(January 17, 2017 at 12:46 pm)CanOfMountainDew Wrote: If you want to have a debate about this I'll gladly accept. Certainly sexism has a historical significance; however it's a fallacy to say that x is true because x has historically been true.

It's not what I said. Also, fallacious and fallacy have different meanings. My point wasn't that it's true because it has been historically true. My point is that it has always been true. Less so now, but it's never gone away.

Quote:As for white men being the least repressed people in the history of ever; that either belies an ignorance of history or an earnest commitment to narrative at the expense of accuracy.

A few things here. When white men have been repressed systematically, it has been by other white men. Moreover, white women have been repressed right along side them, so it's not like white men in particular were singled out. Moreover, white men have dominated the landscape of power for all of time. Sure, you've had your Genghis Khan's and Egyptian pharaohs, but were they repressing white men? And I know someone's going to go ahead and bring up the Holocaust. White men perpetrated it and it targeted a huge range of people, none of the reasons for which were that they were white or male.

Quote:For example right now, in 2017, It is an objective fact that in the US men have less legal rights than women. It is also an objective fact, right now, that in the US that there is legislated affirmative action for certain minorities, thereby giving minorities more legal rights than whites.

Oh, gosh, no. Legal protections from white men are not the same as having more legal rights. The law has basically said "You can't do this anymore." Tough. Also, I'm not a huge fan of affirmative action. I'd like to see the laws rewritten in such a way that they are inclusive, but the very reason they are there is because white men have for centuries refused employment to women and other minorities. We finally hit a point where we are protecting ourselves from that.

I'm not going to sit here and argue for the poor, repressed white man unless you guys want to talk custody battles, family court, etc. Other than that, you guys have it easy and don't know it because you've always had it easy.

(January 17, 2017 at 11:28 am)pool the great Wrote: Was there a point to that post?

Yes. My point was that expecting anything other than idiocy from you is setting oneself up for disappointment.

---

So much of the alleged "repression" of white males reminds me of the "persecution" Christians allegedly face in America: some members of both groups feel persecuted because they each are losing the privilege to inflict themselves on non-whites or non-Christians.

(January 17, 2017 at 1:07 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(January 17, 2017 at 12:46 pm)CanOfMountainDew Wrote: If you want to have a debate about this I'll gladly accept. Certainly sexism has a historical significance; however it's a fallacy to say that x is true because x has historically been true.

It's not what I said. Also, fallacious and fallacy have different meanings. My point wasn't that it's true because it has been historically true. My point is that it has always been true. Less so now, but it's never gone away.

Quote:As for white men being the least repressed people in the history of ever; that either belies an ignorance of history or an earnest commitment to narrative at the expense of accuracy.

A few things here. When white men have been repressed systematically, it has been by other white men. Moreover, white women have been repressed right along side them, so it's not like white men in particular were singled out. Moreover, white men have dominated the landscape of power for all of time. Sure, you've had your Genghis Khan's and Egyptian pharaohs, but were they repressing white men? And I know someone's going to go ahead and bring up the Holocaust. White men perpetrated it and it targeted a huge range of people, none of the reasons for which were that they were white or male.

Quote:For example right now, in 2017, It is an objective fact that in the US men have less legal rights than women. It is also an objective fact, right now, that in the US that there is legislated affirmative action for certain minorities, thereby giving minorities more legal rights than whites.

Oh, gosh, no. Legal protections from white men are not the same as having more legal rights. The law has basically said "You can't do this anymore." Tough. Also, I'm not a huge fan of affirmative action. I'd like to see the laws rewritten in such a way that they are inclusive, but the very reason they are there is because white men have for centuries refused employment to women and other minorities. We finally hit a point where we are protecting ourselves from that.

I'm not going to sit here and argue for the poor, repressed white man unless you guys want to talk custody battles, family court, etc. Other than that, you guys have it easy and don't know it because you've always had it easy.

"Oh, gosh, no. Legal protections from white men are not the same as having more legal rights."

Just because a legal right doesn't confirm your narrative, it doesn't stop being a legal right.

Women are protected under law to have genital integrity. There is a specific law that forbids female genital mutilation. This law doesn't include men, and men have no specific law of their own to protect against genital mutilation. This is a legal right women have that men don't

Also men have to sign up for the selective service to acquire a whole host of rights that women get by default. Acquiring these rights by default is a legal right women have that men don't:



I gotta' be honest. While white men in a first world nation in 2017 are undoubtedly one of the most privileged demographics to ever exist on this earth, I'd say there's just one demographic that beats them in that regard; white women.

And that's coming from a white woman.

(January 17, 2017 at 11:50 am)pool the great Wrote: Pahahah!

Edit:

Shell B Wrote:Of course that's unfair. It's just not happening.

Did you even read the OP? Lol

As a sidenote, you're crazy. Scary crazy. Oh my.

As I said up thread, pool is simply a big baby who cannot handle the fact that sometimes people have opinions different than him, and who also cannot handle the fact that he isn't the biggest dog in the pack.

@CanOfMountainDew, what's the point of putting up an unattributed and unsourced picture for imgur? Is it that you want us thinking you've no argument, or just that you have no argument?

(January 17, 2017 at 3:53 pm)CanOfMountainDew Wrote: Just because a legal right doesn't confirm your narrative, it doesn't stop being a legal right.

Don't act as if I only acknowledge that which "confirms my narrative." That's not what's happening and it's not a fair argument.

Quote:Women are protected under law to have genital integrity. There is a specific law that forbids female genital mutilation. This law doesn't include men, and men have no specific law of their own to protect against genital mutilation. This is a legal right women have that men don't.

Again, we're legally protected because of an insanely abusive practice that leads to horrific side effects. It doesn't mean we have more rights. That said, it seems the majority of adult white men in this country prefer to be circumcised for religious regions. That isn't the case for adult white women, so it's not really a fair argument. While I do think males should be able to make this decision for themselves, it's just not a good example. On the flip side, you could say men have a right to be circumcised and women don't because it's illegal to circumcise a woman, so if I wanted to for religious reasons, I couldn't. I mean, whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, if we're going right by right here, we're still even.

Quote:Also men have to sign up for the selective service to acquire a whole host of rights that women get by default. Acquiring these rights by default is a legal right women have that men don't

Catch up with the times, yo. That's not a thing anymore or is soon to be not a thing anymore.

Quote:I gotta' be honest. While white men in a first world nation in 2017 are undoubtedly one of the most privileged demographics to ever exist on this earth, I'd say there's just one demographic that beats them in that regard; white women.

Wow. Eyes meet wool. Again, there is one area where that might be true. In others, it just isn't. Unless you're living the most sheltered life ever, I can't understand how a woman can't recognize the obstacles in her path. Have you pursued careers, taken time from work to care for children, etc.?

I had no idea I was so persecuted as a white male...

(January 17, 2017 at 4:14 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: I had no idea I was so persecuted as a white male...

Don't worry. Can, the white female, will stand up for your rights.

(January 17, 2017 at 4:25 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(January 17, 2017 at 4:14 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: I had no idea I was so persecuted as a white male...

Don't worry. Can, the white female, will stand up for your rights.

She'd better check her privilege before speaking on behalf of my people!

*Poor, beset white guy resumes whistling the blues, just as he has since the dawn of history*

Ahh yes, the conservative BULLSHIT that white men are the most oppressed. Which is why we've never had a white male President in modern history. But that CHANGES ON FRIDAY! (Sort of. Your boy Drumpf is kind of Orange). It's also why there are so few white male CEO's, so few white Male congressmen and White Male senators. It's really hard being a white man in this country. They have to sign up for selective service!

Spare me your persecution complex.

(January 17, 2017 at 4:35 pm)Divinity Wrote: Ahh yes, the conservative BULLSHIT that white men are the most oppressed.  Which is why we've never had a white male President in modern history.  But that CHANGES ON FRIDAY!  (Sort of.  Your boy Drumpf is kind of Orange).  It's also why there are so few white male CEO's, so few white Male congressmen and White Male senators.  It's really hard being a white man in this country.  They have to sign up for selective service!  

Spare me your persecution complex.

Oh, but Divinity, it's so much worse than just signing up for selective service.

It's signing up for selective service in an era in which there is about zero chance of the government initiating a draft, since the military has made it perfectly clear that they want no part of one ever again, if it can be helped. So not only do we have to fill out a short form, but then we have to submit it with a fair certainty that we will never be forced to serve in the military.

*Casts his eyes imploringly skyward as he groans under the burden of his gender and skin color*