View Poll Results: Who's the biggest asshole in the thread?

Voters
1. You may not vote on this poll
  • Your mom

    0 0%
  • Grumpy Old Man (Because it's my thread, dammit!)

    1 100.00%
Page 245 of 245 FirstFirst ... 145195235243244245
Results 2,441 to 2,449 of 2449

Thread: Political Ideology

  1. #2441
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    That doesn't seem to me like the commonalities between the two. But rather the increasing disparity between what women get versus what men get, in all the various areas we've discussed on this board, both in society in general, and in the courts, and increasingly as codified into law.
    Again, Maxx is spot on...

    My opinion is not that we 'need' more laws to protect men... But rather repeal laws that specifically enhance and protect women... Anytime a government institutes a new law, there is always $$$ attached to it, and Maxx is exactly correct... Again, there are only three reasons for a entity (individual or group) to commit a crime (or tyranny)... Money, sex, revenge. And with government intrusion, it's always 'Follow the Money'.

    This is why this divide between the left and right exist... There's an old saying, I think I heard it first years ago from the NUTTER Glen Beck. It goes something like this:

    When someone approaches and says, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help". If you are a liberal, you are happy to see them, if you are conservative, you just cringe, because you know that the situation is going to be fucked up like a soup sandwich.

    As a left leaning person, one must come to grips that your own ideology, while noble, IS the primary reason that the feminists and SJW's got all the goodies from the government that they have... And one would then surmise that even though you have the desire to provide social programs, your own ideology is what's feeding the beast, and logically 'whatever you feed grows, whatever you starve shrinks'.

    So, while one would have a left leaning ideology, logically it makes sense to abandon, or at least 'reform' the ideology... At least until we can gain control of the tyrannical order that socialistic policies create.

    Egalitarianism just simply doesn't work... It can't... Not because women aren't capable... But rather because THEY don't embrace it (at least not with any meaningful measure)... If I'm wrong, it would take evidence of feminists actually pushing for women to accept equal accountability... But they just don't... If they did, they already know that women would abandon the movement in a heartbeat.

    Imagine if NOW, would come out and say, "In the interest of driving equality between the sexes, Our non negotiable policy is now #1. Young women are to register for selective service, just like men. #2. And when called to service in the military, either voluntarily or by draft, the military shall be gender blind... Ensuring that just as many women are represented equally in every job classification... and #3. To free women from the burdon of having to be 'stuck' raising children alone, as a result of divorce or custody, we at NOW demand that judges no longer assign primary custody to the mother... We demand a equal shared parenting plan as assumed default in every broken family.

    Do you really think that's going to happen? Nope, women don't want equality... They want 'ice cream' without getting fat. Women are hedonistic by nature... They want every advantage in every situation, and do not want to bare the consequences for such...

    So, in my mind, the only way to make things equal, is not to create more laws and regulations, but rather eliminate the ones that are already there... Let men and women be free to 'work it out' without the parental figure, known as the government intrude extensively.

    The best way to 'socialize' your children to each other, is to not get in the middle of each and every spat they have. It's more effective to just let them 'figure it out on their own', but monitoring that the spat doesn't cross some line of safety... They will eventually 'get it' and get along... To my mind, women just won't 'get it' because their is too much 'big daddy government' intrusion between the sexes...

    Get the government out of your life, so you are free to associate with whom you wish, on a truly 'equal', free association relationships... That's the key.
    Ephesians 5 "Husbands, Love your wives like Christ loved the Church". (Wives, give your husbands something to love).
    "Wives, RESPECT your husbands". (Husbands, give your wives something to respect.)

    For a man does not truly feel loved unless his wife, mother, and children display respect to him.

    "From each MAN according to his abilty, to each WOMAN according to her need"... Allison Tienemann

    "Feminism is a HATE group... Feminists are HATEFUL people"... Mr. e

    "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."... Ronald Reagan


  2. #2442
    Senior Member voidspawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    459
    Rep Power
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Manalysis View Post
    Ah, blessed are the Peacemakers ...

    I must say I disagree about the point scoring etc.
    There was even, wonder of wonders, a civil and solution-oriented discussion between me and the esteemed mr. Plummer, who gracefully - honour where honour's due - was the one to open in this tone.

    I also want to have stated for the record that we, gentlemen, are not resolved on the issue of where the MRHM is situated in the political landscape, and that if this issue is now to be regarded as resolved in favour of one faction, excluding the other, there is a risk that we allow our critics to be less wrong than they could have been when they dismiss MRAs as a dead-end death-rattle of a dying breed, doomed to extinction by their own folly of placing themselves in the way of progress.
    That issue will remain. Perhaps it is not crucial. Perhaps it is not even influential, or important or notable. Time will show.

    M
    I don't thing we can call it resolved in favour of one faction, or more accurately I don't think we should. Perhaps my desire to be accommodating is replacing reason and logic, but it feels more like the grown ups have said stop fighting. GOM can have his political stance that is fine, obviously if it is strongly felt that the moderation decision was made because of that political stance (there may be grounds for that) that would indicate a serious problem that needs further discussion and can't be marked case closed. We can see the implication of that would be:- that's it! this is now a right wing only forum! That would be a very bad outcome.

    My opinion on that is it would throw away so much needed information, where even if you wanted to just use as 'how the opposition think' you still need it, you can't get anywhere just making up nonsense about how people think. Personally I think there are lots of reasons and advantages beyond that for being cross political and being friendly to those who don't identify with any political persuasion. Strong political beliefs of any colour are off putting to those who don't share them or are politically moderate, undecided or just intimidated by them.

    Time will tell on this, I don't mind policing my own tone, staying within guidelines and getting direction. But heavier than that makes this no place for problem solving and creative thought. And without the inventive and creative, how are the MRM's small numbers, lack of funding, lack of media support, lack of political support, and lack of public sympathy going to be challenged.

    Who would want to participate in a movement whose ambition is to be replay the Alamo, or maybe more aptly Little Big Horn?

    This is something to do, perhaps if there are hurt feelings or dismissed concerns adding a personal edge to thinks, a bit of time out would help all. I'd guess the talk can continue in the Trashbin, but a message is, bring it back to the main forum with a men's issues reason rather than excuse. We do have to be mindful of ourselves with that question, do I have a reason for this or am I just making an excuse to do what I want?
    "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."

  3. #2443
    Senior Member Manalysis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,482
    Rep Power
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by voidspawn View Post
    I don't thing we can call it resolved in favour of one faction, or more accurately I don't think we should. /.../ We can see the implication of that would be:- that's it! this is now a right wing only forum! That would be a very bad outcome.
    Yes, such a conclusion would be facile - "It's worse than a crime, it is a mistake", as the saying goes

    Perhaps my desire to be accommodating is replacing reason and logic
    Normally, I would have answered "That's great, we need the full range of opinions", but these days .. who knows ...

    but it feels more like the grown ups have said stop fighting.
    My analysis was different, but then, my analysis is also gone.

    GOM can have his political stance that is fine, obviously if it is strongly felt that the moderation decision was made because of that political stance (there may be grounds for that) that would indicate a serious problem that needs further discussion and can't be marked case closed.
    I would second that. Mixed roles and such stuff.

    My opinion on that is it would throw away so much needed information, where even if you wanted to just use as 'how the opposition think' you still need it, you can't get anywhere just making up nonsense about how people think. Personally I think there are lots of reasons and advantages beyond that for being cross political and being friendly to those who don't identify with any political persuasion. Strong political beliefs of any colour are off putting to those who don't share them or are politically moderate, undecided or just intimidated by them.
    Thirded.

    Time will tell on this, I don't mind policing my own tone, staying within guidelines and getting direction. But heavier than that makes this no place for problem solving and creative thought. And without the inventive and creative, how are the MRM's small numbers, lack of funding, lack of media support, lack of political support, and lack of public sympathy going to be challenged.
    Fourded.

    Who would want to participate in a movement whose ambition is to be replay the Alamo, or maybe more aptly Little Big Horn?
    Not sure I follow this metaphor. Who is the Sitting Bull here? Which side has the Gall?

    This is something to do, perhaps if there are hurt feelings or dismissed concerns adding a personal edge to thinks, a bit of time out would help all.
    Yes, time wounds all heels

    I'd guess the talk can continue in the Trashbin, but a message is, bring it back to the main forum with a men's issues reason rather than excuse.
    We do have to be mindful of ourselves with that question, do I have a reason for this or am I just making an excuse to do what I want?
    Well, as long as the thread is not capped or even deleted, and the debate is continued in all propriety, of course - which section it is in matters little in practice.
    I have given one reason that I think is at least cogent. The question is: what is considered a reason at all, and a good one, too, by those who have to evaluate them?

    M

  4. #2444
    Senior Member mr_e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    5,501
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by theplummer View Post
    Again, Maxx is spot on...
    I wasn't taking issue with the bulk of what he said, only that one aspect, what drives left/right MRA's-- or rather, what do they have in common, and I don't think it's a money thing per se.
    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
    It's time to call it out for what it is.

  5. #2445
    Senior Member voidspawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    459
    Rep Power
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    So how are we supposed to move towards reconciling the left wing and the right wing positions exactly?

    If I can paint in broad strokes for a moment...

    If the right wing MRA is an MRA because he feels central government ALREADY takes too much of his income and too much of his capital forcibly via taxation and gives too much of it to the people that aren't him and his next of kin....

    ...while the left wing MRA is an MRA because he feels central government isn't taking ENOUGH of other people (read - men's) income and capital forcibly via taxation because it doesn't give enough of it back out to any 'select groups' that include him...

    How are these two positions ever supposed to reconcile?

    When left wingers call for government to provide X or Y 'for men' the person that's going to get excessively taxed in order to PAY for all that shit is invariably going to be member of 'team men' as well.

    How can these two guys be on the same team when one of them is actually on the field of play playing and trying to win the game and the other one just wants to sit on the bench come in at the end of the day and claim 50% of the trophy once the game's won?

    So an inevitable divide opens up between men that have something to lose, something worth stealing, a dog in the fight and men who don't.

    And that's not of course to dismiss left leaning men from outside the USA who support certain systems without always fully appreciating how or why exporting them to countries subject to different conditions is an impossible proposition.

    So how exactly is 'men's rights' within a left wing paradigm supposed to work?
    Reconciling the views...

    Broad strokes very welcome on this, can't see any other way at the moment. Reconciling perhaps isn't possible at this time, but accommodating is something we can do. And the objective isn't to create a new political philosophy but reach meaningful action on men's issues. Real world tends to force you to work in small incremental steps. I think business mindedness has taught me that pragma lets you do and it always paints its own way against reality, even if ideals or dogma drive or motivate a person.

    I personally don't feel torn between right and left, because not knowing which is right doesn't bother me. I find steadfast standpoints tend to be more motivated by the fear of the worst case of the other perspective more than confidence and trust in the preferred perspective. But I'm quite old, and have a few knocks to the head and spirit that perhaps affect my judgement.

    Our reality is, without a lot more support, a lot more refined arguments, a really well curated evidence set, a broad base of talents from event organising, research, social media, video production, debating, investigating and a myriad of others, we simply don't have enough. A refined and purified political view won't get us that. In terms of men's rights, my experience from many aspects of activism is you become the bitch of a political group and instead of them helping you, they consume all your strength and energy to help them, and the issues that motivate you, get put on the permanent to do list.

    In that sense having left and right, acts like a protection from getting sucked into something that just wants more cannon fodder for their own cause from anywhere desperate enough to follow orders in exchange for hope.

    If we take a simplified dichotomy of what you offer: Against big government and high taxation vs Redistribution by taxation. Clearly those things clash, but are they in the real world polar opposites or matters of degree? Against high taxation isn't the same as no taxation, even if no taxation is desired reality dictates one way or another money is going to be taken to pay for social costs. I'm not going to get into debating one vs the other, because that is the mistake that I feel is repeatedly made, but it's worth looking at them in context of each other.

    Say you could say to a socialist, you can achieve all the social objectives for 1% taxation. You showed them the costs and you had good education, great health care, security, safety nets etc. And they said well, that guy is still more rich so it don't matter if the poor guy has good health, good education etc, he still needs mo' moolah. Well the guy is being a dick. He's aiming to force an artificial reality onto the world.

    If however he says well equal income drives me, but let's see where this goes if the poor guys income rises in line with their education and quality of work, and their income goes up, good enough... even if he'll probably ask for caveats that if problems remain more should be spent... it's not that he's changed, but actually he sounds a lot more like the standard right wing self improvement view.

    That's related to how the message is received rather than what is said. By that I mean regardless of how reasonable one is attempting to be if it is always regarded as the thin end of the wedge that must be stopped, all the common ground that exists will never be heard.

    Let's look at them being on the same team in broad simple strokes too.

    Firstly they've come to the same place because the stink they are reacting to is the same. And in men's issues the place the stink comes from is pretty much identified as the same place too.

    They are different on the reasons why it stinks and what should be done to clean it out. Everyone agrees the shit needs to go, but blames a different part of the drains for where it comes from.

    Well that's not good. You need the manpower to fix the system, but unless you work together you ain't got enough.

    Well you can still develop strategies that are focused on working together without agreeing every last detail, in fact with even some big details left undecided.

    You can start on the nearest pile of stink and follow the smell back to the source if you can both agree at each step this is where the strong smell comes from. And that comes down to observation skills not perspective.

    There is also the important, and necessary potential gain.

    In broad strokes, every emergence of any great world shift movement from Roman Empire, Mongol Hordes, British Empire, Renaissance, Medicine, Internet etc etc emerged by facing differences and resolving them. This didn't just bring peace between factions, in fact often they still remained in competition, but what they learned and the strength they gained sparring each other made them far stronger than the opposition. They won because they were ready to win. Likewise you can see, you are not winning because you are not ready to win.

    Pardon the simplistic nature of that statement, but this is broad strokes.

    So how exactly is 'men's rights' within a left wing paradigm supposed to work?
    I'm most certainly not gonna pretend to know the answer to that difficult a question. But men's rights must overlap into a left wing paradigm or those of who live in left wing environments are fucked. Issue led focus is about chasing the stink to the source, rather than searching for sources based on theory.

    The extirpation of men's rights from the working class movement, which at it's heart and core was a working men's movement for the sake of themselves and their families and their right to exist and prosper makes men's rights fit into the historicism of working class men's movements. Those who now claim intellectual ownership of the left, aren't the ones who created it. That's how I feel. My reaction to that has been to shift more right wing, think more like an entrepreneur than an employee. But that doesn't solve the problem of some real crap on the playing field, it's a minefield and some tosser got the map, cos he laid the mines. Unfairness exists, unfairness is neither accepted or wanted by the left or right wing mindset.

    Society oscillates in a complex way between left and right wing thinking. Occasionally it lingers stuck, and on occasion it gets stuck. Generally it's bad thing when it gets stuck. For a basically static system I'd suggest the best it can do is swing from one to the other. From a perspective of any person from a side, they either seeing it receding from them or going their way. That's just the small perspective of a person. We all too often see that people even with maximum focus, create a very poor version of their utopia, and their screw ups open the door to a shift.

    There is another shift though, when society makes a paradigm shift and stops being a static system, it can be growing or a collapsing system. In complex models like macroeconomics parts are modelled that way. For societies it relates to. We use the word movement to describe the visible parts of that shift when either a series of collapses or a series of growths happen in relation to each other. Something like a domino effect.

    If you consider political groups to parts of this social system. What would men's rights be if it was bounded to just one political group, or any other one group type. It would only ever be a shift in one bubble, it would never be movement. It would be limited, contained, and if it didn't have enough energy it would fail. As in a macro-economy the same applies to social political groupings. Things connect them into the same system. Resources, energy, manpower, ideas, tools etc, pass between those connections in a movement are too hidden or too complex to see, but the effects can be seen.

    So that leaves a counter question. How is men's rights without a left wing paradigm and a right wing paradigm and other wing paradigms ever supposed to succeed?
    "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."

  6. #2446
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    I wasn't taking issue with the bulk of what he said, only that one aspect, what drives left/right MRA's-- or rather, what do they have in common, and I don't think it's a money thing per se.
    I wasn't taking issue with you not taking issue. if that makes sense... I just quoted you, as your post felt like a bit of a springboard, rather than dissecting Maxx's longer post.

    As far as only being money... Well, I think when it comes to politicians creating laws, it always is money, and or votes, which by extension IS money.

    I identified the other two possibilities, being sex and revenge...

    I do believe that many radical feminists ARE seeking revenge... For different reasons.

    I do believe that many heavy hitters in the feminist movement ARE in it for the money, as they've managed to find a career from the organization. Let's think about it... Don't think for a minute that the idiots running the Duluth model, aren't in it for the money... They spread all kinds of hate, misery, revenge, etc. AND they make money from it.

    You are correct in calling Feminism a Hate group.. And I'm beginning to associate 'other' loosely tied to feminisms group, even more hateful than the feminism brand.
    Ephesians 5 "Husbands, Love your wives like Christ loved the Church". (Wives, give your husbands something to love).
    "Wives, RESPECT your husbands". (Husbands, give your wives something to respect.)

    For a man does not truly feel loved unless his wife, mother, and children display respect to him.

    "From each MAN according to his abilty, to each WOMAN according to her need"... Allison Tienemann

    "Feminism is a HATE group... Feminists are HATEFUL people"... Mr. e

    "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."... Ronald Reagan


  7. #2447
    Senior Member Maxx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,427
    Blog Entries
    33
    Rep Power
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by voidspawn View Post
    I'm most certainly not gonna pretend to know the answer to that difficult a question. But men's rights must overlap into a left wing paradigm or those of who live in left wing environments are fucked. Issue led focus is about chasing the stink to the source, rather than searching for sources based on theory.
    Well they manifestly ARE, aren't they? But looking to left wing systems to solve the problems of left wing systems is kinda like going back to an abusive spouse over and over hoping they'll change IMO. I fear the hope stems from a fundamental misconception about the nature of things. Chiefly revolving around the misconception that when people in a large centralized government CLAIM it's ran by and for 'the people' that it on any level actually is.

    The left doesn't SERVE ordinary men. The right doesn't SERVE ordinary men either but there are at least branches and off shoots within it that advocate leaving him the fuck alone as much possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by voidspawn View Post
    The extirpation of men's rights from the working class movement, which at it's heart and core was a working men's movement for the sake of themselves and their families and their right to exist and prosper makes men's rights fit into the historicism of working class men's movements. Those who now claim intellectual ownership of the left, aren't the ones who created it. That's how I feel.
    Yeah but modern leftist policies punish the working class. By making the responsible working class pay for the irresponsible working class in a manner that effectively punishes personal agency and aspiration.

    What modern leftist policy makers and advocates miss entirely is that just because people are working class it doesn't mean that they generally aspire to stay that way.

    And all leftist policies with excessive taxation and public spending do is ensure that they stay that way.

    You end up with the slightly less poor being robbed to bank roll the life style choices of the even more poor.

    And you end with 'intersectional' men's rights issues. On the one hand you got white collage boys raised by liberal parents joining men's rights because they think it's unfair that 'nice guys' like them can't get pussy from girls who they buy drinks for on dates at fancy bars meanwhile you got other men who are hard working fathers unable to see their kids but still forced to send most of what little they make running their business or punching a clock doing something they hate to the women who gave birth to them.

    We are already seeing divisions of this nature within 'men's rights'...

    A major fault line seems to be men with children vs men without children.
    Another is men who work for themselves vs men who work for someone else.

    Quote Originally Posted by voidspawn View Post
    My reaction to that has been to shift more right wing, think more like an entrepreneur than an employee. But that doesn't solve the problem of some real crap on the playing field, it's a minefield and some tosser got the map, cos he laid the mines. Unfairness exists, unfairness is neither accepted or wanted by the left or right wing mindset.
    Yes but is the source of that unfairness remedied by government overreach or caused and perpetuated by it? That's a fork in the road.
    "Being a cunt doesn't make you wrong." ComradePrescott

  8. #2448
    Senior Member Maxx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,427
    Blog Entries
    33
    Rep Power
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by voidspawn View Post
    So that leaves a counter question. How is men's rights without a left wing paradigm and a right wing paradigm and other wing paradigms ever supposed to succeed?
    To answer that you have first define 'succeed'.

    And I suspect my definition of success is probably the opposite of a leftist MRAs definition of success. In a way that's irreconcilable.

    But for the leftist central government angle I need two answers to two key issues -

    1) additional taxation. Where are the funds for this extra 'men's' stuff (in addition to all/most of the shit there already is) going to come from? If it's via taxation then surely the primary 'victims' of that will be other men.

    So what about their 'men's rights'?

    2) How do you navigate the usual suspects? Suppose somehow some large central leftist government gets in and sets up a whole bunch of publicly funded bodies dedicated to men and boys issues...who's gonna impose the checks and balances that will ensure all these bodies and organizations aren't headed by Michael Kimmel types?

    I don't want massive tax hikes so that I can pay for the good men project to have public funding instead of PP.
    Last edited by Maxx; Yesterday at 11:23 PM.
    "Being a cunt doesn't make you wrong." ComradePrescott

  9. #2449
    Senior Member voidspawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    459
    Rep Power
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    Well they manifestly ARE, aren't they? But looking to left wing systems to solve the problems of left wing systems is kinda like going back to an abusive spouse over and over hoping they'll change IMO. I fear the hope stems from a fundamental misconception about the nature of things. Chiefly revolving around the misconception that when people in a large centralized government CLAIM it's ran by and for 'the people' that it on any level actually is.

    The left doesn't SERVE ordinary men. The right doesn't SERVE ordinary men either but there are at least branches and off shoots within it that advocate leaving him the fuck alone as much possible.



    Yeah but modern leftist policies punish the working class. By making the responsible working class pay for the irresponsible working class in a manner that effectively punishes personal agency and aspiration.

    What modern leftist policy makers and advocates miss entirely is that just because people are working class it doesn't mean that they generally aspire to stay that way.

    And all leftist policies with excessive taxation and public spending do is ensure that they stay that way.

    You end up with the slightly less poor being robbed to bank roll the life style choices of the even more poor.

    And you end with 'intersectional' men's rights issues. On the one hand you got white collage boys raised by liberal parents joining men's rights because they think it's unfair that 'nice guys' like them can't get pussy from girls who they buy drinks for on dates at fancy bars meanwhile you got other men who are hard working fathers unable to see their kids but still forced to send most of what little they make running their business or punching a clock doing something they hate to the women who gave birth to them.

    We are already seeing divisions of this nature within 'men's rights'...

    A major fault line seems to be men with children vs men without children.
    Another is men who work for themselves vs men who work for someone else.



    Yes but is the source of that unfairness remedied by government overreach or caused and perpetuated by it? That's a fork in the road.
    The current situation with feminism and family court, and false accusation, and boys failing in school is over reach by government. They've overstepped in passing laws to buy the votes of women. They're ignorant of what women as a group are saying so are listening to a minority who screech loudly. Only because they screech loudly.

    I won't argue that in the UK and US we need government to be pulled back. But most of the government over reach is about social policy laws. These are cheap laws, pass a law against men to keep women happy, just dump the load on the police and judicial system. Worse performance of the system overall but not much extra cost, just longer queues. 93% of rape cases in the UK are found innocent. Is there any question from that about why are so many cases rejected by courts and juries. No it's all about not enough convictions, and no one is saying you'd get a higher conviction rate with better detection, evidence and stop charging so many innocent ones. The pressure is for more laws with easier convictions.

    The women's services that get funded are not big ticket items, even if it's expensive. Government is stupid and short term, feminists offer them quick policy success just for the handouts, government laps it up. Doesn't see that corruption breeds more corruption.

    I've no doubt a mass of repealed laws and shut down services would make things better, and there'd be no Armageddon for women.

    So in that sense a right wing solution to a left wing behaviour finds support from me.

    But the suicide rate and mental health, might be helped a bit by getting some boots off male necks but most of the lives lost to suicide stem from factors adding up, not just some heartless psycho wrecking his life. Even if the best solution is men with their own futures in their own hands, it's going to take time to reach that. Investment spending through government will be needed.

    I want to see spending that is investment and has a goal which is finite and can be judged. Not endless programmes that fail. I am tired of hearing policy announcements that keep saying they are spending x millions more on this, and that is the entirety of the news, and it's hailed as a success.

    I get the argument about rolling back the state. But that ain't no magic bullet for all the problems. But at this moment for the next needed step, it is repealing gendered laws that harm men's rights, shutting down and defunding preferential programmes and removing government interference in hiring policy.

    But layer by layer, step by step. The issues need to be looked at for what is going to help solve that issue. No one gets to say, keep removing state and it will eventually be okay or keep adding state and it will eventually all be okay. Stuff that is done cuts or spending need to show results.
    "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •