Discussion in 'Non Sci-fi Debates' started by General Schatten, Jun 25, 2012.
Quoth the great grandmaster of verbal slapping, late Mr. Hitchens:
"you can get away with the most extraordinary offenses to morality and to truth in this country if you’ll just get yourself called Reverend....People like that should be out in the street, shouting and hollering with a cardboard sign and selling pencils from a cup. The whole consideration of this horrible little person is offensive to very, very many of us who have some regard for truth and for morality and who think that ethics do not require that lies be told to children by evil old men"
Yep, good luck trying to go back several hundred years to a time before women's suffrage and when showing skin from your ankle was immodest.
This is just Kent Hovind levels of bullshit this man is spouting, I am simply in awe of the levels of intentional misunderstandings and outright lies coming out of his mouth.
You know, I was writing this long and angry post about this. Aggressive, eloquent, and rage filled. But I have decided not to post this. Instead I will sum it all up in one line.
Yet another man this planet would be much better off without.
This doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Black churches in the US have always hid an extraordinarily ugly reactionary element, which is one of the big reason the democrats can never get anything passed. It's why there's a sliver of truth in the idea that if you hear about someone trying to strangle a kid to get the devil out of them, it's prolly African-American. The traditional black preacher in the US is very much about egging the crowd into a frenzy, talking about the devil being everywhere and generally does promote a very social conservative agenda. Every once in a while, you'll hear about a pissing match between a social worker whose mentioning that someone in the congregation is mentally ill and might not benefit from their spiritual counselor jumping around and ranting about Satan, asking him/her to fight the good fight and slay the demon wherever they might find them.
Then you have the "strong black man" myths, which is a favorite of the middle class and upper class African-Americans, who often use to it to justify why they're better. This is the image of the strong, proud and unyielding black man whose tough as nails and doesn't take any shit. The ultimate disciplinarian and role model. In practice, all it really does is promote bullying and a sense of entitlement. Unfortunately though, it's proven a popular myth. That you can take the worst kids from the worst situation, of any race, and give them over to a black man of strong principles and properly tough and he'll fix everything by bullying them into success. Because, you know of course, it's not they're having trouble or that they can't do something, no it's solely laziness and moral failure that's responsible for why kids in the inner city don't succeed.
And if that's not bad enough, a lot of the worst of so-called "ghetto culture", can be seen as a reaction against their fathers taking this approach with them. In simplest terms, gangster rap especially, can be understood as many of the inner city youth turning on their fathers who employed this kind of shit and saying "What are you fucking kidding me? My schools a joke, I can't walk outside without getting shot at and the only job I can get is flipping burgers and you're telling me all my problems are because I'm a lazy punk? And what's your solution, go to church and be a good boy? Fuck you too old man." Of course, whatever message (and value) it might have had, has at this point been completely perverted and ghetto culture has turned into a self-reinforcing mess that hooks kids on pipe dreams that all too often bloody or with lengthy prison terms.
Well, apart from religious bullshit and some of the arguments, I find myself agreeing with him. Women have entirely too many rights and privileges, both in the codified law and the society in general*. That's why I hate feminism with a passion, because it's not about equality, it's about women rights, sometimes at the cost of equality. Call me naive, but I never understood why it's so difficult to just write the law that doesn't factor in race, gender or orientation and roll with it. Not force companies to have 50/50 ratio of men and women, or the universities to have exactly the same percentage of minorities as in the general population. I just... fuck, it doesn't make any sense to me. It's not being treated equally. It's more often than not discrimination against the majority.
*the ability for a woman to almost always win custody even when she's an alcoholic slut and the working father has to pay child support, this always made me irrationally angry. And that's just one example. From small things like holding open doors for women, to the mother having the only say when wanting an abortion or not (yes, it's her body, but the kid is the father's as much as hers, and it's usually him who'll have to pay child support), all are examples of inequality between the sexes.
You got a bit of a point.
Only a bit.
What about the facts that with equivalent jobs women are still paid less then men, or the negative image associated with female promiscuity (sluts vs seducers), or the lack of female at the top positions of power, and I could make the list go on and on and on.
Except for issues of custody, most of your points regarding privileges are just bovine excrement.
Winning quote from the video: Women are being degraded by being in position of power.
On a side note: The thing I hate the most about youtube is that the previous video, my volume was at around 3%. For this video, I'm at 100% and still have a hard time hearing him. My next video will likely be close to 5%.
Other statements by Rev Peterson, he's a living parody.
He do got a bit of a point, even if i dont agree with most.
I do think equality should be just that, equal.
Equality is far from achieved in most western countries...
Fixed that for you.
Ok, you're totally naive. Women have it noticeably worse in general, and the reason why there's non-gender blind laws and rules is because there's non-gender blind problems.
Feminism is about equality, and sometimes to get equality you need to focus on where the actual problems are and work to even out things like opportunity, not just pass gender-blind laws and hope things even out on their own when there's little pressure for them to do so.
Here's the thing: The majority already has advantages due to being the majority. It's not discrimination to give others an even chance, and the majority don't need help to get a fair shake, they often have the edge even with these laws. It's hardly 'discrimination' worthy of the word when even with laws favoring others the non-favored group still overall has a sizable advantage. It's like complaining about how the starting lines in footraces on a round track are staggered- if they weren't, it'd just give the inside track an overwhelming edge.
When one side has a very sizable inherent advantage just by being where they are, you don't get equality by ignoring that.
/reads wiki article Khaos posted...
Hey, I thought that was already implied.
A more complete statement would have been: "Even in western countries, where feminism has made the greatest impact, equality is still far from achieved."
However, equality don't mean to give women special treatment either.
What special treatment?
(Except the custody issue, but I already agreed on that).
With all the groups out there supposedly ruining America, the country remains surprisingly resilient. I can only conclude that these groups are not very good at ruining things.
I thought the pay gap was due to the men having seniority pay, or doing things that get the pay raises in general, for service industry at least.
That or it is the result of crotchety old bastards who should have been forced out of the ruling position a long time ago.
Treating people "equally" usually means entrenching the advantages of the privileged. It's only equal if you have equality of opportunity. I'll accept "equal" when everyone gets the same education, the same food, and no inheritance from their parents. Otherwise, what it means is you'll still get people leveraging those advantages to stay on top.
But then taking away all those advantages would be fucking Commie, right?
For example, demanding that companies hire a special % of women.
I dont see why, hire the one most suited for the job.
Hell, as things are women are payed less(which need to be changed, i dont see a reason for this), why not hire more of them. Its cheaper...
Because if they don't have these rules, some dick will tend to decide that "only men are suited to this job". Take a look at women in electronics retail, for example. Even if they're brilliant at their job and know everything there is to know about electronics, there are still fools who insist that only men could sell electronics.
A quota serves to demonstrate that these preconceptions are only prejudices, and that the reality is different.
Because, in the past and still today, if a lot less, the most suited for the job might have been a woman. But guess who got hired? The guy a lot less suited, just because he was a guy.
Until that changes, until women are recognized as the most suitable when they are, these laws are necessary. Are they perfect? Hah! Are they the best we can do? Ehh, probably not no, do you have a better idea? If so lets hear it and bring it before congress or something.
Okay sure, but how do we get there against masses of existent social privilege? It's not like just legislating that men and women are equal will make them equal.
Education. The same way you fight all other idiocy.
Separate names with a comma.