sometyperesponse.gif

As I’ve said, I’m only concerned with what’s true or not. If something causes a net positive, in terms of satisfaction of interests/preferences, then it’s moral, by definition. The Soviet Union didn’t use violence for the ‘greater good’ nor did the U.S. when we invaded. The government may have subdued public opposition to their crimes by using those arguments, but it’s not like the architects of the Iraq war actually did it for the benefit of the population. Which should be obvious, given that the same people supported Sadam straight through all his worst atrocities. Thanos also wasn’t right, I said ‘could’ be right given an idealized version of his view and changing reality to align with his premise. Saying this ‘attitude is dangerous’ doesn’t change whether it’s true or not. However, it could change whether you publicly support it or not. But I haven’t commented on whether it should be publicly supported. I don’t see how any of my positions are extreme, most of them are common sense. It’s common sense that torture, war crimes, terrorism, mass murder,  and systematic oppression are wrong. It’s also obvious where the balance of crimes is in almost all of the things we’ve talked about – sexist oppression, Israeli human rights abuses, etc. “if bombing the animal farms really would effectively curb the meat industry, I still don't believe such an extreme action is justified.” Well, you would be wrong. If something causes a net good it’s moral. Also ‘binary’ doesn’t translate to ‘extreme.’ All moral actions are binary, either something is morally good or morally bad, as determined by the net effects. At least, they’re binary with the labels ‘good’ or ‘bad’ - the actual moral status of something is on a continuum based on how large the net effects are.

Your example of academic bias doesn’t even begin to explain it. Most conservatives are blue-collar workers for a reason. If someone is smart enough slight academic biases isn’t going to prevent them from doing well. You even said yourself that person ended up giving you good grades. Conservatives have lower IQ almost by definition, their belief systems are nonsense. If you have one belief system that is incoherent and/or clearly based on high levels of fear and in-group biases and one belief system that reflects reality, then obviously the more intelligent people will believe the latter. Of course, that’s not an independent argument for why conservatism is the crazy ideology, but I think I’ve demonstrated that already. And there are independent variables. For instance, all of academia crucially including STEM and philosophy is virtually all liberal. And the higher your degree the more likely you are to be liberal – PhDs are more likely to be liberal than people with a BS. And this can’t be explained with mild biases of professors – if you get the answers on a physics test right, no one is going grade you lower. Hell, I had a deontologist as my normative ethics professor, which is almost the same thing – diametrically opposed beliefs. He clearly hated me, still gave me the highest grades in the class because my essays were objectively better. Most professors are rather objective in my experience. My ‘modern analytic philosophy’ prof also hated me given how many classes I skipped how often I was late and even my choice of a word processor, in personal emails he clearly highly disliked me. Still wrote on my essays I wrote better analyses than any previous student he ever had. And how would a physics professor know if you voted for Trump? Point is, if you are an objectively better student you’ll do fine, both my personal experience and yours suggests this. You still got into a PhD program. If countless studies showed liberals were actually less intellectually capable than conservatives, then there might be a reason to suspect academic bias against conservatives. But the studies don’t show that. They show the opposite. Including brain scans which shows there’s a biological reason for their increased fear responses. Additionally, I think it says something that every great intellectual in history was liberal. I think it says something that liberals idolize people like Bertrand Russell, Einstein, and Noam Chomsky while conservatives idolize people like Ben Shapiro. Obviously, it’s possible to be smart and believe crazy things, hence religion. It’s also possible just based on experience. I think my father is an example of this, he was raised on a farm hunting and fishing by creationist fundamentalist parents. He still, btw, had no problem becoming a physicist either. Never heard him mention any academic bias against him either. He has innate intelligence, but he was raised in such an extremely conservative community it essentially brainwashed him. With enough discussion and arguments, his innate intelligence was able to overcome that for the most part, making him mostly liberal.


Race was defined that way due to melanin. You can then track geographic ancestry of those genes. But the group classification was based on a totally random quality. It was ‘this group looks different’ let’s call them ‘niggers.’ There’s no link between those genes and IQ. Studies confirm those differences disappear when you control for other variables.

But again, I’m not just talking about ‘IQ,’ most of the studies I linked were not explicitly IQ. I think it could be legitimate to test for basic critical thinking ability. But I lean against IQ testing. I lean towards basic knowledge tests, however. If you don’t know, for instance, what the branches of government are or that the ten commandments aren’t in the constitution or can’t name the vice president, then you’re just not doing your duty as a citizen to be informed, and hence shouldn’t get a say in how it functions.

If intelligence tests gave conservatives more voting power, of course, I would have to concede that, but again I’ve said multiple times I’m not for intelligence tests. Also, it wouldn’t give them more voting power :P.

The Nazis were far-right nationalists… they’re the exact opposite of liberals.

That data doesn’t show that though. It says “GOP ideological shift over the past decade has matched, if not exceeded, the rate at which Democrats have become more liberal.” But this seems to be talking about consolidation of ideologies, not the degree to which certain beliefs are conservative. For instance, Nixon was for UBI, the New Green Deal is considered extremely radical. Bernie Sanders is considered extremely radically left, and he’s basically at FDR level liberals. The beliefs that are labeled left/right and the degree to which those beliefs are considered left/right has shifted dramatically. But I was talking about the politicians anyway, not the voters. The public has absolutely become more liberal. On almost every issue polls show the majority opinion is liberal, a lot of them are dramatic majorities like 75%.

Women were oppressed because their interests were not taken seriously because they were women. Those boys weren’t killed because the murderers didn’t take the interests of males seriously, they were murdered because they didn’t care about any moral interests, male or female. Again it’s categorical. Women were oppressed due to membership of an arbitrary group.

You would have had that ‘privilege’ if women were allowed to work and you met a woman that was willing to financially support you. I’ve already said I think gender norms are harmful to both genders, and feminists pretty much always agree. But gender roles are slightly different than straight sexism. It results in arbitrary discrimination, so it still can be described that way. But it’s crucially different from ignoring the interests of another group because they’re a member of that group. Gender norms apply arbitrary restrictions based on gender but those restrictions aren’t based on believing one gender is superior to another or that one gender’s moral interests are more important. Women were oppressed based on both forms of sexism. So yes, men have stereotypes where they have to be strong and emotionless – feminism argues against this. And women have stereotypes of being weak and emotional. But there is simply no comparison in history to how men and women were treated. Women simply did not have equal social, economic, or political status to men. They had no status, they were viewed as property. They were viewed as inferior. Men have never had to face this systematic oppression and denial of fundamental human rights. And by ‘men’ I mean the set ‘men,’ some men due to membership in other groups or situations were oppressed, but it was never due to sexism.


“I think your "it affects some men, but ALL women" argument appears strong at first … but breaks down when you realize that, then, you cannot claim that the U.S. not giving the women the right to vote was oppressive because, again, there were women who owned land and thus did have the right to vote.”

No, because again this is about categories. The women who were denied the right to vote were denied it because they were women. Also, you’ve said “women who owned land and thus did have the right to vote” before and that’s just simply wrong. So so very very wrong. That existed in New Jersey for a few decades or something. Then, not surprisingly, it was restricted to only white males. It also existed in Wyoming post civil war, before that it was just men. I’m assuming you got that from some MRA website because it’s just not true. Around 6% of the population was allowed to vote at the founding – it was white male landowners. And this voting was restricted because they were women, I can’t stress this enough, it’s about group discrimination. Just like we restricted black men from voting, not because they were men, but because they are in the group "black" – and this is an extremely important distinction and one that you keep missing. Say we only enslaved black men, if you look back at history and see all this slavery of men and say ‘oh damn look how much we discriminated against men’ your view would be totally ahistorical because you’re missing that it was discrimination based on being black, not male. This is exactly equivalent to what you’re doing when you’re looking at our historical treatment of women, and in fact our current treatment and the treatment in the third world.

No one is attracted to depressed people, this isn’t a male thing. Men aren’t attracted to depressed women either. Hell, women faced much greater standards than men. Brie Larson is a perfect example. She says pretty much the same things Scarlett says, but Scarlett doesn’t with more charisma and charm and a big smile and so everyone is fine with her. But Brie, well she’s more introverted so fuck that stupid bitch how dare she what a dumb feminist cunt we should burn her at the stake. Men don’t face those same standards, look at Robert De Niro, he’s like a robot in interviews with no emotion at all and everyone still loves him. This applies generally. Women who are introverted get labeled as bitches, men are viewed as stoic.

There is no reason to focus on this limiting factor. Maybe it’s useful for evolutionists to, but it has no significance to any of the broad social conclusions you’re drawing from it. Natural selection decided what traits the women would be choosing from, so does male vs male competition, and women didn’t choose the system to work this way, it just does, due to evolution, and the women were born attracted to what they’re attracted to, due to evolution. There is no significance to what you’re saying.

Those elites were men in almost all circumstances. Even wealthy women, while relatively privileged, had no control over policies. I think you’re getting your history from MRA websites, especially given you think that landowning women could vote.

“My focus is on moving forward without pointing fingers.“ WHAT?!? point the finger is all you’ve been doing this whole time. I say men did X, knowing that X would cause Y, and you repeatedly bring up mechanics of evolution that no one has control over, only focus on the female part of it, ignore all the male parts of it (the parts you just said is “simply not relevant” o.O), and then use that to absolve men of their actions and shift the blame on women. A man rapes a woman and you ignore the man’s actions and blame evolution, but only blame the parts of evolution women control, and therefore blame women for the man’s actions. You’re blaming people for the choices of other people, which is magic. A man did something horrible to a woman and you’ve absolved the man and blamed women – and not just in one specific case, but under your arguments, all evils done by men is really the fault of women. A man isn’t responsible for his own actions, but women are responsible for the actions of the man?? I mean really, wtf. And that’s what you’ve been arguing for this entire time. And now you’re claiming you’re not, and claiming you’re not while doing it: “truly equal, even in our contributions to the evil"s of history.” NO. The only relevant contributions are the ones as the result of our choices, choices that have predictable consequences. And you’ve been doing all this while denying blame exists. Which makes your entire argument incoherent at another level – there is no point in claiming women control sexual selection other than to blame women. Men oppressed women. They chose to do that. Therefore, they’re responsible, and no one else. The fact that they evolved with the capacity to make those choices or with genes that would interact with nature to produce those choices is beyond irrelevant and trivial. Women have zero responsibility for the actions of others. Just like I’m not responsible for a terrorist shooting Muslims. He chose to shoot them, not me. To suggest otherwise is literally magic, it’s incoherent. And that’s what you’ve been doing. You haven’t been using ‘whataboutism.’ That would only be the case if I was saying men are responsible for evil because they’re responsible for evolution, and then you bring up cases where women have control in evolution. Which I never did. You ‘whatabouted’ things I never said, nor implied, and that are in direct opposition to what I’ve said repeatedly. It’s rather frustrating you’ve repeatedly argued for something (and btw this is the only thing your claims could possibly be arguing for, so it’s not a misinterpretation or a strawman) and now claiming you haven’t been arguing that right before restating the argument again.

I say men didn’t let women vote, and then you say ‘hey but look at this one part of evolution controlled by women, ignore all the other aspects of evolution that men control because I’m going to define those as irrelevant, so women are really to blame because they’re to blame for evolution because I’ve defined it to be that way, but men are not, and even though men aren’t responsible for their own actions, women are responsible for processes they can’t control and via that are responsible for the choices of others even though the very people making those choices aren’t responsible for those choices… but I also don’t believe in blame and I’m not pointing the finger.’ I just don’t get it. At all. And I really really really do not think that is a strawman in the slightest. That is the only possible way what you’ve been saying can be interpreted. It’s a straightforward summary.

Evolution has zero relevance to questions about moral responsibility. It has zero relevance to the moral status of our actions. If I say ‘not giving women equal social, economic, and political status to men is wrong’ it can’t make any sense whatsoever to bring up evolution, and it’s even worse when you arbitrarily define only female factors in controlling evolution as relevant.

Again, if they are selecting traits that are already in men, then how are those traits feminine? It’s like saying that large breasts are masculine because men select for them. Gendered terms are just classificatory, they hold no inherent value. It’s simply useful linguistically to call pink ‘feminine’ because women are far more likely to wear pink. At least people think it’s useful, I don’t particularly find it meaningful, as men still wear pink and this is just determined by social norms. There is no inherent femininity to ‘pink.’ What determines pink is the wavelength. The same is obviously true for propositions, the only inherent quality of a proposition is how closely it reflects reality. There is no gender in a proposition. 2+2=4 has no gender. It just is. Just like ‘we should let in refugees’ just is, given an analytic analysis of what that phrase means. It’s literal nonsense to call mathematical relations gendered. Just like it was nonsense for that feminist to call E=mc^2 sexist. The gender differences in voting are relatively small, it was 9 points in 2012. But the reasons for that are pretty clear. Democrats appeal specifically to women’s interests – workplace equality, pro-choice, etc. If I'm not mistaken women tend to be more educated too. But it’s no surprise women don’t want to vote for a sorry excuse for a man that believes that a woman’s worth is only her attractiveness and who brags about sexual assault. Men and women hold liberal values in virtually equal numbers, there is no legitimacy in calling liberal beliefs ‘feminine.’ It doesn’t reflect reality, has no linguistic utility, and is in fact pure linguistic nonsense, and only serves to make it appear women have power in society.

“But you won't get me to realize that by telling me that my logic is flawed, *point out* where my logic is flawed, which you do, but when you do, I feel like you didn't actually understand what I'm trying to extrapolate from the evolutionary theory “
Oh, that last part is true, I still have no idea what you’re trying to extrapolate, you seem to necessarily be contradicting yourself as far as I can tell. The point of that “So the premises are wrong...” statement is that I think the only other ideas that are so convoluted and wrong in so many ways are religions, it wasn’t to ‘PWN’ you or to insult. In general, people are wrong based on simple mistakes, misuse of language, incorrect facts, etc – convoluted webs of circular reasoning and literal nonsense mixed with misuse of language, mixed with incorrect premises, that's full of co-dependency and arm-chair science, mixed with irrelevancy and arbitrariness all intricately constructed to point to one conclusion pretty much only exists in religion. And in metaphysics. In other words, I think you’re abusing your own intellect to form this MRA ideology around a conclusion you want to be true based on previous harms from women and ‘whataboutism’ victimhood. Obviously, from my perspective I already demonstrated the specific flaws, I just thought all the types of flaws I was seeing made a further point which is that you’ve created a religion. I think we’re all prone to religion, I think religious thought had evolutionary benefits, and so it’s important to find where we’re doing it. I try to search for it in myself all the time.

Women being more likely to feel empathy does not make empathy feminine. Both men and women experience empathy. It is absolutely not feminine. That’s not what that word means. Liberals, both men and women, experience more empathy – and, according to one study, also want to feel empathy more. But that’s liberals, not women. And even then it doesn’t make linguistic sense to call empathy ‘liberal.’ Liberals experience it more, but conservatives still feel it. And you’re also focusing on an emotion rather than analytic truth. Liberalism is a set of ideas with truth value (we should let in refugees is true or false regardless of what people believe or their emotions, regardless of political affiliation, and of course regardless of gender) and you’re reducing those ideas to being merely emotive.

I’m not comparing the past and the present, everyone cares about male suffering. Especially liberals. We want to end wars not because it causes women suffering, we want to end wars because it reduces suffering, period. Just like we don’t just want to let in women refugees, we want to let in all refugees. We want to end economic inequality, because it reduces suffering itself, not because it reduces female suffering. All of our policies are about reducing suffering, regardless of gender. Letting in only women and children refugees is a conservative idea, and again that’s not due to not caring about male suffering, that’s them incorrectly viewing male Muslims as a threat. And that view is from more compassionate conservatives. Conservatives tend to not care about suffering outside of their group. When it comes to gender, that’s mostly conservative men. Conservative women tend to if anything favor men over women, whereas conservative men only care about men, and often only American white men. You thinking that people don’t care about men suffering just seems like you don’t understand liberalism to me. And/or you see the hyper victimhood culture in MRA circles as evidence liberals are ignoring male suffering.

“But look at film, the cannon fodder is always male. In a movie, when a female gets killed it's a big deal.” Idk what movies or TV you’re watching. The main characters dying is a big deal, regardless of gender.

“And going back to the boys being burned alive, yea, they don't say "we all good here", because they don't say *anything*”

Except they do. Left media covers all war crimes and crimes against humanity, you just don’t know because you don’t watch or read it. You got that report from HRW. Crimes are covered nonstop, regardless of gender. Most crimes affect both genders. The MSM ignores crimes based on who is the perpetrator – if we do it or our allies they ignore it, if our official enemies do it, they don’t. And this is almost universally the case, there are virtually no counterexamples. That video of the women and girls being executed wasn’t covered anywhere until the intercept – a far left news org – broke it. Even after, the media mostly ignored it or failed to mention/justified US support of the executioners. If you were right, that video should’ve been everywhere. The abuses in Suadi Arabia against women would be too. FGM would get massive media attention. But Saudi Arabia is an ally, so it’s ignored. Women are murdered, raped, abused, put into sexual slavery all over the world constantly and the media almost entirely ignores it. Michelle Obama talking about one instance of abuse hardly makes up for all the horrors that are regularly ignored. Also, you can feel like something can be done about kidnapped women. You can’t really do anything once someone has been burned alive.

Domestic abuse being more acceptable when it happens to men is mostly due to who is more vulnerable. Most people would probably react the same if it was a guy in a wheelchair hitting another man. I could believe good people have more empathy for women, but this hardly matters. As I said, I’m not aware of any murderers or criminals who would only target men. Most of them target women or both. And empathy doesn’t equate to viewing them as equal. People also tend to have higher emotional responses to animals dying or animals being abused. But we still systematically torture and murder animals in the worst possible ways. If that empathy mattered, domestic abuse of women wouldn’t be such a huge problem. All the abuses women in the Muslim world – FGM, burka, not allowed to drive, literally the property of their husbands, etc – and all of our past abuses of women wouldn’t have happened. But we know that did happen, you can’t conclude they didn’t happen based on more empathy for vulnerable people, and so it just doesn’t really matter.

“The fact that there are so many shows about the mistreatment of women simply serves my point.” No, it really doesn’t, that’s very warped. The existence of all those shows is due to the fact that that’s what our history was. The behavior in Mad Men used to be standard, that’s the historical record, and it’s not even old it’s still in people’s memories. That was simply the experience of women in the workplace because women were never treated equally to men. Plus, it’s enjoyable for people to feel righteous about bad things people used to do. People watch shows about slavery and feel amazing because they can think ‘wow look how horrible those slave owners are, I’m so much better, this moral outrage makes me feel great.’ That’s why shows usually ignore current issues. There’s not many TV shows or movies suggesting we’re no better than Nazis due to our treatment of animals, or that Barack Obama is an international terrorist. Questioning our own society except at the most surface levels is not comforting and therefore not appealing to most people. There are even more shows and movies about slavery, and that doesn’t focus on the gender of women, it focuses on both.

All of the issues men face are issues are already recognized by liberals and that would be addressed with our policies. I don’t think MRA should exist at all. All their issues are covered by a general commitment to reducing suffering. Feminism exists because historically they weren’t of equal status and because there are still people who want to take away their equality, like their right to abortion or even their right to vote. The only exception is harmful gender stereotypes, but feminism actively fights stereotypes facing men and women. Republicans just make everything worse, for women and men. But MRA could definitely do a lot more to be taken seriously.