Would you date a feminist?

Post Reply New Topic

"Intolerance of intolerance" is BS, a smokescreen to provide cover for justifying dismissing ideas you don't like. Tolerance is all about things you really dislike; I don't "tolerate" gay people or trans people or people of other races, I have nothing against them so there is nothing to "tolerate", I tolerate bigots and progressives because I disagree with them and find their beliefs objectionable, but am committed to understanding viewpoints I don't agree with.

i allow memes i disagree with to pass on facebook unless they're homophobic or transphobic or xenophobic. then i post facts that challenge the meme. if that's intolerance of intolerance, i guess i have it. i even unfriended one person who continuously bashed gays. just got tired of seeing it (before i knew you could just ask facebook to show you fewer of certain kinds of posts.) usually, though, i keep the friend and we come to a tenuous understanding.

Nah, that sounds reasonable, what I'm talking about is more of the "you're a racist/sexist/transphobe/etc, therefore you're awful and I can disregard everything you have to say" style of righteousness, which isn't terribly helpful for anyone. I'll confess to unfriending someone once after about a year of escalating obnoxious social justice posts, both because I was losing respect for an old friend, and because I didn't think I could take one more post that started "dear white people" from the whitest guy I knew.

The problem is, you want the state to decide what is tolerable and what isn't, rather than the individual to decide for themselves. This allows the state to gain power, like with the Nazis and the Soviets. One's feelings should not be taken into account when it comes to laws, only logic and reason. I dismiss the idea of hate crimes, because hate crime laws are based on emotion and thus leave plenty of room for subjective unfairness. Everyone should be viewed the same under the law.

Should we burn books that poke fun at religion, because it offends people? Should we ban movies that use the word n*gger? Do you see where I'm going with this?

Who are you addressing?

I never said that, but yeah, oddly I switch between Anachro-Socialism and Libertarianism...

I feel both are more similar than one might think, specifically in the level of freedom they offer the individual, they just both do it in different ways.

But, of course, Libertarians tend to dislike Socialists - they don't like the state or the government controlling the economy.

I find anachro-socialism can work on a much smaller scale, the best example I know of being Free Territory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory); a small nation built during the Ukranian Revolution.

In F.T. everyone did their share to contribute to the economy and standard of living - the farmer's worked, the military protected.

Sadly, it was conquered after 3 years. It would have been interesting to see how long it could have lasted in its state.

The 'bad' examples of Communism I blame on a variety of other things, such as Stalin getting into power instead of the better suited Trotsky, as bad as China is, its economy is amazingly successful. Communist and Socialist states due tend to fail due to the government being given far too much control. That's why Anachro-socialism would be better, but is even harder to achieve or sustainable than communism is.

Communist and socialist mindsets work in tribes, group of friends, and not much more.

Also, the Nazi's weren't about 'the state'.

Hitler hated Communists and Socialists and they were political prisoner's and victims of death under his rule.

Hitler simply politically manipulated his party to power, and once that was done did all sorts of manipulative tactics until he managed to get the ability to change any laws, even one's against the constitution.

Yep....anything of a Utopian nature tends not to work for large amounts of people.

Communism is fine and dandy as an ideal--but people have the "will to power," so SOMEBODY will always dominate someone else politically, economically, socially, etc.

People just don't want to "share the wealth" which they feel they accumulated with hard work--especially with someone whom they believe didn't work as hard as they did.

The USSR was really a pure oligarchy disguised as a socialist state. Right now, Russia is taking steps to revert back to its USSR roots.

China is an oligarchy, disguised as a socialist state, which has embraced some aspects of capitalism for utilitarian reasons.

Yeah, communism gets a lot of bad reputation, when in fact there hasn't really been any true communist states.

And the existing capitalist states of the world tend to eventually turn into corporatism or a society where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the wealthy have all the power - a monarchy.

Capitalism creates a middle class, and eventually gets rid of it too.

A lot of European nations find interesting combinations between capitalism and socialism and manage to be the most livable and successful nations in the world.

Yes, I do. That's why laws have developed in the first place. That is the whole premise of law, the premise of human rights, why we have any at all! Importantly though, without emotion I do not believe -anything- has any value, so I cannot say that emotion is not important in the creation of laws either. You seem to think that one being offended by something is not good enough to make a law for it. OK, fair enough. But you then back that up with the reason because emotions don't matter. That doesn't make sense at all IMO. Why is killing someone enough to make a law against doing so? Why does that person's death matter? Things that matter matter because people value them and values are based off of emotions.

Ultimately there is a line that gets drawn, and where you want to draw the line of free speech and free action versus control depends on what people emotionally feel about things.

Yes, I do believe society has to have a structure, too.

Much of structure is realized through laws/legislation.

Pure anarchy would not work.

Libertarianism has its virtues, though.

I don't actually see many people advocating for government regulation of speech. I do see a lot of *public shaming* of people being a**holes, which they tend to take as if it were the same thing.

As for 'hate crimes,' they're not based on the emotion of the perpetrator but on the terroristic aspect of the crime: for example, lynching of blacks was not just done for hatred and anger at the lynched individual, but as a 'lesson' to the entire black community to keep their heads down, smile, and say, "Yes, Massah."

Why is killing someone to send a message objectively worse than killing someone for their shoes, or because they were screwing your wife, or because you didn't like their face?

because the intent is to harm a much larger set of people.

From "Culture Creep: Anti-Male Edition"
5/10/2016
Rebecca de Winter

"The fight to eradicate gender is just one tentacle of the monstrous entity known as the Social Justice Warrior (SJW), which resides comfortably within the progressive movement. Other goals include the eradication of free speech (or rather, speech they deem offensive), the triumph of diversity over merit, the shaming and exclusion of straight men (especially if they’re white), and the punishing of those who dare disagree with their agenda (among other things).

"Today I’m going to focus on the anti-male agenda of the regressive left....

"These quotes do not exist in a vacuum. Spend half an hour browsing feminist forums and websites and your hair will stand on end from all the spittle-flecked vitriol spewing from within these hardened hearts...."

http://misfitpolitics.weebly.com/blog/c ... le-edition

there are men who think women shouldn't work outside the home. (i met plenty of them in med school.) i don't blame all men. don't blame all feminists for hateful rhetoric. i'm a feminist because i believe women and men are equals. i'm a feminist married to a male feminist. we're also humanists.

Not entirely sure when this thread got all political and I'm not reading back through everything to find out. I'm just here to post on the original question. I would date a feminist, not the radical feminist that is only for women's rights and not for equality, but one who's views point towards a perfect egalitarian ideal. We like to think that we live in a country, a society that has already accomplished equality among the sexes, but this is a fallacy and I don't believe that there will be a true egalitarian community anytime soon. Women still make less then men, still get lower ranking jobs on average, and are still thought of as the weaker sex, often subconsciously, by the greater majority. This is especially true in the religious realm which needs a re-working to allow for more women deacons and women religious leaders. Saddly, I live down here in the South so there's not many feminists to date here, not any I've found at least.