Nazis marching in America

Scott, I know why the argument is bullshit. I also understand why people who know it is wrong would use it (to catch rubes and because explaining the whole argument takes a time, they use it as a sort of verbal DOS attack). Similar to the arguments “The S in NSDAP is ‘socialist’ so the Nazis were socialists!” and “if humans came from monkeys why are there still monkeys?” What I am asking what the percentage who regurgitate the argument sincerely and what percentage actually knows its wrong but use it anyway for the above reasons.

Why is this thread still a thing?

1 Like

I’m saying they sincerely believe it. They do not have complex and subtle thinking patterns. They have their simple logic, which makes perfect sense if you have a simple world view. Thus, they believe it.

If someone says “I’m not a feminist, I’m an equalist” I usually think that person does actually want equality, and just doesn’t understand that they are actually feminist.

A white supremacist doesn’t say they are an equalist. They come right out and say they want to kill the blacks and the jews.

The only ones who might be faking it are the people in the white supremacist “marketing department” who recognize what it is acceptable to say in the public discourse, and are intentionally slowly dragging it to the right.

When does the FRC not like to argue semantics.

1 Like

Because I’m trying to get a more nuanced world view and this thread is helping?

2 Likes

When it comes to nazis.

I’m willing to argue for months on the definition of the word fruit, but I have no patience for nazis.

5 Likes

I think its clear we all hate Nazis. The debate seems to be when you can and can’t punch them, or fruit or something. It’s all got a bit confusing.

2 Likes

Whether it’s nazis or fruit, forum activity is way up, so that’s good for me.

1 Like

In my experience, this means “actually, women are the privileged gender in modern society, let me tell you about the war on dads being waged by family court”

1 Like

As a dad who recently had to go through family court… yeah… “war on dads” is definitely overly dramatic, but the deck certainly appears to be stacked against dads.

That said, for every situation where women may be privileged, there are countless more situations where men are. Yes, ideally all these situations need to be equalized, but let’s be real here: women have it far worse. Even though I’m for fixing the few issues where men have it worse, I’m totally fine with fixing most, if not all, the issues where women have it worse first. At least bring things into balance between the two before worrying about fixing men’s issues.

2 Likes

Yeah, the main thing people don’t seem to get is that given where things are right now, gender equality means lifting women up.

3 Likes

Exactly. About the only exception I can think of are situations where there are issues of physical danger, such as the odd case of a battered woman shelter not letting a mom bring her male children in with her because they’re male and above a certain age, typically teenagers. But these are very few and far between.

This is hardly a new idea, but I feel the need to point out that issues where men are disprivileged (whether merely in appearance or actually in fact) are quite often manifestations of feminist issues, i.e. underlying problems with institutional sexism or the so-called “patriarchy”.

For example, in countries like the U.S. where there are legal provisions for parental leave, but those provisions only offer it to the mother, that looks at a surface level like a case of women being privileged. However, what such a system actually does is use the lever of economic incentives to help maintain a structure where caring for children is, by presupposition, a job for women.

This, in turn, is a contributor to the gender pay gap; as a statistical matter women are much more likely to go on parental leave; and parental leave, even if it’s unpaid, has a corresponding economic cost to an employer.

8 Likes

Oh, definitely in the scenario you cite here and probably many others that I can’t think of off-hand. I’d also argue that the family court scenarios are also a manifestation of the idea that “it’s a woman’s job to care for children.” In fact, I’ve pretty much always assumed that, even in my own personal case. Never mind that I’m just as willing and able to care for my kid as his mom (not to disparage his mom – just being illustrative here).

The only two that I have encountered have been the extreme difficulties in being a primary school teacher in the UK as a man. And the strange looks I get in Japan when I say that I’m more than happy to be a house husband. Otherwise blokes do have it pretty dam good. I can’t speak for the divorce stuff as my parents had a good one.

Wikipedia page on the subject.

7 Likes

So I am seeing the Historical argument for the statues all over the place (since it is definitely a appealing argument for History types AND conservatives) If that was the case, I’d be fine with Robert E Lee statues if they were of him surrendering to Grant or Grant kicking him in the butt. That way they can have their statue AND the history :-p

2 Likes

That’s the thing about so many Confederate statues; they aren’t about teaching history, it’s about the rejection of the present. A vast majority of the statues were put up during or after the Civil Rights movement. As people of colour were gaining rights, white supremacists felt the need to assert their dominance in the public square. They might as well be hanging bronze nooses from trees. “Remember, these are our heroes. This is what we remember fondly.”

3 Likes

OH I am super well versed in those statues, I’m just pointing out that we should replace them with more Union statues kicking their ass or statues of the Slaves being liberated from them.

4 Likes

We need John Brown monuments all over Kansas.

5 Likes