Now listen here, feminism...

[Al Swearegen]

Actually, what really amused me is she did a token effort, saying her male friends, once they turned 18, could not express emotion when they were upset (which sounded suspiciously like they simply did not show emotions LIKE HER and in a way that she did), and how men suffer from high incidence of Depression and suicide....and with this token "reach out" to male concerns....went on to say that to make things better for them they should support women.

FUCK THAT!

WEFORWE ? How about we all support each other? Doesn't THAT sound like equality?

Because you know her, and her male friends, and that's how you know what she actually meant? Support each other is fine, I guess, for as long as everyone does it your way.

What exactly is my way?  Interesting retort but it kind of misses the point entirely, doesn't it? HEFORSHE is necessarily males supporting females not requiring females supporting males. Like the support from males will through osmosis derive benefits to their well being.

Similarly I do not pretend to know anyone else's emotional capabilities or limitations or expression, nor do I have to in order to have made the statement I did.

Yet you imply something else, above.

I would not have thought so

[Pyraxis]

They need transcripts. I would read a transcript.

   This isn't Atheism+, perhaps you should ask them to transcribe it.   

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=13

WTF does Atheism+ have to do with transcripts? I just hate videos.

Just for you I watched the first two minutes of it. FWIW I'd never heard the viewpoint that extreme feminism was supposed to benefit men before the last few days on here. On the surface it doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense, any more than trickle-down economics makes sense. I suppose, rather than deliberate hypocrisy, it's an attempt to encourage collaboration instead of this endless tedious men-vs-women attitude as if it were a zero-sum game where everybody had to scrabble desperately for what scraps they could grab.

I haven't heard this UN speech but I think the idea that men don't have emotions because they don't show them is bull. There's no need for everybody to be as emotionally demonstrative and emotionally labile as a stereotypical teenage girl.

[odeon]

Actually, what really amused me is she did a token effort, saying her male friends, once they turned 18, could not express emotion when they were upset (which sounded suspiciously like they simply did not show emotions LIKE HER and in a way that she did), and how men suffer from high incidence of Depression and suicide....and with this token "reach out" to male concerns....went on to say that to make things better for them they should support women.

FUCK THAT!

WEFORWE ? How about we all support each other? Doesn't THAT sound like equality?

Because you know her, and her male friends, and that's how you know what she actually meant? Support each other is fine, I guess, for as long as everyone does it your way.

What exactly is my way?  Interesting retort but it kind of misses the point entirely, doesn't it? HEFORSHE is necessarily males supporting females not requiring females supporting males. Like the support from males will through osmosis derive benefits to their well being.

Similarly I do not pretend to know anyone else's emotional capabilities or limitations or expression, nor do I have to in order to have made the statement I did.

Yet you imply something else, above.

I would not have thought so

That's how it reads.

[odeon]

WTF does Atheism+ have to do with transcripts? I just hate videos.

Me too. Posting a video is a bit like letting someone else do all the arguing.

[Al Swearegen]

Actually, what really amused me is she did a token effort, saying her male friends, once they turned 18, could not express emotion when they were upset (which sounded suspiciously like they simply did not show emotions LIKE HER and in a way that she did), and how men suffer from high incidence of Depression and suicide....and with this token "reach out" to male concerns....went on to say that to make things better for them they should support women.

FUCK THAT!

WEFORWE ? How about we all support each other? Doesn't THAT sound like equality?

Because you know her, and her male friends, and that's how you know what she actually meant? Support each other is fine, I guess, for as long as everyone does it your way.

What exactly is my way?  Interesting retort but it kind of misses the point entirely, doesn't it? HEFORSHE is necessarily males supporting females not requiring females supporting males. Like the support from males will through osmosis derive benefits to their well being.

Similarly I do not pretend to know anyone else's emotional capabilities or limitations or expression, nor do I have to in order to have made the statement I did.

Yet you imply something else, above.

I would not have thought so

That's how it reads.

What do you believe was implied?

[Semicolon]

They need transcripts. I would read a transcript.

   This isn't Atheism+, perhaps you should ask them to transcribe it.   

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=13

WTF does Atheism+ have to do with transcripts? I just hate videos.

Just for you I watched the first two minutes of it. FWIW I'd never heard the viewpoint that extreme feminism was supposed to benefit men before the last few days on here. On the surface it doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense, any more than trickle-down economics makes sense. I suppose, rather than deliberate hypocrisy, it's an attempt to encourage collaboration instead of this endless tedious men-vs-women attitude as if it were a zero-sum game where everybody had to scrabble desperately for what scraps they could grab.

I haven't heard this UN speech but I think the idea that men don't have emotions because they don't show them is bull. There's no need for everybody to be as emotionally demonstrative and emotionally labile as a stereotypical teenage girl.

I watched the first 12 minutes of it, just to be a contrarian. Mykeru didn't back up a single argument in those 12 minutes with provable facts. He seems to follow the Bill Maher school of debate and layer his bare assertions with sarcasm and occasional clever-sounding insults as "proof". Several of his arguments are ones that I've seen cited, with proof, elsewhere on I2, but Mykeru doesn't prove anything himself.

[RageBeoulve]

This is why I just tell feminist flat out to shut the fuck up and then walk away when they start quoting the dictionary when I ask them what they thing feminism is.

So this is where supporting each other ends? Weak, Rage, weak.

I don't support blatant lying.

[RageBeoulve]

This is why I just tell feminist flat out to shut the fuck up and then walk away when they start quoting the dictionary when I ask them what they thing feminism is.

So this is where supporting each other ends? Weak, Rage, weak.

Bad form, I know, replying to your own post, but seeing I mixed your post and Al's, I feel I have to point out my error.

I now realise no support was intended on your part.

Correct. 

Not that I am against being supportive, but just as I wouldn't support someone's decision to steal my wallet, I won't support ideologues doing one thing and calling it another.

Its called lying, you see.

[RageBeoulve]

They need transcripts. I would read a transcript.

   This isn't Atheism+, perhaps you should ask them to transcribe it.   

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=13

WTF does Atheism+ have to do with transcripts? I just hate videos.

Just for you I watched the first two minutes of it. FWIW I'd never heard the viewpoint that extreme feminism was supposed to benefit men before the last few days on here. On the surface it doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense, any more than trickle-down economics makes sense. I suppose, rather than deliberate hypocrisy, it's an attempt to encourage collaboration instead of this endless tedious men-vs-women attitude as if it were a zero-sum game where everybody had to scrabble desperately for what scraps they could grab.

I haven't heard this UN speech but I think the idea that men don't have emotions because they don't show them is bull. There's no need for everybody to be as emotionally demonstrative and emotionally labile as a stereotypical teenage girl.

The speech was basically a bunch of pandering and rhetoric, just to let you know. She would start saying things that sounded nice to make you think "OH yes I agree *nods head*" then skillfully insert some agenda driven bullshit. Over and over.

Its exactly the same thing politicians do.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

They need transcripts. I would read a transcript.

   This isn't Atheism+, perhaps you should ask them to transcribe it.   

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=13

WTF does Atheism+ have to do with transcripts?

Inside joke, I guess you didn't get it. When Atheism+ started out, one of their slacktivist projects was to transcribe videos for the hearing impaired. They gave up on that project after a year of getting next to nothing done.

Just for you I watched the first two minutes of it. FWIW I'd never heard the viewpoint that extreme feminism was supposed to benefit men before the last few days on here. On the surface it doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense, any more than trickle-down economics makes sense.

Well, of course it doesn't make sense to the non-believer. Militant feminism, like Christianity, does a lot of preaching to the choir.

I suppose, rather than deliberate hypocrisy, it's an attempt to encourage collaboration instead of this endless tedious men-vs-women attitude as if it were a zero-sum game where everybody had to scrabble desperately for what scraps they could grab.

There are some zero-sum games within gender politics. This version of feminism just wants to be on the winning side of all of them.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

I watched the first 12 minutes of it, just to be a contrarian. Mykeru didn't back up a single argument in those 12 minutes with provable facts. He seems to follow the Bill Maher school of debate and layer his bare assertions with sarcasm and occasional clever-sounding insults as "proof". Several of his arguments are ones that I've seen cited, with proof, elsewhere on I2, but Mykeru doesn't prove anything himself.

I don't think his intent was to provide proof for his arguments, rather to simply to lay out the argument and let the listener decide for themselves.

[Semicolon]

I watched the first 12 minutes of it, just to be a contrarian. Mykeru didn't back up a single argument in those 12 minutes with provable facts. He seems to follow the Bill Maher school of debate and layer his bare assertions with sarcasm and occasional clever-sounding insults as "proof". Several of his arguments are ones that I've seen cited, with proof, elsewhere on I2, but Mykeru doesn't prove anything himself.

I don't think his intent was to provide proof for his arguments, rather to simply to lay out the argument and let the listener decide for themselves.

That's possible. I don't know much about Mykeru.

[odeon]

Actually, what really amused me is she did a token effort, saying her male friends, once they turned 18, could not express emotion when they were upset (which sounded suspiciously like they simply did not show emotions LIKE HER and in a way that she did), and how men suffer from high incidence of Depression and suicide....and with this token "reach out" to male concerns....went on to say that to make things better for them they should support women.

FUCK THAT!

WEFORWE ? How about we all support each other? Doesn't THAT sound like equality?

Because you know her, and her male friends, and that's how you know what she actually meant? Support each other is fine, I guess, for as long as everyone does it your way.

What exactly is my way?  Interesting retort but it kind of misses the point entirely, doesn't it? HEFORSHE is necessarily males supporting females not requiring females supporting males. Like the support from males will through osmosis derive benefits to their well being.

Similarly I do not pretend to know anyone else's emotional capabilities or limitations or expression, nor do I have to in order to have made the statement I did.

Yet you imply something else, above.

I would not have thought so

That's how it reads.

What do you believe was implied?

You basically interpret what she was saying (the part in bold) and attack that.

[odeon]

This is why I just tell feminist flat out to shut the fuck up and then walk away when they start quoting the dictionary when I ask them what they thing feminism is.

So this is where supporting each other ends? Weak, Rage, weak.

Bad form, I know, replying to your own post, but seeing I mixed your post and Al's, I feel I have to point out my error.

I now realise no support was intended on your part.

Correct. 

Not that I am against being supportive, but just as I wouldn't support someone's decision to steal my wallet, I won't support ideologues doing one thing and calling it another.

Its called lying, you see.

They lie when they quote the dictionary?

[Al Swearegen]

Actually, what really amused me is she did a token effort, saying her male friends, once they turned 18, could not express emotion when they were upset (which sounded suspiciously like they simply did not show emotions LIKE HER and in a way that she did), and how men suffer from high incidence of Depression and suicide....and with this token "reach out" to male concerns....went on to say that to make things better for them they should support women.

FUCK THAT!

WEFORWE ? How about we all support each other? Doesn't THAT sound like equality?

Because you know her, and her male friends, and that's how you know what she actually meant? Support each other is fine, I guess, for as long as everyone does it your way.

What exactly is my way?  Interesting retort but it kind of misses the point entirely, doesn't it? HEFORSHE is necessarily males supporting females not requiring females supporting males. Like the support from males will through osmosis derive benefits to their well being.

Similarly I do not pretend to know anyone else's emotional capabilities or limitations or expression, nor do I have to in order to have made the statement I did.

Yet you imply something else, above.

I would not have thought so

That's how it reads.

What do you believe was implied?

You basically interpret what she was saying (the part in bold) and attack that.

Oh, you mean the bit prefaced with "sounded suspiciously like"? Because it DID sound like that was going on. Was it going on? No idea. It just sounded suspiciously like that.