Mens Rights Activists

[Ryotknife]

Ok, so we'll ignore the history then, why don't you explain the problem to me? Why the disparity?

Well, you seem to be ignoring the history of Latinos and NA, my argument is based around math. The basis of my argument is if a group of people have a poverty rate twice of what another group has, then they should get twice as much resources allocated to them. A fairly simple argument.

That doesn't answer my question... if not the effects of segregation, slavery, etc... why are black people drawing on the system at such disproportionate level?

The why doesnt really matter if we cant do anything about it (seeing how slavery and segregation are gone). Should blacks get more resources allocated to them than groups who have just as much poverty as them? That is racism, pure and simple. Factoring population and poverty, which are the ONLY two factors which should matter. The numbers should roughly look like this:

45% white
19% black
30% latino
4% Asian
2% NA

Without understanding the causes, you can't conclude that it's racism. For instance, black people have a higher rate of hypertension, and recognizing that isn't racism. If you refused to examine the reasons (it's genetic btw) you might make any number of wrong assumptions, wouldn't you?

So to conclude that the assistance black people are getting is unreasonable, the MOST important issue is why they are getting it.

unless whites, asians, latinos, and NA are not asking for assistance out of a matter of pride, then logic would dictate that the reason is because the government says so, at least on some level.

Not necessarily. I think logic dictates that people don't bounce back so quickly from being enslaved, and segregated. There is support for that view I might add, whereas I can't see any support for the notion that government demands that black people get welfare. If you want to offer it of course, I'm open to it.

I never said the government demands it, simply that they make it so. It could be they fast track black applicants out of fear of being labeled racist. However, it is the government who controls who gets assistance. Nor do i accept the segregation/slavery reasoning.

If we are going to dictate policy based on oppression olympics, I would like to point out that the Native Americans would win every day of every month of every year, yet they do not get special treatment.

Native Americans are allowed to have their own sovereign territory within the United States. I'm not going to condescend and assume that you're American, so I'll just explain that you should check into the (horrific) Reservation system. It has many downsides, but it you can't argue that sovereignty with tangible exceptions to drugs and gambling laws among others isn't "Special Treatment".

When you consider how distant the injury there was, and that most of the beneficiaries now are Indian in name only... well, you can do the math on that one.

With that little gaffe out of the way... What is it exactly that you're claiming? The government discriminates in FAVOR of black people? Black people seek welfare more? White/Asian/Latino/Etc people who NEED welfare and quality like black people, are turned away because black people took their place?

I mean... innuendo aside, what exactly are you saying? Beyond that, we can pretend that whole Indian thing didn't happen.

P.S. "Native American" is actually a bullshit PC term created by the US government and applied to American Indians (one of the preferred terms). If you want to go a bit out of your way to be respectful you could go for First Peoples, First Nations, or Amerind in Latin America.

What im saying is that there is a mathematical disparity between what the races get and the population and poverty rate. Every race other than black gets less than they should, which seems to support kopi's statement of the government discriminating based upon race.

What I'm saying is that you've shown that other races are getting less per capita than black people, not that black people need or deserve less.

You have, in short, made a bunch of pretty extreme claims and then all you've done to support them, is make more. DO you have an actual view to espouse, a belief in something, or are you just generally throwing black people under the bus because you ASSUME other people are getting screwed?

I just want to be REALLY clear... not more and different claims, not a dodge or a deflection... an actual explanation with some evidence.

? considering i blamed the government for the discrimination, im not sure how that is throwing black people under the bus. I have only made ONE claim, that the data (that is the evidence that you have ignored each and every time) shows a disparity. Your entire argument is basically "black people deserved to be treated better than everyone else because of slavery". If the idea of equality angers you so much, that is your issue.

 

[WhiteNachos]

So, do these actually exist? I don't go to the comments sections of articles very often (a good thing) so I don't really know for certain, but I hear the MRAs are all up in arms about Mad Max Fury Road, so apparently this is a real thing? Maybe?

Or are they like an urban legend?

They are a real thing but they don't actually give a shit about Mad Max. The people who kicked up a fuss are pick up artists (well A pick up artist site) which is an entirely different group.

MRAs are more focused on male circumcision, the lack of resources for male victims of domestic violence, prison rape, family courts, male birth control and the fact that women get lesser sentences than men for the same crimes.

Also some feminists hate MRAs and some MRAs hate feminists. You ask them why they don't like the other and both of them will say "because they're nothing but a sexist group promoting their own gender's self interest and not actual equality". Well some MRAs will blame feminists for certain laws that they see as unfair, and feminists will probably mention privilege and/or patriarchy but other than that it's the same response.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Wow 11 pages, I bet there's some real heated discussion, I'm going to take a wild guess and say there's at least one argument that boils down to

"Mras suck because reasons, no feminists suck, because different reasons."

And I realized something, it's a stupid pointless debate. Almost anyone can call themself a feminist or an MRA or both (and I've seen a bunch of people who say they are both).

Really the only real requirement for being a feminist is not telling women belong in the kitchen jokes, and the only real requirement for being an MRA is well nothing.

Advocating equality isn't a requirement because I've seen feminists asking for unequal treatment (there's a few articles advocating we get rid of women's prisons and only women's prisons) and I'm sure if I looked I could find MRAs wanting something unequal too.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but as the SPLC has explicitly pointed out, spreading bullshit stats is a cornerstone of MRA's.

Spreading bullsheet stats and misinformation is a cornerstone of these discussions full stop, no matter which "side" is involved, don't see why MRA would be singled out for special mention on that front. And I'd have said the exact same thing if you were saying it for feminists too, don't worry, I'm egalitarian in that regard.

I'm not into equivocation, sorry. One group has managed to reach the radar of the SPLC, the other is a bunch of idiots on Tumblr.

Nice appeal to authority you got there.

 

[Ryotknife]

snip

wow. just wow. Asking for the races to be treated the same is now racism? On that we are going to have to disagree.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but as the SPLC has explicitly pointed out, spreading bullshit stats is a cornerstone of MRA's.

Spreading bullsheet stats and misinformation is a cornerstone of these discussions full stop, no matter which "side" is involved, don't see why MRA would be singled out for special mention on that front. And I'd have said the exact same thing if you were saying it for feminists too, don't worry, I'm egalitarian in that regard.

I'm not into equivocation, sorry. One group has managed to reach the radar of the SPLC, the other is a bunch of idiots on Tumblr.

I'm especially not into reasonable requests for citations for a stats to be met with, "Everyone is full of shit!"

Nice appeal to authority you got there.

Really? How was my (now un-edited) post an fallacious appeal to authority? Please be REALLY sure to check what that actually means before you come roaring back with a response too, and keep in mind that there ARE accepted authorities in narrow fields.

Because you basically said "they said it's the case therefore it's true". You don't talk about their methodology, their evidence, and when challenged on it you say "you want to pit your authority against the SPLC".

For instance, it is not a fallacy to cite the work of Stephen Hawking as authoritative in regards to Black Hole entropy.

And saying "he said it so it must be true" would be appeal to authority.

Now I want you to try an exercise. Pretend that they're NOT seen as an authority, what evidence is there that they're right?

 

[WhiteNachos]

From what I gathered they aren't much different (if any different at all) from feminists, some of them have a pretty good point (women recieve more child custody, less jail time etc.) but has a lot of crazy offshoots with idiots saying idiotic things (again, like feminism). The main difference is that while current media tells you that (current)feminism is good and the fanatics don't represent the majority, it treats MRA like the second coming of mecha Stalin and Hitler and highlighting the fringe groups as the norm rather than the exception.

I would SO pay to see the second coming of Mecha Stalin and Mecha Hitler, because you know they're going to fight each other again.

This SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY at the time paradox speedway, it's mecha Hitler vs. mecha Stalin. He tried to conquer the world and purge it of Jews and he failed, now he's back with his metallic miniature mustache to beat the shit out his old rivals. From the ass kicking Axis it's MECHA HITLER!! And joining him in the ring: He's back from the dead and he's out for revenge, AGAIN!!! Denied the chance to take out his former conquering buddy, he's here and pissed. He's come to finish off Mecha-Hitler for himself and he's seeing red. The communist crusher himself, it's MECHA STALIN! Come now and get a free mecha FDR key chain complete with transforming wheelchair.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but as the SPLC has explicitly pointed out, spreading bullshit stats is a cornerstone of MRA's.

Spreading bullsheet stats and misinformation is a cornerstone of these discussions full stop, no matter which "side" is involved, don't see why MRA would be singled out for special mention on that front. And I'd have said the exact same thing if you were saying it for feminists too, don't worry, I'm egalitarian in that regard.

I'm not into equivocation, sorry. One group has managed to reach the radar of the SPLC, the other is a bunch of idiots on Tumblr.

I'm especially not into reasonable requests for citations for a stats to be met with, "Everyone is full of shit!"

Nice appeal to authority you got there.

Really? How was my (now un-edited) post an fallacious appeal to authority? Please be REALLY sure to check what that actually means before you come roaring back with a response too, and keep in mind that there ARE accepted authorities in narrow fields.

Because you basically said "they said it's the case therefore it's true". You don't talk about their methodology, their evidence, and when challenged on it you say "you want to pit your authority against the SPLC".

For instance, it is not a fallacy to cite the work of Stephen Hawking as authoritative in regards to Black Hole entropy.

And saying "he said it so it must be true" would be appeal to authority.

Now I want you to try an exercise. Pretend that they're NOT seen as an authority, what evidence is there that they're right?

Oh, you should be careful when you attribute a quote to someone. What I actually said was

Do the two seconds of work it takes to find out that's not a "page", it's part of their internal report. Beyond that if you really want to pit your credibility against the SPLC? lol... Go for it.

Credibility is earned, and the SPLC has earned it for DECADES, which is in part the root of their authority in naming hate groups, although by no means are they perfect. My point in reply was that if he wanted to directly question their credibility, that was a hell of a challenge he was up to, as in deed it is.

Now, do YOU have something substantial to offer in that regard, or did you just plan to shout "Fallacy" and I would swoon?

Do you have anything other than "they said it so it must be true"? They didn't even say all the MRA movement was a hate group

http://www.dailydot.com/news/reddit-mens-rights-hate-group-splc/?=hahasrsinyourface

 

[WhiteNachos]

They're just as annoying as feminists and just like feminists they make mountains out of molehills about everything.

And this is why I stopped being an mra. They seemed to have similar problems to (the non tumblr-brand) of feminism. They have a huge confirmation bias, or whatever it's called where they will look at a situation and their knee jerk reaction will be "this was caused by double standards against men" when that might not be the case. And they would also way overstate the case of how bad men have it. I don't remember them calling men oppressed but I do remember thinking they also had a victim complex thing going on (I hope those are the right words). So I stopped reading their stuff. But I do get annoyed when people act like MRAs only exist because they're men who don't like equality. I know from first hand experience that's not the case.

 

[WhiteNachos]

They're just as annoying as feminists and just like feminists they make mountains out of molehills about everything.

And this is why I stopped being an mra. They seemed to have similar problems to (the non tumblr-brand) of feminism. They have a huge confirmation bias, or whatever it's called where they will look at a situation and their knee jerk reaction will be "this was caused by double standards against men" when that might not be the case. And they would also way overstate the case of how bad men have it. I don't remember them calling men oppressed but I do remember thinking they also had a victim complex thing going on (I hope those are the right words). So I stopped reading their stuff. But I do get annoyed when people act like MRAs only exist because they're men who don't like equality. I know from first hand experience that's not the case.

Honest, non-taunting question here... did your leaving the MRA thing coincide with, by any chance, leaving your late teens, early twenties?

I honestly can't remember what age I was. I'm pretty sure I started reading their sites and stopped within my first couple years of college.

 

[Ryotknife]

If I'm wrong, it's never too late to answer those questions and prove me to be a judgmental asshole.

You have, in short, made a bunch of pretty extreme claims and then all you've done to support them, is make more. DO you have an actual view to espouse, a belief in something, or are you just generally throwing black people under the bus because you ASSUME other people are getting screwed?

this one?

fine.

My view is that there is a disparity in how funds (specifically the funds shown in the chart by lildevil) are allocated to poverty based on race. I realize that this is a very boring view, as it is based on math rather than emotions or bias.

Do i have a belief in something? nothing that is related to this topic other than I believe that the government is incompetent especially in regards to the more banal day to day responsibilities.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

I'd guess they are real.
There are some completely justifiable things for them to be activating about. But I'm sure a good portion are just in it to take the piss out of feminists or, similar to a good portion of feminists, cause a fuss.
I seriously cannot imagine being an activist for anything. Sounds like a lot of work.

 

[Ryotknife]

If I'm wrong, it's never too late to answer those questions and prove me to be a judgmental asshole.

You have, in short, made a bunch of pretty extreme claims and then all you've done to support them, is make more. DO you have an actual view to espouse, a belief in something, or are you just generally throwing black people under the bus because you ASSUME other people are getting screwed?

this one?

fine.

My view is that there is a disparity in how funds (specifically the funds shown in the chart by lildevil) are allocated to poverty based on race. I realize that this is a very boring view, as it is based on math rather than emotions or bias.

Do i have a belief in something? nothing that is related to this topic other than I believe that the government is incompetent especially in regards to the more banal day to day responsibilities.

You're re-stating your claim... again... instead of supporting it. Sorry, but I don't have any interest in this game. Seeya.

....you asked me to answer your question. Your question was do i have a view that i wish to espouse, which i did. You asked if i have a belief, which i also answered. If you dont want me to answer your questions THEN DONT ASK ME TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

As for support, the CHART IS MY SUPPORT (and its not even my chart!). you know, actual data. What more do you need to support an argument than data? Or should i support it with nothing but unfounded opinions like what you are doing?

you want more data? okay here is the poverty rate by race (which i included in my analysis)

https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf

here are the demographics by race which i also factored in my analysis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

okay, here is the actual math:

63.7% are white
12.2% are black
16.7% are latino
4.8% are asian
.9% are NA

Blacks, latinos, and NA have roughly twice the poverty of whites and asians.

63.7 for white
24.4 for black (they have twice the poverty rate than whites, so they get twice as much resources so 12.2 *2 = 24.4)
33.4 (16.7*2) for latino
4.8 for asian
1.8 (.9*2) for NA

63.7+24.4+33.4+4.8+1.8 = 128.1

63.7/128.1 = 49% white

24.4/128.1 = 19% black

33.4/128.1 = 26% latino

4.8/128.1 = 3.7% asian

1.8/128.1 = 1.4% NA