved_dingo 1,932]

9 minutes ago, Randyandyuni said:

I am always amazed when people equate a single parent household as lacking a father. I know quite a few men that are custodial parents. They can braid hair, wash clothes and everything, just like real girls. Amazingly enough, I can cook, wash clothes and tend to children and willingly do so. It would be nice if the populace in general realized this is more then the popular misconception of inept, bumbling men out scouting new tail to conquer

Absolutely. I work in family law. We have many male clients that are either the primary caretakers of the children, or who have sole custody. 

 

Personally, I don't think "broken home" equates to "single parent home" regardless. Many people would be better off if they DIDN'T "stay together for the kids". Living in chaos under the same roof as two people who are completely dysfunctional as partners is more broken than a stable single parent raising their children without a partner. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   In any given murder "people kill people". Nobody has ever made the argument that guns are anything more than a proximate cause. It's just an inane slogan meant to end any actual discussion . The statement has no bearing on whether guns should be regulated or not. Just realize every time you say "guns don't kill people...", you are essentially saying "I am avoiding the subject."

You are unequivocally, 100% wrong.  I never avoid the subject, but I insist on discussing it logically and factually.  As a highly trained and skilled user and instructor of guns, and an expert marksman, I feel it is my duty to educate the masses whenever possible.

 

Perhaps not you, but MANY people feel that guns are the problem, and that enforcing more laws, or banning guns, will solve the problem.   And far from avoiding discussing that fallacy, I love to discuss it and prove how wrong it is.  

 

The main advantage of guns for most folks is the lack of courage required to take a life from a distance.  (There exist a group of tougher killers who are not afraid to use a knife to kill, but that's only about 12% of the spineless gun murderers.)  The gun simply becomes the tool of convenience for people who wish to cause chaos but are actually cowards.