Useless Thread
- Thread starter Leafaholic99
- Start date
Kin
New member
L K said:
Yeah and I think there's a relation between how much you might trumpet something that you agree with and it's space within mainstream thought. So, for instance, if you think Global Warming is real and a problem to be dealt with then you agree with 97% of climate scientists and you don't have much interest in any of them in particular.
If you're out there stanning for the oil companies on the other hand, you have a real interest in thinking those 3% of climate scientists are the real geniuses taking on a rotten status quo.
Same here with a truly batshit concept like women being forced into monogamous relationships. It won't get much play among mainstream thought so the people who believe that are going to say it's the second coming of Aristotle.
bustaheims
Well-known member
CarltonTheBear said:
Half the men fail? I'm sure the number is much lower than that, but that's call survival of the fittest, and it's a good thing for the species (from a purely biological perspective, at least - it's large part in what drives evolution). Also, women only go for high status men? That's going to news to a lot of people I know.
You really want to help these guys who are sad they can't find women to sleep with? Legalize sex work and do the work to remove the stigma attached to it. Give them an out where both parties receive some sort of benefit. This enforced monogamy BS is basically slavery.
L K
Well-known member
bustaheims said:
The safety improvements to legalized sex work is the biggest thing for me. It fixes a large part of the concern around sex trafficking. It diminishes the risks of STIs to both johns and sex workers. It diminishes the risks of drug culture in the sex industry. There really isn't a very good argument for not legalizing it.
If it quiets down the "Incel" culture, I'm good with that too but I'm having a hard time being overly sympathetic toward a mindset that wants to mandate relationships. It's pretty absurd.
Kin
New member
L K said:
I think that speaks to what this really great New Yorker piece is about The Rage of the Incels and what separates these guys from guys(and gals!) who can't get dates. They're not after sex with sex workers or even romantic relationships necessarily. They're all about thinking men, any men, have the right to sex with particular women, namely young and attractive women.
They're straight up fascists in the guise of mopey sad sacks.
herman
Well-known member
L K said:
On a legislative level, yeah, I agree with that course.
That's not going to solve the incel problem though, because their real issue isn't access to sex -- it's the objectification of women, it's having power over another, it's the culture of winning the woman (and the right to use her body) as an achievement.
edit: i.e. what Nik said.
bustaheims
Well-known member
herman said:
I agree it won't solve the problem, as, yes, majority of them are basically male supremacists. It would just be nice to see something positive come out of this whole thing instead of just small minded boys on their soapboxes raging about how they can't date the 'head cheerleader' types.
Kin
New member
If I could riff here a second, I do think there's an underlying truth here that sort of connects what we're talking about. Increasingly we're living in a world that is more and more starkly divided into the haves and have nots and while that's certainly true economically it's also true socially. While people like Peterson and this Incel movement have insane reactions to it, I do think it's a real issue that as we experience changes from a very static concept of normalcy(straight, monogamous, married) into one that allows for a range of freedom and autonomy there are going to be a lot of people who aren't going to be able to find what they're looking for in a partner and, as a result, be deeply unhappy. Not a majority, I don't think, or even huge minority but even if that only accounts for, say, 5% of people, you're still talking about millions of people.
Compounding this is that so much of the popular media people consume these days seem tailored around exposing people to the things they'll never have. How many songs or shows are really just about rich people bragging about the stuff they have? We're bombarded with the images of things that define success in our society regardless of whether or not that success is within our reach. Sadly, this includes who we might date(think of all the movies revolving around the schlubby guy and his quest to get the hot girl).
I think something we're frequently seeing in politics is that people promising radical change are having more success than the people promising incremental improvement and I think that's inextricably linked to the fact that so many people are not only deeply unhappy but maybe more importantly they don't see a way out of where they are and so are willing to simply lash out at easy targets. Immigrants, women, etc...whatever can be blamed outside of the people really responsible will be blamed by the people responsible to take the heat off themselves.
So I think what reasonable people need to do is to take real steps towards creating a landscape, both economic and social, that addresses some of these issues in smart ways.
So, yes, legalizing sex work is a step but we also need to destigmatize it, both for workers and clients. Moreover we have to create a world where women aren't so frequently objectified and reduced to status symbols for successful men. I think this involves taking a real look at the media we consume and how we consume it.
I'm sure a lot of people will think of this as the same sort of killjoy "PC" stuff they've heard for a long time but I really think that what we're seeing is proof that the stuff that gets dismissed as that really had some merit.
So, you know, maybe let a more diverse group of people make the media we consume so we don't have a single definition of what beauty might be. Let different kinds of stories be told so we don't reduce people to stereotypes. Pay attention to media criticism that calls stuff out for being, and I hate this word but sometimes it fits, problematic. Care about the messages that get reinforced again and again at the movies or on TV.
Sure, economically we're going to have to warm up the guillotine to affect real change but I do think we have it within us to better promote the idea that women are fully autonomous beings who shouldn't be reduced to prizes to be won and, just as importantly, there is no one concept of "winning" that should apply to life.
Anyways, just ranting a couple beers in.
Compounding this is that so much of the popular media people consume these days seem tailored around exposing people to the things they'll never have. How many songs or shows are really just about rich people bragging about the stuff they have? We're bombarded with the images of things that define success in our society regardless of whether or not that success is within our reach. Sadly, this includes who we might date(think of all the movies revolving around the schlubby guy and his quest to get the hot girl).
I think something we're frequently seeing in politics is that people promising radical change are having more success than the people promising incremental improvement and I think that's inextricably linked to the fact that so many people are not only deeply unhappy but maybe more importantly they don't see a way out of where they are and so are willing to simply lash out at easy targets. Immigrants, women, etc...whatever can be blamed outside of the people really responsible will be blamed by the people responsible to take the heat off themselves.
So I think what reasonable people need to do is to take real steps towards creating a landscape, both economic and social, that addresses some of these issues in smart ways.
So, yes, legalizing sex work is a step but we also need to destigmatize it, both for workers and clients. Moreover we have to create a world where women aren't so frequently objectified and reduced to status symbols for successful men. I think this involves taking a real look at the media we consume and how we consume it.
I'm sure a lot of people will think of this as the same sort of killjoy "PC" stuff they've heard for a long time but I really think that what we're seeing is proof that the stuff that gets dismissed as that really had some merit.
So, you know, maybe let a more diverse group of people make the media we consume so we don't have a single definition of what beauty might be. Let different kinds of stories be told so we don't reduce people to stereotypes. Pay attention to media criticism that calls stuff out for being, and I hate this word but sometimes it fits, problematic. Care about the messages that get reinforced again and again at the movies or on TV.
Sure, economically we're going to have to warm up the guillotine to affect real change but I do think we have it within us to better promote the idea that women are fully autonomous beings who shouldn't be reduced to prizes to be won and, just as importantly, there is no one concept of "winning" that should apply to life.
Anyways, just ranting a couple beers in.
OldTimeHockey
Active member
Well said Nik. I don't see it as killjoy PC stuff at all. It's reality. It needs to happen.
It might not solve the incel problem and, for a lot of these problems, maybe they won't be solved. I think having communities where the sole purpose is to have an echo chamber of toxic masculinity there is very little you can do on a legislative level imo. As Nik said it seems like an overall societal/cultural shift needs to be made.bustaheims said:
But it seems to me there are so many side benefits of legalizing prostitution that it's hard to ignore as part of the solution to many different problems.
Kin
New member
So here's kind of a fun question I kicked around with some family tonight around the ol' propane grill...we all kind of like the queen, right? She seems like a nice old lady, kind of reminds you of your grandmother, served in some capacity in WW2...whatever your thoughts on things she's a tie to our collective past. Moreover, for as long as most of us have been alive she's been ever-present in our day in subtle ways. Her face on the money, swearing allegiance to her or whatnot...it's hard to imagine Canada without her.
But she is getting on in years. And while I'm not much of a monarchist, I hope she's still got quite a few years left in her. But, in the sad event of her passing, will support for the monarchy evaporate? If all of a sudden it's her goofball son on all of our money, that we have to swear allegiance to, that the GG is a representative of and so on.
And even in the unlikely event that the monarchy skips a generation...how comfortable will any of us really be with having a King? Even a young and popular one. Some Eton-educated, silver spoon bred epitome of straight white male privilege staring back at us from all our bank notes? I'm sure he's a lovely fellow but at that moment won't the monarchy go from being charming anachronism to sort of a bummer? Especially when we've probably now got at least 75 or so years of having a King in front of us?
Anyways, just a thought for Victoria day. I don't even mean to go into the politics of a Monarchy vs. Republicanism but rather, I suppose, the optics.
But she is getting on in years. And while I'm not much of a monarchist, I hope she's still got quite a few years left in her. But, in the sad event of her passing, will support for the monarchy evaporate? If all of a sudden it's her goofball son on all of our money, that we have to swear allegiance to, that the GG is a representative of and so on.
And even in the unlikely event that the monarchy skips a generation...how comfortable will any of us really be with having a King? Even a young and popular one. Some Eton-educated, silver spoon bred epitome of straight white male privilege staring back at us from all our bank notes? I'm sure he's a lovely fellow but at that moment won't the monarchy go from being charming anachronism to sort of a bummer? Especially when we've probably now got at least 75 or so years of having a King in front of us?
Anyways, just a thought for Victoria day. I don't even mean to go into the politics of a Monarchy vs. Republicanism but rather, I suppose, the optics.
WhatIfGodWasALeaf
Active member
Perhaps growing up in Scotland colored my world view, but no we don?t all kind of like the queen or the throne she sits on and what it stands for.
It?s a complete joke in modern society and the fact that taxpayers still pay hand over fist for her and her family and their properties and their tax exemptions turns my stomach.
The people she presides over burn in flammable tower blocks with pantries sparsely stocked by whatever the local food bank can spare and that wicked old witch sits on her throne in her castles.
The whole thing is joke and should be either abolished with the assets being redistributed or completely privatized and taxed accordingly.
It?s a complete joke in modern society and the fact that taxpayers still pay hand over fist for her and her family and their properties and their tax exemptions turns my stomach.
The people she presides over burn in flammable tower blocks with pantries sparsely stocked by whatever the local food bank can spare and that wicked old witch sits on her throne in her castles.
The whole thing is joke and should be either abolished with the assets being redistributed or completely privatized and taxed accordingly.
Kin
New member
My apologies. To clarify I should point out that generally speaking there by "we" I was mainly referring to Canada and Canadians where our relationship with the monarchy is pretty limited and actually sort of provides the country with something I sort of like(an appointed head of state who's usually pretty agreeable as opposed to whatever sort of populist dope might get elected to the job).
Were I someone whose tax dollars were really at stake I'd be Robespierre-ing it right up beside you on that one.
edit: Although with that said I should acknowledge that there are certainly some people in Canada who have strong Republican leanings and may not like the Queen either. Again, I appreciate anyone who thinks that a hereditary monarchy is an offensive anachronism and effectively agree. I really was, in my usually long-winded and obfuscating way, just asking "Do you think that there will be a decline in support for the monarchy once the throne passes from the lady who's been doing it forever to one of her doofy male heirs?" and "In this new progressive age will people be as amenable to a King as they are a Queen?"
Were I someone whose tax dollars were really at stake I'd be Robespierre-ing it right up beside you on that one.
edit: Although with that said I should acknowledge that there are certainly some people in Canada who have strong Republican leanings and may not like the Queen either. Again, I appreciate anyone who thinks that a hereditary monarchy is an offensive anachronism and effectively agree. I really was, in my usually long-winded and obfuscating way, just asking "Do you think that there will be a decline in support for the monarchy once the throne passes from the lady who's been doing it forever to one of her doofy male heirs?" and "In this new progressive age will people be as amenable to a King as they are a Queen?"
WhatIfGodWasALeaf
Active member
Nik the Trik said:
That?s fair and understandable.
Bullfrog
Active member
Nik the Trik said:
For me, the answer is yes and no, respectively. The Queen has always been there in the background for most of us here (and all of us younger 70 years old or so.) So, it's always sort of been a thing. I feel zero alliance to the monarchy and am firmly in the camp that all allegiance to the crown should be abolished.
With an active change in monarch, I could easily see a lot of people having no interest in swearing allegiance to a new head of state. Because of her longevity, almost none of us has had to actually consider the change.
For me, I don't think it really matters whether it's a king or queen. The idea seems equally ridiculous in each case.
I really, really, really, really wish barstool wasn't a thing.