1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna

Anonymous asked:

I'm a liberal. Here, anonymously, free of the Dictatorless Dystopia and threat of social punishment, I can exclusively confirm you guys come off as huge jerks.

Is this about MRAs?

Anon-kun, honey, I am not an MRA.  I am an MRA sympathizer and Feminism sympathizer.

And as for the MRAs, of course they will come off as jerks - their ability to get any resources has been made dependent on showing that men have it as bad/worse than women, because they are constantly shut down for “WELL WOMEN HAVE IT WORSE” which implicitly ends with a very sexist “therefore your problems don’t matter and no resources should be devoted to addressing them.”  (And resources have been denied IRL from attempts to address those problems.)

Look, you can either have a movement which actually attempts to resolve all gender issues for real and does not dismiss them because they are coming from “oppressors,” accurately realizing just how bound up together the knot of gender is, or you can have a movement which focuses exclusively on the issues of women.  You can’t have both.  You tried to have both, and that’s what got you MRAs.

I would also like to suggest cutting back on some of the demonization.  For instance, there was an “MRAs Hate Mad Max: Fury Road!” article circulating about. I went looking in places where I previously saw MRAs gather, and they were all baffled by it, because none of them hated Fury Road.  

The group that would have disliked it are the r/theredpill types (warning: r/theredpill has lots of actual misogyny, I cannot stand to read it), who are not the same group, but which there is a propaganda advantage to conflating with MRAs, who threaten feminism’s monopoly on the non-trad gender discourse.

A majority of MRAs could still be demobilized if Feminism were BETTER.  That won’t happen, because Feminism not being better is how MRAs came to exist in the first place, and the forces that caused that haven’t been corrected, so in fact we’re just going to see more MRAs created.

Yes, that’s right, Anon-dear.  More MRAs.


As for GamerGate - have you ever heard of something called the GNAA?  Professional troll groups were trollin’ like there was no tomorrow, and GGers were also receiving death threats, questionable mail, etc.  The whole thing didn’t really explode until all the “LOL GAMERS ARE DEAD” articles came out.

Might I suggest not engaging in an attempted cultural takeover that involves kicking the original demographic out of their own subculture, which is exactly what those articles were.  Everyone knows that if the target weren’t predominantly white, low-status males that wouldn’t have flown.  

The transition of GGers to further right-wing has been interpreted as evidence that they were vile oppressors all along, but actually the causality is the other way around.  An opening was created for them to become disillusioned and more right-wing by the situation, the callouts, what many felt was a misrepresentation of themselves in the MSM, and so on.  


There are two other groups this anon could be about.

Nationalists - Who, like the bean counters that keep corporations afloat, will always be perceived as villains by some because they are the ones on whom responsibility for buzzkilling various liberal projects falls.

Rationalists - I don’t really qualify as one, though I probably qualify as -adjacent.

gender politics
bambamramfan
bambamramfan

SSC’s latest seems like a classic case of letting gender politics obfuscate power and class issues that cut across gender.

He quotes some PUA:

Polyamory — multiple and simultaneous sexual relationships — means, in practice, a few high value dudes hording all the pussy.

And then he uses both his intuitive experience and his LW survey data to show that men and women in polyamory date about the same number of people. There’s at least no clear cut numerical advantage to men. My experience also agrees.

But what if we neuter that sentence, and look at it again:

Polyamory — multiple and simultaneous sexual relationships — means, in practice, a few high value people dudes hording all the dates.

Which is to say, charismatic and confident people of either gender, dating a lot of people, and awkward and introverted people of both genders dating no one, only one person, or being a hanger on in a larger polycule that doesn’t get a lot of attention from the partner regardless.

That sounds… less implausible. It doesn’t exactly match my observed experience, but it’s not super far from it either. I’ve certainly seen in nerdy groups a Queen Bee that is dating half the men, in a way that seems parallel to the alpha-males that PUA’s fear/worship.

It’s not at all clear that this is bad. This seems just as likely to be the result of “some people want more partners, and are more socially outgoing to find them, while some people want less or are less willing to put themselves out there to meet them,” which would be fine. Or it could be this high-value thing. (I detest rat-tumb’s focus on high-status-males as the evil beneficiary of social engineering, which seems both empirically and ontologically unsound, but from a capitalist-critical perspective, “liberalizing trade regimes” often means “the rich people get more stuff and poor people somehow have less.”)

But, I’m also not going to be surprised by the subjective perspective of people low on the social totem pole. Before, they had hope in this pigeon-hole thing, where each person could get at most one partner, so eventually the people as attractive as them would realize their best chance for a life long relationship was with fellow low-class dates like themselves. It was a bad model, but I’m aware people believed in it. Now they worry no one will be left waiting for them, and they’ll be entirely alone forever. So there’s some people who seem to be having a lot of sex (stealing their jouissance) and they aren’t reaping the benefits.

The answers they come up with are usually dumb, but they are at least seeing/feeling a thing.

mitigatedchaos

Bambam honey darling kun, and also @slatestarscratchpad friend,

I love weird nerds but weird nerds aren’t a representative sample for the behavior of typical relationship norms.

A better example for normies applying this would be all the other countries, territories and communities where polygamy is practiced, as well as communities within the US where one man will have 11 kids by 8 different women.

No full poly until Tranhumanism makes it possible to ‘defect’ from both your sex and sexual orientation, pls.

gender politics
the-grey-tribe
The unfortunate reality is that some of the MRA’s claims are undoubtedly true and deserve serious consideration, yet the overall picture presented to the audience is erroneous at best and outright disingenuous at worst. While men’s issues require genuine advocacy, the heroes of this pathetic diatribe tend to be rather unsavory characters.

http://thelinfieldreview.com/20367/archive/opinion/choking-on-the-red-pill/

(via the-grey-tribe)
If only there were some organization for gender equality that could have addressed these problems before a new group like “MRAs” formed… maybe a movement that said very many times that it is about gender equality…
gender politics uncharitable
argumate

Anonymous asked:

What do you think is the rationality community's fatal flaw? I want to hear yours before you hear mine, so as not to influence your thinking

argumate answered:

I’m not sure if it makes sense to talk about communities having fatal flaws, and I’m not actually involved in this community, so I couldn’t really say.

mitigatedchaos

Argumate’s too polite, but I’ll give you a flaw, Anon. Right as I’m about to sleep.

There’s sort of a “can’t see the forest for the trees” thing, where they aren’t always modelling the collective effects of individual behavior.

1. Polygamy. A lot of them identify as polyamorous. I wouldn’t be surprised if many of them support legalizing polygamy. However, the effect of a bunch of weird nerds doing this, many of whom are literally some degree of autistic, is very different from what happens if it become normalized at the level of society. Effects like child brides and poor mental health outcomes for women and children.

2. FGM. FGM isn’t the only one like this. The effects of immigration are non-linear, and depend on the cohesiveness and size of the group. If you have no community, you must integrate. That changes at n=2, n=4, n=20, n=150, etc. So it becomes possible for a practice like FGM to reach the US and have an underground ring.

Whatever error is responsible for both of these, that’s the fatal flaw.

politics gender politics meta community
bambamramfan

Sexism and Objectification

bambamramfan

Tumblrites are talking about how men rarely feel objectified, both the negative and positive parts of that, so I thought now was a good time to post my essay on men and women, subjects and objected.

Keep reading

mitigatedchaos

Back when I kept my eyes on MRAs, they called this hyperagency/hypoagency. (Outside of them, there is an idea of “hypermasculinity” applied to black people, but I don’t know the details.) It likely originates in the biological expendability of men as compared to women in terms of being a population bottleneck.

Regardless, because the MRM is a reaction to Feminism and Traditionalism (and could be considered a rogue school of Feminism), it can incorporate these ideas. A high quality MRA is thus often more clueful about gender equality than the median Feminist. Low quality MRAs not so much.

gender politics

“Oh yeah, well if MEN got pregnant…”

Honey, if men* got pregnant, the entire evolutionary balance of our species, including reproductive strategies, would be wildly different.  You aren’t just talking about a world where the dialogue on abortion has shifted (and there are plenty of pro-life women), you’re talking about redefining the entirety of human history and social organization.

The forms of organization are themselves dependent on just how the mechanics work!  There is a tacit admission of this in the original, but it doesn’t go anywhere near far enough.  Is it random?  Do men always bear the child?  Sometimes?  For part of the cycle but not the whole?

And it doesn’t end there.  Men would be shaped differently.  Men would be sized differently.  Women have fat deposits on their bodies because making human babies is so ludicrously expensive that preparations need to be made beforehand in pre-modern societies.  Men are in part organized the way they are because they are more expendable biologically.  Higher risk/higher reward.

If men got pregnant, then that goes away.  The changes would be so drastic that they could not be called men anymore.

(*in the classical sense the kind of people that make this comment use, since otherwise they wouldn’t be be making this comment in the first place)

gender politics transphobia cw