A feminist comes to terms with the Men's Rights movement

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by All Darc

I will try to adequate my speaking to the rules.
In a few years we will probably have a tax over language violation, so it good to me to start to walk the line.

We (intrinsically by nature, and legally in the US) have the freedom of speech. The difference is that this is a privately owned forum, and the owners have the right to dictate the terms of use, or even to discriminate however they see fit. Our freedom of speech does not outweigh the owners freedom to administer their forum how they wish.

Since we don't have the right to participate in this forum, it behooves us to respect not only the written rules of conduct, but the overall desired tone of the administrators.

I must admit I'm not entirely sure where the line of acceptable behavior is on this forum, but I certainly don't want to pointlessly test where its limits are.

...and because I want ideas to be shared as freely as possible, I want to avoid giving administrators cause to censor us.

[All Darc]

What about humor ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuDsJGPNpXk

Thanks God internet it's mostly not a voice chat for discussions.

By the way, you only have freedon of speech as long nobody put you on internet without your concent. Many people today was destroyed for speak wht they think, losing job and others, because some groops felt affonded by anything and wagered a war over the guy.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by All Darc

By the way, you only have freedon of speech as long nobody put you on internet without your concent. Many people today was destroyed for speak wht they think, losing job and others, because some groops felt affonded by anything and wagered a war over the guy.

No, we still have freedom of speech, we simply do not have freedom from the repercussions society places on us (both good and bad). A company has the (intrinsic) right to fire people for whatever reason they want, just as people have the right to quit for any reason they want. I am not beholden to a company, and likewise the company is not beholden to me.

I defend the right of a company to fire people for personal Tweets that do not align with the company agenda, even if I disagree with their exercise of that right. In other words, I defend the right of Google to fire the very left leaning employee who broached the subject of women in technology, for not adhering to extreme leftist dogma, even though it was foolish of Google to do that (they are eating their own).

Why would you want to work for someone that is so against a reasonable opinion you hold anyhow? I certainly wouldn't want to make a company rich by contributing my talent when they are against the things I value. I'd take getting fired by Google, or de-monetized by Facebook, or un-verified by Twitter as a badge of honor. Courage isn't falling into line with the other sheeple, it's holding steadfast to truth regardless of the consequences.

I'm not saying it's good to get fired, or to be harassed by strangers, or otherwise outcast by society, but it's even worse to give in to untruth.

[Xist]

My ex proposed to me when I broke up to her. What if I said "Wait, yeah," she said "Nah," and I sued her for broach of contract? Would I want to marry someone that felt coerced into it?

Dad fired me when I was a teenager because... well, that was never clear to me, although he had me work for free afterward. What if I sued him for wrongful termination and he was forced to pretend he was going to pay me? Wouldn't that create a hostile workplace?

When I worked at a school I regularly heard of an employee that sued the district, but apparently kept her job, and got what she wanted. I heard she diagnosed her son with Autism and entered him into the Special Olympics as an employee, where he did exceptionally well. She repeatedly got away with what she wanted because she had sued and won before and they knew she would do it again.

So, this kid will never be challenged or held responsible for himself? He will receive Social Security for the rest of his life because his mother insists he is disabled?

Which is worse, Mother Frankenstein, or Mother Frankenstein's Monster.

[All Darc]

It's not that simple. If government to not protect people to have opinions, let's say reasonable opinions, you have no freedon. It's like Bible saying you have free will to believe in other God, but this will make you burn in eternity.

On Brazil feminists made pressure to a company to fire a guy, threating that they would make a national campaign against the company if they do not fire hin. He only made a joke about radical feminsm. But radical feminists can go to street and say all men are rapers, and nothing happens to them.
So, it's about terrorism.

I'm not right neither left !!! I'm just making a critic to the extreme left in one thematic.

Companies can't fire people for be christians, muslims, according law, despite these two beliefes have a lot of sexism in their base. They also can't fire blacks who belong to a given blacks movement with a given range of values and beliefs. But men can be treated like crap, in case someone dislike their opinion.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Xist

My ex proposed to me when I broke up to her. What if I said "Wait, yeah," she said "Nah," and I sued her for broach of contract? Would I want to marry someone that felt coerced into it?

Dad fired me when I was a teenager because... well, that was never clear to me, although he had me work for free afterward. What if I sued him for wrongful termination and he was forced to pretend he was going to pay me? Wouldn't that create a hostile workplace?

...So, this kid will never be challenged or held responsible for himself? He will receive Social Security for the rest of his life because his mother insists he is disabled?

I think you're agreeing with my assertion that coerced relationships are worse than no relationship based on your example.

Not sure where you are going with the Dad example. However, if a teenager is under the age of 18, they are not entitled to be paid by a parent. They are essentially slaves of the parent, for better or for worse, because they aren't legally capable of being responsible for themselves. After the age of 18, children have no obligation to remain or associate with a parent.

Neither the mother nor dependant child is the greater evil; rather it's the system that allowed evil to flourish in the first place. People are done a great disservice when we don't insist they carry as much of their own burden as they can bear. There is a place for charity, but people need a sense of purpose, and you cannot get purpose from handouts.

Originally Posted by All Darc

It's not that simple. If government to not protect people to have opinions, let's say reasonable opinions, you have no freedon. It's likem Bible saying you have free will to believe in other God, but this will make you burn in eternity.

Agree that it's not that simple. It's extremely complex. However, it's extremely dangerous to allow government the authority to decide what is good thinking and what is bad thinking. We're not exempt from the consequences of other people's bad thinking.

I don't agree with that interpretation of the Bible either. It's more like when humanity achieved the ability to discern the difference between good and evil, we assumed the consequences of our behavior, and burden of existence. That is to say, following untruth will lead to bad outcomes, but following truth will lead to good. I'll set aside the paradox of free will vs determination, as that is beyond my ability to reason.

On Brazil feminists made pressure to a company to fire a guy, treating that they would make a national campaign against the company if they do not fire hin. He only made a joke about radical feminsm. But radical feminists can go to street and say all men are rapers, and nothing happens to them.

The bigger problem is that society even pays attention to these nothing stories instead of focusing on things that really matter. We individually pay the price for the attitudes of the society we live in, and there is no way to escape this reality. Legislating that a business must retain an employee is putting a thin veil on the underlying problem. Better to expose the problem than to live on in delusion.

[freebeard]

Neither the mother nor dependant child is the greater evil; rather it's the system that allowed evil to flourish in the first place. People are done a great disservice when we don't insist they carry as much of their own burden as they can bear.

Talk about a third-rail issue.

Pre-majoritarians are only proto-people until they are perfected by anointment by the State.

Breaking the chattel arrangement enjoyed by parents would remove their incentive to invest in the future desired for their offspring. It's a problem.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by All Darc

Next time you can say she is a transgender dog, that she choosed to be male, just to the bit-ches go away.

What else would you advice me to do? Take her to a Pablo Vomitar's concert?

No offense, but I don't really consider psychology a science. It's more to the side of pseudoscience than true science. Too many different fronts, a lot of phylosophy mixtured together, frail or rare proofs...
And they try to controll people, make people calm and accepted by society, without judging too much society itself. Almost a social controll agent. It's more runned by politics than science.

No offense taken. I must confess I also don't take psychology so seriously. Sometimes even my mom complains about some non-scientific practices that have been assimilated by most psychologists.

When politics wasn't connected to power for women and gays and trans, psychology had different opinions, said they were ill, but now they "turned the side of the disc" and say the oposite, even with emotional and militant way, forgetting that themselves was the "evil they make critics today".

Not just psychologist, nowadays even automakers try to look cool for the gay supremacists and other left-leaning folks. Hell, nowadays even Cummins tries to look cool for them. Companies should concentrate on their core businesses and get highlighted for quality and technical solutions suitable to the needs of their customers instead of trying to push for some agenda that may be considered quite segregating. I've always had contact with "diverse" people even when there was no such "diversity" and "inclusion" BS thrown by the media, and most of the gays and non-whites I have to deal with are conservative and don't buy into that media garbage. A few years ago I was talking to a gay dude about that scumbag teacher who told me I was "homophobe and racist" for supporting responsible gun ownership, and the gay dude told me he had been called homophobe at least once because of his conservative views on some highly-controversial matters.

It's like a former nazi making hard critcs to new nazis.

That's quite controversial. When you mention former nazis, does it mean someone who has renounced to violence and becomes a critic of the neonazi doctrines? In this case it may be worth something.

[All Darc]

You can invite her for dinner in a very expensive restaurant and demand she pay the bill, just to prove she is against the patriarcal culture.
And don't forget dissert.

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

That's quite controversial. When you mention former nazis, does it mean someone who has renounced to violence and becomes a critic of the neonazi doctrines? In this case it may be worth something.

I refer, following this analogy, let's say, that it's a nazi who get scared of be defeated, and decided to change his image among society.
Psychology, psychiatry, medicine... all bull... They have technical knowledge, like a car mechanics have to fix a motor when possible, but when it get into ethic, moral, they are basically the same thing as society, a mess.
Ask your mother if she would go to doctor in 1906 if lived that time and got sad. They treated women with massages right in their ... (vagina), since they believed everything wrong with women was due histeria. Vibrators was created first a a medical device, to reach what they called histeric climax (orgasm), which they believed was terapeutic.
No surprise why harassment by doctors became so often even after discontinuation of such "treatments".

I use to say they, these sciences, suffer from what I call Dr Frankenstein's Syndrome.They created the monster (prejudice an labeling) like Dr Frankenstein did in the classic book, and when society changes, not due their science but due forces of politics caused by social changes and changes of power relation in society, movies, and after the change they decided to haunt the monters they created. I know a lot of doctors, and I can say most are as stupid as overal society. One who used to tell me to go out and meet people, date, believe in God, is married and betray his wife with many nurces with age close to be his grandaughter.
I would like to meet europeen people from such areas and from universities, to see if they are as on Brazil, or if had intelectual decency.

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

That's quite controversial. When you mention former nazis, does it mean someone who has renounced to violence and becomes a critic of the neonazi doctrines? In this case it may be worth something.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by All Darc

You can invite her for dinner in a very expensive restaurant and demand she pay the bill, just to prove she is against the patriarcal culture.

The closest to that happened while I was eating what we know here in Porto Alegre as "a la minuta" (very similar to a PF de boteco from São Paulo or Rio de Janeiro) and sharing some pieces of the beef steak with Vanessa. No surprise some leftie started an attempt to virtue-signalling and to make me feel ashamed for feeding my dog while a homeless dude was begging for money half a block away.

I refer, following this analogy, let's say, that it's a nazi who get scared of be defeated, and decided to change his image among society.

So you mean dissimulation, not really a change of mind.

I would like to meet europeen people from such areas and from universities, to see if they are as on Brazil, or if had decency.

The daughter of a friend of my dad moved to London about 10 or 11 years ago. She already held some weird views before immigrating, and then she has worsened. Even though she is considered white here, she decided to take benefit of the "white guilt" often embraced by some native Europeans who may feel sorry even for white (and therefore more European-looking than immigrants from other former colonies throughout Africa and Asia) "sudacas" who have actually been considered "racially privileged" while they lived in their homelands.