- 1 year
Part of the issue is that online, it’s often hard to tell the difference between someone who is genuinely asking questions and someone who is asking questions in bad faith. The (relative) anonymity between people is definitely a hindrance here, you can often not easily tell if the person you’re talking to is 15 or 30.
- 1 year
Tbh, if someone is asking questions, that’s (kind of) already a good sign - even if in bad faith, at least it gives space for expressing an opposing viewpoint instead of just closing off all the discussion with insults and attacks.
- 1 year
I’m definitely not a fan of insults etc. - at worst, I’d just report it. The issue is that some of these bad faith posts are made by rightwing political activists, those aren’t in any way willing to change their point of view and are just binding resources that could be used elsewhere more productively. And if a community is targeted by those types, they can easily destroy it by posting so much that they dominate the feeds.
- 1 year
Could you give me an example of this asking questions in bad faith? I’ve heard it before but I just can’t wrap my head around what it means. Questions are questions and answers are answers. I’m of the opinion that unless it’s in private messages, even answering troll questions with earnest is useful as public comments have an audience.
- 1 year
If it were obvious from a single example, it wouldn’t work. The goal of bad faith discussion is to make the other party engage in good faith, and they won’t do that unless they think you’re also acting in good faith. Once they’re engaging, you can do things like waste loads of their time (it takes much less time to spout some dumb bullshit than explain why it’s dumb bullshit), persuade bystanders that you’re right by arguing with more logical fallacies and unreliable sources than they can point out, and make it look like they’re being unreasonable by sealioning.
- theparadox@lemmy.worldEnglish1 year
Once they’re engaging, you can do things like waste loads of their time (it takes much less time to spout solve dumb bullshit than explain why it’s dumb bullshit), persuade bystanders that you’re right by arguing with more logical fallacies and unreliable sources than they can point out, and make it look like they’re being unreasonable by sealioning.
Bad faith debate/discussion is something I see more and more from the right. It seems that they’ve now grown an entire ecosystem that can manufacture plausible support for anything they might need to get what they want.
General or scientific consensus on a topic? The consensus is just greedy establishment types trying to maintain funding - a conspiracy. Why else would we have a number of scientific papers/books/academic works from think-tanks with generic, helpful-sounding names brave enough to publish opinions that are contrary to the alleged consensus? We’ve even had success lawsuits strategically worded and filed strategically in specific districts, decided in our favor by judges we recommended!
- 1 year
“I’m just asking the question” has become popular with various groups that don’t have counter-facts. Instead, they couch statements as questions or use them to chip away at opposing, reasonable arguments. No answer to the question (other than the one they intended) will ever be accepted, and facts will just raise more questions or moved goalposts. Then, when these people finally get shut down or yelled at for being jackasses, they claim persecution.
It was a VERY popular tactic with anti-vaxxers or pro-Russians on social media before Facebook etc became mostly a bot-populated desert.
- 1 year
Yeah, let’s put a label on it because we really have to smear someone somehow. I think the messaging must have gone right over your head.
1 yearNo.
They’re making a summary of distinctions made by a good deal of academics.
You are just unaware of these as pre-existing terms, so you think this person is the first person to put an adjective in front of feminism.
They are not.
- 1 year
Yes, I’m smearing Liberals.
What the person did there blaming kids to be inherently bad is a classic example of reactionary politics which Liberals specialise in plus given the history of liberal feminism particulalry in the US, I dont get why you’re offended.
Other aspects of Liberal femnism include:
- Thinking only specific cultures are enlightened enough to do feminism because other cultures might be “barbaric”
- Disdain for the working women who do menial jobs(prevelant in my country)
- Savarna Femnisim(upper caste femnisim) - related to the previous point but in this instance unique to upper class caste system practionerd in the subcontinent
- Blaming people of certain communities of being misoynistic bc they didn’t vote in a war criminal - related to the first point and prevelant in you know where
Point of all that yapping isn’t just about putting in “labels”. My point was recognising the fact that without having overall class consciousness feminism is useless as that version of feminism isn’t truly universal and doesnt actually tackle conditions as to why right-wing or misogyny appears. It’s the nature versus nurture argument which itself ties in to historical materialism. Sure empathizing with nurture vis-a-vis nature is not exlcusive to Marxism, but being a reactionary in regards to these sure is a lot more prevalant. Its the same reason you hear “Palestinians are inherently antisemitic” argument over and over again from imperial core liberals.
Yhank you for listening to my TED talk.
Sincerely,
Person who you will most certainly call an insane tankie for having the most milquetoast lefty opinion.
So this is clearly personal to many people in this thread but I’m just going to point out objectively and non judgementally that Vaush and other participants misrepresent the argumemt made by the original poster.
The original poster specifically refers to men. Vaush’s response either intentionally or unintentionally responds to to an argument not made by the original poster by referring to 12 year old boys.
This is actually fairly low level discourse because the entire reply chain is responding to a strawman. If anyone has any further insight I’d be happy to hear it. I think we need to elevate our reading comprehension if we’re going to have meaningful conversations about this.
- 1 year
Young boys see comments directed at men as being directed at themselves as well. The foundations of the things that make a man buy into this shit are laid when he’s young. I think it’s quite valid to bring this up.
An adult man doesn’t just join the Andrew Tate crowd. The foundations for agreeing with his misogyny were laid while he was a teenager (or even younger). The people who are alienated by this sort of rhetoric aren’t adults, they’re teenagers who haven’t formed a political identity yet, who can yet be turned away from that self-destructive ideology and it is them who are turned away by such rhetoric.
The term “man” may by all of us be seen only to refer to males over the age of 18, but a teenage boy will already identify with it, will thinks of himself as cool, independent, grown-up. He will see an attack on “men” as an attack on himself.
While the targeted group may have been adult men, the actual targets will have been the twelve y/o Vaush spoke off and they will be driven further away from the principles of democracy and equality and into the hands of waiting fascists.
Post Scriptum
This isn’t supposed to be a defence of Vaush btw, I don’t really like him myself.
- 1 year
I figure that the assumption being made is that the alt-right social media pipeline is generally accepted to refer to the online ecosystem that was created to court impressionable young boys from the ages of 12-25 into the rightwing and then extreme rightwing ecosystem. And though Men’s Rights Activists is more broad and could be considered a choice, it is the younger demographic that are the ones “falling in”, and that’s where I imagine Vaush clarified that with saying “12 y.o.s”.
Older folks entering involuntarily, would have been through other media like Rush Limbaugh-style AM radio, Fox News or other Republican campaigns directly like Project Redmap in 2010, then those Republican groups shifted even further right over the last 15 years.
Perhaps the correlation that 12 year olds are the ones falling in even if others are doing it by choice, should have been explained by Vaush before jumping directly to the conclusion.
Sidenote: The problem is caused by the difficulty to have nuanced arguments within 150 characters. (The first two Twitter screencaps)
The last bit really speaks to me. “So they want a cookie for basic behavior??” YES THEY’RE CHILDREN. COOKIES ARE THE DRIVING MARKET FORCE IN PRETEENS. GIVE THE KID THE DAMN COOKIE.
- 1 year
Username definitely checks out and is so very wholesome. I picture you baking your own cookies and sitting down after a long day with one saying “I deserve this” and you absolutely do!
- 1 year
God damn this hits hard. I was seriously in danger of falling down that hole as a kid, because kids are stupid and the right talks confidently and ad naseum. Also my father wasn’t exactly a stalwart of progressive ideals. I’m so very thankful for being a Mama’s boy, she is probably the reason I’m not the typical chud I look like.
With that being said, this is also a societal problem when so many parents offload their parenting to the web. And I say societal because it is not often times not the parent’s fault as having to work extended hours or multiple jobs just to provide the necessities.
It’s really a feature, not a flaw, of the right’s long term plan. Stupid people vote for stupid things.
- 1 year
I like anarchy because I can trace a short line to a systemic failure in any instance
- 1 year
They hated him because he said the truth (and didn’t hand over his platform to someone “more marginalized” after one single drama).
- 1 year
If you choose not to read, the only opinions you will have on anything of importance will be the ones told to you by others.
- djsoren19@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish1 year
Big reason why I try to report and shutdown blatantly misandrist shit I see in leftist spaces. It’s not clever, it’s not funny, maybe it feels good for the person saying it but there is no difference in my eyes between a misandrist and a misogynist. Putting people down based upon intrinsic characteristics they cannot change is the exact kind of behavior done by conservatives.
- 1 year
You can hold everything that is in this post true to your heart and still understand the very real fact that misandry doesn’t exist.
changing the defenition of misandry is just as bullshit as changing the definition of antisemitism to include critism of isreal.
misandry doesnt exist for the same reason reverse racism doesnt exist. there is no system of oppression against men, there is no system of oppression against white people. and all misogyny/racism is inherently systemic.
you are confusing a personal prejudice caused by systemic mistreatment with systemic mistreatment. it is an important distinction to make.
men hating women is misogyny because men have societal power over women. women hating men due to discrimination theyve faced is just them hating their oppressors. when men receive lower salaries than women, have lower rights than women, have their bodies policed like women, are treated like objects and property like women, and are raped and murdered like women, then we can say that misandry is a real thing.
not everything is for you, not everything is about you. you can acknowledge that things and behaviors are bad without pretending they are systems of oppression. if you would prefer to quote a dictionary than actually educate yourself then thats fine, but it doesnt make it any more real.
“you being more offended by the mere implication that some of your peers can be bad than by the harm that they actually cause makes you part of the problem”
i already knew of and dismissed this exact argument before you made it. i don’t know why you thought it was a good idea to make the exact same argument and hope for a different outcome
changing the defenition of misandry is just as bullshit as changing the definition of antisemitism to include critism of isreal.
lol it’s not even an argument it is an accepted fact in academia. your misunderstanding of higher level concepts is not a valid argument against it
- 1 year
lol it’s not even an argument it is an accepted fact in academia. your misunderstanding of higher level concepts is not a valid argument against it
This whole exercise of injecting academic terms into common discourse and pretending like they’re the only “correct” definition is at least 15 years old now and has achieved nothing. Where is your victory? If a woman hates all men just for being men she’s engaging in misandry. No matter how many times you explain that a system of oppression against men is required in the definition, all you will be doing is preaching to your ever shrinking choir. That definition is only useful outside academia because certain people want to excuse bigotry, and that’s all.
There were already terms for this - the word “systemic” was already in use. Systemic racism vs racism for example. But this insistence that all of society must accept that racism is actually defined as systemic racism and racism without systemic elements simply doesn’t exist is so absurd and silly that it is has no ability to gain any mass appeal required for systemic change which is why its confined to terminally online leftists (and not even all of them).
