The moderators here don't follow the site guidelines. You of all people should be aware of this. They don't treat their job with any degree of good will or sincerity. Jake's thread remains because it's a pisstake the moderators find funny. Jake's thread very clearly does not belong on a forum like this, but when you've leftist, self-hating moderators who like topics about killing men, this is just the way it's going to be. Had Jake's thread been about exterminating women and not men, I think you know how that would go down.

It is undeniable that we live in a male-dominated society. Women are precluded from some roles in society altogether and do not do well in other spheres due to the 'boy's club' nature of those spheres. The majority of domestic violence overwhelmingly consist in men aggressing women, the vast majority of rapes are committed by men. Men are also the predominant oppressors of children, at least when it comes to child abuse and paedophilia. I mean, all of this is just so obvious I don't see how you can reasonably deny it.

The moderators here don't follow the site guidelines. You of all people should be aware of this. They don't treat their job with any degree of good will or sincerity. Jake's thread remains because it's a pisstake the moderators find funny. Jake's thread very clearly does not belong on a forum like this, but when you've leftist, self-hating moderators who like topics about killing men, this is just the way it's going to be. Had Jake's thread been about exterminating women and not men, I think you know how that would go down. — Buxtebuddha

I have to stand by my previously expressed opinion of the moderators, otherwise Baden won't cosign on the loan for my new car. Your take is much more cynical than mine.

I haven't read the thread in question, other than cursorily. Did @Jake specify that the program would be enforced? In any case if it were enforced it would be oppressive to all, men and women alike, so there would be no special victims. Are we precluded from discussing subjects that are not bigoted in that they are not specifically directed at any oppressed peoples?

Unless I'm mistaken, Clark's point is that discussing whether bad guys should be killed isn't a suitable topic on a forum like this. Faaaaaaaaar less "philosophical" threads have been whisked away.

It is undeniable that we live in a male-dominated society. Women are precluded from some roles in society altogether and do not do well in other spheres due to the 'boy's club' nature of those spheres. The majority of domestic violence overwhelmingly consist in men aggressing women, the vast majority of rapes are committed by men. Men are also the predominant oppressors of children, at least when it comes to child abuse and paedophilia. I mean, all of this is just so obvious I don't see how you can reasonably deny it. — Janus

Here we go again - yes, I do deny it. No, it is not obvious to me. I'd be happy to discuss it sometime, but that was not my intention when I started this discussion. I mainly want to focus on whether or not the way the subject is being handled on the forum is appropriate. From what you've said, I think you believe that, because of differences in history and social position, it may be appropriate to apply rules against sexism differently to men and women. Is that correct?

Is that correct? — T Clark

Yes, I think it is appropriate to apply the rules against any form of bigotry differently depending on whether the bigotry is directed against the oppressed or those who are not oppressed, regardless of whether the latter are oppressors or not.
Do you really think the question of whether women have been and are more oppressed by men than men have been and are by women is not relevant to your question about whether @Jake's thread should be moderated or not? Do you agree in principle at least that the distinction should be made between oppressed, non-oppressed and oppressor?

Do you really think the question of whether women have been and are more oppressed by men than men have been and are by women is not relevant to your question about whether Jake's thread should be moderated or not? — Janus

I don't know what I would think on the subject if I thought women are oppressed by men.

Do you agree in principle at least that the distinction should be made between oppressed, non-oppressed and oppressor? — Janus

Here's the problem - oppressed people are not responsible for their lives. Do you really want women to be thought of as victims who are not responsible for their own behavior? It is really dangerous to a class of people to think of them as victims.

Do you really want women to be thought of as victims who are not responsible for their own behavior? — T Clark

As Malcolm X said, the house negro has played the victim card for decades. For some women, being thought of as a victim paradoxically grants them a feeling of being powerful, seeing as they are able to influence others to think a certain way about them.

Here's the problem - oppressed people are not responsible for their lives. Do you really want women to be thought of as victims who are not responsible for their own behavior? It is really dangerous to a class of people to think of them as victims. — T Clark

It is not black and white, though. Women as a whole have been victims of oppression by men, and I would say all the evidence seems to point to that. This does not mean that every woman has been oppressed by men, or that every man is an oppressor, though. And it does not mean women have been or are nothing but victims.

On the other hand every women is subject to the overall oppression that consists in the fact that she lives in what has been historically, and still is (although to an arguably lesser extent), a male-dominated society.

I wouldn't be interested in participating on this forum if a pure message of hatred (toward anyone) was being spewed and allowed.

But I think if you looked closely at the questions in the thread you mentioned, the OP was constructing a puzzle. We presently have no plan for turning ourselves into pacifists, so the OP wants to paint the reader into the corner of supporting the insupportable. That's pretty philosophical.

But I think if you looked closely at the questions in the thread you mentioned, the OP was constructing a puzzle. We presently have no plan for turning ourselves into pacifists, so the OP wants to paint the reader into the corner of supporting the insupportable. That's pretty philosophical. — frank

That's fine, but I don't think that is what Jake was trying to do. I think his proposal was in earnest, although I don't think he thought it was possible.

a degrading and demeaning discussion about men — T Clark

I haven't seen that. Could you cite a specific moment when men were demeaned or degraded? I, for my part, have tried to stick with facts about the prevalence of male-perpetrated crime world wide.

If Jake had picked on something more arbitrary then I would agree with you. Like, if he said, men are hairier so we should get rid of them, that would be just discriminatory.

I haven't seen that. Could you cite a specific moment when men were demeaned or degraded? I, for my part, have tried to stick with facts about the prevalence of male-perpetrated crime world wide. — NKBJ

I can't find the discussion. Looks like it was deleted.

The fact that eliminating men from society was even proposed without it raising a ruckus was demeaning. The fact that it's ok for people to consider it as if it weren't a vile idea is degrading. The fact that you can't see that is .... disheartening. Women will never be treated the way they should be as long as men are thought about, talked about, the way they have been in these discussions.

But - now it's moot. As far as I'm concerned, they can delete this thread too.

Clarky the Clamorer :up:

shows a deep contempt for men but who refuses to discuss it's implications. — T Clark

1) No where in my posts have I expressed a deep contempt for men. I have instead specifically said I'd be happy for men to remain if the problem of violence could be solved by some method other than my proposal.

2) I have hardly refused to discuss the implications of my proposal, given that roughly half of the posts in the thread you are referring to are mine, and I've replied to as many people and posts as I can without becoming a total thread hog.

It is my understanding that Jake's intention is that the program would not be voluntary. Women will not be allowed to mate with men. Men will not be allowed to mate with women — T Clark

3) I said none of this either.

What you're all wound up about is that I'm not taking you seriously, and that's because you make up stuff out of your imagination and then argue against it as if somebody other than you had actually said it.

But in the spirit of cooperation, let's make a deal. I'll stay out of this thread clearing the field for you to conduct your holy jihad unmolested by reason, and in return perhaps you could stop clogging the thread I started with your imaginative reading of other people's posts.

I can't find the discussion. Looks like it was deleted. — T Clark

Yes, that appears to be the case. Ok T Clark, you win, congratulations dude. The forum gets to have you instead of me.

I'm gone guys, adios, good luck, and thanks to those of you who filled my thread with intelligent comments and challenges.

OK bye. Good puzzle, though. Read more Nietzsche.

Clarky the Clamorer — Buxtebuddha

Not sure I want you accolades in this particular situation.

Ok. Enough.

It is undeniable that we live in a male-dominated society. Women are precluded from some roles in society altogether and do not do well in other spheres due to the 'boy's club' nature of those spheres. The majority of domestic violence overwhelmingly consist in men aggressing women, the vast majority of rapes are committed by men. Men are also the predominant oppressors of children, at least when it comes to child abuse and paedophilia. I mean, all of this is just so obvious I don't see how you can reasonably deny it. — Janus

I stated in the now-deleted thread that most men are not violent and most men do not oppress women,.

Some men do oppress women, and some men are violent toward women. In fact, a fairly small minority of men are responsible for a good deal of the violence that is committed, toward men and toward women.

Oppression is a systemic, not an individual act. As a gay man who was born and grew up in midwestern backwaters way before gay liberation arrived, I can testify that oppression takes more than one individual being shocked that gay men suck cock. Oppression of gay men involves religious narratives, family values, national values, cultural values, government policy, law, police, and so forth.

Oppression of women is also systemic, and as in the case with gay men, oppression is a package deal. Most people are systemically oppressed whether they are gay or straight, male or female, black or white. The purpose of systemic oppression is to maintain the status quo whereby a few people exploit most people for economic advantage. (That will no doubt sound familiar to some.) That kind of systemic oppression has been the dominant paradigm for a very long time -- not just since WWI, the Civil War, or QEI.

As far as the Ruling Class is concerned, we are all either house niggers or field niggers, and what we do in the slave cabins is pretty much irrelevant to the folks in the Big Housse.

I thought the World Peace OP was interesting and serious. Discussable in this forum? Absolutely. I thought the discussion was perking along just fine. Jake's solution to conflict (which he thought was authored by males) was, I thought, quite mistaken, and various posters were offering reasons why his proposals were not meet, right, and salutary. A couple of posters appeared to approve of his plan, at least to some degree.

Was his post offensive? No. Was his post inflammatory? Maybe, but it wasn't without merit. Was he trying to trap people in contradictions? If he was, he has lots of company here. Philosophers seem to live for finding a contradictory statement.

Is this thread worth keeping? Absolutely.

Were the nomenclatura who patrol the thread reasonable in deleting the World Peace Thread? No, but their deleting threads hardly comes as a surprise. I'm surprised Jake wasn't banned on his way out the door.

Oh look, there's Jake being banned now.

As Malcolm X said, the house negro has played the victim card for decades. For some women, being thought of as a victim paradoxically grants them a feeling of being powerful, seeing as they are able to influence others to think a certain way about them.

Bringing up Malcolm X here makes no sense. His point there was that the house negroes were traitors to their people, that he identified himself with his master as much as he could.

The house Negro usually lived close to his master. He dressed like his master. He wore his master's second-hand clothes. He ate food that his master left on the table. And he lived in his master's house--probably in the basement or the attic--but he still lived in the master's house.

So whenever that house Negro identified himself, he always identified himself in the same sense that his master identified himself. — Malcolm X: "The Race Problem"

Whatever your views about what @Janus is saying, Malcolm X isn't likely to come down on your side of it since it isn't what they're arguing about oppressed people's and the methods of expression that is acceptable for each group to use.

Was his post offensive? No. Was his post inflammatory? Maybe, but it wasn't without merit. Was he trying to trap people in contradictions? If he was, he has lots of company here. Philosophers seem to live for finding a contradictory statement.

Is this thread worth keeping? Absolutely. — Bitter Crank

I respect your moderate and conciliatory tone. I might even agree with you in principle, but .... well....no. If I wrote about women the way Jake wrote about men, I would have been shut down immediately. If I persisted, I would have been banned.

This is not a matter of principle for me. It is physical and visceral. When he was talking about his ideas for annihilation of all men, I felt sick to my stomach. That much hate and disgust against men. Me. Hatred. The fact that no one spoke up against what he was saying in any substantive way made me furious. Makes me furious. The fact that moderators seemed to think it was acceptable to talk about men that way. The fact that people feel such contempt for men and won't even acknowledge it. The fact that Jake didn't even feel he had to answer for his vile ideas. As if it were self-evident.

I've tried to stand up for my friends here on the forum when I felt they were being treated with disrespect, contempt. Here, when it was me, I felt like no one cared.

I see it more biologically. Men are generally the larger, more aggressive animal of the human species. We were generally the hunters, the protectors etc. Females were typically the carers and child raisers. As such in conflicts between the male and females, the male does tend to gnash his teeth and bang his chest more, but the female also has her wiles and it can be death by a thousand cuts.

As society progressed out of the jungles and both men and women enjoyed more time (to get away from the kids), there was I think some resistance by men to the idea of women stepping into what was their traditional space - I don't know if I would call it oppression though (not to say there weren't idiots or clusters of idiots, or mindset adjustments that needed to happen). I think it's sorting itself out though.

As for the discussion on whether we men should be eradicated through time, I don't think it should be banned. It would be interesting to discuss the ramifications of it. What would society be like?

Furthermore, the majority of women actually do like men so the proposal is far fetched.

I think it's sorting itself out though.

I think that's naive. It's certainly getting better, but not by itself. That's what people think after the fact, but it ignores that people are actively working for it to bring that change about against a tendency to keep a status quo.

Should a proposal to eliminate men from society be allowed on the forum — T Clark

My initial view is that yes, even something as extreme as this should not be disallowed in virtue of it being extreme. Censoring bad ideas doesn't solve anything and only opens up the possibility of censoring good (and perhaps also extreme) ideas.

To a certain extent I think having a thick skin is a necessary requirement for having free speech. Let the stupid people talk. Smart people listen and know it's stupid.

That much hate and disgust against men. — T Clark

If you saw it that way, I'm glad things went your way and the thread was deleted. His mistake was to locate the vileness of humanity in one portion of it. It's the whole thing that's vile. Look around you.

A victim of not being white. There's more nuance to Malcolm X's thought, Mind. Anyway, I didn't intend to generalize too much, no worries :cheer:

Hypocritical mods gonna hypocrite.