Drop_It_Like_Its_Hoppe

It's incredibly disingenuous of you to conflate my argument of biology with globalist political/economic perspective. You're a butthead, and I hate you.

It isn't a strawman. AdamC clearly considered "species" a collectivist concept worth shaming in that quote.

"Nothing is more narcissistic than to shame people for the sake of self-serving collectivist concepts like society or 'species'." - AdamC This statement is a complete revolt against nature. Our species is our genes, and our genes want to survive - This is biology, this is nature. Of course it is "self-serving" of the entire species, because we are the species of homo sapien, and we would like for ourselves (as homo sapiens) to live on and survive into the future. I say "we" because that is what all of our genes (yes, OUR genes) want - to survive on. According to AdamC, to think this way is just "collectivist" thinking. What a conveniant word that has become, to be used to shame anything and everything that is not exclusively of the 'individual'. So AdamC uses it to shame our nature, our evolution, and our biology. This sort of radical individualism is inane and destructive. Homo Sapiens are a social species, and as such, we want to live on and survive - This means we will have a tendency to be "collective" to some degre, it is natural, and must be accepted for our survival as a species. I am not a radical individual, nor am I a radical collectivist. I am a man.

Oh dear, you really are unhinged, aren't ya'? So now "species" is a "collectivist" concept worth shaming? You Stefbots have truly lost it, haven't you? And shame the family unit for being "collectivist" while we're at it, yeah, brilliant stuff. You clearly have a side here and aren't interested in critiques of it (MGTOW, Radical MRA). This thread is about that, and if you don't like it, then get out and don't bother commenting. Feminism is a tiresome ubject these days, and you all know the evils of it - Thus I brought this up which is new and relevant.

Of course it should be a voluntary arrangement, but it is not shameful to recognize the natural and biological suggestions of both genders, particularly in regards to the family, and the development of children. I would say that it is an obligation to children (and society at large) in finding the most practical ways of protection, nurture, and development; thus the biological nature of men and women cannot be disregarded, as even you recognize this when you bring up the man's "protector instinct", or likewise the woman's "nurturer instinct". However, beyond all that, I am just not a fan of the Conflict Theory that some of these MRM's seem to be going for- I think it will just help further the decline, either by strength or speed. But then again, the decline is inevitable.

I don't see any substantive parallels with feminism since MGTOWs/"Zeta Males" are not advocating as a group (men don't easily see themselves as a part of a group) and are not proposing to use state violence to achieve their ends because to do so would be to risk putting women in harm's way. "Men Going Their Own Way" equates to each individual man going his own way and not to an alleged or feared state-sponsored "gender separatist" movement in the manner of radical feminism. To gain any traction at all, such a male separatist movement would have to first overcome men's biologically hard-wired protector instinct – and that's not going to happen any time soon. Plus most men want secure relationships and happy families. MGTOW = Can't live with feministic women; can't possibly put any woman in harm's way; the only dignified and honorable option is to go my own way. I guess I'm generalizing based on a few loud-mouths in the movement that have made names of themselves on Youtube, such as this Barbarossa character that argued that women should be considered more "disposable" and put in more military positions, and that men should have more state-funding for particular medical problems like testicular cancer. I believe he was also the first to come out with the "Traditionalist Smear" tactics that RockingMrE was talking about. It is true that men are not group-thinkers like women, so I doubt such psychology could take advantage of all men in such a way that feminism has for women. However, I remain cautious as to the intentions of this movement, and its ever-growing popularity, that it will just become another ideology for which the Marxists can take advantage of and promote as a narrative to further push the "State is family" garbage. I do not want a world where the relationship between men and women is cold and detached, while the state handles the children. There's already nascent legislation in Canada which will "protect" parental rights by assigning government committees to monitor divorce children.

Unfortunately, that sounds like a typical "Man up!" shaming tactic: “Men are shirking their God-given responsibility to marry and bear children.” Any man possessing the virtue of responsiblity will recognize when his own virtue is being used against him in the service of another's power over him. MGTOW/Zeta Male seems to be a spectrum of perspectives that range from abstaining from ALL relationships with women (because women are too dangerous/"hypergamous"), to raising the standard of expectations for relationships with women (because women are desirable for relationships and necessary as partners in parenting). It should go without saying that all adult relationships are improved by the mutual recognition that all adult relationships should be voluntary, and that this recognition is a precondition to a healthy family where children can draw additional strength from the earned security of their parents' relationship. Thanks for the links to RockingMrE. He does a good job of warning against the sort of polarization that inevitably arises in any sustained discourse. I never said all MRM's are like that, but it does seem to be a growing trend within the movement that recalls of Feminism's development as an ideology. And I'm not arguing from a religious stant-point, I'm arguing from nature, and biology. Many of these men sound just like feminists in that they are not willing to accept nature for what it is.

On the contrary, it would seem consistent with the MGTOW and "Zeta Masculinty" perspective that they would opt out of toil and sacrifice for the state or any other collective. AVoiceforMen: Men Going Their Own Way: JohnTheOther: "The collective/social-approval definition of male identity is: a man who is of service to, of utility to, or sacrifices on behalf of the collective, of high-status males, and most commonly, of women. Male social identity depends on the collective approval of women. Zeta Masculinity rejects all of that... something we absolutely need is male self identity apart from the disposable service to other people." Many (perhaps a majority) in the MRM recognize the state as a tool of male self-sacrifice that primarily serves the exaggerated vulnerabilities of women and the power lust of apexuals: AVoiceforMen: The Patriarchy at Feminism's Core - Part Deux: TyphonBlue: “I think that feminism really is better termed 'Harem Patriarchy'. And what I mean by that is: when alpha males – through the process of male disposability, the various social powers that enables – they start to centralize power, they start to look at women and start to want to gather them up in a quasi harem that’s circling around them. And in our society, that quasi harem is essentially the woman’s vote. This is what is happening. Our politicians, our male politicians who have achieved their power through male disposability, they have come to the point where they want to have a harem. It’s a psychological harem of female voter approval, but it’s still a harem. A lot of people say the huge thing about sex is getting approval. Well, what is voting but approval?” GirlWritesWhat: “Single women are more likely to vote Democrat, and married women are more likely to vote Republican. And its because single women want to protect their entitlements, and married women want to protect their husband’s ability to provide for them." The Apexual sees all male-bodied-individuals below itself in the hierarchy as pawns to sacrifice in its attempt to rise within the hierarchy. While it identifies with the status of the male-bodied-individuals above it, the male-bodied-individuals inhabiting those positions of greater status are merely objects to be removed. In that sense, the Apexual shares no identity with other male-bodied-individuals, but a desire to see them as tools to its own advancement in the hierarchy. And those male-bodied-individuals who either don't have power in the hierarchy or are useless to assist other male-bodied-individuals within the hierarchy – they are treated as pariahs, as untouchables, by the Apexuals, by the hierarchy, and often by male-bodied-individuals in exactly the same position. Also: GendErratic: MRAs, PUAs, MGTOWs, and How the MRM Is Not a Monolith "Now they're staying single, working fewer hours, and barely paying any taxes!" "The collective/social-approval definition of male identity is: a man who is of service to, of utility to, or sacrifices on behalf of the collective, of high-status males, and most commonly, of women. Male social identity depends on the collective approval of women. Zeta Masculinity rejects all of that... something we absolutely need is male self identity apart from the disposable service to other people." This sounds a lot like someone revolting against nature, desperate to cling to ideology in an attempt to overcome responsibility. Here are a few great videos by a guy on Youtube that deconstructs this subect quite well...

This idea started out as a legitimate cause, as the "Men's Rights Movement" (MRM) to combat against the Feminist "anti-male" culture we see all around us these days, but just recently this movement has been corrupted by the same forces that corrupted the early (and just as legitimate) "Women's Rights Movement", which morphed into radical Feminism. These MRM's have invented a new philosophy of "Men Going Their Own Way" (MGTOW), where they have had it with women, and the traditional family structure. Similar to how Feminists see their roles as mothers (nurturer, and caregiver) as some sort of servitude, men see their roles as fathers (protector, provider) as servitude. They have begun to be taken over by the Marxian theory of an oppressed class, and instead of setting things in the balance, to get men and women to once again work together to better serve their children and society, they would rather "go their own way", and forget about it. Many of the MGTOW's argue for the state (many are Communist/Socialist sympathizers), but just like Feminists, they want the state to fund what they, as men, want and desire, even at the expense of women and children. I see some dark days ahead for civilization, and especially children. If women and men continue to remain divisive by such ideologies, the West (and perhaps all of humanity) is doomed. These ideologies, whether radical feminism or radical MGTOW, is radical individualism, and a revolt against nature.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55ml0ZkqiyE&list=UU78KYdESj2xvU1Qzu fCXK2A&index=1 LMFAO!

BGI Cognitive Genomics Lab: Proposal for Gene-Trait Association Study of g: https://www.cog-genomics.org/static/pdf/bgi_g_proposal.pdf BGI Cognitive Genomics has been researching the Gene-Trait for g (intelligence) for quite some time now, and it will publish its study in a few months!!! For more information, here is their website: https://www.cog-genomics.org/faq/

You know it's true.

I do think a point worth mentioning is that Conservatism (and even popular Libertarianism to some extent) has typically been associated with Christianity/Traditionalism/Fundamentalism by popular culture, therefore the new Atheists may feel obligated to be a counter to those social and political ideas as well, because of that association.

We like to call them "ATHEISTKULT". They are mostly based on the internet, particularly on the forum 'Atheism Plus', and they consider themselves a movement, of social and political means. Their manifesto goes a little like this... “We are… Atheists plus we care about social justice, Atheists plus we care about economic equality, Atheists plus we support women’s rights, Atheists plus we protest racism, Atheists plus we fight homophobia and transphobia, Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism.” It reminds me of what Nietzsche said... "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. Yet his shadow still looms. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?" —Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section 125 So skeptical these Atheists are, yet ever so religious, not much different to the Christians they enjoy teasing so much. For them; God may be 'dead', yet his shadow still looms, over them all.

I would like to think that had Neanderthals not gone extinct, we'd be an intergalactic species by now.

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Dgm8zeGqb4] It is not a coincidence that the relative achievement of a group of people correlates strongly with its percentage of Neanderthal DNA. Africans have little to know Neanderthal DNA East-Asians have about 2.5% on average. Caucasians have about 3.5% on average. "Outnumbered 10-1, Neanderthals weren't hunted to extinction by a supposedly superiour species, they were bred out, genetically swamped." Should we not have an obligation to protect and preserve our Neanderthal DNA?

'Political elite'? Thomas Wayne (Bruce's father) was an entrepreneur, industrialist, surgeon, and philanthropist. He was not a politician, or had any direct connection to politics (at least not in this film series). Thanks for ignoring all of my other points.

It's not the problem of the film for what the real world is. At least the film is posing the question. This is a pathetic criticism on your part. And it seems you once again display your ignorance of the themes in the film. Batman's decision to lie to the people at the end of the film can be seen as heroic, or cowardly. But what we know is that by the next film, Gotham has turned into a corrupt police state, and personal responsibility is frowned upon, hence the police chasing Batman when he comes back, because Batman represents personal responsibility. Bruce is quite explicit throughout the series that him being Batman was meant to INSPIRE people to be better, and to take personal responsibility. He is meant as a symbol. Politically connected? The only direct connection Batman has is to Gordon, and that is because Gordon is seen as the most honest and good cop in a corrupt system. A few bits of dialogue from the series points this out explicitly... When he is talking to Harvey Dent, Dent exposes the corrupt 'scum' working in Gordon's department, and Gordon says "If I didn't work with cops you investigated while you were making your name at I.A. I'd be working alone. I don't get political points for being an idealist, I have to do the best I can with what I have" Also, during his interrogation with the Joker, figuring out who kidnapped Harvey, The Joker responds, "Who did you leave him with? Your people? Assuming, of course, they are still *your* people, and not Maroni's. Does it depress you, commissioner? To know just how alone you really are? Does it make you feel responsible for Harvey Dent's current predicament?" And then later on, after Bane reveals the lie that Gordon kept about Harvey being a good man, he says to Blake, "There's a point, far out there when the structures fail you, and the rules aren't weapons anymore, they're... shackles, letting the bad guy get ahead. One day... you may face such a moment of crisis. And in that moment, I hope you have a friend like I did, to plunge their hands into the filth so that you can keep yours clean" The 'filth' he is referring to is indeed the corrupt state that he has had to work with all this time. He has had enough of the system, and soon after the events of the film, quits. The same can be said for Blake, who is a rookie cop that takes what Gordon told him, and quits himself, because the "STRUCTUES HAVE BECOME SHACKLES". Thus we have Blake, an individual, who RISES to take on personal responsibility.

Sounds like the same pitch the state gives for every tax they levy. It's just short-term, only temporary, and the consequences of NOT doing it would be DIRE! Well, to be fair, Batman doesn't use the system again in this film. It is destroyed. I think it poses good ethical questions to the audience, if they think such a sacrafice of privacy is worth it.

An indie romance film starring Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams. Very honest, and incredibly authentic. I think Stef and the gang would enjoy it because it does emphasize the themes of love and family, and all the realities (for better or worse) of those two subjects. The performances from Gosling and Williams are just magnificently complex and nuanced. ***SPOILER ALERT*** What's interesting about the film is how it presents the relationship. It juxtaposes the relationship as it begins (with the two falling in love) and then as it ends (with the two struggling through marriage and falling out of love.) It's up for the audience to decide which parent is the real catalyst of the break-up, but it could go either way. What's important is that it emphasizes THEIR failure as lovers and parents, where their daughter is the innocent victim. It's not an abusive relationship though, it's just an extremely troubled one.

Keep in mind that Bruce Wayne/Batman is not written in this series to be a perfect character, but one that makes difficult ethical choices we can critique. The surveillance system bit in The Dark Knight was an obvious commentary on The Patriot Act (and 'big brother' in general). Here is the diaglogue between Batman and Lucius in that scene the system is introduced... Batman: Beautiful, isn't it? Lucius Fox: Beautiful... unethical... dangerous. You've turned every cellphone in Gotham into a microphone. Batman: And a high-frequency generator-receiver. Lucius Fox: You took my sonar concept and applied it to every phone in the city. With half the city feeding you sonar, you can image all of Gotham. This is *wrong*. Batman: I've gotta find this man, Lucius. Lucius Fox: At what cost? Batman: The database is null-key encrypted. It can only be accessed by one person. Lucius Fox: This is too much power for one person. Batman: That's why I gave it to you. Only you can use it. Lucius Fox: Spying on 30 million people isn't part of my job description. If you remember, Lucius only conceds if Bruce promises to destroy the system after using it for this single time. That whole plot point is meant to pose ethical questions to the mainstream audience, whom probably have not thought about the subject before. I don't think it was promoting the idea. Actually, that department had been shut down before Bruce even became Batman, as Lucius Fox informs him in the first film. All those weapons and defensive technologies were just sitting in that warehouse for him to use. Actually, I do believe basic supplies were given to them, either through Bane himself or by the cops still in the city. Bane applied the same torture to them as he did to Bruce, he allowed them to live, but they must live to see their beloved city die. Also, while they were out-weaponed by Bane's army, they did still have some weapons. But I honestly see the cops in that particular situation as rather heroic, because they are sort of 'cut-off' from the state, and are really just desperately fighting for their lives and city at that point, which I find admirable. This is actually a great theme of a 'loss of innocence' that is paralleled by Bane/Talia. I think Talia's place in the film is to finalize the developed theme of "revenge through anger". Early on Bruce was angered because his parents were taken from him, and he allowed that anger to get the better of him. He overcame that anger, and he molded himself into an icon that would fight for good - what his parents stood for. Talia on the other hand had her parents taken from her (she of course blames Bruce for "killing" her father) and she has allowed the anger to do its way with her. Of course, she did not have the same father that Bruce did, she did not have the same parental philosophy and mindset to inspire her to do good in the most appropriate of ways. Although, I am sure she loved her father, and he loved her - they are human after all. Talia and Bruce are fighting for their respective father's philosophy. She is fighting to bring peace byway of destroying Gotham, and Bruce is fighting to bring peace byway of saving it. So I think both Talia and Bane parallel Bruce, but Talia is more directly a parallel to the personal anger Bruce had over his parents' death, while Bane is a parallel to Bruce's fear and psychological journey from childhood to an adult and how that molded him into the person he is today, and what he becomes (Batman). "Oh, you think darkness is your ally. But you merely adopted the dark; I was born in it, moulded by it. I didn't see the light until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but BLINDING!" - Bane Bane had been born in "darkness", and therefore Ras could take advantage of him. Bane had succumbed to this darkness, this belief in fear, that it had consumed him. He had allowed Ras' psychotic philosophy get the better of him. Bane did not climb out of the pit himself, but rather Ras brought him out. By the time Bane saw the light, it was blinding to him. Bruce on the other hand was born into the light (a loving family, particularly his father), and he had that light taken from him by the darkness. Ras once again attempts to take advantage of this, to seduce Bruce. Bruce of course takes inspiration from his father, and this develops over the course of the series. Any time Bruce does something morally questionable, I see it as Ras as the devil on his shoulder. His conflict in the prison was when he finally overcame that fear, and that darkness. He conquers it, and rises above it. Ras is essentially like a father figure to both Bruce and Bane. Both of them have their own childhood, and their own biological fathers, but Ras attempted to replace those figures with himself. Talia/Bane is exactly what could have become of Bruce had he let his anger/fear get the better of him. Talia = Bruce's anger Bane = Bruce's fear And John Blake's words on this loss of innocence, when talking to Bruce, really does say everything necessary, "Not a lot of people know what it feels like to be angry, in your bones. I mean, they understand, foster parents, everybody understands, for awhile. Then they want the angry little kid to do something he knows he can't do... move on. So after awhile they stop understanding. They send the angry kid to a boy's home. I figured it out too late. You gotta learn to hide the anger, practice smiling in the mirror. It's like putting on a mask."

Regarding the politics of the film, I interpret it as a Classically Liberal, or Libertarian film. The villain, Bane, seems to be a Marxist-esque Revolutionary, similar to Che Guevara, seducing the people of Gotham (particularly the lower/middle classes) with collectivist rhetoric, to revolt against the higher classes, and to take the city back for themselves, as it belongs to 'the people'. So Bane's rhetoric does seem to parallel Marxism, as he wants to... a) Smash the state b) Eat the rich c) Make everyone 'equal' d) Give Gotham to 'the people', so it belongs to everyone (destruction of private property) It seems that Nolan predicted the 'Occupy' movement that happened across America, which had similar values (although not as radical, and sometimes convoluted and confused in its message). The screenplay was written before occupy was a big thing, but the parallels are there. For instance, when Bane takes over Gotham, many take to his message and begin to ransack the homes of wealthy people. One particular scene has them ransacking a home, where Catwoman says "This was someone's home." To which her friend responds, "Now its everyone's home." However, what makes Bane's intentions interesting is his understanding of its purpose, as he concedes in the Pit when talking to Bruce, "I learned here that there can be no true despair without hope. So, as I terrorize Gotham, I will feed its people hope to poison their souls. I will let them believe they can survive so that you can watch them clamoring over each other to "stay in the sun." Bane has a bomb which he plans to destroy Gotham with, but he knows that this society for which he has created in Gotham is unsustainable, and will find that the people themselves will destroy each other, before the bomb is even necessary. However, the bomb still has its designated time for which to explode, and this bomb is very much a metaphor for the inevitable result of such a Marxist society... destruction... it is like a "ticking time bomb" so to speak. However, while the film does characterize Marxism as 'bad', this does not mean that the film panders to the 'status quo' of America's statism, it is not so black-and-white. This theme can be seen in the characters of Gordon and John Blake, two good cops that are part of a system that undermines justice, it is corrupt, and they come to realize this. As this dialogue between Gordon and Blake suggests... John Blake: Those men locked up for eight years in Blackgate, and denied parole under the Dent Act, based on a lie? Jim Gordon: Gotham needed a hero... John Blake: It needs it now more than ever. You betrayed everything you stood for. Jim Gordon: There's a point, far out there when the structures fail you, and the rules aren't weapons anymore, they're... shackles letting the bad guy get ahead. One day... you may face such a moment of crisis. And in that moment, I hope you have a friend like I did, to plunge their hands into the filth so that you can keep yours clean! John Blake: Your hands look plenty filthy to me, Commissioner. This is in reference to the Dent Act, which essentially turned Gotham into a police state, founded upon a lie. Gordon was frustrated with this lie, and this is seen with his struggle to come to grips with his own inclusion in it. He has succumbed to the corrupt system. Bruce has been a recluse for 8 years, hiding within the walls of his home, because no one seemed to need Batman anymore, they just relied on the state to 'protect' them. I see Bruce's 'imprisonment' within his home as a parallel to the 'imprisonment' of Gotham's people within the walls of the state. As Bruce says in Batman Begins, "People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy". The people of Gotham had become apathetic. Batman represents personal responsibility, not reliance, not cowardice. Bruce gave up, and hid away in his home. Gotham gave up, and relied on the state. Personal responsibility gave up. But then Batman comes back, as Bruce once again finds the strength to fight for Gotham. At the end of this whole debacle, we see a tattered American flag, and a 'civil war' of sorts between the 'state' and 'the people' (whom have been taken in by Bane's Marxist philosophy), while Batman, Gordon, and Blake are caught in the middle of this war. Bruce ends his term as Batman, Gordon ends up resigning as Commisioner, and John Blake quits the force (he throws away his badge in frustration). Blake no longer wants to be part of such a system, one that undermines liberty, and justice. He sees the state for what it truly is... servitude. So while Bane was right in that the state (Gotham) is corrupt, and that injustice is prevalent within it, his intentions and solution were no better. At the end of the film, Gordon asks John Blake if he will coming back to the police force, but he declines, and responds, "You were right, about the structures becoming shackles, and I can't take it... the injustice." Blake, on the other hand, understands what is needed, he understands that individual liberty is what is most important. He takes up the role of 'Batman' (personal responsibility), and RISES, as an individual, taking actions into his own hands; not because he must, but because he can. As Batman, he symbolizes personal responsibility, and he is to inspire people to be better. But of course, 'Batman' is not meant to inspire people to put on a cowl and become a vigilante, that would be much too literal of an interpretation. In the previous film, The Dark Knight, a number of people do 'copy-cat' Batman, and Bruce says "That's not what I had in mind when I said I wanted to inspire people". Batman is meant to be a symbol for people to be good, to take personal responsibility. So Blake becoming Batman shouldn't be seen a literally him becoming the vigilante detective, but him maintaining that symbol of good, and personal responsibility, to keep that torch aflame. And as Bruce says in Batman Begins, "As a man I'm flesh and blood, I can be ignored, I can be destroyed, but as a symbol, as a symbol I can be incorruptible, I can be everlasting"