Activism versus Discussion thread

El_Duderino 09

FishOnABike wrote: »

iptba wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/sligochampion/localnotes/helping-men-overcome-violence-36812886.html

This seems to be for male perpetrators of domestic violence. Are there any similar schemes for female perpetrators of domestic violence and corresponding support structures for men on the receiving end of domestic violence? Or am I naieve to ask?

I don't know. It would probably take years of lobbying and campaigning to get something like that setup. You don't tend to see much activism for men's issues. The feminists are on the ball with lobbying and campaigning. It would be great to see more men's rights lobbying and in time, there would be results like the a men's DV shelter.

These things don't just come about out of nothing. The government doesn't just phone up and ask if you want money for a DV shelter. Further to that if you lobby for funds for a women's DV shelter and are successful, the government won't just give you the money for an equivalent men's shelter.

MOD:

Posts moved from the Man Up Campaign thread to this dedicated thread on activism versus discussion/proselytism. Hopefully that discussion can remain in this thread and other threads can remain on topic.

El_Duderino 09

FishOnABike wrote: »

And we wonder why male suicide rates are four times that of females?

I don’t see a direct connection. What point are you making exactly?

In any case nothing happens without organised and persistent lobbying and campaigning. If there’s a woman’s DV shelter it’s because people lobbied for years to change attitudes and get money. If there’s no men’s DV shelter it needs people to lobby for years to change attitudes and get money. Simple as that.

El_Duderino 09

professore wrote: »

Definitely around access to children and parental rights in general there is a huge inequality that needs to be addressed. I'm in a happy stable marriage but if I wasn't I would be in there campaigning. As it stands I have precious little time for that kind of thing.

Fair play. These things won’t change without activism.

Everyone should do what they can. For example challenging the notion that men should actively campaign. Lots of people are buying into the slurry yer man Peterson is spreading this season. Talking down the importance of activism and raising awareness in achieving change. One small thing you could do is to acknowledge those who you see campaigning and challenge this fatalism that there’s no point in campaigning for men’s issues.

Whether it’s men’s domestic violence support or family courts a you mention above, nothin happens without activism.

DeadHand

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Everyone should do what they can. For example challenging the notion that men should actively campaign. Lots of people are buying into the slurry yer man Peterson is spreading this season. Talking down the importance of activism and raising awareness in achieving change

Peterson is possibly the most misrepresented commentator of all time, and here is more of it.

He does not downplay activism, he advises it is not attempted seriously until a person has their own life and emotional house in order.

A good example of where this message could be received profitably is in the depressing case of modern feminism, which is absolutely riven with mental illness and emotional problems.

The movement has degenerated badly after a noble history.

Many modern feminists conduct themselves grotesquely in the West. Screaming at the sky in pussyhats, waging war against sexist central heating systems or parading around cities in lingerie or menstral blood soaked clothing because... reasons.

Less dramatic though no less deranged and far more sinister are those of the sisterhood who bully elderly academics and broadcasters for reasonable commentary, bully socially hapless scientists for what they choose to wear, campaign for the destruction of innocent men on the basis they are men and were erroneously accused of harming a woman, Etc., Etc., Etc.

With all this bizarreness, it becomes difficult to discern where the pathology ends and the ideology begins. It’s a movement populated heavily by unhappy, resentful people.

These individual feminists may do well to digest some of Peterson’s work (specifically that concerning activism and the individual versus the collective) with an open mind. It may help improve their lives just as Peterson has already helped to improve the lives of thousands of women through his private practice and public work.

Of course, most despise Peterson for no reason other than they’ve been told by their peers that they should. They don’t understand his message (as you don’t) and are not interested in trying to understand. They condemn and attempt to silence before reading and truly listening.

You should read his book and watch his lectures; you may be pleasantly surprised.

Now, I’m not suggesting that J.P. is the second coming but, contrary to the rubberbandit, I’d argue that young feminists need Peterson a lot more than young men need feminism.

El_Duderino 09

DeadHand wrote: »

Peterson is possibly the most misrepresented commentator of all time, and here is more of it.

He does not downplay activism, he advises it is not attempted seriously until a person has their own life and emotional house in order.

A good example of where this message could be received profitably is in the depressing case of modern feminism, which is absolutely riven with mental illness and emotional problems.

The movement has degenerated badly after a noble history.

Many modern feminists conduct themselves grotesquely in the West. Screaming at the sky in pussyhats, waging war against sexist central heating systems or parading around cities in lingerie or menstral blood soaked clothing because... reasons.

Less dramatic though no less deranged and far more sinister are those of the sisterhood who bully elderly academics and broadcasters for reasonable commentary, bully socially hapless scientists for what they choose to wear, campaign for the destruction of innocent men on the basis they are men and were erroneously accused of harming a woman, Etc., Etc., Etc.

With all this bizarreness, it becomes difficult to discern where the pathology ends and the ideology begins. It’s a movement populated heavily by unhappy, resentful people.

These individual feminists may do well to digest some of Peterson’s work (specifically that concerning activism and the individual versus the collective) with an open mind. It may help improve their lives just as Peterson has already helped to improve the lives of thousands of women through his private practice and public work.

Of course, most despise Peterson for no reason other than they’ve been told by their peers that they should. They don’t understand his message (as you don’t) and are not interested in trying to understand. They condemn and attempt to silence before reading and truly listening.

You should read his book and watch his lectures; you may be pleasantly surprised.

Now, I’m not suggesting that J.P. is the second coming but, contrary to the rubberbandit, I’d argue that young feminists need Peterson a lot more than young men need feminism.

The more I read Peterson's followers the more i see that his followers feel the other side are most in need of his teachings.

Look, if people want men's DV shelters or to change the family court system, they need to organise and campaign for it. Peterson's teachings are irrelevant to it at best and his followers who promote tidying your room over activism are actually harmful to achieving any change in the laws.

Grand in theory, at best irrelevant in practice.

The Bishop Basher

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The more I read Peterson's followers the more i see that his followers feel the other side are most in need of his teachings.

I've seen Peterson being brought into a debate and misrepresented twice today.

Both times by you..

No offence but I didn't engage with your question on the other thread as i didn't believe you were actually interested in an answer..

I'm glad I held off..

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What’s his message on this one?

I admire DeadHand's patience. They've given you a far more comprehensive response then I would have. I don't have an issue with you having an issue with Peterson but for your own sake you should at least make sure you know and understand what he's saying before critiquing it. He's incredibly specific with his words so there's no room for misunderstanding or misinterpreting.

El_Duderino 09

Rennaws wrote: »

No offence but I didn't engage with your question on the other thread as i didn't believe you were actually interested in an answer..

I'm glad I held off..

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What’s his message on this one?

I admire DeadHand's patience. They've given you a far more comprehensive response then I would have. I don't have an issue with you having an issue with Peterson but for your own sake you should at least make sure you know and understand what he's saying before critiquing it. He's incredibly specific with his words so there's no room for misunderstanding or misinterpreting.

Look again at what deadhand actually said. To summarise, one sentence that says Peterson would say you should get your own house in order before attempting activism. The rest of the post is about how Peterson’s approach should be applied to feminism, not the issue at hand.

And you seem to think this answers my question about what Peterson would say about this issue?

In any case, I haven't seen anyone say the first approach to raise awareness of domestic violence against men or improve the lives of Male victims of domestic violence, is naturally to start by tidying and beautifying your room or self improvement if any kind.

It hasn’t been said because it’s nonsense to apply Peterson’s preaching to a real world problem (except DH did write a number of paragraphs about how feminists should heed Peterson)

py2006

DeadHand wrote: »

Peterson is possibly the most misrepresented commentator of all time, and here is more of it.

He does not downplay activism, he advises it is not attempted seriously until a person has their own life and emotional house in order.

A good example of where this message could be received profitably is in the depressing case of modern feminism, which is absolutely riven with mental illness and emotional problems.

The movement has degenerated badly after a noble history.

Many modern feminists conduct themselves grotesquely in the West. Screaming at the sky in pussyhats, waging war against sexist central heating systems or parading around cities in lingerie or menstral blood soaked clothing because... reasons.

Less dramatic though no less deranged and far more sinister are those of the sisterhood who bully elderly academics and broadcasters for reasonable commentary, bully socially hapless scientists for what they choose to wear, campaign for the destruction of innocent men on the basis they are men and were erroneously accused of harming a woman, Etc., Etc., Etc.

With all this bizarreness, it becomes difficult to discern where the pathology ends and the ideology begins. It’s a movement populated heavily by unhappy, resentful people.

These individual feminists may do well to digest some of Peterson’s work (specifically that concerning activism and the individual versus the collective) with an open mind. It may help improve their lives just as Peterson has already helped to improve the lives of thousands of women through his private practice and public work.

Of course, most despise Peterson for no reason other than they’ve been told by their peers that they should. They don’t understand his message (as you don’t) and are not interested in trying to understand. They condemn and attempt to silence before reading and truly listening.

You should read his book and watch his lectures; you may be pleasantly surprised.

Now, I’m not suggesting that J.P. is the second coming but, contrary to the rubberbandit, I’d argue that young feminists need Peterson a lot more than young men need feminism.

Very well said, much applause!

The Bishop Basher

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Look again at what deadhand actually said. To summarise, one sentence that says Peterson would say you should get your own house in order before attempting activism. The rest of the post is about how Peterson’s approach should be applied to feminism, not the issue at hand.

And you seem to think this answers my question about what Peterson would say about this issue?

In any case, I haven't seen anyone say the first approach to raise awareness of domestic violence against men or improve the lives of Male victims of domestic violence, is naturally to start by tidying and beautifying your room or self improvement if any kind.

It hasn’t been said because it’s nonsense to apply Peterson’s preaching to a real world problem (except DH did write a number of paragraphs about how feminists should heed Peterson)

You're very fixated on Peterson for some reason and it's a little cringe worthy watching you repeatedly demonstrate your ignorance on the topic. I think he has a lot of good things to say and I admire his absolute refusal to kowtow to political correctness but as has already been pointed out to you, he's a university lecturer, he's not a god.

Take what he has to say or don't. It's a free world. You do have a choice in the matter..

El_Duderino 09

Rennaws wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Look again at what deadhand actually said. To summarise, one sentence that says Peterson would say you should get your own house in order before attempting activism. The rest of the post is about how Peterson’s approach should be applied to feminism, not the issue at hand.

And you seem to think this answers my question about what Peterson would say about this issue?

In any case, I haven't seen anyone say the first approach to raise awareness of domestic violence against men or improve the lives of Male victims of domestic violence, is naturally to start by tidying and beautifying your room or self improvement if any kind.

It hasn’t been said because it’s nonsense to apply Peterson’s preaching to a real world problem (except DH did write a number of paragraphs about how feminists should heed Peterson)

You're very fixated on Peterson for some reason and it's a little cringe worthy watching you repeatedly demonstrate your ignorance on the topic. I think he has a lot of good things to say and I admire his absolute refusal to kowtow to political correctness but as has already been pointed out to you, he's a university lecturer, he's not a god.

Take what he has to say or don't. It's a free world. You do have a choice in the matter..

I acknowledge we have free will. I'm not certain why you mentioned that.

I'm bringing him up because his self help philosophy is in vogue at the moment so I'm looking to see where his followers actually apply it in a real life situation. So far nobody has suggested applying his self improvement to this issue (except to say feminists should heed it).

If his teaching was actually taking hold, surely it would have real world application. In actual fact, people are willing to jump to his defence if challenged, but wouldn't dream of applying his teachings to this situation because hey would be useless.

We need more support for men's DV shelters, start by cleaning your room, then read some philosophy, then wait for Peterson's next book.

I'd bet the farm that his next book will be about achieving change in society and all of a sudden his followers will be all about organising and campaigning. I hope that happens because that would at least be useful.

El_Duderino 09

py2006 wrote: »

Very well said, much applause!

A quick breakdown of that post you found applause worth.

DeadHand wrote: »

Peterson is possibly the most misrepresented commentator of all time, and here is more of it.

He does not downplay activism, he advises it is not attempted seriously until a person has their own life and emotional house in order.

DeadHand wrote: »

A good example of where this message could be received profitably is in the depressing case of modern feminism, which is absolutely riven with mental illness and emotional problems.

Feminists are dreadful and they should heed Peterson.

DeadHand wrote: »

The movement has degenerated badly after a noble history.

Feminist are dreadful

DeadHand wrote: »

Many modern feminists conduct themselves grotesquely in the West. Screaming at the sky in pussyhats, waging war against sexist central heating systems or parading around cities in lingerie or menstral blood soaked clothing because... reasons.

Feminists are dreadful

DeadHand wrote: »

Less dramatic though no less deranged and far more sinister are those of the sisterhood who bully elderly academics and broadcasters for reasonable commentary, bully socially hapless scientists for what they choose to wear, campaign for the destruction of innocent men on the basis they are men and were erroneously accused of harming a woman, Etc., Etc., Etc.

Feminist are dreadful.

DeadHand wrote: »

With all this bizarreness, it becomes difficult to discern where the pathology ends and the ideology begins. It’s a movement populated heavily by unhappy, resentful people.

Feminists are dreadful

DeadHand wrote: »

These individual feminists may do well to digest some of Peterson’s work (specifically that concerning activism and the individual versus the collective) with an open mind. It may help improve their lives just as Peterson has already helped to improve the lives of thousands of women through his private practice and public work.

Feminists should heed Peterson

DeadHand wrote: »

Of course, most despise Peterson for no reason other than they’ve been told by their peers that they should. They don’t understand his message (as you don’t) and are not interested in trying to understand. They condemn and attempt to silence before reading and truly listening.

Poor Aul Peterson

DeadHand wrote: »

You should read his book and watch his lectures; you may be pleasantly surprised.

El duderino should heed Peterson

DeadHand wrote: »

Now, I’m not suggesting that J.P. is the second coming but, contrary to the rubberbandit, I’d argue that young feminists need Peterson a lot more than young men need feminism.

Feminists should heed Peterson.

Is there any situation where Peterson's own followers should heed Peterson or is Peterson's philosophy just to be applied to the other side?

I don't know if you noticed but the feminists have just won a major battle that was waged over the last 30 odd years. They campaigned and lobbied and raised awareness to the point that it became mainstream. I'm expecting you to say it wasn't a feminist issue. But obviously that's the point. They turned it Into a mainstream issue by pushing the envelope and bringing it to the public consciousness.

Either those repeal activists have their own house in perfect order before they criticised the system, or else they didn't need to have their house in perfect order to cause a massive changes in society.
In any case, they're out there changing society and men's rights are going nowhere fast. Instead lots of the people who purport to care about men's rights are caught up in navel gazing and telling the feminists they ought to be navel gazing too. Well they're not navel gazing, they're out there changing society.

LostinBlanch

Rennaws wrote: »

I've seen Peterson being brought into a debate and misrepresented twice today.

Both times by you..

AKA the Cathy Newman argument.

Rennaws wrote: »

No offence but I didn't engage with your question on the other thread as i didn't believe you were actually interested in an answer..

I'm glad I held off..

You've hit the nail on the head there IMO. Still at least people aren't blind and can see the same patterns occurring again and again.

El_Duderino 09

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Rennaws wrote: »

No offence but I didn't engage with your question on the other thread as i didn't believe you were actually interested in an answer..

I'm glad I held off..

You've hit the nail on the head there IMO. Still at least people aren't blind and can see the same patterns occurring again and again.

Look i asked how Peterson's approach can be applied to this situation and the answers have been that other people should do as Peterson says. The reason being that his approach is useless to adopt in this situation.

The good news is that there is a solution but it's not in Peterson's book or YouTube videos. Its the oldest trick in the book. Get organised and raise awareness.

This idea that giving it about feminists and saying they should read Peterson in lieu of actually campaigning for the issues that matter to men, is dangerous.

DeadHand

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Look i asked how Peterson's approach can be applied to this situation and the answers have been that other people should do as Peterson says. The reason being that his approach is useless to adopt in this situation.

The good news is that there is a solution but it's not in Peterson's book or YouTube videos. Its the oldest trick in the book. Get organised and raise awareness.

This idea that giving it about feminists and saying they should read Peterson in lieu of actually campaigning for the issues that matter to men, is dangerous.

You seem to be getting awfully excited, time to go out in the sunshine, perhaps? You could sit somewhere sunny and browse Peterson's book; a more pleasing and enlightening way to spend a day than being wrong on here.

In any event, Peterson is all for getting organized and raising awareness AFTER you have achieved some equilibrium in your personal life thus improving your public efforts.

You'd understand this if you actually studied his work instead of attacking him thoughtlessly because you mistakenly believe him to be "the enemy".

You should stop evoking Petersen's name and cease making absolute value judgements on his philosophies- you have proven yourself ignorant as to what his work actually contains.

DeadHand

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Either those repeal activists have their own house in perfect order before they criticised the system, or else they didn't need to have their house in perfect order to cause a massive changes in society.
In any case, they're out there changing society and men's rights are going nowhere fast. Instead lots of the people who purport to care about men's rights are caught up in navel gazing and telling the feminists they ought to be navel gazing too. Well they're not navel gazing, they're out there changing society.

Contemporary feminists do like to claim victory for societal evolutions that are much bigger than and have little to do with their ugly movement. They're a lot like ISIS that way.

About the only thing both the No and Yes side agreed on after the referendum was that if neither had bothered campaigning the result would have been the same. People had made their minds up before a poster was erected (sorry if that verb causes you offence) or a purple haired woman grabbed a megaphone.

There was no dramatic chasm between the male and female vote- 70% of women and 65% of men voted Yes. It was not a gender war, it was not even a gender issue so much as it was a legal and societal issue, even if feminist groups in Ireland tried to gender the issue as they try to gender every issue- unable as they are to see anything unless through that narrow prism.

The referendum was the entirety of our society moving in a certain direction informed in the main by personal conscience and experience, not an electoral coup for Irish feminism.

El_Duderino 09

DeadHand wrote: »

Contemporary feminists do like to claim victory for societal evolutions that are much bigger than and have little to do with their ugly movement. They're a lot like ISIS that way.

About the only thing both the No and Yes side agreed on after the referendum was that if neither had bothered campaigning the result would have been the same. People had made their minds up before a poster was erected (sorry if that verb causes you offence) or a purple haired woman grabbed a megaphone.

There was no dramatic chasm between the male and female vote- 70% of women and 65% of men voted Yes. It was not a gender war, it was not even a gender issue so much as it was a legal and societal issue, even if feminist groups in Ireland tried to gender the issue as they try to gender every issue- unable as they are to see anything unless through that narrow prism.

The referendum was the entirety of our society moving in a certain direction informed in the main by personal conscience and experience, not an electoral coup for Irish feminism.

This is exactly it. They took a feminist issue an made it mainstream. You can downplay that all you like but it wasn't a mainstream issue 30 odd years ago and last week it received mainstream approval.

The vote happened last week, the campaign to repeal the 8th amendment is decades old. I get that you can't give credit to a movement that you spend so much time discrediting and ridiculing. It must be infuriating to watch them so successfully achieved societal change.

Ok so if activism isn't the solution to men's issues like domestic violence, and tidying your room isn't the solutions, then what is the solution?

El_Duderino 09

DeadHand wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Look i asked how Peterson's approach can be applied to this situation and the answers have been that other people should do as Peterson says. The reason being that his approach is useless to adopt in this situation.

The good news is that there is a solution but it's not in Peterson's book or YouTube videos. Its the oldest trick in the book. Get organised and raise awareness.

This idea that giving it about feminists and saying they should read Peterson in lieu of actually campaigning for the issues that matter to men, is dangerous.

You seem to be getting awfully excited, time to go out in the sunshine, perhaps? You could sit somewhere sunny and browse Peterson's book; a more pleasing and enlightening way to spend a day than being wrong on here.

In any event, Peterson is all for getting organized and raising awareness AFTER you have achieved some equilibrium in your personal life thus improving your public efforts.

You'd understand this if you actually studied his work instead of attacking him thoughtlessly because you mistakenly believe him to be "the enemy".

You should stop evoking Petersen's name and cease making absolute value judgements on his philosophies- you have proven yourself ignorant as to what his work actually contains.

Ok I'll leave the personal stuff aside.

How do you know who has and hasn't achieved equilibrium in their personal life? Have you achieved equilibrium in your personal life? Have the people involved in the the abortion campaign for the the last 30 odd years all got equilibrium in their lives?

You don't need equilibrium in your life to campaign for something worthwhile. Self improvement is grand but it not a necessary step to campaigning for something useful like father's rights.

Seriously can you explain why equilibrium in your life is in any way a prerequisite for campaigning for change in the law?

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I get that you can't give credit to a movement that you spend so much time discrediting and ridiculing. It must be infuriating to watch them so successfully achieved societal change.

The abortion referendum was passed by a landside by the Irish electorate, not just some plucky band of feminists.

Absolute nonsense from you to claim that posters here are upset by the referendum result. I'd give you the benefit of the doubt except you have proved yourself to be one of the most consistently dishonest posters on the site.

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote: »

The abortion referendum was passed by a landside by the Irish electorate, not just some plucky band of feminists.

Absolute nonsense from you to claim that posters here are upset by the referendum result. I'd give you the benefit of the doubt except you have proved yourself to be one of the most consistently dishonest posters on the site.

I’ll probably just leave the personal stuff aside.

I was pretty careful to say the referendum was last week and the campaign is decades old. They campaigned and grafted for decades to bring it into the public consciousness and gain public support. They were so successful that they convinced 2/3 of the voters to support their idea.

30,40,50 years ago, abortion was very much a fringe feminist idea.

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I was pretty careful to say the referendum was last week and the campaign is decades old.

I quoted what you said above so there is no mistake about what you said at all.

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I was pretty careful to say the referendum was last week and the campaign is decades old.

I quoted what you said above so there is no mistake about what you said at all.

Grand so. I said it throughout the last few pages including in the post directly before your post.

In any case that's the situation with referendum was last week, the abortion campaign is decades old. It was very much a fringe feminist issue for most of that time. They turned it into a mainstream issue by persistently pushing the issue and gathering support over the decades. That's how people bring about change.

Pat Mustard

That's an overly simplistic and self serving view of how societal change has occurred in Ireland over the previous two or three decades but I have no interest in getting into a debate on abortion.

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote: »

That's an overly simplistic and self serving view of how societal change has occurred in Ireland over the previous two or three decades but I have no interest in getting into a debate on abortion.

It’s also accurate. Abortion was a fringe feminist issue whether you want to discuss it or not.

I’m not sure if you noticed or not, but you haven’t shown interest in discussing anything. You sniped from the sideline and now your off, as is your way in my experience. It’s been as much fun chatting with you as usual.

I mean if abortion is an archetypal feminist issue of the last few decades. They’ve been so successful that they have brought2/3 of the voting pubic on board.

It’s textbook campaigning and it was successful in the end

Pat Mustard

No, what you say isn't accurate. There were a number of different factors which came into play here, other than feminist activism.

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote: »

No, what you say isn't accurate. There were a number of different factors which came into play here, other than feminist activism.

I’d love to hear what you have to contribute to the discussion, but alas you haven’t yet.

I mean, this should be easy enough for you to slip out of by saying the feminists of 40 years ago were the good ones. But now you’ve committed yourself to the position that it wasn’t the feminists pushing abortion for the last 40 odd years. Lol.

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

But now you’ve committed yourself to the position that it wasn’t the feminists pushing abortion for the last 40 odd years. Lol.

There's a reason why you said that but didn't quote anything that I actually wrote.

I presume that this is the 'bait' part of the classic El Duderino bait and switch. I'm sure you'll try harder next time.

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote: »

There's a reason why you said that but didn't quote anything that I actually wrote.

I presume that this is the 'bait' part of the classic El Duderino bait and switch. I'm sure you'll try harder next time.

Pat, do you have anything to contribute to the discussion? Its great fun having you pop by to drop a few insults, but it would be even better if you had something to add except unpleasantness.

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Pat, do you have anything to contribute to the discussion? Its great fun having you pop by to drop a few insults, but it would be even better if you had something to add except unpleasantness.

Do you know that people would discuss issues with you, if you discussed the issues plainly instead of misrepresenting the issues, misrepresenting what people have to say, pretending that you don't understand people at times, pretending that you can't insert links in your posts, pretending that working links don't work for you, etc.

You can talk about unpleasantness all you want but if you can't up your own game, then you should expect that other posters are going to give you short shrift.

You're obviously an intelligent guy. There should be no need to resort to these tactics.

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Do you know that people would discuss issues with you, if you discussed the issues plainly instead of misrepresenting the issues, misrepresenting what people have to say, pretending that you don't understand people at times, pretending that you can't insert links in your posts, pretending that working links don't work for you, etc.

You can talk about unpleasantness all you want but if you can't up your own game, then you should expect that other posters are going to give you short shrift.

You're obviously an intelligent guy. There should be no need to resort to these tactics.

Thanks for the pep talk pat. Be sure to drop by if you have anything to contribute to the discussion. Or the as usual to lob a few insults and leave.

El_Duderino 09

Pat’s unpleasant detour over. Has anyone come up with a good way to achieve change to laws like the family court system or create domestic violence services for men, that doesn’t involve organising and campaigning.

Cleaning your room is great, but are we assuming that the abortion referendum proponents of the last decades all had their own house in perfect order before they tried to change the system? Is anyone coming to see that the Peterson stuff is grand, but is also complete beside the point when it comes to causing societal change?

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is anyone coming to see that the Peterson stuff is grand, but is also complete beside the point when it comes to causing societal change?

I don't necessarily agree that it's beside the point.

Cultural and external influences change how people think, maybe not immediately but slowly.

A socially left wing type of thinking has begun to emerge in certain aspects of society, recently. This has manifested in laws which give additional rights to particular groups of people. Travellers are now a protected group. It is not yet known where this protected status will lead. Because of the structure of political funding, gender quotas exist in relation to political nominations for election. The purchase but not the sale of sex is a criminal offence, per the (left wing) Swedish model of dealing with prostitution.

These are not rights which have been called for by the electorate at large. In my view, these changes in law and society stem from socially left wing ideas which have become more prevalent in politics these days. Activism may have played a part in such change but I think that cultural influences such as ideas from other countries, ideas from newspapers and discussion sites also serve to plant and/or change points of view.

In my view, discussion on this site could have some impact on the views that others could express. Such views might translate into votes in elections or referenda.

Much of the mainstream media seem leftist in their outlook to varying degrees. Few social commentators seem to argue plausibly from a more socially conservative standpoint. In a way, Jordan Peterson proposes to fill that void.

He has ideas. He spreads those ideas. He influences certain people.

Perhaps he will influence the thinking of some people, to the extent that societal change may occur. I wouldn't rule it out.

Wibbs

Pat Mustard wrote: »

You're obviously an intelligent guy. There should be no need to resort to these tactics.

Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer... He does seem obsessed with this Peterson yahoo and his room cleaning thang. TBH I personally don't get the Peterson obsession on either "side". Maybe it's the shock for both of someone who has a position kinda against the "mainstream" who isn't a foaming at the mouth loony? There's enough of the latter to be going around so a change is as good as a rest I suppose. Though the foaming at the corner of the mouth types are more fatiguing to deal with. Though easier to dismiss, so they have that going for them.

No, what you say isn't accurate.

Say it isn't so?? :eek:

I'd give you the benefit of the doubt except you have proved yourself to be one of the most consistently dishonest posters on the site.

Well... kinda yeah. Moves goalposts more quickly than a Croke park GAA/Rubgy/gig weekend. Though to be fair it's egregiously apparent. I would consider that an unconscious courtesy. Of sorts.

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is anyone coming to see that the Peterson stuff is grand, but is also complete beside the point when it comes to causing societal change?

I don't necessarily agree that it's beside the point.

Cultural and external influences change how people think, maybe not immediately but slowly.

A socially left wing type of thinking has begun to emerge in certain aspects of society, recently. This has manifested in laws which give additional rights to particular groups of people. Travellers are now a protected group. It is not yet known where this protected status will lead. Because of the structure of political funding, gender quotas exist in relation to political nominations for election. The purchase but not the sale of sex is a criminal offence, per the (left wing) Swedish model of dealing with prostitution.

These are not rights which have been called for by the electorate at large. In my view, these changes in law and society stem from socially left wing ideas which have become more prevalent in politics these days. Activism may have played a part in such change but I think that cultural influences such as ideas from other countries, ideas from newspapers and discussion sites also serve to plant and/or change points of view.

In my view, discussion on this site could have some impact on the views that others could express. Such views might translate into votes in elections or referenda.

Much of the mainstream media seem leftist in their outlook to varying degrees. Few social commentators seem to argue plausibly from a more socially conservative standpoint. In a way, Jordan Peterson proposes to fill that void.

He has ideas. He spreads those ideas. He influences certain people.

Perhaps he will influence the thinking of some people, to the extent that societal change may occur. I wouldn't rule it out.

I think you’re banding a lot of things together under ‘the left’. I think you could be conflating activist that you don’t support with the left.

Travellers, abortion, gender politics, sex work, all have politically active lobbying and campaigning. They’re in the ear of politicians. They interact with media. ‘Men’ as a group, don’t do any of those things to anything like the same extent.

Last year I watched a uk parliamentary (home affairs maybe but I’m not sure) committee hearing about sex work. They got evidence from sex workers, sex work charities and health professionals but they couldn’t get any customers to give evidence. So those politicians go away and make recommendations for legal reform and change to practices based in part on those testimonies.

That’s how change happens. And men were absent from that part of the process. Change only happens when people make it happen for themselves.

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote: »

Pat Mustard wrote: »

You're obviously an intelligent guy. There should be no need to resort to these tactics.

Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer... He does seem obsessed with this Peterson yahoo and his room cleaning thang. TBH I personally don't get the Peterson obsession on either "side". Maybe it's the shock for both of someone who has a position kinda against the "mainstream" who isn't a foaming at the mouth loony? There's enough of the latter to be going around so a change is as good as a rest I suppose. Though the foaming at the corner of the mouth types are more fatiguing to deal with. Though easier to dismiss, so they have that going for them.

No, what you say isn't accurate.

Say it isn't so?? :eek:

I'd give you the benefit of the doubt except you have proved yourself to be one of the most consistently dishonest posters on the site.

Well... kinda yeah. Moves goalposts more quickly than a Croke park GAA/Rubgy/gig weekend. Though to be fair it's egregiously apparent. I would consider that an unconscious courtesy. Of sorts.

I would have thought this sort of sniping was beneath you, Wibbs.

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That’s how change happens. And men were absent from that part of the process. Change only happens when people make it happen for themselves.

You went off on a bit of a tangent there. Let me remind you that you put the question as to whether Jordan Peterson could effect societal change. I think that it is possible that he could.

My reply to you was a reflection of my own opinions, put in response to your question. Whether I am banding a number of issues under the umbrella of the left or not is beside the point. These were simply illustrative of the major point that I was trying to make.

I think that societal change can come about because of ideas. I think that ideas can gain traction with populations, which can translate into votes and policies to be implemented by governments and the various organs of government.

What I am saying is that activism is just one form of propagating an idea. There are other means.

This site may very well be one of those means. Maybe Jordan Peterson is too.

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That’s how change happens. And men were absent from that part of the process. Change only happens when people make it happen for themselves.

You went off on a bit of a tangent there. Let me remind you that you put the question as to whether Jordan Peterson could effect societal change. I think that it is possible that he could.

My reply to you was a reflection of my own opinions, put in response to your question. Whether I am banding a number of issues under the umbrella of the left or not is beside the point. These were simply illustrative of the major point that I was trying to make.

I think that societal change can come about because of ideas. I think that ideas can gain traction with populations, which can translate into votes and policies to be implemented by governments and the various organs of government.

What I am saying is that activism is just one form of propagating an idea. There are other means.

This site may very well be one of those means. Maybe Jordan Peterson is too.

On what way might Peterson be one?

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

On what way might Peterson be one?

See above

Pat Mustard wrote: »

He has ideas. He spreads those ideas. He influences certain people.

Perhaps he will influence the thinking of some people, to the extent that societal change may occur. I wouldn't rule it out.

Zulu

Warning: goalpost maneuver imminent.

El_Duderino 09

Zulu wrote: »

Warning: goalpost maneuver imminent.

Theres no way even I could attempt to move a goalposts a broad as this “Perhaps he will influence the thinking of some people, to the extent that societal change may occur. I wouldn't rule it out”.

Why bother to move the goalposts? The same could be said of Auntie Nora. She might cause societal change to occur. I wouldn’t rule it out, but I wouldn’t hold my breath either.

All this to avoid the notion that organising and campaigning are the clear and obvious way to achieve change.

Rory28

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

All this to avoid the notion that organising and campaigning are the clear and obvious way to achieve change.

This is true only if the people campaigning are of sound mind. If its just a bunch of emotional 20 somethings screaming whatever catch phrase (patriarchy, BLM, Keep your hate speech off my campus etc) over and over to disrupt a conference, lecture, debate then you can see why Peterson says get your own **** together before trying to change other ****.

The only thing people like that can change is the minds of people already on the left.

El_Duderino 09

Rory28 wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

All this to avoid the notion that organising and campaigning are the clear and obvious way to achieve change.

This is true only if the people campaigning are of sound mind. If its just a bunch of emotional 20 somethings screaming whatever catch phrase (patriarchy, BLM, Keep your hate speech off my campus etc) over and over to disrupt a conference, lecture, debate then you can see why Peterson says get your own **** together before trying to change other ****.

The only thing people like that can change is the minds of people already on the left.

So would you say you need to gave your sh1t together to have a successful campaign? Do all the repeal campaigners have their sh1t together? Have all the abortion campaigners over the last 40 odd years hard their sh1t together?

Or is having the sh1t together a completely different issue from being part of a successful campaign?

Zulu

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

All this to avoid the notion that organising and campaigning are the clear and obvious way to achieve change.

Goalpost maneuver cofirmed.

El_Duderino 09

Zulu wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

All this to avoid the notion that organising and campaigning are the clear and obvious way to achieve change.

Goalpost maneuver cofirmed.

If we’re willing to go with an explanation as weak and generic as this, then the world is your goalposts. “Perhaps he will influence the thinking of some people, to the extent that societal change may occur. I wouldn't rule it out”.

I wouldn’t rule it out. Lol.

Is ignoring me going well for you, Zulu? For all your talk, you just can’t quit me.

iptba

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think you’re banding a lot of things together under ‘the left’. I think you could be conflating activist that you don’t support with the left.

Travellers, abortion, gender politics, sex work, all have politically active lobbying and campaigning. They’re in the ear of politicians. They interact with media. ‘Men’ as a group, don’t do any of those things to anything like the same extent.

Last year I watched a uk parliamentary (home affairs maybe but I’m not sure) committee hearing about sex work. They got evidence from sex workers, sex work charities and health professionals but they couldn’t get any customers to give evidence. So those politicians go away and make recommendations for legal reform and change to practices based in part on those testimonies.

That’s how change happens. And men were absent from that part of the process. Change only happens when people make it happen for themselves.

I think it is asking a lot for somebody to come out as a customer publicly.

There was a consultation in Ireland on prostitution. Although I have never used a sex worker and doubt I ever will I wrote in mainly to object to the Swedish model. I think some other people did too. But it looks like such feedback was largely ignored. An investigating committee went to Sweden but as I recall only consulted with those who said the system was good, not those who said it caused problems. It looked like Ivana Bacik was largely in charge. I could see how politicians could be wary about challenging her and the Swedish model.

It reminded me of gender quotas in politics: Ivana Bacik drove the idea and politicians particularly male politicians were scared to challenge her and the idea for fear of being excoriated for not supporting women.

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If we’re willing to go with an explanation as weak and generic as this, then the world is your goalposts. “Perhaps he will influence the thinking of some people, to the extent that societal change may occur. I wouldn't rule it out”.

I wouldn’t rule it out. Lol.

Ideas change society.

This is the overarching point which you continue to pretend to ignore.

Rory28

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So would you say you need to gave your sh1t together to have a successful campaign? Do all the repeal campaigners have their sh1t together? Have all the abortion campaigners over the last 40 odd years hard their sh1t together?

Or is having the sh1t together a completely different issue from being part of a successful campaign?

Yes you would need sh1t together if only so you can hold an actual argument without looking like an emotional wreck.

You keep going on about how feminists worked for 40 years to abolish abortion and you are right in that they worked towards it but I would not compare the feminists of 40 years ago to what we are seeing today. How many times have the new 3rd wave turned on the women who came before them?

El_Duderino 09

iptba wrote: »

I think it is asking a lot for somebody to come out as a customer publicly.

There was a consultation in Ireland on prostitution. Although I have never used a sex worker and doubt I ever will I wrote in mainly to object to the Swedish model. I think some other people did too. But it looks like such feedback was largely ignored. An investigating committee went to Sweden but as I recall only consulted with those who said the system was good, not those who said it caused problems. It looked like Ivana Bacik was largely in charge. I could see how politicians could be wary about challenging her and the Swedish model.

It reminded me of gender quotas in politics: Ivana Bacik drove the idea and politicians particularly male politicians were scared to challenge her and the idea for fear of being excoriated for not supporting women.

I’ve no doubt that it would be difficult to find sex customers. But that doesn’t change the point that those who spoke were heard and those who didn’t speak, weren’t heard.

The system is imperfect for sure. But I think you might be surprised by how influential in person testimony is to politicians.

On a side note, fair play for responding to the consultation. Not even nearly enough people are aware of the consultation process and fewer take an active part.

On Ivan’s Bacik, how do you think she became to influential? I’d say it’s her long history of activism and organised campaigning. Do you think she has her own house in Perfect order? Do you think she has achieved equilibrium in her personal life? Does that matter to how successful she is at pushing causes?

El_Duderino 09

Rory28 wrote: »

Yes you would need sh1t together if only so you can hold an actual argument without looking like an emotional wreck.

You keep going on about how feminists worked for 40 years to abolish abortion and you are right in that they worked towards it but I would not compare the feminists of 40 years ago to what we are seeing today. How many times have the new 3rd wave turned on the women who came before them?

I was expecting someone to say it was the good feminists of the past who pushed abortion, not the bad feminists of today.

Anyway, whoever you attribute the success of abortion referendum to over the past few decades right up to last week, do you consider they have their sh1t together?

Rory28

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I was expecting someone to say it was the good feminists of the past who pushed abortion, not the bad feminists of today.

Anyway, whoever you attribute the success of abortion referendum to over the past few decades right up to last week, do you consider they have their sh1t together?

Sure look. one of us was bound to trigger one of your traps.

You dont care what my answer is.

El_Duderino 09

Rory28 wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I was expecting someone to say it was the good feminists of the past who pushed abortion, not the bad feminists of today.

Anyway, whoever you attribute the success of abortion referendum to over the past few decades right up to last week, do you consider they have their sh1t together?

Sure look. one of us was bound to trigger one of your traps.

You dont care what my answer is.

I’m asking a fairly specific question and I’d love to hear the answer.

The abortion campaign is decades old and ended in success last week. Do you think the people involved in it have their sh1t together? In other words is having your sh1t together actually necessary to achieve change?

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Ideas change society.

Now now. You pulled me up for an over simplistic view earlier. You’d never sink to the same diabolical depths as El D, would you?

Ideas are necessary, but they’re nothing if they aren’t pushed into action through campaigning and activism. Ideas without action are like farts in the wind.