|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 8:13 am
There has been a growing increase in North America and Europe of silencing opposing viewpoints, some of it becoming quite violent. I'm curious to hear what AMG'ers think about this.
Please keep the discussion civil. It's perfectly fine to feel passionately one way or the other, but do so in the spirit of friendship.
Please keep on topic. I realise there is a obvious political element to this discussion, and it's fine to discuss politics as it relates to this issue, but let's not go beyond that.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 9:07 am
The recent broo-ha-ha in Berkely, California, where antifa rioters shut down a talk and discussion with Milo Yiannopoulos by lighting campus property on fire, throwing objects at buildings and people, hitting people with flagpoles and using pepper spray on bystanders, was unconscionable imho. I understand that Milo is a 'provocateur' (his own words) and some people oppose his talks, but is a violent riot the appropriate way to show one's contempt? In a free society, where people are allowed to assemble peacefully and speak their minds, why would an opposing group jeopardise their own freedom of speech by calling for bans on speakers? That is a double-edged sword that cuts both ways. Why not have a counter-argument instead of devolving into violence? If those opposed felt they had a better argument, the high ground, so to speak, why not let the their arguments be heard the next day and those listening make up their own minds?
The Berkeley riot is an escalation by zealots, who, as a general movement on the far left, have been trying to shut down or shout over speakers with whom they disagree. For example, the movie, 'The Red Pill', has met with efforts from feminists and hard-left activists trying to shut it down wherever it is shown. The concept that men have issues, too, and those need to be addressed, an idea which is heresy to hard-core feminism, has led to a coordinated effort of personal slander and throwing labels of racist, sexist, homophobic, facist, nazi, etc. to discredit people. The vast majority of these people protesting haven't even seen the movie, they are against it on the principle that men have issues. Why? Why does a documentary by a feminist journalist who went on a mission to discredit and show the absurdity of men's rights activists, but finished her investigation by coming to the conclusion that men have legitimate issues, why does it meet such fervent opposition? If the hard-core left feels they have a better argument, they can make their own documentary. Why shut it down?
European countries have been censoring news and social media to silence people who speak out against politicians and their policies, and Germany is the worst from what I have gathered. German citizens are arrested and jailed for speaking out under hate-speech laws, when whate they're saying isn't hate, it is merely an opposing position. News is censored in many European countries from reporting on crimes by migrants to silence opposition before it can even start. Why shouldn't the citizenry be informed of what is happening in their countries? Why is Geert Wilders on trial for hate-speech because he was instrumental in producing the documentary, 'Fitna'? He merely made a film that sheds light on what is happening, but it threatens the position of politicians and their policies so he is silenced? He was doing his job as an MP. He was elected to represent his area.
These are but a few of many many examples I could show, but for the sake of brevity and opening the discussion I will start with these.
Thoughts?
Opinions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 12:29 pm
 I've been in a habit lately of starting into discussions about current events and then running out of mental energy before I can finish participating, sweatdrop but to give my thoughts on this for now, I think both sides have reached a point of trying to silence each other with tactics that are not always appropriate. The alt-right and alt-left are like ever-escalating reactions to each other, and they're constantly trying to polarize everyone else into one of these absolutist camps. I wouldn't be surprised if this is being intentionally fueled by dedicated trolls (whether paid and/or recreational) in any of the numerous groups around the world who seem to be invested only in making people hate each other.
I get nervous with the phrase "The Red Pill" because of the things I've seen come out of that subreddit, and I imagine a lot of others do as well. I don't hang out in there because the few things I've seen from there seemed really more anti-women than pro-men, so it's possible there is a lot of legitimate content there that we just don't hear about. From the trailer it looks like people are latching onto the title and assuming it's that sort of hateful content, but I like that a self-identified feminist made it.
I know a lot of other feminists bristle even at things like Emma Watson's "He For She" movement, which encourages men to participate in "feminist" associated actions, like saying something when their friends make inappropriate comments about women, etc. I am thoroughly confused at this. If we as feminists say we are looking for what may essentially be termed "egalitarianism," and if we are crusading against what we refer to as "toxic masculinity" and "rape culture" (all of which I find to be useful terms in that they sum up complex ideas quite succinctly), then we have to be open to looking at the actual, serious issues facing men. Otherwise, it's just lip service that piggybacks off of REAL men's issues like depression, suicide, sexual victimization, etc., but just expects those problems to automatically go away if we get people to think more positively about women.
We (feminists) talk about how men are shamed for appearing "weak" or "feminine," and we acknowledge that it's another side of the same coin, but for some reason many of us seem to have trouble applying that knowledge in conversations with men. And the whole "misandrist" thing is a can of worms too. It can be amusing to joke about "male tears" among friends who know you're kidding, but with strangers (especially online), it's often impossible to tell if they're serious or if they're trying to be tongue-in-cheek. Same with other types of tasteless jokes (rape jokes, for instance). If one wants to make jokes like that, it's better to keep those to an audience who understands the intent; otherwise, it just encourages animosity all around.
I support boycotts and protests if people want to express opposition to controversial speakers like Milo and Anita Sarkeesian, but violence on either side of the fence is unacceptable. If we want people to stop saying things that are offensive, we need to be talking about it TOGETHER and not using silencing tactics to just force the other side into a closet. That just makes anger and hatred fester until people are literally fighting each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:31 am
Daffodil the Destroyer The alt-right and alt-left are like ever-escalating reactions to each other, and they're constantly trying to polarize everyone else into one of these absolutist camps. I wouldn't be surprised if this is being intentionally fueled by dedicated trolls (whether paid and/or recreational) in any of the numerous groups around the world who seem to be invested only in making people hate each other.
I've been on a break from everything political for about a week as it was stressing me out. Frankly I'm finding exactly what you pointed out, that too much out there is about 'everything I say is right and everyone else is wrong'. It's not productive and there is little room for compromise. Without compromise there is stale-mate. And the confrontational IRL trolling (yes, some is paid) is just making the situation worse.
Daffodil the Destroyer I get nervous with the phrase "The Red Pill" because of the things I've seen come out of that subreddit, and I imagine a lot of others do as well. I don't hang out in there because the few things I've seen from there seemed really more anti-women than pro-men, so it's possible there is a lot of legitimate content there that we just don't hear about. From the trailer it looks like people are latching onto the title and assuming it's that sort of hateful content, but I like that a self-identified feminist made it.
I've never read the political subs on reddit. I'm wondering if what you've been reading in that sub is from MGTOWs. A lot of them are anti-woman reactionaries and they drive me nuts. I surmise they're the byproduct of parents from the 'Me' generation and sadly I'm not surprised they exist. I think a lot of the whole 'intersectional' thing is a direct result of 'Me' generation parenting, the need to be an utterly unique being whose only commonality with other humans is the building blocks of life. There's nothing wrong with being one's self, but it's gone to an extreme where a lot of people have no common identity as well, and that breaks down societal cohesion.
Daffodil the Destroyer I know a lot of other feminists bristle even at things like Emma Watson's "He For She" movement, which encourages men to participate in "feminist" associated actions, like saying something when their friends make inappropriate comments about women, etc. I am thoroughly confused at this. If we as feminists say we are looking for what may essentially be termed "egalitarianism," and if we are crusading against what we refer to as "toxic masculinity" and "rape culture" (all of which I find to be useful terms in that they sum up complex ideas quite succinctly), then we have to be open to looking at the actual, serious issues facing men. Otherwise, it's just lip service that piggybacks off of REAL men's issues like depression, suicide, sexual victimization, etc., but just expects those problems to automatically go away if we get people to think more positively about women.
I dislike the term 'toxic' masculinity as much as I dislike the term 'toxic' feminism. Maybe it's the association I have with that word. Toxicity is caused by poison or venom, leads to body failure and often to death. To me it's become an overused term used to cast a different thinker in such a light as to totally discredit them, to stop a conversation without giving that idea any thought because it is lethal. But it's not just 'toxic' I find being overused to that end; Nazi, fascist, etc. seem to have wormed their way into so many discussions that people become numb to them and what they truly mean. I totally get people being passionate about their ideas and philosophy, but radical terms are pushing polite discourse off the tracks imho.
Daffodil the Destroyer I support boycotts and protests if people want to express opposition to controversial speakers like Milo and Anita Sarkeesian, but violence on either side of the fence is unacceptable. If we want people to stop saying things that are offensive, we need to be talking about it TOGETHER and not using silencing tactics to just force the other side into a closet. That just makes anger and hatred fester until people are literally fighting each other.
I completely agree. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2017 7:21 pm
I'll add my two cents...
I think a lot of this polarization is coming from the internet. The problem with that is trolling makes it difficult to know what real people are thinking and feeling about these topics. There will always be extremes on both sides, but with anonymity on the internet and no real consequences, people who just want to cause trouble are the loudest. Then the other side reacts to that extreme in what they feel to be defense of their own. So each side continues to escalate the situation. The only way to solve this is to have real people from both sides have civil discussions, but we may already be past that.
My personal view is one of nonviolence and noninterference. If people don't like something/someone from either side, and would like to peacefully protest, I'm all for it. Violence only discredits your opinions. I also feel it is non of my business what someone else is doing or believes as long as they are not a danger to myself or others. Of course this is subjective.
Freedom of speech is important and it gets dangerous when you try to censor the bad people/things in this world. I understand the temptation, but it works both ways, and that censorship can be used against you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 4:38 pm
preposterousplum The only way to solve this is to have real people from both sides have civil discussions, but we may already be past that. I'm worried about the same thing. Maybe that kind of thing needs to start small like with local meetups. I thought about trying to start one where I live but not sure if I want to have to herd those cats, lol. It's harder to be a jerk to your opponent when you have to look them in the eye, so that might be more useful than internet arguments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 6:02 pm
underground elite preposterousplum The only way to solve this is to have real people from both sides have civil discussions, but we may already be past that. I'm worried about the same thing. Maybe that kind of thing needs to start small like with local meetups. I thought about trying to start one where I live but not sure if I want to have to herd those cats, lol. It's harder to be a jerk to your opponent when you have to look them in the eye, so that might be more useful than internet arguments. I like to think that most people have some manners, but they tend to forget about them online. If people really had to talk about these things face to face and get immediate feedback on what they have to say, there could be at least some understanding, perhaps not agreement, but at least understanding. I think everyone's feeling threatened one way or another on both sides, and that isn't helping either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 6:21 pm
preposterousplum underground elite preposterousplum The only way to solve this is to have real people from both sides have civil discussions, but we may already be past that. I'm worried about the same thing. Maybe that kind of thing needs to start small like with local meetups. I thought about trying to start one where I live but not sure if I want to have to herd those cats, lol. It's harder to be a jerk to your opponent when you have to look them in the eye, so that might be more useful than internet arguments. I like to think that most people have some manners, but they tend to forget about them online. If people really had to talk about these things face to face and get immediate feedback on what they have to say, there could be at least some understanding, perhaps not agreement, but at least understanding. I think everyone's feeling threatened one way or another on both sides, and that isn't helping either. Yeah, and if you're talking to someone in person then you can hear the tone they used and maybe not assume rudeness where it wasn't intentional. It's so hard to show your tone of voice sometimes when it's just writing online. Yes to the feeling threatened too. I sure feel threatened by the right and the left sides. Both sides claim the other is using fake news or a conspiracy to get ahead and both sides are 100% sure that the other team is going to cause nuclear war. I'm just like, "Hey I'm a little person trying to make sense of things here... Uh.... I'm not sure who to listen to, so I'm just going to pretend none of this is happening." and I know that ain't gonna solve anything. classified_poo Just don't know what to do from here, yanno?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 8:01 pm
Got me seriously thinking and I came up with few concepts...
1. Education is sadly lacking. In all my years of obligatory school and then university I've only had one teacher who took care to always present us with both sides of each coin and them encouraged us to look up from the coin and see the people who are using it, or playing with it or just simply trying to survive on it. I consider myself lucky: I've yet to meet a person beside my schoolmates who also had this good fortune.
2. Coming indirectly from the first part: people are taught since childhood to listen to authority figures - may it be parents, teachers, siblings, student representatives then politicians, loved ones, church leaders and so on. They're not taught to listen and think but to obey.
Most people wish to just live happily and calmly and be safe, and fear war and dislike conflict: so the best way to make those generally calm, peace-loving people forget about what they're standing for is to build up fear that someone is going to take their security away from them - It only takes one maniac with sufficient charisma who knows how to use the language right. Try to listen to those people: the one thing in common is that they don't even see their opponents as fellow humans - it's like they're dealing with some kind of monsters or at the very least troublesome furnitures that need to be thrown out of the house...
Some come back to their senses when they see their opponents as real people, and some don't.
And of course there'll always be creeps who just want to destroy things for the pure joy of it - however generally it's a really small number: just the most visible one and the one with the most magnetic pull (because of reasoning "what a psycho I better say I'm on his side otherwise he'll crack my scull or something").
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 10:15 pm
I believe a lot of it has to do with fear. People on one side are scared that immigrants will take their jobs and or cause havoc. Others are scared that this whole anti-immigrant stance will make life harder for people of color. The problem isn't that there's nothing to be afraid of. There's plenty to be afraid of in the world. The problem is that fear makes even normally wise people reactionary & not tending to think problems through. That's why politicians love making people afraid or angry. It makes them temporarily dumber & less likely to weigh the pros and cons of voting for each candidate until they calm down. Fear can also make people clannish, sticking with familiar things and people over the unknown.
Now take scared people + the internet and you've opened a whole new can of worms...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
