For liberals, actions happen within realms, not spaces

I think a common source of frustration (among many) when debating feminists (which I stopped doing at age 21), well for me anyway, is that we tend to have different ideas on what privilege is and what contributes to oppression or repression, either directly or indirectly. For that reason, I had to go a bit more meta to then think about what type of analytical lens they could be using, that would differ than mine, as it was obvious that the underlying beliefs needed to be addressed before the explicitly declared ones.

Another common thing is when they would say “the politics is personal”. I’m not sure quite what that means but I’ll assume that it has something to do with them trying to disassociate themselves with what their ideology is doing at the macro level, to avoid accusations of being too censorious or politically correct or whatever argument. By shifting their focus away from society and the threat models and the stranglehold their theory of harm has on the commoner who is the least insulated from the repercussions of the middle class policies. Did I word that right? Here goes!

Liberals and conservatives cannot agree on what metric is used to gauge privilege

There is a thing called “privilege blindness” where people who are privileged are unaware of the extent they are privileged and how accessible or cushioned they are from the potential fallout or acquired trappings, that those without, the underprivileged, don’t have. That, I can agree with. Privilege blindness is definitely real.

Well as a man, I don’t have to worry about being stalked, browbeaten or assaulted for rejecting the opposite sex on the street. But that is obvious. I don’t think any man would argue or disagree there (unless they’re forthright misogynists). I don’t believe that there’s a point in stating the blatantly obvious when trying to be persuasive, so the things which men wouldn’t really consider as granted, would have to be used instead. Debates about privilege are not won or established by stating the bloody obvious, otherwise it wouldn’t be such a controversial and contentious topic that still hasn’t reached a public opinion or standardised definition, over the past 20 years.

For feminists, affirmation is a form of privilege and a store of value

But when asked why a man is privileged, why male privilege exists and why female privilege doesn’t (in comparison), there tends to be a Male Privilege Checklist sprouted about ad nauseum. A lot of these male privilege checklists, have become viral and still receive lots of traffic over 20 years later. And in case you’re wondering, when a man points out any female privilege to a feminist,

Upon viewing several of these male privilege checklists, what struck me as very strange, was that they viewed simply mere affirmation, as a privilege. I think I’ll use an exact quote.

An interactionist approach to the multi-dimensional way they view privilege

Feminists are interactionists, well it seems so. All while myself tends to lean towards functionalism. Whether conservatives are that way, I really don’t know, so I can’t comment on that. The three main root branches of psychology, are functionalism, interactionism and conflict theory. Here’s a good article about that.

What on earth are all of those things? That’s outside the scope of the article but you can see my overall point. I can say that in britain, cultural competence, cultural capital and cultural awareness, are not to be confused with each other. But that’s another topic for another time.

Me personally, I would say that I am more functionalist in my approach of analysing the world. That’s my analytical lens, however you define that!

I’m not saying you’re endorsing, trivialising or excusing it but you’re laying the groundwork for it – they say

What this feels like

What this sounds like

I’m not going to generalise as to how high the percentage or claim it’s indicative of the ideologues or figureheads but SOME feminists claim that male violence towards women is indirectly caused by low level sexist comments towards women and locker talk banter amongst males

If your rights end where my feelings begin, how do we define the anathema and aversion of liberty?

What this feels like: From pothole scholar to minutae doctorate

What this sounds like: When volition and choice meets parity, what shalln’t be said speaks more words than those browbeaten or coerced

HARMrEASONINGRATIONALECORRECTIVE MEASURE
Assert affirmative πŸ˜€1155
Assert emblazon πŸ˜€2266
Subjected affirmative πŸ™7733
Subjected emblazon πŸ™8844

Ethics and Negative Reinforcement amongst Liberals and Conservatives

What this feels like

What this sounds like

harmreasoningpyramid stratadecisivie analogy
Behaviour 1ChattledomPressure guage (themometer)
Behaviour 2ChattledomBranch Prediction (tilted rail tracks)
Behaviour 3ChattledomHastened accosting
Behaviour 4CoiffedPressure guage (themometer)
Behaviour 5CoiffedBranch Prediction (tilted rail tracks)
Behaviour 6CoiffedHastened accosting
Behaviour 7ConciergePressure guage (themometer)
Behaviour 8ConciergeBranch Prediction (tilted rail tracks)
Behaviour 9ConciergeHastened accosting

Advancing their argument of persuasion, both compared

The top three rows are somewhat covered elsewhere in this blog but the bottom three rows will be covered to some rudimentary degree in the follow-up article.

The bottom three will be covered somewhat in the follow-up article

Pinball Analogy

10 ways how *PRETTY PRIVILEGE* improved my life

So this woman got a free muffin when she went to Starbucks from some man at the till, as indicative of her “pretty privilege” as a woman. Would a woman ever do that for a man. I wouldn’t think so, even if he looked like Brad Pitt who continuously Tom Cruz’ed it with women. But why would that be? Get ready for my analogy.

Imagine that you have a pinball machine that people deposit plastic tokens in, to be able to play a few rounds of games on it. Well imagine that the table is leaning to one side and the only way to get it back balanced, is to get people to stop playing the game. But if we make it temporarily unavailable for 10-30 minutes, then were are obstructing commerce. Now imagine that the pinball machine has sticky patches on it that have obviously been tacked down, which allow two minutes more time, every time the ball stays on it for half a second. If you were against temporarily stopping gameplay for fear of losing customers and lengthening the queue, although you would avoid fixing the position of the leaning table, you definitely wouldn’t want to be adding new “extra time patches” to the board.

So with that said, if objectification against women is harmful (along with the male gaze), then you wouldn’t want to be giving men free muffins at Starbucks, even if they looked like Brad Pitt, as you would be further increasing the potency of the intoxicating volcanic larva that’s flowing around the board (or room). You’d want it to cool down, right?

Now apply that analogy to all the other things that feminists find harmful and enabled by toxic behaviour. You can see where I’m going with this, can’t you?

“We’d preferably not want to punish or socially exclude men but we do want to send a message that this type of behaviour is not acceptable.

Also I’d prefer to not have to use the words Zero Tolerance but unfortunately there are antisocial and bullying men, who do not listen to the countless warning after warning after warning

typical feminist attitude in a feminist documentary in the uk

Core Tenets of Liberalism

As PUA Rollo Tomassi said

He said that you can disprove every liberal article that you see in the mainstream media, simply by disproving these underlying beliefs.

  • X is a social construct
  • The Blank Slate Theory
  • Disparity means discrimination

In the olden days, people believed that the person’s personality and emotional disposition was completely blank when they were born, tabula rasa, which is Latin for blank slate. With the advances of neuroscience, this has been proven to be false, although when it comes to some traits, like intelligence, sociopathy or interests, to a much greater extent than conservatives, liberals cling onto those blank slate theories even more, to some extent.

The same with women being under-represented in STEM, liberals believe it’s due to discrimination, ahem, discouragement and a lack of role models, whereas conservatives simply put it down to the different lifestyle choices that men and women make in their critical years (16-19 or 14-21). The idea that any gender or racial disparity within any particular industry or career, that it’s not primarily due to discrimination or nouveau-discrimination, that just completely evades them.

As Tynamite said

Liberals tend to believe in The Big Tent theory, where if you was to get rid of the criminals and the extremists on both sides, that you could get everyone under one roof to see eye to eye and eat at the same table and share the same bread. Conservatives believe this to be false. Liberals also believe in the Horseshoe Theory which means that liberals and conservatives are actually more similar than they seemed all along, so if some respectful and healthy dialogue was to occur, they’d realise that for the most part, that they have more in common than they have in difference, so they’d drop most of the issues and animosity that they have with each other and their policies. Well about that affirmation being a store of value, more on that just right up.

Two unsavoury studies about the Self Affirmation Bias

Feminists and liberals believe in the Self Affirmation Bias, which means that if a school teacher makes sexist comments about girls being bad at maths, that it’ll make them perform worse at any maths tests immediately afterwards.

They’ve done studies on this and when they find that it has zero or negligible effect, they censor and bury the studies as it doesn’t fit their liberal bias and the patriarchal “discouragement” media narrative that they want to promote in the media.

Another famous study is when feminists did blind job applications with no names in it, so it’d be gender neutral.

Their hypothesis was that because women are discriminated against in the hiring process for STEM, that a gender neutral blind application, would result in more women being selected for job interviews.

In fact the opposite effect was found, that it resulted in less women being chosen for job interviews.

Feminists then censored the study as it didn’t fit the “glass ceiling” media narrative that they need to push to implement their social engineering agenda.

You can kinda predict the basis for their morality after this, somewhat

Tynamite’s opinion on all of this

I think that it would be a bad idea to combine an article where I refute the newfound changes and its underlying principles, assertions and core tenets, with an article that helps to provide a historical context for how things were concept creeped over time, in more ways that just one. So the best way for me to explain my concise, comprehensive and clarifying opinion on this, is the next part of the article. In case you’re wondering, the previous article mentioned Girl Boss Feminism being dead.

Conclusion

You’ll going to have to read the follow-up article for that one!

Related Posts