Nah, that’s a great essay. It gets at something I’ve struggled with, which is that when I’m arguing with a crazy asshole, I find it hard to admit any of their points are true, because I know they’ll take any admission of a single bit of evidence as proof that their whole lunatic worldview is on point.
But of course sometimes these tweakers do manage to say something accurate in the broader mission of blowing mindboogers everywhere. I gotta figure out how to concede the single points without giving a shit about their inevitable victory dance.
Yeah. That’s the internet-age “hide your power level” play. They meme and they goof and they nibble at the margins. It’s a lot easier to defend the bottom line when you make the other side name it.
Incels and red pillers are not operating from a reasonable scientific perspective. They are way way off. But their ideological opposites, ardent feminists coming from a “woke” social science perspective, are equally far off from the truth in the other direction (although at least their hearts are closer to being in the right place). Bothsidesism can be a copout, but in this case it is highly applicable.
Per you, Red pill “science” is not science. Check.
And, feminist “social science” is bad. First up, science and social science do not mean the same thing. Second, how exactly are you making the leap that feminists are “ideological opposites” of red pill AND just as bad.
If you’re wondering why people think you have red pill inclinations, re-read your post.
I don’t know what you are trying to say with “science and social science do not mean the same thing.” Um, okay?
Then you quote a post in which I said ardent woke feminists’ “hearts are closer to being in the right place” and summarize that as my saying they are “just as bad”.
Learn to fucking read, and/or try being less dishonest. :dubious:
Speaking as someone who was a young adult in the dating scene in 1984, I don’t think this is true. There were plenty of hardcore anti-Reaganites (both male and female) who wouldn’t date conservatives, for example. It’s just that nowadays the internet and social media make it easier to see such criteria explicitly and publicly proclaimed.
Even way back in 1984 a lot of us had no interest whatever in dating homophobes, sexists or racists. Again, the phenomenon may be somewhat more visible nowadays because of social media, and because homophobia, sexism and racism have become more socially unacceptable over the past 35 years, but it’s not new in and of itself.
But in the Eighties, the majority of young people supported Reagan. The hipster elite hated him as a huge buzzkill, but there was not the overwhelming antipathy like there is today for Trump among those under 30. To their credit!
Nonsense. Nobody’s claiming that “ardent feminists” (such as who, exactly?) can’t be wrong in some of their opinions. But to claim that they are equally “far off from the truth” as the misogynistic absurdities of incels and redpillers is ridiculous.
(And stating a ridiculous claim like “equally far off from the truth”, and then going into a snit when somebody not unreasonably paraphrases it as “just as bad”, is not doing your argument any favors either.)
And many hardcore Reagan supporters were just as opposed to dating or befriending any of the liberal or dovish types that they tended to refer to with terms like “commies”. My point is that ideological and political dealbreakers in the world of friendship and dating are not a new phenomenon.
I could see someone jumping to the conclusion that that would be an accurate paraphrase if I had only said they were “equally far from the truth”, although I meant that only in terms of their understanding of science. But in the very same post and I think the same sentence, I said those kinds of feminists’ hearts were “much closer to the right place”, which clearly shows I don’t think they are “just as bad”. It requires either terrible reading comprehension or more likely willful misreading to get there.
Although the Eighties is less than a half a century ago, I think you are probably wrong that it was as common then:
Unlike many of the people who write about this sort of thing, FTR, I do not think this is a bad development. You’re goddamn right I don’t want my kids marrying Republicans!
Well, you are claiming that they’re “just as bad” at science. But you’re complaining about the use of the term “just as bad” because you apparently think it necessarily implies being just as bad morally.
However, Sunny Daze didn’t actually claim that you were describing “ardent feminists” as morally “just as bad” as “incels and red pillers”. The issue there is with your reading comprehension, not Sunny Daze’s.
If you’re going to claim that feminist(s) are saying anything about human biology or sociology anywhere near as anti-scientific as this kind of incel/redpill stupidity, you’re going to need to bring some cites, not just take refuge in mealymouthed bothsidesism.
:rolleyes: I was not aware ”bad” was a scientific term.
As far as the rest: you are nutpicking, but there are certainly plenty of nuts there. What I would say is that they have a mix of valid science like that cited in this thread, and complete nonsense like you picked. Whereas the social science oriented feminists I’m talking about flatly refuse to consider any science that cashes out as “gender essentialism” in their eyes. Which is a greater error in scientific terms is debatable. Which is worse morally is clear.
Well, your cite is something of a goalpost-shift, in that it’s talking about people’s receptiveness to intermarriage across political party lines, not across specific ideological boundaries. A half-century ago, there was a far greater range of ideological perspectives accepted in the Republican Party than there is today. I remember that even in the 1980s the concept of a “liberal Republican” wasn’t an oxymoron.
So I think the change in those poll results reflects the shrinkage of ideological diversity in the Republican Party more than a sudden increase in the perceived importance of political/ideological dealbreakers in dating.
Many people have always been reluctant to date or befriend others with an ideological orientation they feel to be unethical. What’s comparatively new nowadays, at least in the recent history of our modern two-party system, is having such a close overlap between a particular ideological orientation and one of the major parties.
I’m a little surprised that you weren’t aware that “bad” is a term whose specific meaning frequently depends on its context. Yes, when somebody refers to someone or something being “bad” in the context of a discussion of scientific validity, that can often mean simply “bad at science”.
If you want to know exactly what somebody intended by using the term “bad” in a particular context, you can just ask them, instead of pre-emptively throwing a tantrum about their alleged dishonesty or inability to read based on your own gratuitous assumption that they’re paraphrasing you incorrectly.
What exactly is the “valid science” that you claim is “cited in this thread”?
The critiques of TheFuture’s posts here have largely been directed at his insistence on filtering particular scientific findings through the distorting interpretations of misogyny-promoters. You really can’t give incels credit for “having” any valid science if their primary interest in valid scientific findings is to try to distort and spin them into misleading polemical claims.
Again, where are your cites that any so-called “social science oriented feminists” are actually doing what you claim they are?
How has no one brought up that you don’t need to question the cites or the validity of the study to argue against the conclusions drawn by the incel community? It wouldn’t surprise me in the least that women OR men would be more drawn to Dark Triadic personalities. The wiki itself admits that people with those personalities manipulate, lie, and flatter to get what they want from people. Psychopaths often are highly charismatic. If you see another human being as a machine with a series of dials and levers that you can turn and press to get what you want then you can quickly learn how to “operate it” without your objectivity clouded by empathy. Cult leaders don’t command the level of influence they have with their followers through empathy - it is specifically their lack of empathy that allows them to dispassionately and coldly understand how people tick.
I kind of want to discuss the evo-psych implications that more men than women, over 30%, fantasize about being ‘raped.’ This implies something that goes beyond just wanting sex with a desirable woman. So, do these people wish to be forced by a woman they wouldn’t agree to sex with on their own, or possibly a man? What does it mean about them, that they have these feelings? What can we read into their psyche and their fundamental motivations?
Just that people can have *weird *sex fantasies? Oh, that makes sense. Gosh, maybe that’s why (an even smaller number of) women sometimes have had weird fantasies too.
I would also just like to say I’ve been thinking about the race questions I raised a few days ago and I’ve come to my own conclusions.
I do think it is absolutely racism to exclude an entire race from consideration based solely on their race. In fact, I’m pretty sure this is the exact definition of racism - discriminating against a group of people solely based on their race. On other sites, searching for opinions on this question, I have seen people try to claim it is not “racism” but “preference” but that does not change that it fits the definition of racism perfectly. An employer could say it is their “preference” to not hire blacks but they would still get hammered for racism. Whether you say something is a “preference” or not does not change whether or not it is racism. If you are discriminating based on race, it is racism by definition. It doesn’t mean you need to be legally punished by it. But you can’t claim it is not what it clearly is. This applies equally for both genders of course.
If studies consistently show patterns of racial hierarchy for men and women (eg. white men do the best for men, asian/indian/arab men the worst for men, black women do the worse for women), and this keeps repeating in dataset after dataset, then we can end at only one of two places:
(i) We can presume it is all cultural and this is due to media bias. This would imply it is malleable and should be changeable over time. The OKCupid study says though that racial patterns did not improve from 2009 to 2014 but stayed the same or intensified. And we are getting more and more multiracial media every day.
(ii) We can presume it is biological. Eg. Asian men are more feminine (eg. Asian ladyboys make some of the most convincing trannies), black women are more masculine (eg. Serena Williams). With this explanation the trends would be deemed not malleable but rather the result of our evolutionary wiring. This implies the trends will never significantly change and some races are just more attractive than others overall and as different genders.
I am somewhat cynical so I am leaning towards #(ii) here but perhaps another decade or two will prove me wrong. I doubt it. I am sincerely curious, so I would usually ask for other people’s opinions at this point but I’ve already learned my lesson on trying to do that.
