Israeli intel can still locate and target them even if they aren't in uniform. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, they seem to have conceived a most genius method: look where groups of civilians are, and assume some among them must be terrorists.

No there's a target/terrorist in mind with these strikes. — BitconnectCarlos

Oh, I'm sure they have all sorts of things in mind. But you just said yourself they have no clue where the terrorists are. They blend in with the population and don't wear uniforms.

A-ha. So Israel cannot see these terrorists - they don't wear uniforms - and therefore just starts murdering civilians in the presupposition that some of them must be terrorists.

Got it.

Those who understand the deliberate murder of innocent civilians as "resistance" or as being justified in some sense are disqualified from further opinions. Their views place them outside of civilization. — BitconnectCarlos

That would put Israel outside of civilization?

At the most basic level, Yang ('masculine') represents action, and Yin ('feminine') represents rest.

Even in the most masculine man or most feminine woman the Yin and Yang principles must be in balance. There is always Yin in the Yang, and Yang in the Yin (as represented by the dots in the famous Yinyang symbol). Unbalanced Yang exhausts itself, while unbalanced Yin grows stagnant.

The reason I dislike the masculine/feminine dichotomy is because people are often unable to divorce it from biological sex, and interpret it too easily as "what men are good at" and "what women are good at", and those are the types of inflammatory and pointless generalizations that I tend to steer away from.

With that said, I quite like Carl Jung's theory of Anima and Animus, which is very reminiscent of the Yin-in-Yang and Yang-in-Yin principles.

Lastly, since we were talking about role models before, I don't think a masculine role model would necessarily have to be a man (though usually it will be). Or that masculine role models should only serve as inspiration for men.

I hadn't really thought of Ford as a 'leader of men', but if that's what you want to classify him as, then why not?

For whom? Some people absolutely love Musk - see him as Tesla or Tony Stark. People love Trump - see him as a paladin. Some people even still love Tate - see him as a charismatic masculine guru. — fdrake

Loving someone is different from them embodying a masculine ideal, which is what a societal masculine role model would have to do.

And I have no qualms with saying that I believe people are simply often wrong.

You pointed it out in a different way. You were speaking with people who generally see gender through a social lens - like as a social construction or a performance. I used virtues in a moral sense, and expectations in that social sense. So it's likely that what you were pointing out is quite a lot different from what I was saying, just based on presuppositions. Like I got the impression that you see an essential equivalence between the masculinity of Beowulf and that of Henry Ford based on what they are {men}. But please correct me if I'm wrong, and that you do see gender as principally socially constructed. — fdrake

The way 'masculinity' is used here is not the way I would normally use it. My conception is closer to that of Yin and Yang, and I don't think they're social constructions.

But for the sake of the discussion, I can accept we are talking in highly generalizing ways.

I'm not sure what masculine virtues Beowulf or Henry Ford embody - they seem quite different characters to me. Henry Ford was an entrepreneur - not something I would necessarily associate with manliness. Beowulf seems to embody the physical aspect of it - a protector against external threats.

I'm of the opinion that virtues aren't gendered, just expectations are. Some virtues are expected of men and some of women, but it's good for everyone to have every virtue. — fdrake

Normally I'd agree, but in this thread it seems 'masculinity' in used synonymously to 'manliness' or 'things that men do', so the way in which it is used here seems inherently gendered.

I tried to point this out earlier in the thread, but that basically just put me outside the conversation while people continued saying highly disagreeable things that I felt needed a reply.

People do use them as role models, [...] — fdrake

You can see a lot of masculine virtues in Trump, Musk, Bezos. — fdrake

Some people see Andrew Tate as a role model.

And if you heavily squint your eyes I'm sure you can find a few masculine virtues here or there, but calling them role models is a stretch.

It's also rather telling that young men flocked to Tate. It implies to me that society was unable to produce something better - which is pretty sad.

Musk or Bezos as a role model? Okay, that's a little more realistic, but are they masculine role models?

I don't think masculinity needs a 'modern update' - modernity seems to have no clue about masculinity (or just about anything it is doing in general, for that matter). It's like a dog chasing its own tail.

You'd get a healthier picture of masculinity by reading some of the classics.

Think for a moment, what public figure is going to teach you or me about masculinity? Trump? Biden? Musk? Bezos? Etc. etc.

Wouldn't you just laugh at the pretension? Being taught about masculinity by a society that so obviously doesn't possess any.

Thus I am against the patriarchy, and capitalist society in general, but I blame women equally if not more than men for it. Like 'what do you expect, girls, if that's what you go for?' — unenlightened

I think that's a bit harsh.

People do as they are taught, and if you teach kids to idolize petty criminals then that's what they'll desire and aspire to be like.

Something hundred times deadlier is a notable event. — ssu

It was a notable event, but Covid's deadliness was on par with a serious flu, and our reaction to it was one of complete hysteria which cost more lives than it saved.

The Dutch health authority estimated that the Dutch measures taken against Covid had saved, if I remember correctly some 150,000 QALY's while costing upwards of 350,000 QALY's.

You misunderstand me. Women prefer gang members. They don't choose pretty boys, they choose fighters. Women have bloodlust; look at the audience for men's boxing to see it.

And if they should change their preference, then they are "destroying the core of masculinity”.

Notice the knot in the complaint, there. Women dominate because they choose to be dominated and if they should choose not to be dominated they are trying to dominate. Men are pitiful, either way. — unenlightened

I have a seriously hard time figuring out whether you're being sarcistic or not, and/or exactly whose argument you're responding to.

Here some illustrations of the general thesis that masculinity is defined by women. — unenlightened

Men who are overly preoccupied with pandering to women are hardly ever taken seriously by their male peers. The classic "white knight" / "pretty boy" is seen as dainty, vain and well, useless - not manly.

Manliness is historically characterized by the ability to provide protection against external threats, and as that protection progressively required more and more cooperation between men, men were the primary guarantors that men continued to be capable of performing this task.

Can anyone explain to me how the male desire to dominate is other than a performance intended to attract a mate? — unenlightened

Survival first and foremost, and procreation, comfort and pleasure second. That's obviously not just a male desire. Dominance heirarchies are an almost universal thing among living beings, and they're certainly present among women as well. The strongest cub gets the most milk.


The acceptance by male peers in the context of a masculine environment is actually instrumental to men's long-term psychological well-being. Father-son bonding can create such an experience, but generally a wider context is needed.

Rituals that mark boys' transition into manhood in large part are meant to accomodate this, and the absence of it in today's society probably accounts for much of the 'masculinity crisis'.

Men who never experience it will become 'unproven men' - men who are fundamentally insecure about their manliness, and try to repair that wound in unconstructive ways; some become violent, others become resentful, overly womanizing, etc.

The pandemic was a disaster because it came from a lab, likely funded by the US and China, and therefore entirely avoidable.

As far as the death toll goes, it wasn't anything special - on the level of a serious flu. Countries went into full blown hysteria imposing measures, which, according to reports by Dutch health agencies themselves, likely cost more lives than they saved.

if men to this day are still so predatory against women in terms of sexual assaults, rape, and molestation, — Shawn

Men aren't "still so predatory" at all. Violent sex offenders are a miniscule fraction of the population.

Too many fathers were raised without fathers in the home by unwed single mothers, etc. Simplistically, my guess is that boys tend to grow-up more feminized (submissive) whereas girls grow-up de-feminized (dominant) by the 'genders imbalanced' example of their husbandless mothers and women teachers primarily in authority throughout primary school. — 180 Proof

Growing up a a single-parent household increases criminality for both boys and girls, and it is more pronounced in children who grew up without a father, so rather it implies the opposite of what you're suggesting.

The lack of a healthy male role model translates into an inability to deal with authority, not being able to accept boundaries, etc. - the typical 'out-of-control youth' archetype.

Life used to be a lot harsher, and neither men nor women had it very good.

I think this 'historical victimhood' yarn is a modern political thing, meant to grab people by their emotions by getting them to identify with a historical narrative, making them feel insecure about themselves and resentful for the other in the present day - usually based on questionable and one-sided interpretations of history that categorically paint "themselves" as the moral victim, and the "other" as the immoral abuser based on superficial characteristics.

The same is visible among groups like BLM, MGTOW, etc.

Note how grievance crowds create new grievance crowds.

It's how you play people.

Well said. :up:

It seems to me like taking a minor infraction as an excuse to ban someone with unwelcome opinions.

Apparently we're only allowed to discuss ideas here that people have positive things to say about. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Take a practical case: imagine a female newcomer logs into this forum, excited to engage with deep philosophical topics, and then stumbles across a thread where someone writes “Women are a waste of time", “They make terrible friends and even worse girlfriends." or one of the other. That’s not just distasteful – it’s a message loud and clear: "You’re not really human here. You’re a problem to be explained, not a person to be heard." — DasGegenmittel

Oh, I can almost hear the sad violins in the background.

Anyway; women need to be protected from weird opinions?

Come now.


Honestly, if people were spamming the forum with weird nonsense I'd see the point, but Gregory shared one weird opinion when half the forum was dogpiling him.

A warning would have been enough.

I'm still waiting for individuals who rejoice in the genocide in Gaza to be banned. But I suppose making weird and incel posts about women is worse than endorsing the eradication of an ethnicity. — javi2541997

Yeah, I was thinking the exact same thing.

Imo the one where he hoped every woman would die — fdrake

I don't think that's what he actually said, though.

It's a pretty silly yet common view among radical feminists that men are superfluous, and I think he was mirroring some of that.

Strange? Sure. Worthy of a ban? Not so sure; at least not an outright one.

Weird decision. Some of his comments were a bit edgy, but really nothing warranting a ban.

This is a philosophy forum. There should be a reasonable tolerance for off-beat or even strange views.

What exactly was the big "misogyny" scandal here? The "Women corrupt men" comment, or the jab at a popular radical feminist viewpoint?

legacy of absentee / abusive fathers reinforced by pervasive religious-cultural misogyny ... — 180 Proof

The Dark Triad personality: Attractiveness to women

Yeah, I wonder who keeps selecting those deadbeats. :roll:

You and nos4 defend Trump seemingly in favor of him and at the expense of everything else. — tim wood

wat

It’ll always appear as downplaying. Take a look at January 6th. What’s that, exactly? I myself don’t think it’s what the democrats make it out to be — but it’s also not what the republicans try to spin it as.

If Trump supporters were burning Teslas, I wouldn’t like it. I don’t like it now. But I would be pushing back against those that spin it. In this case I see much exaggeration. I don’t see that many people in power — or on philosophy forums — coming out in defense of it. — Mikie

Yeah, I think that's fair enough.

At the same time, amid a poisoned political climate, these somewhat low-key events are no longer so innocent.

The spin should be recognized for what it is, but simply dismissing it as 'business as usual, nothing to see here' whenever it's convenient (aka: when it's directed at one's political opponents) is the other side of the extreme, and that's what prompted my initial reaction.

Whether this trend will continue after Trump's presidency remains to be seen. I'm not convinced that it will.

It's also a question of whether the picture the media is trying to sketch corresponds with reality and the views of the average American.

Your inability to tell the difference between vandalism by angry people and the storming of a parliamentary hearing buttressed by right wing activists waving confederate flags and other seccessionist movements, where the new President would be inaugurated is telling. — Benkei

It has nothing to do with that.

I'm pointing towards a political climate that has already resulted in two assassination attempts on Trump that we know of, which is part of the context in which these recent events must be viewed.

It's simply disingenuous to hand-wave lesser forms of political unrest as though this context doesn't exist.

It's not a what if. January 6th happened. — ssu

Well, exactly. And look how they marketed that as a full blown attempt at a coup d'etat.

Now those same people are getting up in arms about this Tesla thing being seen in its proper political context. The same people, mind you, who were in such a rush to quickly forget two assassination attempts on the leader of the opposition.

It's perfectly appropriate to see this in the context of political violence/intimidation, but of course "the other side" is categorically unable to acknowledge their own wrongs.

It's partisan through and through.

Do note that the political context includes the vilification of Trump, among various other caricatures likening him to Hitler and a fascist, in what is a blatant attempt to get some useful idiot to make an attempt on his life - something that has already happened twice and people were very quick to ignore or downplay in the fear it would increase his chance of being elected.

This is an old political trick, one that has been used to great success in my own (shameful) home country where Pim Fortuyn was murdered under very similar circumstances.

Why are you projecting US partisanship on a European? It doesn't make sense. — Benkei

Europeans are being influenced by anti-Trump messaging just like Americans. Haven't you noticed?

It does appear to me as downplaying - at least, when we consider the probable reaction if the opposite had happened. People would have undoubtedly jumped on the opportunity to prophesize the return of fascism, drawn parallels to the rise of Hitler, etc.

In that context, it's not so strange people are overreacting to what outside of the political context would indeed merely be an act of vandalism.

Pretending that political context doesn't exist does indeed smell of partisanship. Why would a European be partisan over US politics? You tell me, but that's pretty common these days.

What if it were Trump supporters doing something like this? Would you think the same way?

A national constitution for the most part pertains to how governments must behave towards their citizens. International law is mainly about how states behave towards each other.

In the end, it is based on a 'gentleman's agreement' between states, in that there is no monopoly on violence that facilitates the enforcement of international law.

Reciprocity, trust, credibility and the threat of armed conflict are important factors in why states choose to behave according to international law.

It's definitely not useless, but it also does not function in the same way national laws do, and it is much more dependent on mutual agreement than coercion.

That last bit is something that seems to have gotten lost on many people during the so-called 'unipolar moment', during which the United States was so powerful that in practical terms it could assume the role of 'world's policeman'. We see now that this was a historical anomaly.

People make choices based on such things as what type of ice cream they like.

But then you insert the unquantifiable idea of a 'state of you', which includes much more than just conscious deliberation. This is where it starts to get vague.

I sort of get where you're going with this, but it'd be a stretch to say people experience their every day decisions in that way.

When you do that in the context of a 'libertarian free will vs. determinism'-type debate, I'm obviously going to be quite critical of the leaps you're taking.

Where were you taking that paragraph then? Because so far it's a somewhat convoluted way of describing how people make everyday choices.

So far, so good. But what you've said earlier suggests that you're intent on taking this argument to an extreme where people have no meaningful choice at all.

It's a stretch to say that's what people experience. I certainly don't.

You're essentially saying people experience determinism.

Yeah, exactly, so in a choice there's no randomess, the choice follows naturally from the preceding state of everything (which of course includes the state of you), which is what you experience. — flannel jesus

Hang on, do you perceive a total state of everything, including the state of you, whenever you act or make a choice?

If you made a choice at t2, determinism just means that choice was necessarily going to follow from the state of your world, and the state of you, at t1. — flannel jesus

The outcome was already determined, therefore the sense of choice was merely an illusion.

However, that's is not what we experience.

But for determinism to not be the case, something must be random. — flannel jesus

How so?

The possibility of multiple outcomes preceding a choice doesn't have to imply randomness, but the weighing of the options by the will - which is what we experience.

Of course, many people seem to disagree. — flannel jesus

Vastly more people seem to agree, though. Every person I ever met acts as though free will exists. Societies are structured around the notion of a free will.

The only exception I can think of of people acting as though free will doesn't exist, are the mentally ill.

Of course, some people may say they disagree with notions of free will, but they continue acting in every way as though they do believe in free will.

"already decided beforehand"... mmm... kinda yes kinda no. Not "decided". Not "beforehand". Not necessarily. It just means that the outcome follows from the preceding conditions. It's not like Zeus is sitting up there in the heavens writing what he wants to happen, and then observing it happen, which is what "decided beforehand" feels like. — flannel jesus

Determinism implies we never have a choice. Is that a better way of putting it?

But we certainly experience having a choice.

Or how would you put it in plain English?

But my decisions don't seem random. — flannel jesus

As far as I know, the libertarian idea of free will doesn't imply that they would have to be.

Determinism implies the outcome of our choice was already decided beforehand, agreed?

But that is not what we experience; we experience agency in that very moment, where our 'free will' seems to make the difference.

Is it not a fair assessment that the libertarian idea of free will corresponds with an almost universal human experience?