Yeah, it’s “choose a side or else you’ll be treated like you’re on the other side.”

Socially-enforced campism, basically. In my view, extremists on both sides are deplorable. Misandry and misogyny are both wrong, and saying that doesn’t make me a hypocrite.

But I’ll never win the oppression olympics, so why would I even try to compete?

Okay, well those people are uncouth, uneducated troglodytes deserving of ridicule and scorn.

But we shouldn’t conflate making an absolute claim such as “all women are liars” with making a particular claim such as “that particular woman is lying, because I didn’t do the thing she is accusing me of.”

Too often people treat any claim to innocence by an accused man as some misogynistic attack on all womankind. If a guy is innocent and gets accused of something, it’s not misogynist to say “No, that’s not true. I didn’t do that.”

The converse is also true about making absolute claims such as “No woman is a liar.” It’s simply divorced from reality, and all that it would take to disprove it is one example of a woman who lied. Emmett Till’s accuser lied, did she not? That’s just one famous example, but studies have shown that upwards of 5% of reported, official cases turn out to be demonstrably false accusations. That’s 1 in 20, just of cases that make it to court.

The lesson is to avoid making absolute statements. It’s not about “all women lie” or “no women lie,” because both are false statements. It’s about assessing the credibility of accusations on a particular, case-by-case basis. But people don’t like when the answer is “it depends” or “it’s complicated.” They want some blanket solution which will always apply in every case, but that’s just not how reality works.

For some reason I vaguely remember learning something different than that, but I could be remembering wrong or maybe what I learned was bullshit. Oh well.

But yeah, people tend to conflate intelligence with knowledge. You can find a really stupid person with a lot of knowledge on certain subjects, or a really smart person with little to no knowledge on some subjects.

Being able to identify one’s own lack of knowledge and intrinsic biases is an indicator of intelligence. But too many people treat the person who “knows a lot” (or seems to) as intelligent, even if they can’t apply that knowledge in novel ways or perform abstract analysis on the things they know.

Likewise, people tend to treat you like a dumbass if you don’t know much about a certain subject, especially if you’re willing to admit to it. They don’t care if they can give you three basic facts and you can figure the rest out by logical deduction.

Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, and is easily treatable once diagnosed (if one accepts the diagnosis). Stupidity is chronic, a lack of intelligence, and it can be managed, if the patient is willing to follow recommendations, but it can’t be cured except in rare cases.

But IQ is just a measurement, and its validity depends on the quality of the methods of assessment.

Yeah, that’s why it’s called a “gender war.” But if you criticize it in the wrong spaces, you’ll have a dozen feminists jumping down your throat about how “there’s no gender war! That’s just made-up manosphere propaganda!” While they go on making generalizations about men, and if you say that’s a generalization they’ll go “nOt AlL mEn!!1!” sarcastically as if they’re making a point.

But that only applies when you talk about “gender war” in the context of criticizing misandry and generalizations about men. If you bring up “gender war” to criticize misogyny and generalizations about women, in those same spaces, you’ll get those same feminists commiserating with you and saying things like “I feel that, sister, men are such evil swine!”

It’s pointless, and yes, social media directly contributed to this radicalization, polarization, and normalization of extremism over the past decade or so.

I don’t think any guys say “all women are liars.” That’s certainly not the claim in this article, although it’s presented as if to indicate that misleadingly.

This was why we had separation of church and state…

…at least in theory…

This guy is busy maintaining a frontline and repelling an enemy invasion on his own territory, and yet he still takes time out of his day to help people who basically turned their backs on him in his time of need.

I see comments ranging across the spectrum. Some uncritically accepting the interpretations in the article and calling the respondents nazis, others questioning the research methodology such as how exactly those survey questions were phrased and whether the response simply boils down to negating an absolute.

That might be called many things, but I wouldn’t call it a narrow frame of reference.

Misguided children aren’t nazis, but that could very quickly become a self-fulfilling prophecy if you “bitchslap” them and call them nazis.

Suddenly the only people willing to reach out a helping hand to them are the actual nazis.

You know how cults prey on the vulnerable, right? By giving them a place where they feel they belong, and slowly but imperceptibly indoctrinating them into their ideology…

Questionable methodologies aside, I think you’re right about this and it’s an important point. So many people want to treat misogyny like it’s the personal failing of individuals, when the problem is radicalization. People act like these are inherently disturbed people who would have arrived at their hateful opinions no matter what influences they were exposed to. That’s basically an essentialist take and doesn’t acknowledge the complexities of human psychology and development.

You can’t address a cultural or societal issue at merely the individual level, because it’s like rescuing starfish from tide pools. For every one that you save, there’s always a million more. And personal shaming doesn’t help the situation at all.

So many young men and adolescent boys are vulnerable to this radicalization because they’ve been ostracized from their peer groups. They commiserate about their situations with others like themselves. And these predatory manosphere influencers know this and they capitalize on it.

People throw around “incel” like it’s not only an insult, but also this morally repugnant and irredeemable sort of subhuman thing. How does that encourage anyone to self-examine and decide to do better? Society has already rejected them and made it clear that it will never open its doors to them again. And it even emphasizes that it’s outside of their control, i.e. involuntary.

How is that supposed to cultivate healthier views of women? It’s literally telling men “You’re worthless because you can’t get laid.” How do you expect them to react to that in any way other then “Oh gee, then I guess I’d better learn how to get laid.” And then they start down an algorithmic rabbit hole of “dating coaches” and pick-up artists which sucks them into the manosphere grift.

Every time I see “incel” used as an insult or approbation I flinch a little, because it only cements the demise of healthy gender relations a little more each time.

These people started as socially awkward weirdos and loners. They were bullied and ostracized, and turned to the only spaces where they felt accepted. It’s no wonder they wound up being negged and radicalized by predatory grifters.

I’ve pointed this out multiple times all along the way while witnessing this slow downfall, and people always say the same things. “Redpill/blackpill chud INCEL, no one likes you, these people aren’t worth defending, no one healthy or reasonable would let themselves be radicalized, or maybe if they weren’t inherently flawed they wouldn’t be friendless to begin with, etc. etc. etc.” and it all boils down to the same thing: conform or die; the friendless deserve no pity.

It’s fucking hopeless…

That’s up to 5% of reported cases. How many false accusations actually make it to a formal complaint, rather than simply circulating the rumor mill? If your intent is character assassination, you wouldn’t expose your accusations to scrutiny by bringing it to court.

Also, 1 in 20 is a huge number when you consider how many reported cases there are. That is by no means “rare.” Quite common, actually.

If it’s a peer-reviewed study, would you mind linking the actual study? Because it doesn’t seem to be published; i.e., hasn’t been peer-reviewed yet.

If it’s well-designed, then surely the survey questions will stand up to scrutiny, correct?

That’s not the question that was asked. You snuck an “all” in there to make it sound more ridiculous and uncreditable.

The question as phrased in the article simply says “do you think women lie about dv/sa.” It’s vague and open to interpretation, which is why it’s bad research methodology. But it’s more likely to be interpreted as “do you think any woman lies/has lied about dv/sa,” and because absolute statements are easily negated, the obvious answer to that question is yes. Otherwise you would have to claim “No woman ever lies or has ever lied about dv/sa,” and that’s patently false.

But you can go ahead and accuse everyone who questions the research methodology of a poorly-written survey of having committed sexual violence. That only provides an example proving that “Yes, some women lie about it.”

I think they were projecting a lil

It’s not saying that “92% of Canadians are morally good” or even that anyone said “92% of Canadians are morally good.”

It says that "92% of Canadians view other Canadians [i.e., in a general sense] as morally good.

In other words, most Canadians don’t view maple-leaf-maga as indicative of ‘Canadians’ as a whole. And maple-leaf-maga apparently don’t view the people they hate as real Canadians.

If you took the chart as an indicator of objective morality, then yes it invalidates it. But that’s not what the chart is about. The title clearly indicates that it’s a subjective assessment of people’s views.

So Canada ranks as “good,” somewhat because Canadian people are generally decent, but moreso because there’s a common assumption among Canadians that other Canadians are generally decent.

Likewise in India, the chart indicates that among Indians there’s a common conception that Indians are generally morally decent. This subjective perception is obviously layered with cultural interpretations of what constitutes morality.

The actual, objective morality (if such a thing exists) doesn’t factor into it as much as those cultural factors.

There’s also the selection bias to account for. Indian society is far more stratified than Canadian society. Who exactly is responding to the survey, and are they only considering members of their own caste in their response?

You are actively contributing to the descent into idiocracy.

“It’s just a meme. Now shut up, I’m watching ‘Ow, my balls!’”

"I’m sorry, you are totally right! Bombing Iran was a mistake. I will keep that in mind in future conversations.

What would you like to discuss next? Whether planning a new golf course to build in Gaza, drafting a proposal for a larger-than-life-sized golden statue of yourself to go as a centerpiece for your ballroom, or brainstorming ways to distract the news cycle from the Epstein files, my circuits are warmed up and ready to assist you! ⚡🤖🧠 beep boop"

Steak sauce!

It’s pretty sad that the world is at a point where Canadians can feel relieved that the US is bombing Iran because it takes the heat off themselves for a little while…