= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MugaSofer comments on Can the Chain Still Hold You? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (354)
Read the reference Ozy gave.
Admittedly, this can be interpreted as sex selection of gametes and embryos, not disappearance of currently living people.
Your model of feminism is probably wrong. Feminists are varied and complicated. Some parts of feminism are completely rotten and people in them claim that all porn is rape, that rape of men doesn't matter, that no woman enjoys blowjobs. In particular, Mary Daly said some awful things about trans people, and refused male students in her classes.
Yup. Mysandry is a real thing, if rarer than the reverse. Hell, since stereotypes of men are much less likely to be challenged then those of women, it's arguably more common (on a far lower level than your examples, obviously.)
The mistake is to stereotype all "feminists" as spouting such nonsense, of course.
Hooray, I get to recommend No Seriously, What About Teh Menz? and other nifty things by Ozy Frantz.
...and zie's the only person I know of who writes about misandry without turning into a giant douche.
... is that a stealth insult?
Do you mean to Ozy? It was supposed to be praise.
Or do you mean to you? If you write about misandry, I have yet to see your writings, so I'd be hard-pressed to insult you based on them.
Or do you mean something else?
Well, I wrote a comment on it. Right there. You replied to it.
... I guess I was just imagining things, although your comment was slightly ... tangential. Such comments are rarer than those criticizing the parent. Hell, I even opened this comment by contradicting you.
... thanks for the recommendation.
Plenty of posts on The Good Men Project in general are surprisingly sane given their subject matter, too. (The comments are less good though, especially recently with the allegations of rape apology.)
I haven't seen any good ones that were about misandry specifically, but yeah, there's lot of good stuff. The series on male depression's good.
Most of the articles are fluff along the lines of "Hats are cool", though. And right now I'm just a little bit reluctant to recommend the site that published the "I raped a few people, but partying is fun so I don't mind" article.
I do see the point of publishing such articles; but unfortunately they (and I) overestimated the sanity (in the LW sense) of the readers -- see the third paragraph of “Belief as Attire”. Turns out that some of the readers are more like Alabama bar patrons than like nerds, and unfortunately there's no way of saying ‘X did Y because of Z’ to Alabama bar patrons that won't sound like ‘it was right for X to do Y’.
"Rapists justify themselves by claiming consent is complicated" goes over well all the time. "I'm a rapist, but consent is complicated so it's a risk I'm willing to take" is supposed not to go over well.
Knowing the justifications rapists use is not useless. But "I had an e-mail exchange with an anonymous rapist, and here are some quotes" would suffice, whereas "Here's an article by a person I disagree with" implies some degree of respect for the defended position.
Having a few quotes doesn't give you a full understanding of the justification. If you really want to understand the justification the article is much better for that purpose.
Meh, not really. How People Rationalize Rape Culture is Feminism 102, and the article was the same old excuses. There was one bit that wasn't drop-dead standard, where he described committing rape as a risk for him to take, rather than the potential victim, but even that is kind of an extension of "consent is hard".
What we need is insight into the actual motivations for rape, and those aren't going to be in articles written for the express purpose of making the author look good. Rudolf Hess's notebooks and his psychiatrist's rarely agree.
And even then, the editor's note should be scathing enough to compensate for the status boost of publishing his article, not a half-hearted refusal to endorse.
I defy you to reproduce such an article from your model of rapists.
I think that depends on the people in the discussion. If you discuss among high status folk where everyone agrees that all the participants of the discussion have reasonable views then there no problem to point to articles with crazy views.
If you discuss in a group where there a chance that someone actually supports the crazy view you have to be more careful.
I mostly agree with what you are saying, but I'm not sure what the phrase "high status" is intended to add. High status is not the same as "clear thinking" or "rationally weighing the evidence" - and it is dangerous to pretend otherwise.
Whether or not I'm clear thinking doesn't depend on the group in which I'm operating. The views that I can espouse do depend on my social status within the group. If I'm high status I'm not constrained to argue views that are socially accepted. I can argue views based on their intellectual merits.
Fellow members in the group will value me for arguing views based on their intellectual merits without any consideration of respecting ideas. If I'm operating in a low status enviroment it's more important to signal respect to popular ideas and disrespect to the wrong ideas.
Of course I can also say that I don't care about the approval. If I fail to give respect to the right ideas on LessWrong it won't have much bad implications for my daily life. If I'm however arguing in a sphere where the approval of other people matter, it effects the views that I can publically espouse.
The website is public and has a rather large audience. Moreover, it talks about misandry (and generally gender from a male perspective) a lot, and therefore has originally tried hard to distance itself from those who call themselves Men's Rights Activists.
Considering the article in question didn't actually defend his actions, I'm not sure why.
I either disagree or ADBOC depending on what exactly is meant by "respect". People didn't stop printing copies of Mein Kampf, did they?
Mein Kampf is a pretty good example. In many countries buying and selling it is banned except under special circumstances, or requires specific notes, or is legal if you don't look like you endorse it. The Bavarian government controls the rights, and usually forbids reprints.
Most people would certainly be very suspicious of someone distributing Mein Kampf unless they did a whole annotated song and dance about how it's an absolutely horrible book but they have a duty to preserve historical evidence, disgusting as it is. "Here's a person whose conclusions I disagree with" implies that the arguments are worthy of consideration, not just evidence about the person's psychology. As opposed to "Here's what goes on in the head of a freaking rapist ew ew".
Wasn't the point of publishing the article (and the other articles they're getting flamed over) to aknowledge the fact that rapists are not necessarily Evil Mutants?
Mein Kampf was aimed at people in Wiemar Germany, so I'm not sure it retains much persuasive power for modern, say, French.
Can't argue with you about the hats, but I'm not sure what people's problem is with publishing that article. It's not like he was defending himself, just giving useful information on how someone's life can lead them to rape despite consciously committing to the principle that Rape Is Bad. Are they worried that understanding the enemy better will force them to stop viewing people as Evil Mutants?