The PC and Perpetually Offended Brigade

[Blackout]

Less of the ad-hominems now.

There's only so much common sense you can throw at someone but when they're so entrenched in their ideology, I prefer short and sharp ad-hominems.  Constant analysis of word salads becomes tiring.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Yeah, because violent psychopaths are not going to murder women or anybody else once they reevaluate their masculinity. This utter bullshit won't deter or change anyone or anything. There is a war on nature going on here. Allow women to legally carry pepper spray or tasers. That's how you make a cunt think twice.

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2021/0316/1204312-young-men-masculinities-violence-against-women/

Honestly though, if even you actually read the article in detail, I personally don't see anything particularly mad in it that needs to be referred to as "utter bullshit":

...in a vignette which involved a woman being groped in a bar, there was less certainty. Young people were unsure whether she should have been wearing the short skirt that was described in the depiction, or perhaps should have protected herself better. While young people did not see this behaviour as acceptable, it was very much normalised and to be expected. Indeed, one of the key findings to emerge is the ubiquity of unwanted touching and sexual assault experienced by young women, which was reported by both men and women in the study. This was attributed to men's sense of entitlement, a wish to be funny, show off to the 'lads' or fit in with male peer group norms.

See, "violent psychopaths" isn't really the problem, they certainly don't account for the huge numbers of sexual assault that occur on a regular basis, and which, let's not forget (and this was the point I was originally trying to make), most often involve acquaintances of one degree or another of the victim, not someone who attacks them in a way that pepper spray or a taser would be likely to hand. But maybe I'm missing something here due to my post-modern lens (and sure wasn't it the bould Foucault himself said that every grid of analysis hides as much as it reveals ). So what is it you found most offensive in this article in particular?

[Kurt Cocaine]

Yeah, because violent psychopaths are not going to murder women or anybody else once they reevaluate their masculinity. This utter bullshit won't deter or change anyone or anything. There is a war on nature going on here. Allow women to legally carry pepper spray or tasers. That's how you make a cunt think twice.

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2021/0316/1204312-young-men-masculinities-violence-against-women/

Honestly though, if even you actually read the article in detail, I personally don't see anything particularly mad in it that needs to be referred to as "utter bullshit":

...in a vignette which involved a woman being groped in a bar, there was less certainty. Young people were unsure whether she should have been wearing the short skirt that was described in the depiction, or perhaps should have protected herself better. While young people did not see this behaviour as acceptable, it was very much normalised and to be expected. Indeed, one of the key findings to emerge is the ubiquity of unwanted touching and sexual assault experienced by young women, which was reported by both men and women in the study. This was attributed to men's sense of entitlement, a wish to be funny, show off to the 'lads' or fit in with male peer group norms.

See, "violent psychopaths" isn't really the problem, they certainly don't account for the huge numbers of sexual assault that occur on a regular basis, and which, let's not forget (and this was the point I was originally trying to make), most often involve acquaintances of one degree or another of the victim, not someone who attacks them in a way that pepper spray or a taser would be likely to hand. But maybe I'm missing something here due to my post-modern lens (and sure wasn't it the bould Foucault himself said that every grid of analysis hides as much as it reveals ). So what is it you found most offensive in this article in particular?

And therein lies the problem when in discussion with you Herr Kristoph. It's so hard to decipher exactly what is your point, because you will almost always drown your point in a sea of word vomit.

[Caomhaoin]

The violent psychos like the one who killed Everard must be a problem, considering it seems to have been the impetus for the article.

If you conclude a piece talking in soundbytes about 'conversations we need to have in primary school', challenging the structures of society and power structures related to men and women, sorry I can't engage. The implication is that women are better than men (they aren't), therefore men should adopt female type characteristics (they shouldn't)and resist their own nature. Hence I brought up war etc.

I am fully aware that men can act the bollocks, there isn't a man jack of us here who hasn't been a leering pest at some point. However, most women outside of scholastic bubbles, want a man in the traditional sense, not a fanny who talks about his feelings endlessly, forsakes assertiveness, aggression etc. You'll find those characteristics are not as disposable as you think.

The 'solutions' proposed are vague and waffly, and the 'empirical' data is thoroughly unimpressive.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

If you conclude a piece talking in soundbytes about 'conversations we need to have in primary school', challenging the structures of society and power structures related to men and women, sorry I can't engage.

Okay, so that's one obstacle we don't share.

The implication is that women are better than men (they aren't), therefore men should adopt female type characteristics (they shouldn't)and resist their own nature.

And that in turn is a couple of implications I don't draw. Appeals to "nature" like that are very shaky. Again, it's exactly what Nietzsche was undermining in all his blond beast passages. After all, twas Fred said that mankind's unique characteristic among animals was precisely that its nature had not yet been fixed, that all cultural evolutions of the species had occurred through what he called "transvaluations of all values," and had we all remained at the stage of dominant blond beasts, we'd be at least as unintelligent as we would be "noble", in the sense that, say, lions are noble, yet nowhere near our (or many other species') intelligence. In short, for N, the capacity to "resist" its "nature" is the actual nature and particularity of mankind.

So, maybe that's all waffle, but any appeal to "nature" is not as solid as anyone ever making the claim seems to think. There's a Sopolsky documentary where he tracks what happens in a group of monkeys (can't remember the species) when only the dominant males get wiped out, it's worth a watch, because no one asked the males there to do anything, yet apparently their nature just changed with the social environment.

[Caomhaoin]

We have inhibitions to regulate our nature, which is unique among animals. It's another thing altogether to attempt to engineer society by extirpating characteristics of one or both genders. That's madness, fanaticism. The Covenanters in Scotland and Puritans elsewhere tried to temper society radically  350 odd years ago, and we can see it for the lunacy it was now, quite clearly.

What did Orwell say, the further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it? It's part of a wider assault on the fabric of millennia old norms and millions of years of evolution, forcing people to accept new language, attitudes and outright lies and anti-science at the barrel of a virtual gun. When you do that, you get resistance. My issue is not with the ideology itself existing (although I hate it, passionately), but it's mainstream now,  being forced to accept lies about trannies having no advantage in women's sports, Biden saying there isn't a thing a man can do that a woman can't do as well or better. The latter is blatantly untrue yet society is being coerced into pretending to believe it.

Jesus said if the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.

I'd nearly start going to mass again lads, just to reduce the craziness going on around me a degree or two.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

As with the pro-life stance, I think a large part of where things have gone far beyond the control of traditional voices is precisely due to their emphasis on morality and, give or take a few exceptionally kind souls, lack of pragmatic action. The church, in the large sense, did fuck all to genuinely come to the durable aid of women in situations of undesired pregnancies, regardless of the cause. If anything, they showed over and over again how much they looked down on them. The same can be said of women's sexuality, and of sexuality more generally. The "sin" aspect of sex is still absolutely ubiquitous in our language; dirty talk, slut, whore, etc. As the secular culture around sex began opening up, starting in Europe and the US after the war, at every step of the way conservative voices (and their influence, which went far beyond their vocal supporters) condemned and doubled down on speech that evoked sin, promiscuity as an affront to "God". None of that, sorry to have to break it to you, was "truth". It is not "true" that a girl who sleeps around is worse than a guy who sleeps around, yet we live in a culture which has reinforced that idea for centuries, and in some corners continues to do so. What did conservatives try to do to counteract that fanatical, ideological lie? Sweet fuck all. And so, since every single one of us is a sexual being to one extent or another, and since we are the ones who create culture, obviously the mainstream culture slipped straight out of the hands of the conservatives, with their set of traditional lies, and into the hands of others, and what you would call their progressive lies.

You won't convince me that there are more "lies" propping up "liberal" society than there were "traditional" society. That just wouldn't be true.

[Caomhaoin]

I'm not a religious person, and I don't believe in infringing on anyone's personal liberties (I don't believe abortion is a personal choice, nor are minors capable of consenting to hormone therapy to artificially and permanently alter their bodies).

It'd be convenient for your narrative if I was a church goer, but you'll have to find another angle. The unfettered power of the church has been proven to be rank rotten long before Marx and Foucault started shiteing on. That isn't to say it should be suppressed  either. You only have to look at how precious the church is in Poland, Serbia or Russia compared to Ireland precisely because it was outlawed under socialism.

Even if I were to defend the church, lies and fascism on the left are hardly justified because the 'other side' had their chance at hegemony. I'm no longer a social media user, but you can see lives and careers evisverated for 'wrong think', for questioning orthodoxy.

My kid told me yesterday that one of his teachers was blurring gender lines in his class, gender is an identity (if you research the man who coigned that expression, you'd be loath to ever use it again) boys should play with dolls etc. I'd nearly report the fucker. This is in a public school, and the young f'la is 8. Teach him the shit on the curriculum, let him socialise and keep the blue haired shit to yourself.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

My "narrative" doesn't rely exclusively on the church, although the church is the original source for most of it in western culture. What I'm saying, your individual views on personal liberties notwithstanding, is that the conservative voices, the traditional voices, lost their grip on mainstream culture, precisely by being inflexible and doubling-down on gendered sexual condemnation just as society at large was opening up in that area. To use an utterly church-free illustration:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPlEIryW8zA

[Grim Reality]

I wonder was it toxic masculinity when the going got tough when the Wehrmacht rolled in and had to be resisted, or at Flodden, Culloden or Ypres? Glyndwr, The Montrose, Prince Lazar, Harold Godwinson? Naw, it was fight and die so that others, principally the fairer sex, didn't have to.

Yeah but that was ages ago, right?

I don't know anyone who slaps his wife around, kidnaps and murders women or any other immoral, despicable sociopathic or psychopathic behaviour, but these people have always and will always exist. Blaming this behaviour on the natural phenomenon of 'masculinity' (all the while ignoring Muslim grooming gangs etc) is one of the worst, most egregious excesses of the postmodern lunatics. Disgusting is usually hyperbole, but it is understatement in this case.

I love both sides of the Caoimhin vs BSC saga but I think this is a great post. I would in the past have considered myself a 'liberal'. But that side has lost the plot these days sadly.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

I agree liberals have broadly lost the plot. But the traditionalists had equally lost the plot before them. As in the examples I've already given, it's still being revealed more and more today to what extent both powerful and everyman conservative figures were involved, at worst, in creating victims, and at best in silencing them, all in order to "conserve" the traditional order of things. That is the plot well and truly lost. The fact that more was not done earlier, from within conservative/traditional camps, may be just as responsible for the excessive liberal swing we're seeing now as that self same liberal swing has been said to be responsible for things like Trump getting voted in. What is needed, from both sides, is a more measured, more pragmatic, wiser way to respond to revelations of excesses.

It seems disingenuous to me, for example, to heavily imply that Muslim women are treated badly because of something that is inherently perverse in the Islamic tradition (so the argument often goes) while at the same time denying that certain traditionalist western views could have led to similar results. For a very long time, abused wives had little to no recourse, and the traditional order did almost nothing to change this. Is domestic violence more prevalent in certain cultures? Almost certainly yes. Is culture transmitted in part through education? Absolutely yes. I genuinely don't understand arguments to the contrary. Opportunities for dialogue were originally refused by traditionalists, when they were the mainstream. Now they are being refused by liberals. So, what's the solution? It's made difficult when the enormous machinery of the media has made a business model out of polarization via the stroking of demographically identified positions.

[astfgyl]

I would in the past have considered myself a 'liberal'. But that side has lost the plot these days sadly.

I know how you feel there. I would have considered myself to have certain leanings over the years but I can't identify with any of the positions these days. And like you say, I agree with points both of the lads make, but not consistently enough to take up a position on it. I have noticed lately how strongly the internet/media in general tries to pull me in one direction or another though. It was always there for those who wanted it, but something has changed in the last 3 or 4 years and it has gone into overdrive. Everything is oppositional now and everyone has a hill to die on or several totems to kneel before and it's pretty fucked up.

[Ollkiller]

I've seen it in friends circles where they won't talk to someone who holds a different position on an issue. Well if u take that position you'll have no friends. Everyone disagrees on something. And existing in an echo chamber where u only hear views you like isn't good imo.

[astfgyl]

I've always considered that variety is the spice of life and how shit would everything be if everyone agreed all the time. Nothing wrong with a bit of verbal jousting and not taking everything personally, but try that on social media and it's the inevitable descent into madness. Really not representative of real life at all, except it's spilling over more often these days. Very little room for nuance in making statements all the time and having to hold positions. It's like no one can change their mind on social media, they have made a public stance and must maintain it.

[Blackout]

The difference is you get cancelled these days for having a different opinion.