Newsflash:
Your attempts to shame the community for simply disagreeing with you are futile.
If this was just a forum like any other on the net, the ad homs and empty ‘tough guy’ threats would be rife by now.
But yes, please do continue with the obvious sea-lioning and affecting the unwarranted persecution complex; it never gets tedious and none of us have ever seen it played out before.
Yeah, that’s fair too. I was mostly making a different point about how material that talks to this community is probably going to look awful to everyone else --and attempting to consider whether those things can be judged on that basis or not.
Clearly for the participants here the answer is a resounding “NO”
Sarcastic memes are not a form of argument.
And exactly who are you to make such a determination?
No one gets to dictate how others choose to express themselves, and for all your lengthy diatribes, you have yet to set forth a sound argument outside of your own emotions and biased perspective as a person of privilege.
Fair enough (in terms of what you’re arguing). However, at what point is anything they promote acceptable? It’s based entirely on the dehumanization of women, right? How is that EVER acceptable? I’m not sure that any ideology that promotes the dehumanization of our fellow human beings should EVER be acceptable to us. Calling that out as such should be part of how we think about the PUA movement. Why shouldn’t we reinforce women’s agency and basic humanity as part of our engagement with PUA types, because that’s what the PUA needs to understand - that women are human beings and entitled to the same respect and dignity as men. In some ways, the “talk to women with out groping them to get their attention” is kind of worse, because it means that a woman who might be receptive is being lied to about the intentions of the speaker in the first place.
It’s obviously not. I have to think that the average person coming into PUA is coming at it from a desire for self-improvement, albeit in a pretty narcissistic way. Like I said, some of these guys have started to see how what they were doing is hurting their followers and the women they go after. I just wonder if a truly trojan horse PUA course designed to help guys recognize the agency of women would look much different than this.
I mean, geez, if you want to attract women, that’s THE BEST way. It’s not some arcane secret.
And on that, they are wrong. Let’s hope that men who embrace it are indeed starting to see it for what it is, just a full throated endorsement of misogyny. However, we don’t help by tip-toeing around that fact.
I don’t think so. The assholes truly believe that women are objects to be won and not worthy of basic human decency. That’s really giving them far too much credit, I think. I have to go with Maya Angelou, and believe people when they show me who they are.
I think the best way to attract women is not to be an misogynistic asshole and to treat them with human decency. But the goal of the PUA is not to have a girl friend, or a wife, or to spend time with women whose company they enjoy, but to fuck as many women as possible with as little respect for them as possible. it’s to show how “manly” they are by conquering women by whatever means necessary. PUA is not two sides of an argument, it’s men expressing disdain for women.
I would disagree with that as a rule… I think that a lot of people who fall into PUA have been fooled by toxic masculinity into thinking this way, but I believe that there’s a big number of just sad guys out there who turn to this as a way to solve their problems. Those are people who are worth making a case to.
You just encapsulated my whole issue with this cyclical discussion; automatically affording way too much benefit of the doubt to individuals who have done nothing to show they merit it.
By definition, “pick up artists” are not trying to become better people; they’re trying to have sex with as many women as they can, with the least amount of effort involved.
We could say the same about white supremacist movement, though or groups like Daesh. It’s a well known tactic to target people who feel marginalized for recruitment. The guys who wish to get men to buy their books know this tactic and use it to their advantage. They don’t have any interest in the well being of the men who buy into their shit, they simple want more page hits and more book sales.
And at some point, individuals need to take responsibility for their actions. Treating other human beings like conquerable land should NEVER be acceptable and we shouldn’t pretend that it is. That doesn’t mean that person can’t later understand their actions and regret them, and do something better later. But that doesn’t mean we have to coddle them when they are acting in ways that are often dangerous for other human beings. It’s not acceptable and we shouldn’t pretend that it is, just so we can turn people’s lives around. You can be compassionate for individuals and not accept their bullshit at the same time.
Yes
I’ve always found it helpful in arguments to argue from the other persons’ point of view in certain cases. I don’t think that necessarily assumes acceptance, but I can see how it could read that way.
I can just see the scenario where pulling the rug completely out from under someone with nowhere to stand can cause them to double-down rather than reevaluate. Sometimes it’s necessary to walk people back from a position instead of yanking all at once-- which as you point out risks them or others thinking you agree or approve. It’s tricky.
I don’t see how making a factual statement about when someone is being misogynistic (or racist, or homophobic) is “pulling the rug out from under them.” Instead, that’s telling the truth and treating them with enough respect to tell them the truth. Plus, it’s not like the actions of PUAs are just differences of opinions - it is actions that are actively making the world worse for others. I don’t feel like saying that all human beings are deserving of decent treatment is yanking a rug out from anyone. It’s truth telling. You can certainly say that the actions are misogynistic in a way that cushions that blow. And besides, most the PUAs I’ve seen revel in their misogyny, so there’s also that. They literally think women are objects meant to shore up their egos.
I agree it can be tricky, but at some point, people have to accept the consequences of their actions. Young men who buy into this ideology need to also understand that their actions do have consequences. Part of the problem is that they are buying into a supremacist ideology. That’s not acceptable. We shouldn’t pretend it’s not something that can really hurt others.
There’s nothing in the Terms of Service that lock this discussion into the style of a Lincoln-Douglas debate.
Debates that include people like Dennis Skinner are more fun anyway.
Skinner has been suspended from Parliament on at least ten occasions, usually for “unparliamentary language” when attacking opponents. Notable infractions have included:
Twice in 1984 once for calling David Owen a “pompous sod” (and only agreeing to withdraw “pompous”), and the second time for stating Thatcher would bribe judges.
In 1992, referring to the Minister of Agriculture John Gummer as a “little squirt of a Minister” and a “slimy wart on Margaret Thatcher’s nose”.
In 1995, accusing the Major government of a “crooked deal” to sell off Britain’s coal mines.
In 2005, when referring to the economic record of the Conservatives in the 1980s, making the remark, “The only thing that was growing then were the lines of coke in front of boy George and the rest of the Tories”, a reference to allegations originally published in the Sunday Mirror of cocaine use by the Shadow Chancellor, George Osborne (though, in the Commons, Skinner referred to the News of the World).
In 2006, accusing Deputy Speaker Sir Alan Haselhurst of leniency towards remarks made by opposition frontbencher and future Prime Minister Theresa May “because she’s a Tory”.
In 2016, for referring to Prime Minister David Cameron as “Dodgy Dave” in relation to Cameron’s tax affairs.
It’s certainly my understanding of the PUAs. Which underscores my point that we shouldn’t have much patience with points of view that rest on the dehumanization of others.
With an intensifying of the game and battle infused metaphors that already pervade our culture’s sexual landscape. E.g., not just talking about scoring, but actually keeping a detailed score.
ugh… it’s fucking gross thinking about it. Makes my skin crawl.
This thread is now a funeral for the diversity of opinion that has come here to die.
Amen.
