PDA

View Full Version : Why can't we just kill everyone on the fringes for a bit more peace and quiet?



Marradin
27 Feb 2016, 20:53
First read this thread and article http://www.paganforum.com/showthread.php?11795-How-to-Help-a-Woman-Learn-Her-Place

Then think about how [deleted] the male rights movement is.

Then think about the Hyper Feminist Fringe.

What amazes me is no-one ever mentions the Hyper-Feminist Fringe. They Are out there and they are as much (or more) of a danger as this sort of nonsense.

I've read so many posts on environmental news sites and elsewhere where women are saying that men are the cause of everything from Climate change and resource depletion to rising rape rates (that aren't really rising BTW - It's an increase in the REPORTING and CONVICTION of rapists, which is a good thing by all accounts now isn't it?) What they also suggest is removing the right to vote from men, giving them a glass ceiling beyond which they cannot be promoted (Ie firing all male executives and replacing them with women) Requiring all politicians to not only have had children but to have given birth naturally in at least one post. all the while denying the power that women have over men on the whole (not the abusive bastards and sociopaths, but your average, decent man) makes them at least partially culpable as a sex for not using their influence, either in raising their sons to be better men or over their partners/boyfriends/husbands/current live-in living dildo.

Although I personally disagree with it their was a quote in the 19th century that may help focus this. paraphrasing it "Women don't need a vote - they already influence to an extraordinary degree the vote of their husbands, sons and fathers." The same, at least in my experience, is definitely not true of men and their influence over Mothers wives and daughters. I'm not convinced it is true of women either. but I can tell you the first country that takes the vote away from men is going to be screwed. Their millitaries will swiftly decline as men refuse to join, their police stations will be even more short handed, farming and manufacturing will go into a steady decline. We both need to start treating each other as equals.

Is it my imagination or do we need to start forming pogroms to go and hunt the 'male rights fringe' (men only pogroms here) and the Hyper Feminist fringe (Female only here)? Am I right to be disturbed by thinking the only solution to both these groups destroying what I feel society is slowly (And finally!) moving to, an equal and tolerant society. Is it a statement on me or them that I see this violent answer may be the only answer?

Medusa
27 Feb 2016, 21:48
Give it some time. The male whackos will never get laid with their attitude. The female whackos will never get laid with their attitude. And eventually the outside crazies will just die off due to complete and utter douchiness. Society in the norm will just get sick of them and not invite them to parties and what not.

Marradin
28 Feb 2016, 00:22
The problem is it's memes we are fighting here. Not genes.

Unfortunatly you don't need to breed to pass on a toxic meme, just talk to an impresionable and/or stupid person

And I seem to feel I walk past at least one every day.

B. de Corbin
28 Feb 2016, 05:17
I suggest that the real answer is:

Do not imagine that because you hold beliefs that are common in the places you converse that you are right and those who disagree are "lunatic fringe." Violence against those who are different is always violence against those who are different, and encouraging MORE violence against difference is not, actually, going to increase acceptance of "those others." The actual solution is to live and let live, accept the differences in others - even when you don't like them, and don't get pissy about it unless you are actually under a REAL and DIRECT attack.

In short - do unto others as you would have other do unto you.

"Equal and tollerent" does not, can not, and never will result from the elimination of other viewpoints.

anunitu
28 Feb 2016, 05:39
Think about this before you go off wanting to get the fringes,just might be you are someone else's fringe group,and they might consider your solution against you.
As B. De. said,live and let live.

thalassa
28 Feb 2016, 06:08
I would say that thinking that killing someone for their beliefs is the extremist position, regardless of what those beliefs are.

People come by extreme beliefs in many ways. Sometimes by extreme experiences. Who the hell are you to decide a rape victim or a woman traumatized by an abusive father in a sick version leave it to beaver should be executed for the views that give her the power to make it through another day?

The idea that men suck and are responsible for the ills of society is hardly a new one...it's been around since the days of Lysistrata. Because men have consistently held the power in society, and even today...and look what you've done with it. Is it really that much of a jump for someone to think that maybe you all should collectively see what it feels like to be marginalized? Or for some people to feel threatened by the very idea of losing their dominance? I'm pretty sure that is human nature on both sides.

TBH, the middle ground is not held by people with middle views, it's held by a spectrum of views coming to a consensus acceptance of the middle. And it is forced to progress (or regress, though the overall trend seems to be progreasion) by the ends getting tugged on now and again.

Extreme views most dangerous when we meet them with extreme violence. Violence, particularly by the state, creates sympathy and resentment where otherwise their might be apathy. Killing extremists simply for their ideas (and not for their actions) only serves to make more extremists (and often makes them more extreme) and turns the middle into its own for of extremism.

B. de Corbin
28 Feb 2016, 06:24
Yup - all change, both "progressive" and "regressive" come from the tugging that occures at the edges. Without that tugging you get stagnation, which is, itself, regressive.

Kill the musicians, kill the artists, kill the intellectuals (the three most "dangerous" forms of "fringe") and you kill your society.

anunitu
28 Feb 2016, 06:33
This comes around over and over...the Artist becomes a target because he bares society's dark underside also the musician speaks what most would never say. The intellectual is a strange matter,because sometimes the "Intelligentsia" turns out to be posers,and the true deep thinkers are labeled lunatic fringe and dismissed.

Medusa
28 Feb 2016, 19:54
I suggest that the real answer is:

Do not imagine that because you hold beliefs that are common in the places you converse that you are right and those who disagree are "lunatic fringe." Violence against those who are different is always violence against those who are different, and encouraging MORE violence against difference is not, actually, going to increase acceptance of "those others." The actual solution is to live and let live, accept the differences in others - even when you don't like them, and don't get pissy about it unless you are actually under a REAL and DIRECT attack.

In short - do unto others as you would have other do unto you.

"Equal and tollerent" does not, can not, and never will result from the elimination of other viewpoints.

I'm sorta in agreement. Except for us LaVeyan's the 'golden rule' is actually treat others the way they deserve to be treated. Eventually the little shits stop acting up when they get a continual smack from the back of my hand. Sorta like that.

Hawkfeathers
28 Feb 2016, 20:55
These kinds of fringe, I could do without. The coloring book police. https://thelasthiker.wordpress.com/2016/02/16/adult-coloring-books-and-mandalas/

B. de Corbin
29 Feb 2016, 10:11
I'm sorta in agreement. Except for us LaVeyan's the 'golden rule' is actually treat others the way they deserve to be treated. Eventually the little shits stop acting up when they get a continual smack from the back of my hand. Sorta like that.

I never know what a person deserves. If somebody barks at me, I don't know why... maybe his/her mother just died, maybe I said something accidentally that touched a raw nerve, maybe he/she just lost his/her job, stuff like that.

I strongly suspect that sometimes when people seem to be treating me badly I am actually being treated better than I deserve.

It's a conundrum...

We each deal with it in our own way...

Medusa
29 Feb 2016, 10:19
I never know what a person deserves. If somebody barks at me, I don't know why... maybe his/her mother just died, maybe I said something accidentally that touched a raw nerve, maybe he/she just lost his/her job, stuff like that.

I strongly suspect that sometimes when people seem to be treating me badly I am actually being treated better than I deserve.

It's a conundrum...

We each deal with it in our own way...
I work in retail. I have the gift of knowing when you act like a jerk to me, it's probably because you are a jerk.

B. de Corbin
29 Feb 2016, 10:54
I work in retail. I have the gift of knowing when you act like a jerk to me, it's probably because you are a jerk.

LOL - I'll buy that...

anunitu
29 Feb 2016, 11:12
People,can't live with them,can't nuke the planet...can't really do much of anything except get old and die to get away from them:mad::confused:

Medusa
29 Feb 2016, 12:01
I notice that Sundays (THE church day) people tend to be highly pissy. It's like yeah, I got out of church but no, I'm going to just rip into this cashier who just wants to give me a coupon.

MaskedOne
29 Feb 2016, 12:09
I notice that Sundays (THE church day) people tend to be highly pissy. It's like yeah, I got out of church but no, I'm going to just rip into this cashier who just wants to give me a coupon.

For some silly reason, they don't go immediately from Mass to breakfast?

Or is fasting before Communion purely a Catholic habit?

anunitu
29 Feb 2016, 12:28
Fasting on a Sunday...Blasphemy(for me Sunday is chow down right out of bed)

DanieMarie
29 Feb 2016, 13:12
I would say that thinking that killing someone for their beliefs is the extremist position, regardless of what those beliefs are.

People come by extreme beliefs in many ways. Sometimes by extreme experiences. Who the hell are you to decide a rape victim or a woman traumatized by an abusive father in a sick version leave it to beaver should be executed for the views that give her the power to make it through another day?

The idea that men suck and are responsible for the ills of society is hardly a new one...it's been around since the days of Lysistrata. Because men have consistently held the power in society, and even today...and look what you've done with it. Is it really that much of a jump for someone to think that maybe you all should collectively see what it feels like to be marginalized? Or for some people to feel threatened by the very idea of losing their dominance? I'm pretty sure that is human nature on both sides.

TBH, the middle ground is not held by people with middle views, it's held by a spectrum of views coming to a consensus acceptance of the middle. And it is forced to progress (or regress, though the overall trend seems to be progreasion) by the ends getting tugged on now and again.

Extreme views most dangerous when we meet them with extreme violence. Violence, particularly by the state, creates sympathy and resentment where otherwise their might be apathy. Killing extremists simply for their ideas (and not for their actions) only serves to make more extremists (and often makes them more extreme) and turns the middle into its own for of extremism.

I was going to write a response, but then I read this. I can't agree with this more, so I'll just quote it and give Thal a high five for expressing this view much better than I could have.

Medusa
29 Feb 2016, 22:06
For some silly reason, they don't go immediately from Mass to breakfast?

Or is fasting before Communion purely a Catholic habit?

I think around the afternoon is when it starts happening. They get out at 10am. And I'm assuming go eat. Then decide to come terrorize us. I had a little old lady tell me she just came from church. We didn't have an item in stock and she laid down the F bomb right at the register! My small city has quite a few churches within a block of our shopping plaza. In fact across the street is a church!

MaskedOne
29 Feb 2016, 22:18
I think around the afternoon is when it starts happening. They get out at 10am. And I'm assuming go eat. Then decide to come terrorize us. I had a little old lady tell me she just came from church. We didn't have an item in stock and she laid down the F bomb right at the register! My small city has quite a few churches within a block of our shopping plaza. In fact across the street is a church!

So much for hunger as a factor. Past that, I'll default to my normal answer.

Customers aren't human beings. They cease to be human and become humanoid locusts upon entering a store. Humanity is regained some time after leaving. Trying to make sense of them in human terms doesn't work. They are barely sapient bringers of chaos and destruction to be weathered (because shooting them is illegal) and exploited (they carry money after all) but close examination just creates pain.

B. de Corbin
01 Mar 2016, 03:50
In my Catholic past, the priest would habitually launch into sermons about leaving the parking lot like a Christian after mass, and not being in such a hurry to head out and harass waitresses...

anunitu
01 Mar 2016, 04:07
I think around the afternoon is when it starts happening. They get out at 10am. And I'm assuming go eat. Then decide to come terrorize us. I had a little old lady tell me she just came from church. We didn't have an item in stock and she laid down the F bomb right at the register! My small city has quite a few churches within a block of our shopping plaza. In fact across the street is a church!

I was always in the past thinking no church goer was supposed to even know the F bomb let alone toss it out in a public place...Live and learn...

Dumuzi
02 Mar 2016, 00:22
Is it my imagination or do we need to start forming pogroms to go and hunt the 'male rights fringe' (men only pogroms here) and the Hyper Feminist fringe (Female only here)? Am I right to be disturbed by thinking the only solution to both these groups destroying what I feel society is slowly (And finally!) moving to, an equal and tolerant society. Is it a statement on me or them that I see this violent answer may be the only answer?

First, it wouldn't work. As cheesy as it sounds, ideas are bulletproof. You can't kill an idea with bullets. Ideas are fought with counter ideas.

Second, this could actually make it worse. Turning a group into victims and martyrs can give them fuel to their cause. It can make people sympathize with them and join them.

Third, this is, in my opinion, morally wrong. You are killing someone for their opinion, that makes you worse than them. They might be a nasty person, but they are someone's mother/father, son/daughter, brother/sister. You are robbing people out of their loved ones.

Finally, where do you draw the line? How extreme does one have to do to deserve the death penalty? And who decides what that line is?

Marradin
09 Mar 2016, 16:56
I would like to thank everyone who responded reasonably to my Rant - and yes it was a Rant - one where I'd had a particularly bad day, with 3 Marxist socialists shouting me down when I tried to explain what Radical Centrism is (in a history tutorial no less). The I went through the posts on this site (One of my ways of relaxing, Weird I know) and got angry at the hyper- male rights groups through the linked thread and the Payton Manning thread. So I went onto political and environmental news, in a vain hope of finding the world better than I last left it ( and found some hope) But also found aggressive Hyper-Feminism (Madeline Albright saying you can't be a feminist and vote for Bernie Sanders as a start. The view of Sisterhood confirms Feminism she was espousing is, in my opinion, a form of hate politics, and extremely patronizing besides that.)

I needed to get a rant out. I do see many of the dangers, but being a norse pagan see nothing wrong with showing my anger or being particularly politically correct. Better in many ways than holding it in. I am not a pacifist and although violence isn't always (or often) a tool I reach for it is a tool I see as a valid and necessary one. Without keeping a capacity for violence, one leave oneself completely open to subjugation by violence at best, death at worst.

3 points (To poke the bear and play devil's advocate, not in a bad way but to encourage debate) though

1) I agree state sanctioned violence has exactly the reactions ( and martyr potential) you were describing Thess. I was not discussing state sanctioned. more mob behavior, which has occasionally caused martyrs, but not very often from a historical perspective.

2) Killing people for an opinion has sometimes had the effect I desire, especially when their opinion was so horrific that the expansive majority remaining agreed it was what they deserved. I will not invoke a forbidden rule here. I will admit it is hard as a history major.

3) Being a Libertarian-Utilitarian Philosopher, my morals when it comes to a death (or murder) that aims to improve society are somewhat flexible. the murder of someone who has raped 5 or more people is something I see as an attempt to reduce societal harm, and I would shed no tears. Rape is potentially more damaging to society then murder with justification. there is a reason it is called soul murder, I have met many people who never recover from a single such instance against them, and for those I know who have had it happen to them more than once .... I don't want to go there. suffice to say that I am proud of those I know who have partially recovered, and respectful and caring to all that I know that this travesty has happened to. I am pro voluntary Euthanasia -within limits and guidelines -as an example as someone who feels they are more of a burden to society than a benefit due to extreme illness should have a right to die. I am also pro Death penalty, albeit in a circumstance that has no legislated parallels in the world today.

"They might be a nasty person, but they are someone's mother/father, son/daughter, brother/sister. You are robbing people out of their loved ones." Dumuzi (Above) I respect that that is your opinion. I however will counter with
If their family truly cared about them then they would have turned them from the path of hate ( I don't hate the men's rights activists, I feel pity and fury towards them, same with the hyper feminists, for the hatred they create). By saying you have no right to judge them because they probably have family is a weak argument at best. I don't judge their family with fury, just feel pity towards them - and pity that their action or inaction has played some part in making that person who they are. I am not advocating collective responsibility. I am advocating individual responsibility. and the hate the particular groups I have pointed out is extremely dangerous - It is a broad form of hate that can morph at any time to more specific hates, or worse still broader still hates. I have seen it happen. A Case study for you - the Sophie Lancaster case. She was killed and her partner was permanently disabled for simply being different.

Finally as an addendum - I am no espousing killing people who hold these views, no matter how extreme - I am advocating the prevention of the spreading of these meme by people on pulpits. And suggesting that a mob is a possible answer. So far I have heard only condemnation of my possible answer, but no other solution has been proposed, so I open the floor of the debate - What possible solutions do people have here? How can we stem the flow of a pair of memes that, even as I have mentioned above, have entered mainstream politics in the US? in the campaign of a major candidate no less?

B. de Corbin
09 Mar 2016, 18:14
You fight ideas with ideas, words with words.

If you are attacked physically, you defend physically. The people you are talking about have not raped 5 people, nor are they asking to be euthenized, so I cook and eat your red herrings. I really don't care what philosophical banner a person may fly under, I care how what said person's actions do to me and mine.

As a student of history you are aware that mob violence has a nasty tendancy to go bad fast. It may seem like a quick fix to ignorant people, but it ain't.

Try rule of law - where people who do harm, breaking the law, are arrested, tried, and, if found guilty, penalized as per law.

thalassa
09 Mar 2016, 18:16
The free market of ideas requires other ideas to compete with. Memes are not that different than genes.or...as I said in another thread, constant vigilance.


Speak up, speak out, and repeat.

Over and over and over and over and over and over. Tolerating someone's right to have an opinion that is abhorrent, ignorant, ignoble, irresponsible, etc is not the same as being tolerating the idea itself. And the way to combat ideas is with other ideas. Its tiring. Sometimes it seems like there is no progress. Sometimes there is no progress. Sometimes there is backwards. Sometimes you want to give up on people, on the world, on giving a flying frog. Lasting change is incremental.

Freedom of expression (whether its backed up by the courts or not) means being offended. But it also means you can spread some offense (to them) yourself. Bigotry comes from hate, and hate is an illusion of power used to cover up fear and insecurity. Hatred is a tool that the weak try to use, and get used by in the end.

But doing so requires constant vigilance. Speak up, speak out, repeat. Ad nauseam.

As Aldous Huxley said in A Brave New World, "Eternal vigilance is not only the price of liberty; eternal vigilance is the price of human decency." (a modificiation of the misattributed-to-Thomas-Jefferson "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty", which really was said by Wendell Philips, and was a fairly well known and often rephrased quote originating from author Thomas Carlton, "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance", and more adroitly summed up by J. K. Rowling's Mad-Eye Moody as "constant vigilance," which I swear, I am getting as a tattoo one day)

Marradin
09 Mar 2016, 21:34
Ahh - the old rule of law - and when you say that Violence never solved anything i feel it necessary to make this counter-quote from the same era, one that my studies seem to back. It's all a matter of perspective ...

“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms”

Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers

From the same era as Huxley even. And Huxley was not advocating pacifism or non violence. A surveillance state is a form of Violence. perhaps my history as a bouncer is colouring my viewpoint but when people are advocating violence in any form ( and the Male Rights people are, and to a lesser number, but in some ways a greater extent the hyper feminists are.) the only answer is to respond with force. I always try to diffuse situations before they reach the threat throwing stage for that very reason. but a threat is violence. and 90+% of the time will lead to an escalation, especially if someone doesn't intervene with a greater threat or implied threat. These groups are at that point already. just talking, without equaling the level of violence, will fail. And people who hold moderate views are too PC at this time By and large, to risk offending anyone by threatening someone else.

The law has become a weak hat to hang our hopes on. The number of laws that are either ridiculous in nature, inconsistently enforced (either across wealth or race) or rarely enforced has weakened that pilliar of our society. The simple fact that they are written in what is almost another language legalese, weakens it further. Alfred the great was very clear when he wrote his laws. That for laws to be effective they must be Clear, concise and in PLAIN LANGUAGE. laws have become for whoever can afford the most obscure translation or construction of the aforementioned Legalese. Or, failing that, who can buy the most judges. That is why I am pro death sentence but against it in any of the forms it is practiced today. But these factors have lead to people flaunting the law and not getting punished and every single instance of this weakens the entire system, no matter the means. The Law is failing every time I look, so don't throw that up as an answer.

Oh and to BDC Sorry but at least 5 of the Male Rights advocates I've seen around the web are multiple rapists . at least one of them CERTAINLY is because it is the reason he was denied entry into Aus. I see that red hearing wasn't red herring but a nice meaty piece of steak


- - - Updated - - -

I will give you the start of the Force continuum so you can give me more Concrete Ideas to fight their Ideas (Insults and threats mostly) with. Your fight ideas with ideas concept is, at best, a skeletal red herring. at worst it is so nebulous that it doesn't even have a backbone. So fill it out man. Don't throw vague answers - I've given you more meat in my answers than your simple one sentence refutations - I feel like you are trying to calm me down when my blood is boiling over by throwing petrol onto the fire -the same excuses that are given time and again by SO MANY moderates for not confronting extremists - "Oh but that might upset someone' - and that has failed when confronting extremism time and again!!!! That is why Extremists are gaining more followers !! There needs to be more fire in Moderates for us to finally stop all the extremist beliefs!

First two steps on the force continuum
Verbal Insults
Verbal threats

B. de Corbin
10 Mar 2016, 03:01
Ahh - the old rule of law - and when you say that Violence never solved anything i feel...

Well, dude, I feel your feels, because I feel I must tell you that when you put words into my mouth I have a powerful urge to use violence to solve the problem. I did not say violence never solved anything. If I did, please quote it, and prove me a liar.

Otherwise, I step out of this discussion because I refuse to respond to a wannabe intellectual toad who tries to "win" a discussion through false statements.

Marradin
10 Mar 2016, 04:37
Sorry BDC Someone was quoting Huxley's Brave new world and taking it as a pacifist - that comment wasn't aimed at you - The end bit was though :) I may have mixed up who said it while writing the post or mashed it together and for that I apologize.