laowai Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Did you know that feminists used to go around pinning white feathers on men as a way to guilt and shame them into going to war? They participated in pre-meditated hate campaigns aimed at young boys and men that simply beggar belief. These are the same women who also claimed to be the so called 'suffragettes' vying for womens rights. http://antimisandry.com/article-comments/48536.htm http://antimisandry.com/chit-chat-main/58815.htm And they are making a movie about this- yet I bet they conveniently forget to add the part about placing whites feathers on 'cowardly' men. http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/05/meryl-streep-backlash-suffragette-t-shirt-slogan
neeeel Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 I dont see why people would have a problem with this. Its just ostracism, after all
Wuzzums Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 I don't know how accurate is to put suffragettes and the white feather campaign under the banner of feminism. The 3 were separate movements after all. It's brilliant how feminism managed to co-opt all these movements to the point when we in the present think every movement is a feminist movement. Like atheism, they co-opted it and now it's atheism+. Or the universal suffrage movement which of course was co-opted and now we refer to it as the "suffragettes movement". Or how feminism is trying to co-opt the men's right movement by equating feminism with human rights and implicitly men's rights. It's like a virus that slowly replaces its host in order to get the credit for their achievements.
NotDarkYet Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 I dont see why people would have a problem with this. Its just ostracism, after all Sure, it's not violence. But are you indifferent to all acts that aren't violence? Convincing somebody to go die, and to go kill - -pretty sure we can't call this ok, right?
Donnadogsoth Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Sure, it's not violence. But are you indifferent to all acts that aren't violence? Convincing somebody to go die, and to go kill - -pretty sure we can't call this ok, right? Some people are vulnerable enough that a single person telling them to suicide would lead them to do it. There are some here that would think that that's "righteous". 1
neeeel Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Sure, it's not violence. But are you indifferent to all acts that aren't violence? Convincing somebody to go die, and to go kill - -pretty sure we can't call this ok, right? so ostracism is only ok in certain circumstances? what circumstances is it ok in?
Wuzzums Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Some people are vulnerable enough that a single person telling them to suicide would lead them to do it. There are some here that would think that that's "righteous". Sure, it's not violence. But are you indifferent to all acts that aren't violence? Convincing somebody to go die, and to go kill - -pretty sure we can't call this ok, right? If we watch our language towards vulnerable people lest they kill themselves are we really doing them a favor or are we actively participating in enforcing their vulnerability? The only way they can toughen themselves up is by being exposed to adversity maybe in a gradual fashion. It's about the male and female approach to nurture. Women tend to protect their young from the world, men tend to toughen their young for the world. A balance has to be met because an extreme in either situation will lead to a failure to thrive. This is why in a group women tend to constantly compliment each other and men constantly insult each other. Failing to reciprocate in either group will lead to ostracism. The white feather campaign is like the mother of all shit-tests. If you don't enroll it means you're weak and cowardly for not fighting for your country thus women won't go out with you. If you do enroll it means you're weak and cowardly for being so easily influenced by a feather thus women won't go out with you. Catch-22.
Mister Mister Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Some people are vulnerable enough that a single person telling them to suicide would lead them to do it. There are some here that would think that that's "righteous". Not sure I want to let you hijack another thread, but I have to point out you're making the common fallacy towards libertarianism, that a lack of violent force towards something is approval of the action. Telling someone to commit suicide is clearly verbal abuse. It is not righteous or virtuous in any sense, but I'm not sure we can then use legal force against that person, as they are not responsible for the other's death in the same way a murderer is. Similarly, saying mean things to black people, or using heroine are not "righteous" I don't support those behaviors in any way, I'm just not willing to point guns to peoples' heads to prevent them from doing things I disagree with. I hope that clarifies things for you, though you seem to me to have an aversion to clear language.
Mister Mister Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 so ostracism is only ok in certain circumstances? what circumstances is it ok in? you're making the same mistake as Donnadogsoth. Those women didn't necessarily commit a crime per se, but that doesn't mean we can't vehemently criticize their behavior. In the same way if someone ostracized a person for being homosexual, they haven't initiated force or fraud, but I can still criticize them for being cruel and bigoted and irrational.
Recommended Posts