Greta

[Yellow Fever 3,832]

44 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

 Let's be clear I'm not saying that progressives don't have good arguments, they do.   What there is a relative lack of is ability to communicate or 'sell' these arguments effectively. 

The devil doesn't have the best tunes. He just has a better sales force.

I've made my point, take it or leave it

 

 

I wasn't trying to pick you out BB (you seem quite balanced to me) - but just trying to point out that any rational argument however good and well made will always fail against those false arguments such as the likes of Farage make that simply amplify what you already wanted to hear to excuse your own tribulations (in short, it's somebodies else's fault as opposed to rolling your sleeves up and getting on with it) - adding a thin veneer of respectability over a rotten core. The 'heart' had already made up its mind whatever the rational facts.

Of course Farage's arguments have now been completely proven to be false - those labour shortages (No, the white working class didn't want those jobs anyway) let alone the economic impacts, extra red tape, NI,  fishing and agriculture. NHS in a meltdown mess, no US trade deal, and no 80M Turks. The government hasn't even replaced the lost EU funding! For some though, the 'heart' is still blind to the facts around it led on by the right wing pied pipers to their doom.  

Edited January 1, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[TheGunnShow 5,999]

I see what BB's trying to say with the communication aspect and don't dispute that it would work with some people as part of an overall strategy, but I don't think it's that prevalent and certainly not a panacea. People are more amenable to charmers if it's something they actually want to hear, rather than engage with the nuts and bolts of a topic. After all, the likes of Piers Morgan, Jeremy Paxman, Anne Robinson, Simon Cowell etc. had famously acerbic tongues over the years and carved out huge followings.

I'll maintain the onus really should be on education and teaching our youngsters how to engage with discussions such that they can critically evaluate them. Compare sources. Discover sources. And I'd also argue that our media has more of a job to do in dissecting such arguments, rather than accepting them at face value and disseminating them to the public at large.

The complaint should be aimed squarely at liars like Tate, not those who don't put sugar in their medicine.

[king canary 7,677]

6 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

I see what BB's trying to say with the communication aspect and don't dispute that it would work with some people as part of an overall strategy, but I don't think it's that prevalent and certainly not a panacea. People are more amenable to charmers if it's something they actually want to hear, rather than engage with the nuts and bolts of a topic. After all, the likes of Piers Morgan, Jeremy Paxman, Anne Robinson, Simon Cowell etc. had famously acerbic tongues over the years and carved out huge followings.

I'll maintain the onus really should be on education and teaching our youngsters how to engage with discussions such that they can critically evaluate them. Compare sources. Discover sources. And I'd also argue that our media has more of a job to do in dissecting such arguments, rather than accepting them at face value and disseminating them to the public at large.

The complaint should be aimed squarely at liars like Tate, not those who don't put sugar in their medicine.

Education is a part of it.

But to be blunt the only thing that will keep people falling down the rabbit hole of people like Tate is a material improvement in their lives and prospects. 

[horsefly 4,314]

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

Just an observation - I don't wish to get into long pointless discussions on semantics.

I totally agree with the general thrust of HF argument that what might be called the left or progressives have of course tried to help the 'White Working Class'. They don't suffer from structural racism however which needs special treatment but seem to think they do!

As to BBs statement that the 'left' or progressives don't somehow make good arguments to such sections of society I think is BS. BB states that its head and heart. The 'heart' is not rational, closed to argument and simply for this demographic already believes that their tribulations are simply because of 'immigrants' the EU or frankly anybody else but themselves. Of course the solution to their problem is better education and more opportunity to improve their lot. I think that's always been the 'progressives' policy - see increased University education / participation but heavy industry and brawn not brain is a thing of the past - even in agriculture.

As to Farage and the right having better arguments or cuddlier - nonsense - all Farage and his ilk did was to amplify the entrenched debased views that many clearly already possessed  - 80M Turks coming etc. and to all intents and purposes rabble rouse. The very last thing he was interested in was a rational factual argument. 

In summary what is the saying - "The devil has the best tunes."

 

1 hour ago, Herman said:

It's not easy for the progressives to get their views heard without lowering themselves to the same tactics the right wing use. We like to be honest on the whole, keeping the debate to facts. The right have no qualms in making up complete nonsense, othering, scapegoating and general dishonesty, knowing they have the majority of the UK's media more than happy to pump out known nonsense. How can we simplify the message about such complex things like immigration or housing?

Spot on guys! I find it bizarre that some on here find these points so hard to grasp. It's not as if modern history is not full of examples of the use of false narrative propaganda tactics. There is only one group of protagonists telling white working class boys that they are "colossally privileged" (as Fen put it) and that's the right-wingers who tell them that that's what "lefty do-gooders" think of them. A complete lie of course; I have never met a single person on the left who thinks working class white kids are privileged, and I'll bet no one commenting on this site has either. I have challenged them to come up with examples of people on the left making that claim, but they seem rather reticent to do so. No surprise, of course, because we know that it is an entirely fabricated narrative designed to do nothing more than sow discord among disadvantaged children.

To blame the left for not being clever enough to combat this malign exploitation of under privileged children is fundamentally disingenuous.  As you have both pointed out, the left can do little more than point out the truth about these things in the face of constant repetition of lies spread by a powerful right-wing dominated media motivated by disreputable political aims. Just as Trump continues to persuade his adoring hordes that he won an overwhelming victory, despite the indisputable evidence to the contrary, so the right-wing narrative in this country will continue to tell white working class boys that the lefty do-gooders hate them. Anyone truly interested in addressing the social injustices endured by white working class children would condemn this attempt to exploit their plight for divisive political ends. Rather they should unite with all those organisations and charities (left, right, and centre) working hard to making a real difference to the lives of all underprivileged children.

[TheGunnShow 5,999]

2 minutes ago, king canary said:

Education is a part of it.

But to be blunt the only thing that will keep people falling down the rabbit hole of people like Tate is a material improvement in their lives and prospects. 

Also true in some cases/as part of a strategy, but it still needs lies to be countered, as @horsefly made abundantly clear re. the frankly daft notion that there's more focus on impoverished minorities.

[horsefly 4,314]

4 minutes ago, king canary said:

Education is a part of it.

But to be blunt the only thing that will keep people falling down the rabbit hole of people like Tate is a material improvement in their lives and prospects. 

Very true KC. Those whose lives are relatively comfortable are never the ones who become targets for those who need to stir up hate to recruit followers for their own political objectives. The German poor were told Jews were responsible for their poverty, and white working class boys are told it's middle-class lefty do-gooders that are cheating them out of their rights to social justice in favour of privileging ethnic minority children. But your point is fundamental, while these kids remain victims of impoverishment they will always be vulnerable to the siren voices of hate merchants.

[Fen Canary 866]

7 hours ago, horsefly said:

I see you haven't changed one bit in your absence. Still spouting the same Daily Mail tripe. (How's your beloved Brexit going btw?)

You even provide a perfect example of your ignorant parroting of the right-wing narrative:

"Little Yellow Birdie has a point when he says that society for a long time has been very dismissive of working class boys, and white working class boys in particular. Despite being regularly outperformed in school (with white working class being one of the worst performing along with black Caribbean) and outnumbered by girls going to uni, they’re constantly told they enjoy some unquantifiable privilege, even if their parents are reliant on food banks."

The working class has ALWAYS been at a disadvantage, something those on the left (that you hate so much) have ALWAYS said and have ALWAYS campaigned to right. So feel free to give examples of those on the left who you claim are "constantly" telling white working class boys, "they enjoy some unquantifiable privilege, even if their parents are reliant on food banks". Sadly, you gullibly swallow this blatant politically motivated propaganda produced by the Daily Mail (et al) without any desire or ability to question its veracity.

I don't think for one moment I can bring someone like you "round to my way of thinking". You really are foolish if you think that's my aim. My aim is to demonstrate that people like you, who are so willing to disseminate this toxic Daily Mail rubbish, are precisely the sort of people who perpetuate the problems experienced by the very kids you claim you want to help. Absolutely nothing is gained by white working class boys by feeding them the propaganda that their needs are being ignored because ethnic minority kids are stealing their share of social justice. That is precisely what drives kids into the hands of hate merchants like Tate who thrive on the divisions such rhetoric is purposely designed to foment. 

Now let's take a look at the sexist misogynist tosh in this paragraph:

Every trait that has traditionally been classed as masculine (assertiveness, courage, stoicism etc) is now labelled as toxic. The metoo# movement while well intentioned by the end seemed to be conflating a clumsy attempt at a chat up line with the sexual assaults of people such as Weinstein.

The man you described as an "imbecile", Andrew Tate, would applaud every word. Your lack of self-awareness in describing "assertiveness, courage, stoicism" as "masculine traits" is frankly laughable. The assumption that they are distinctively "male" traits, that women don't display them with equal measure every day of their lives, is utterly absurd. NO ONE questions the value of those virtues. It is yet another example of your gullibility in falling for the right-wing narrative that you feel able to shamelessly claim that those virtues are "now labelled as toxic"; just who on the left has done that? What is toxic is the abuse of such virtues that turn them into a vice, NOT the virtue itself. Assertiveness is admirable when it involves an individual standing up for their rights, it becomes a vice when it involves a man (or woman) pestering a woman for sexual favours. Courage is vital for every individual concerned with maintaining the integrity of their character, for without it one is always weak in the face of more powerful forces. Courage can often require putting oneself in physical peril, as Ukrainian soldiers (men and women) are doing as we speak, but it becomes toxic and a vice when it involves something like stabbing an innocent teen at a nightclub. There are probably no better examples of stoicism than the daily grind of motherhood, or that shown by nurses and doctors on the wards during the pandemic, but stoicism too always brings with it the toxic possibility of stubborn denial of reality.

You do your cause no good whatsoever by repeating the malign lies that young boys are being emasculated because they are being asked to think carefully what it means to be male and exhibit the very traits/virtues you identified in a way that enhances their masculinity. The recent government advert aimed specifically at young men encouraging them to call out and intervene when a mate is harassing a women focused precisely on the traits of courage and assertiveness required to do the right thing in such cases. They absolutely DID NOT describe those traits as toxic. On the contrary they depicted those traits as essential for expressing a young man's identity. Failing to engage boys in such a debate is precisely what enables the hate merchants like Tate to encourage them to believe that their masculinity consists in violent subjugation of women, and that any other conception is nothing more than an attempt to emasculate their traditional birth right.

Your utterly patronising comment, "The metoo# movement while well intentioned by the end seemed to be conflating a clumsy attempt at a chat up line with the sexual assaults of people such as Weinstein." simply shows a disturbing willing ignorance of the reality of women's lives. Just who are these women who can't avoid "conflating a clumsy chat up line" with the rapist behaviour of people like Weinstein? I've yet to meet a woman who can't distinguish between those two drastically different levels of behaviour, and I would be stunned if anyone else has either. What an affront to all those women who have been victims of serious sexual assault, to even think they would equate that horrific experience with the experience of being subject to a clumsy chat up line. Frankly, you should be ashamed to post something so despicable.

As for this pile of bilge below, even the Daily Mail would probably refuse to publish such unmitigated nonsense:

If you’re a young lad in an old pit town where all the industry has long since disappeared, to get a job on a building site you’re competing with millions from Eastern Europe (and labelled racist if you objected to having to do so), whilst every political party implies you enjoy colossal privilege while barely scraping by and being compared to rapists for trying to chat someone up, eventually you’re going to look elsewhere. Unfortunately Tate filled that gap with his messaging of basically saying society looks down on you anyway so you may as well act like a scumbag and take what you want, and he had the cash, cars and women to back it up.

You got your "brilliant" Brexit, so where are these "millions of Eastern Europeans" young lads are competing with to get a job on a building site? (strange, because building companies claim they can't find enough workers to fill the available vacancies). Who is it that told these young lads they "enjoy a colossal privilege"? Who has told these boys that they are, "rapists for trying to chat someone up"? The only thing "colossal" in this paragraph is the level of stupidity exhibited by such bile ridden tripe.

Thank you for proving my point, you find it impossible to reply to any comment without talking down and insulting people. You refuse to believe that people have had different experiences to yourself and so might have formed different opinions, instead you simply copy and paste whatever you’ve read in the Guardian and present it as undeniable fact, and everybody who disagrees must have been tricked and be too stupid to realise it.

It’s also incredibly hypocritical. When the George Floyd protests were going on, people like yourself were quick to jump on the bandwagon about how England was a structurally racist hellhole. Rather than relying on statistics (which proved the opposite, that England was actually one of the most tolerant places and best to be a minority in the world) you said the feelings and  “lived experience” of those making the allegations were the more reliable guide. However when it doesn’t suit your narrative such as those that complained they were being adversely affected by the high levels of immigration before the EU referendum you dismiss it out of hand and you’re doing so again on this subject by ignoring any complaints from the young men, instead essentially labelling them weak and confused.

Therefore I’m intrigued, why do you believe lots of young men are taken in by a charlatan such as Tate? If it isn’t to do with being left behind at school and poor prospects, the disappearance of traditional male jobs (and with it male role models), the demonisation of traditional male traits and behaviour as problematic, what exactly is it that’s causing them to follow such an awful character in the large numbers they do?

If you can reply without your usual pathetic insults that would be fantastic.

Edited January 1, 2023 by Fen Canary

[TheGunnShow 5,999]

6 hours ago, Herman said:

It's not easy for the progressives to get their views heard without lowering themselves to the same tactics the right wing use. We like to be honest on the whole, keeping the debate to facts. The right have no qualms in making up complete nonsense, othering, scapegoating and general dishonesty, knowing they have the majority of the UK's media more than happy to pump out known nonsense. How can we simplify the message about such complex things like immigration or housing?

Shibboleths make slogans. Nuance doesn't. That makes communication look more lumpen, less stylish, less remarkable, and less likely to be noted.

[Fen Canary 866]

30 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Shibboleths make slogans. Nuance doesn't. That makes communication look more lumpen, less stylish, less remarkable, and less likely to be noted.

You also have to look at the message as well as the delivery. On the one hand you have progressives (for want of a better word) labelling masculinity as toxic, constantly rallying against any perceived patriarchy and generally regarding boys and male behaviour as problematic, whilst on the other you have chancers like Tate telling them they can have everything he has (money, women, cars, fame etc) if they just act the way he does.

The reason people such as Jordan Peterson resonate with young men is because he offers them encouragement to be something better. This isn’t to conflate him with Tate of course, Tates caricature of hyper masculinity is completely alien to Petersons “pull yourself up by your bootstraps and make it happen” old school style improvement mantra 

[horsefly 4,314]

24 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Thank you for proving my point, you find it impossible to reply to any comment without talking down and insulting people. You refuse to believe that people have had different experiences to yourself and so might have formed different opinions, instead you simply copy and paste whatever you’ve read in the Guardian and present it as undeniable fact, and everybody who disagrees must have been tricked and be too stupid to realise it.

It’s also incredibly hypocritical. When the George Floyd protests were going on, people like yourself were quick to jump on the bandwagon about how England was a structurally racist hellhole. Rather than relying on statistics (which proved the opposite, that England was actually one of the most tolerant places and best to be a minority in the world) you said the feelings and  “lived experience” of those making the allegations were the more reliable guide. However when it doesn’t suit your narrative such as those that complained they were being adversely affected by the high levels of immigration before the EU referendum you dismiss it out of hand and you’re doing so again on this subject by ignoring any complaints from the young men, instead essentially labelling them weak and confused.

Therefore I’m intrigued, why do you believe lots of young men are taken in by a charlatan such as Tate? If it isn’t to do with being left behind at school and poor prospects, the disappearance of traditional male jobs (and with it male role models), the demonisation of traditional male traits and behaviour as problematic, what exactly is it that’s causing them to follow such an awful character in the large numbers they do?

If you can reply without your usual pathetic insults that would be fantastic.

 Not a single answer to the many points I made, demonstrating the emptiness of your position. No surprise of course. All you do is trot out the same right-wing narrative of the Daily Mail. I have not said at any point in any of my posts that white under privileged boys have not expressed feelings of social injustice, indeed, my whole argument rests fundamentally on that being true. I have stated time and time again that these children ARE BEING TREATED UNJUSTLY, and that is why they are vulnerable to the sort of malign manipulation that would have them believe it is the fault of lefty do-gooders privileging ethnic minority children. So, if you don't wish to be labelled stupid, stop lying about what I have actually said and attend to the points I have actually made. The utterly absurd idea that these children are being let down by lefty do-gooders rather than the Tory government that has been in power for the last 12-years is something only a fool would swallow.

When did I say the UK was a "structurally racist hellhole"? Yet again you lie to suit your pathetic Daily Mail agenda. I have acknowledged that structural racism exists but then so have hundreds of independent reports, including those conducted by the government, the Police, the NHS etc, etc. 

I have stated repeatedly why the likes of Tate get to have an influence on these disadvantaged children, but you repeatedly fail to say a single word in response. Instead we get the mere repetition of the absurd claim that these boys are being denied expression of "traditional male traits". So please feel free to explain just what those traits are (not the unexplained nonsense you posted earlier about assertiveness, courage and stoicism) and just what expression of them you think would constitute allowing young boys to rid themselves of their social disadvantages. In what way does the expression of "male traits" on your view differ from those of Andrew Tate that rest on the violent subjection of women? And as for your nonsense about traditional male jobs, do feel free to explain the relevance of why that is supposed to an issue. Are you seriously suggesting that white working class boys are riven with feelings of social injustice because there are no longer coal mines for them to develop lung cancer in? I did numerous outreach visits to deprived area schools before I retired and frankly I can't remember a single instance of a male child saying they aspired to be a builder or work in the fields (both what might be considered by you "traditional male jobs", and both areas for which there are actually plenty of jobs available if the boys wanted to fill them, which they don't).

We have a society that fundamentally equates social success (status) with material wealth (and all the trappings that come with such wealth). Thus it is no surprise that under privileged children feel a heightened sense of social injustice. They are absolutely right to believe that their chances of achieving status through material wealth are seriously undermined by their social position. Everywhere they look they find the idea of success equated with the possession of wealth, yet their everyday experience is that their social position denies them the opportunity to achieve that success in ways that are open to more advantaged children. No wonder then that they can find themselves so easily seduced by the grotesque quick-fix "philosophy" of a specimen like Andrew Tate who tells them to just take what they want by exploiting others. What is needed is government action to ensure that all these children perceive they are given a genuine equal opportunity and pathway to achieve the successful life of other more privileged children. None of this has anything to do with undermining "traditional male traits" or a lack of "traditional male jobs". It is in fact extremely patronising to claim that white working class boys should be limited in their aspirations to expressing themselves in outdated relations to women, while working in a so-called "traditional male jobs". Time for you to move on from the 1950s (although, of course, that is precisely where Brexit is trying to return us).

Finally, I note you make no apology for the disgusting things you said about women. Accusing them of conflating the experience of "clumsy passes" with being a victim of rape by a beast like Weinstein, is truly beneath contempt. I sincerely hope you don't repeat such vile talk in the presence of women; 1 in 4 of whom are statistically recognised to have been a victim of a serious sexual assault.

 

 

 

[TheGunnShow 5,999]

35 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

You also have to look at the message as well as the delivery. On the one hand you have progressives (for want of a better word) labelling masculinity as toxic, constantly rallying against any perceived patriarchy and generally regarding boys and male behaviour as problematic, whilst on the other you have chancers like Tate telling them they can have everything he has (money, women, cars, fame etc) if they just act the way he does.

The reason people such as Jordan Peterson resonate with young men is because he offers them encouragement to be something better. This isn’t to conflate him with Tate of course, Tates caricature of hyper masculinity is completely alien to Petersons “pull yourself up by your bootstraps and make it happen” old school style improvement mantra 

Said that the message is far more important in a couple of posts on here. In fact, I've strongly said a better education system should be the focus so people can critically evaluate nonsense like Tate (and Peterson's certainly had his moments where he's terribly off the pace, especially with men and women who don't want to follow "traditional" roles) and see through them far more readily.

Depending on what happens in Romania, Tate's message could be seriously scrambled. If he's not guilty, then I hope he goes free. If he is, then I hope he gets his desserts. Got my doubts about corruption in Romania though, especially from what my friend in Iasi tells me!

[horsefly 4,314]

39 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

You also have to look at the message as well as the delivery. On the one hand you have progressives (for want of a better word) labelling masculinity as toxic

Your standard Daily Mail lies yet again. There is a complete world of difference between your dissembling here and the meaning of the actual phrase used by socially progressive people, "toxic masculinity". "Toxic masculinity" absolutely does not describe "masculinity as toxic". What it does is distinguish between expressions of masculinity that are indeed toxic (such as the misogynistic version typified by Andrew Tate), and those that are perfectly consistent with showing equal respect for women. Why do you find the need to engage in this pathetic but all too obvious game of pretending that people have made claims that they clearly haven't?

[king canary 7,677]

5 hours ago, horsefly said:

Very true KC. Those whose lives are relatively comfortable are never the ones who become targets for those who need to stir up hate to recruit followers for their own political objectives. The German poor were told Jews were responsible for their poverty, and white working class boys are told it's middle-class lefty do-gooders that are cheating them out of their rights to social justice in favour of privileging ethnic minority children. But your point is fundamental, while these kids remain victims of impoverishment they will always be vulnerable to the siren voices of hate merchants.

Agreed.

Where I do somewhat disagree is where you say nobody on the left is saying these things. A bit of time on social media will show that isn't the case. It isn't the majority and I think it is in large part imported from America but you don't have to look too hard to see people claiming that white people and particularly white men, are the route of all the worlds problems. And the nature of social media is that those 'fringe' voices get amplified and used to create the narratives that these men buy into. 

It isn't to say these caricatures of what the left stands for are correct, but they aren't created out of nothing- there has to be a kernel of truth for them to stick. It reminds me a bit of when Corbyn was Labour Leader- his biggest fans complained that people didn't like him because of media smears but those media smears stuck because they held some truth- it is easier to call someone a terrorist sympathiser if they are on record defending Hamas. It is easier to accuse the left of not caring about white men if you can find a few fringier types who say stupid **** on twitter.

[TheGunnShow 5,999]

13 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Your standard Daily Mail lies yet again. There is a complete world of difference between your dissembling here and the meaning of the actual phrase used by socially progressive people, "toxic masculinity". "Toxic masculinity" absolutely does not describe "masculinity as toxic". What it does is distinguish between expressions of masculinity that are indeed toxic (such as the misogynistic version typified by Andrew Tate), and those that are perfectly consistent with showing equal respect for women. Why do you find the need to engage in this pathetic but all too obvious game of pretending that people have made claims that they clearly haven't?

I think the notion of toxic masculinity is readily explained by the famous Barry Goldwater quote that "vices are only virtues taken to excess".

Nothing wrong with keeping things to yourself, for example, and trying to be stoic about matters. When it results in bottling things up and doing silly - or in the worst cases, tragic - things such as suicide (which disproportionately affects men) then questions have to be asked about what we're expecting of men in ever-changing conditions.

[king canary 7,677]

25 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Your standard Daily Mail lies yet again. There is a complete world of difference between your dissembling here and the meaning of the actual phrase used by socially progressive people, "toxic masculinity". "Toxic masculinity" absolutely does not describe "masculinity as toxic". What it does is distinguish between expressions of masculinity that are indeed toxic (such as the misogynistic version typified by Andrew Tate), and those that are perfectly consistent with showing equal respect for women. Why do you find the need to engage in this pathetic but all too obvious game of pretending that people have made claims that they clearly haven't?

What I'd say is you may understand that distinction but plenty don't.

This goes back to @Barbe bleu's point about communication. If you keep talking about toxic masculinity, white privilege etc etc on the basis that everyone understands it how you do then there will be issues because it doesn't mean the same things to everyone.

[horsefly 4,314]

37 minutes ago, king canary said:

Where I do somewhat disagree is where you say nobody on the left is saying these things. A bit of time on social media will show that isn't the case. It isn't the majority and I think it is in large part imported from America but you don't have to look too hard to see people claiming that white people and particularly white men, are the route of all the worlds problems.

Ah! But that's a very different point from what we have been discussing. We have been discussing the claim that "lefty do-gooders" have ignored the claims of under privileged white working class boys in order to privilege the interests of under privileged children from minority groups. That, as Fen put it, these boys are being told by progressives they are "colossally privileged". That's just obvious nonsense. I think the people you're referring to do indeed see the power of white men as being a cause of many problems, but the men they are talking about are those white men able to exert genuine political and social power (rather than the under privileged white working class). 

Edited January 1, 2023 by horsefly

[KeiranShikari 1,434]

 

Hayen is a fan, at 27 probably one of his eldest.

[Yellow Fever 3,832]

13 minutes ago, king canary said:

Agreed.

Where I do somewhat disagree is where you say nobody on the left is saying these things. A bit of time on social media will show that isn't the case. It isn't the majority and I think it is in large part imported from America but you don't have to look too hard to see people claiming that white people and particularly white men, are the route of all the worlds problems. And the nature of social media is that those 'fringe' voices get amplified and used to create the narratives that these men buy into. 

It isn't to say these caricatures of what the left stands for are correct, but they aren't created out of nothing- there has to be a kernel of truth for them to stick. It reminds me a bit of when Corbyn was Labour Leader- his biggest fans complained that people didn't like him because of media smears but those media smears stuck because they held some truth- it is easier to call someone a terrorist sympathiser if they are on record defending Hamas. It is easier to accuse the left of not caring about white men if you can find a few fringier types who say stupid **** on twitter.

Undoubtedly there is some truth in this, but it is the extremes not the general 'left'. Such extremes are represented by the 'all men are bad or sexual predators'  whereas in reality its expected that men may make the first 'move' or 'pass' in my day within a developing friendship (usually in terror). A rebuttal would be taken in good faith as an honest misunderstanding  by both parties! I suspect the so called right wing incels never get to this point!

All it needs is men and women to respect each other and the games we all play (else we go extinct).

Moving on I have little truck with Corbyn, but I do understand and respect his pacifism and at least trying to understand and meet half way such 'terrorist' entitles. Of course the right only understands black/white positions and no nuances or shades of grey. They'd still be fighting the IRA.

[horsefly 4,314]

2 minutes ago, king canary said:

What I'd say is you may understand that distinction but plenty don't.

This goes back to @Barbe bleu's point about communication. If you keep talking about toxic masculinity, white privilege etc etc on the basis that everyone understands it how you do then there will be issues because it doesn't mean the same things to everyone.

Which is precisely why honest people will endeavour to understand what is meant by the terms being used. The sad thing is that far from seeking such an understanding some prefer to exploit ignorance for the purpose of perverting meaning to serve malign ends. It really isn't difficult to understand that "toxic masculinity" is used by progressive people as a way to distinguish between misogynistic forms of male behaviour from those "non-toxic" expressions that recognise the equal rights of women. It's meaning is perfectly clear enough and isn't simply open to any interpretation someone decides they want to put on it. Language and meaning is a social practice governed by social rules of application, otherwise no word or expression would have any genuine meaning. Clearly there are cases of vagueness and complexity etc that require clarification, but the present case is not one of them; there is no difficulty whatsoever in distinguishing between describing some forms of masculinity as expressing a toxic form of  masculinity and claiming that all masculinity is toxic. Anyone conflating those two is clearly in error or more likely engaged in purposeful manipulation.

[Fen Canary 866]

58 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Said that the message is far more important in a couple of posts on here. In fact, I've strongly said a better education system should be the focus so people can critically evaluate nonsense like Tate (and Peterson's certainly had his moments where he's terribly off the pace, especially with men and women who don't want to follow "traditional" roles) and see through them far more readily.

Depending on what happens in Romania, Tate's message could be seriously scrambled. If he's not guilty, then I hope he goes free. If he is, then I hope he gets his desserts. Got my doubts about corruption in Romania though, especially from what my friend in Iasi tells me!

I’m not going to pretend I agree with everything Peterson says, I’m wary of people who agree with and uncritically parrot statements from their favourite source, be it the Sun, Guardian or any influencer or academic. Whilst I agree some of his proposed solutions seem overly simplistic, I think he has a point in that you can’t remove almost everything from society that was traditionally masculine such as the old industrial jobs in working class areas that gave boys purpose with nothing to replace it. Regularly attacking male behaviour as toxic or problematic, feminising workplaces and offering no alternative will unfortunately push them into following clowns such as Tate who take this out on woman, a position Peterson has made clear he despises. 

Obviously I’m not commenting on his alleged crimes, he comes across as a despicable human but whether he’s a people trafficker isn’t for me to decide as I know nothing of the case.

[Fen Canary 866]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

 Not a single answer to the many points I made, demonstrating the emptiness of your position. No surprise of course. All you do is trot out the same right-wing narrative of the Daily Mail. I have not said at any point in any of my posts that white under privileged boys have not expressed feelings of social injustice, indeed, my whole argument rests fundamentally on that being true. I have stated time and time again that these children ARE BEING TREATED UNJUSTLY, and that is why they are vulnerable to the sort of malign manipulation that would have them believe it is the fault of lefty do-gooders privileging ethnic minority children. So, if you don't wish to be labelled stupid, stop lying about what I have actually said and attend to the points I have actually made. The utterly absurd idea that these children are being let down by lefty do-gooders rather than the Tory government that has been in power for the last 12-years is something only a fool would swallow.

When did I say the UK was a "structurally racist hellhole"? Yet again you lie to suit your pathetic Daily Mail agenda. I have acknowledged that structural racism exists but then so have hundreds of independent reports, including those conducted by the government, the Police, the NHS etc, etc. 

I have stated repeatedly why the likes of Tate get to have an influence on these disadvantaged children, but you repeatedly fail to say a single word in response. Instead we get the mere repetition of the absurd claim that these boys are being denied expression of "traditional male traits". So please feel free to explain just what those traits are (not the unexplained nonsense you posted earlier about assertiveness, courage and stoicism) and just what expression of them you think would constitute allowing young boys to rid themselves of their social disadvantages. In what way does the expression of "male traits" on your view differ from those of Andrew Tate that rest on the violent subjection of women? And as for your nonsense about traditional male jobs, do feel free to explain the relevance of why that is supposed to an issue. Are you seriously suggesting that white working class boys are riven with feelings of social injustice because there are no longer coal mines for them to develop lung cancer in? I did numerous outreach visits to deprived area schools before I retired and frankly I can't remember a single instance of a male child saying they aspired to be a builder or work in the fields (both what might be considered by you "traditional male jobs", and both areas for which there are actually plenty of jobs available if the boys wanted to fill them, which they don't).

We have a society that fundamentally equates social success (status) with material wealth (and all the trappings that come with such wealth). Thus it is no surprise that under privileged children feel a heightened sense of social injustice. They are absolutely right to believe that their chances of achieving status through material wealth are seriously undermined by their social position. Everywhere they look they find the idea of success equated with the possession of wealth, yet their everyday experience is that their social position denies them the opportunity to achieve that success in ways that are open to more advantaged children. No wonder then that they can find themselves so easily seduced by the grotesque quick-fix "philosophy" of a specimen like Andrew Tate who tells them to just take what they want by exploiting others. What is needed is government action to ensure that all these children perceive they are given a genuine equal opportunity and pathway to achieve the successful life of other more privileged children. None of this has anything to do with undermining "traditional male traits" or a lack of "traditional male jobs". It is in fact extremely patronising to claim that white working class boys should be limited in their aspirations to expressing themselves in outdated relations to women, while working in a so-called "traditional male jobs". Time for you to move on from the 1950s (although, of course, that is precisely where Brexit is trying to return us).

Finally, I note you make no apology for the disgusting things you said about women. Accusing them of conflating the experience of "clumsy passes" with being a victim of rape by a beast like Weinstein, is truly beneath contempt. I sincerely hope you don't repeat such vile talk in the presence of women; 1 in 4 of whom are statistically recognised to have been a victim of a serious sexual assault.

 

 

 

This is why I often ignore you Horse, you can’t pretend I’ve said something simply to attack me and try and point score.

You’re well aware I never said that women who have been victims or serious sexual assault should treat it the same as a misjudged attempt at flirting. I said that the metoo movement descended into doing so, by trying to elevate a clumsy chat up line up to the same level of seriousness as the crimes committed by the likes of Weinstein. All were lumped together under a banner of toxic masculinity 

[TheGunnShow 5,999]

13 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

I’m not going to pretend I agree with everything Peterson says, I’m wary of people who agree with and uncritically parrot statements from their favourite source, be it the Sun, Guardian or any influencer or academic. Whilst I agree some of his proposed solutions seem overly simplistic, I think he has a point in that you can’t remove almost everything from society that was traditionally masculine such as the old industrial jobs in working class areas that gave boys purpose with nothing to replace it. Regularly attacking male behaviour as toxic or problematic, feminising workplaces and offering no alternative will unfortunately push them into following clowns such as Tate who take this out on woman, a position Peterson has made clear he despises. 

Obviously I’m not commenting on his alleged crimes, he comes across as a despicable human but whether he’s a people trafficker isn’t for me to decide as I know nothing of the case.

Peterson's real weakness is that he's very prone to thinking he knows far more than he does and I think I have said before on here that IMO he's a poor man's Stephen Fry regarding any notions of being a Renaissance Man. He is a clinical psychologist of justified, considerable repute. However, he's prone to going off the deep end on a lot of social matters (you've said yourself some of his proposed solutions appear overly simplified), I find he draws some slightly iffy conclusions from similar starting points (his discussion with David Benatar was a prime example as both essentially started off from the notion that life is struggle, but Peterson didn't look to me like he ever got to grips to the asymmetry that is the foundation of Benatar's thought) and I also find he's prone to framing everything from a Judeo-Christian viewpoint and faintly damning the rest. 

It raises a fair few questions. How are workplaces being "feminised"? What constitutes a workplace being "feminised"? What is so admirable about some of the old, far more dangerous jobs such as mining considering the sheer number of miners/workers that died over the years? Furthermore, a heck of a lot of men don't have any issues keeping their behaviour non-toxic. Not to mention I've seen plenty of women indulging in such behaviour to an extent where I wonder if it's doing them more harm than good which then brings up the key question - what makes such behaviours "male" in the first place?

[Fen Canary 866]

52 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Peterson's real weakness is that he's very prone to thinking he knows far more than he does and I think I have said before on here that IMO he's a poor man's Stephen Fry regarding any notions of being a Renaissance Man. He is a clinical psychologist of justified, considerable repute. However, he's prone to going off the deep end on a lot of social matters (you've said yourself some of his proposed solutions appear overly simplified), I find he draws some slightly iffy conclusions from similar starting points (his discussion with David Benatar was a prime example as both essentially started off from the notion that life is struggle, but Peterson didn't look to me like he ever got to grips to the asymmetry that is the foundation of Benatar's thought) and I also find he's prone to framing everything from a Judeo-Christian viewpoint and faintly damning the rest. 

It raises a fair few questions. How are workplaces being "feminised"? What constitutes a workplace being "feminised"? What is so admirable about some of the old, far more dangerous jobs such as mining considering the sheer number of miners/workers that died over the years? Furthermore, a heck of a lot of men don't have any issues keeping their behaviour non-toxic. Not to mention I've seen plenty of women indulging in such behaviour to an extent where I wonder if it's doing them more harm than good which then brings up the key question - what makes such behaviours "male" in the first place?

Without becoming too bogged down in the meanings and turning the thread into a sociology debate, I think the old industries which were traditionally seen as masculine were much more hierarchical in nature as opposed to the more feminised collaborative approach. I’m not trying to say that one is better than the other necessarily, just that I believe on average men are more suited to the first style and women the second, although of course there will always be some crossover. I wasn’t necessarily referring to the physical side (although for some blokes that can be something they miss) and nobody wants to see the workplace deaths of old, especially myself as I’ve spent the bulk of my working life on building sites. You’re also correct that 99.99% of blokes behave just fine around women, yet unfortunately seem to be tarred with the same brush as those that mistreat them.

As for you last point regarding women’s behaviour, listening to stories from various women in my life who work in female dominated offices/industries the atmosphere and behaviour there seems much more poisonous than anything I’ve ever dealt with, seemingly a never ending river of b*tchiness and backstabbing, yet I never hear this referred to as toxic femininity. 

[TheGunnShow 5,999]

Think you'll find toxic femininity gets mentioned on occasion, and the meanings are all-important. After all, if you don't set out what is meant as "masculine" or "feminine" then by definition, what's "toxic" can also be rather nebulous.

[horsefly 4,314]

11 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

This is why I often ignore you Horse, you can’t pretend I’ve said something simply to attack me and try and point score.

You’re well aware I never said that women who have been victims or serious sexual assault should treat it the same as a misjudged attempt at flirting. I said that the metoo movement descended into doing so, by trying to elevate a clumsy chat up line up to the same level of seriousness as the crimes committed by the likes of Weinstein. All were lumped together under a banner of toxic masculinity 

Oh dear! What a pathetic attempt to try and deflect from the horrific implications of what you said. Who the hell do you think make up and speak for the "Me Too" movement? It was called "Me too" precisely because it involved women bravely coming forward to speak of the sexual assaults they have suffered. So, find me a single "member" of the Me Too movement that you claim "descended into" conflating the experience of "clumsy chat up lines" with their experience of rape and serious sexual assault. Provide evidence for once in your life. Of course you can't because your claim is a perfect example of the sort of toxic masculinity that fabricates lies about women in order to blame them for the putative "emasculation of men". There is no "Me Too" organisation that speaks on behalf of women, it is constituted purely by women who have been victims of assault and who tag their individual accounts with the Me Too hashtag or label. This you would know if you could be bothered to do the slightest research instead of lying about the movement to serve your political ends.

Either you are simply ignorant of the implications of what you said or you happy to support the agenda of people like Tate. Either way, you ought to show some decency and admit your comment is shameful.

Edited January 2, 2023 by horsefly

[Fen Canary 866]

52 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Think you'll find toxic femininity gets mentioned on occasion, and the meanings are all-important. After all, if you don't set out what is meant as "masculine" or "feminine" then by definition, what's "toxic" can also be rather nebulous.

I must admit I’ve never heard of toxic femininity mentioned before so I could be mistaken, whereas I’ve heard toxic masculinity used when describing numerous crimes that have been committed by men. As you say however it’s often rather vague on what was exactly the masculine trait on show for it to be labelled as such, which in a roundabout way takes me back to one of my original points about young lads being unfairly linked to bad behaviour simply because of their gender 

[Fen Canary 866]

16 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Oh dear! What a pathetic attempt to try and deflect from the horrific implications of what you said. Who the hell do you think make up and speak for the "Me Too" movement? It was called "Me too" precisely because it involved women bravely coming forward to speak of the sexual assaults they have suffered. So, find me a single "member" of the Me Too movement that you claim "descended into" conflating the experience of "clumsy chat up lines" with their experience of rape and serious sexual assault. Provide evidence for once in your life. Of course you can't because your claim is a perfect example of the sort of toxic masculinity that fabricates lies about women in order to blame them for the putative "emasculation of men". Either you are simply ignorant of the implications of what you said or you happy to support the agenda of people like Tate. Either way, you ought to show some decency and admit your comment is shameful.

If you’re unable or unwilling to read what people have actually written why do you bother replying?

I’m clearly not going to go crawling around the internet simply to appease you, especially as I avoid Twitter like the plague which is where most of it seemed to happen. However there was a well publicised letter signed by 100 actresses and female academics in France saying the exact same things I’ve written, which you can easily find with a quick Google.

On that note this is the last reply you’ll receive from me, I really can’t be bothered with your nonsense 

[TheGunnShow 5,999]

3 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

I must admit I’ve never heard of toxic femininity mentioned before so I could be mistaken, whereas I’ve heard toxic masculinity used when describing numerous crimes that have been committed by men. As you say however it’s often rather vague on what was exactly the masculine trait on show for it to be labelled as such, which in a roundabout way takes me back to one of my original points about young lads being unfairly linked to bad behaviour simply because of their gender 

11 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

It raises a fair few questions. How are workplaces being "feminised"? What constitutes a workplace being "feminised"? What is so admirable about some of the old, far more dangerous jobs such as mining considering the sheer number of miners/workers that died over the years? Furthermore, a heck of a lot of men don't have any issues keeping their behaviour non-toxic. Not to mention I've seen plenty of women indulging in such behaviour to an extent where I wonder if it's doing them more harm than good which then brings up the key question - what makes such behaviours "male" in the first place?

That's fine, but we're still fundamentally missing these answers from the previous because, to quote you verbatim (and not to have three quotes at once, which gets messy), you said "Without becoming too bogged down in the meanings and turning the thread into a sociology debate, I think the old industries which were traditionally seen as masculine were much more hierarchical in nature as opposed to the more feminised collaborative approach."

The crux of the matter really is "what makes it masculine / feminine?" We're basically going to need that sociology debate. And that's before we even look at if these workspaces are really all that useful in the modern arena.

I'd propose the Barry Goldwater quote of "vices are only virtues taken to excess" as a starting point for defining a point where traits can become toxic, using this notion of stoicism or, more colloquially "man up" as a prime example, especially considering our propensity compared to women to bottle stuff up and then do regrettable things, most tragically being suicide, which has disproportionately hit men for a very long time.

On top of that, I certainly don't consider myself "attacked" due to gender and such notions as I am very confident I behave well around women. I get bemused at social pressures to follow the nuclear model (and I'm sure women get this far worse) and would argue dismantling that would be great progress for both men and women.

[horsefly 4,314]

Just now, Fen Canary said:

If you’re unable or unwilling to read what people have actually written why do you bother replying?

I’m clearly not going to go crawling around the internet simply to appease you, especially as I avoid Twitter like the plague which is where most of it seemed to happen. However there was a well publicised letter signed by 100 actresses and female academics in France saying the exact same things I’ve written, which you can easily find with a quick Google.

On that note this is the last reply you’ll receive from me, I really can’t be bothered with your nonsense 

You lied about the Me Too movement but are too pusillanimous to admit your shame. There was indeed a letter signed by 100 French women critical of the Me Too movement, you should try reading it ( https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/10/europe/catherine-deneuve-france-letter-metoo-intl/index.html). They like you believe "Men’s freedom to pester” is “indispensable to sexual freedom”. But then you might want to read the furious response to that letter in which women made exactly the same response that I have made to your lie that Me Too supporters conflate clumsy chat up lines with serious sexual assault (https://www.francetvinfo.fr/societe/droits-des-femmes/tribune-les-porcs-et-leurs-allie-e-s-ont-raison-de-sinquieter-caroline-de-haas-et-des-militantes-feministes-repondent-a-la-tribune-publiee-dans-le-monde_2553497.html). They accused the signatories of deliberately mixing “seduction, based on respect and pleasure, with violence.” “Sexual violence is not ‘intensified flirting,’” they wrote. “One means treating the other as your equal, respecting their desires, whatever they may be. The other is treating them as an object at your disposal, paying no attention to their own desires, or their consent.” So alas for you there is no support you can gain from that letter signed by 100 French women, because just like you, they also lied that Women supporting Me Too were incapable of distinguishing between a chat up line and sexual assault.

 

[Tetteys Jig 830]

20 hours ago, king canary said:

Education is a part of it.

But to be blunt the only thing that will keep people falling down the rabbit hole of people like Tate is a material improvement in their lives and prospects. 

Yup, same story you hear of why people get into gangs and drug dealing, lack of a better alternative.