'The Red Pill' movie controversy

[Newtons Bit]

So, you find that to be a reasonable response, substantively? It was only the phrasing that was a problem?

I'm actually perfectly okay with tone policing him and everyone else. Elam is outrageous and should be called out for it.

Please, rephrase that in a sensible way for me.

Domestic abuse aimed at males is a problem. The answer is not more domestic violence.

Okay, so men hitting back in self-defense is now domestic violence? I personally don't agree with Elam here. I don't think men should hit back because it only escalates the problem and, unfortunately, exposes men to the double standards in our legal system. Men should do the same thing that women should do when their domestic partners hit them: leave, file police reports, cut the abuser out of their lives. But legally, men should be just as entitled as women to hit back against their abusers.

 

[3point14]

This is bad work.

It's a tactic, as I pointed out. Any time you have the hard skeptic who was won over, you see the process.

This seems a very blanket statement. Are you saying that every single time this claim is made (even when a religious person becomes agnostic or atheist) we can safely disregard the claim without further evidence?

"I used to be a hardcore Democrat/Republican and now I'm a hardcore Republican/Democrat. It was because my new side is good and the old side is bad."

Anyone remember Randfan?

"I didn't believe Detergent X could get my clothes clean, I've used Detergent Y my whole life. Now I'm a convert!!!!!"

This seems like a gross false equivalence - to disregard all arguments that come in a particular form without further investigation.

It's the same stupid tactic: "Trust me, I'm the last person to buy in, therefore my conversion is all the more convincing!!!"

It's a cheap way of building credibility.

Or, maybe, sometimes - and I make no comment on the MRA - sometimes it's actually happened?


Do you believe it's never happened?

 

[pharphis]

Please, find me these reasonable MRA's. I know a lot of reasonable people working on issues important to men, especially those in situations where there is a lot of social pressure to bury problems. Exactly zero of those folks would associate with a guy like Elam.

I'll point you to Karen Straughan and Janice Fiamengo. They've covered some of the topics you are exactly wrong about. (it wasn't just "gender roles" that keeps women as primary care-givers and only feminists fighting it).

BTW, we hunted the mammoth is about the worst source you could pick for such a discussion. You've already quote-mined Elam regarding the violence against women thing +(in which he is responding to a SERIOUS article written by Jezabel promoting violence against men... I bet that context was left out on WHTM wasn't it?)

edit: here's the actual article. Read the very first paragraph
https://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-r...u-see-jezebel-in-the-road-run-the-bitch-down/

edit 2: I'm not intending to defend anything else said/done by Elam because frankly I don't know much else about him. Either way, I don't care much for provocateurs. Just sick of seeing this lie

 

[TraneWreck]

Except that the last part didn't happen. I've already explained it to you, so it's hard to believe that you didn't ignore it deliberately. It's more like "Hey, I was a skeptic, the LAST one who would ever believe this, so I wasn't biased towards this conclusion, and you should give this a fair reading".

Yes, and I don't find that convincing. It is the same tactic as I laid out - you should trust me MORE because I was initially skeptical. No, the product stands on its own.

Yeah that would certainly make me an idiot, right?

No, just gullible in this particular case.

Well, gee whiz. If they support Trump then I guess there's no reason to be reasonable or objective about them!

Again, I am the one with the knowledge, here. You seem awesomely ignorant about the Mens Rights Movement. They are alt-right whackos cynically referring to issues of importance to make their extreme right beliefs seem reasonable.

Please, link me to the reasonable MRA's. Find me the folks doing the great work who consider themselves part of that movement.

That's like saying that the United States of America have nothing to do with american issues.

No, that's a very bad example. It's like saying that there's a difference between democracy and the Democratic Party. Small "d" vs. "Capital D." One is a discreet organization, the other is a broad concept.

Mens Rights Movement and mens rights are not the same thing.

"Leaders"? The movement has leaders, now?

Yes, it does. Again, it seems like you are completely unaware of who these people are.

Ah, there we have it! I was wondering when you'd just come out and accuse me of supporting them. Because of course, asking you to be reasonable in your assessment means I must support the other side! That's totally logical and it makes complete sense.

You're defending them here. I didn't accuse you of being a member. You are investing your time, right here, right now, to try and cloak the essence of their movement.

My goodness, you are out of control on this one. Why are you so invested in not learning about MRA's? It's not like they're a secret organization.

On a more serious note, you are absolutely irrational about this topic, if you think me calling you on your fallacies means I'm on the MRA side.

You have yet to point out a fallacy. You are being fueled by pure ignorance of the MRA movement and its leaders.

You are consistently conflating efforts at reforming issues of concern to men - prison violence, custody rights - with the Mens Rights Movement. Until you move beyond that basic failure, you're going to have a tough time understanding the issues.

I gave you plenty of resources. I suggest you study them.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I'll point you to Karen Straughan and Janice Fiamengo. They've covered some of the topics you are exactly wrong about. (it wasn't just "gender roles" that keeps women as primary care-givers and only feminists fighting it).

BTW, we hunted the mammoth is about the worst source you could pick for such a discussion. You've already quote-mined Elam regarding the violence against women thing +(in which he is responding to a SERIOUS article written by Jezabel promoting violence against men... I bet that context was left out on WHTM wasn't it?)

edit: here's the actual article. Read the very first paragraph
https://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-r...u-see-jezebel-in-the-road-run-the-bitch-down/

edit 2: I'm not intending to defend anything else said/done by Elam because frankly I don't know much else about him. Either way, I don't care much for provocateurs. Just sick of seeing this lie

Well, there goes the fun...

 

[TraneWreck]

I'll point you to Karen Straughan and Janice Fiamengo. They've covered some of the topics you are exactly wrong about. (it wasn't just "gender roles" that keeps women as primary care-givers and only feminists fighting it).

Feel free to link some of that great scholarship. I've read some of their articles. Mostly just the typical thought pieces based on strange understandings of "feminism."

If they've got some stuff that really convinced you, I'd be happy to read it.

BTW, we hunted the mammoth is about the worst source you could pick for such a discussion. You've already quote-mined Elam regarding the violence against women thing +(in which he is responding to a SERIOUS article written by Jezabel promoting violence against men... I bet that context was left out on WHTM wasn't it?)

edit: here's the actual article. Read the very first paragraph
https://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-r...u-see-jezebel-in-the-road-run-the-bitch-down/

Haha, the Jezebel article links to this:
http://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/pn.42.15.0031a

They were making fun of the opening line in the article, not the substance:

Women are doing virtually everything these days that men are—working as doctors, lawyers, and rocket scientists; flying helicopters in combat; riding horses in the Kentucky Derby. And physically assaulting their spouses or partners.

Elam was responding with anger to a sarcastic article in response to that baffling opening line.

edit 2: I'm not intending to defend anything else said/done by Elam because frankly I don't know much else about him. Either way, I don't care much for provocateurs. Just sick of seeing this lie

Elam missed the point as much as you have, and he said this. He makes very clear that he is not joking.

If you can read the Jezebel article, the article they linked, then Elam's response and find it at all reasonable, you and I will not be seeing eye to eye on this issue.

 

[rdwight]

I quoted you the words of their leaders. Feel free to peruse this website:

http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/

There are years and years of posts collecting the vile **** said and done by those people.

I'll admit I have little to no knowledge of he MRA, but is this site really a useful resource? They are writing up stories from forums/reddits/white supremacist sites etc, not exactly what I would feel are the 'leaders of the MRA'. Guess they could all be one in the same, but to point to them as a reference seems less than adequate to support your view.

I'm somewhat intrigued at what the doc will cover, and since it's free on Amazon Prime I'll probably take a look if I get the time. I feel it would be appropriate to at least see the doc before professing inside knowledge of what/who is in it and why it was made.

I do dislike attempts to dismiss ideas/movements etc due to the worst words/actions of any member. Very useless method of debating.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Elam missed the point as much as you have, and he said this. He makes very clear that he is not joking.

Note: once again, for those who missed it, this article is a satirical response to this piece on Jezebel (“Have you Ever Beat Up a Boyfriend? Because, Uh, We Have“) and to common media “jokes” about women physically assaulting men and boys. –Eds.

Do you need a definition for satire?

 

[TraneWreck]

This seems a very blanket statement. Are you saying that every single time this claim is made (even when a religious person becomes agnostic or atheist) we can safely disregard the claim without further evidence?

No, it means your skepticism should be heightened. Please quote back what I wrote about this tactic originally. I think you will find it appropriately measured.

This seems like a gross false equivalence - to disregard all arguments that come in a particular form without further investigation.

Is that what I have argued?

Or, maybe, sometimes - and I make no comment on the MRA - sometimes it's actually happened?

Do you believe it's never happened?

So, now the argument has gone from "these two things have nothing in common" to "what, you think it's impossible."

No, of course I don't think it's impossible. What I said, and what I will say again, is that when someone starts using this tactic, my eyebrows raise. I start wondering if I'm going to be hoodwinked and redouble my efforts to skeptically analyze the situation. I also deeply suspect the initial commitment.

It's the sort of generally sleazy tactic that makes me highly suspicious of the quality of the product.

 

[TraneWreck]

Do you need a definition for satire?

Read Elam's piece, he says this:

Now, am I serious about this?

No. Not because it’s wrong. Self defense isn’t wrong. Every one should have the right to defend themselves. Hell, women are often excused from killing someone whom they allege has abused them. They can shoot them in their sleep and walk. Happens all the time. It’ll even get you a spot on Oprah and feminists will lionize you.

In that light, every one of those women at Jezebel and millions of others across the western world are as deserving of a righteous ass kicking as any human being can be. But it isn’t worth the time behind bars or the abuse of anger management training that men must endure if they are uppity enough to defend themselves from female attackers.

He's playing a coy little game for the rubes: "I'm serious, just kidding, but not really."

I'm just being facetious, but seriously, it would totally be ok.

Do you find this sort of tap-dancing at all convincing?

 

[pharphis]

Feel free to link some of that great scholarship. I've read some of their articles. Mostly just the typical thought pieces based on strange understandings of "feminism."

If they've got some stuff that really convinced you, I'd be happy to read it.



Haha, the Jezebel article links to this:
http://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/pn.42.15.0031a

They were making fun of the opening line in the article, not the substance:



Elam was responding with anger to a sarcastic article in response to that baffling opening line.



Elam missed the point as much as you have, and he said this. He makes very clear that he is not joking.

If you can read the Jezebel article, the article they linked, then Elam's response and find it at all reasonable, you and I will not be seeing eye to eye on this issue.

So they both wrote sarcastic pieces? What's the problem? You don't like his writing style or something? Did you read the editor's note? (what I referred to as the first paragraph)

Karen and Janice have done lectures and uploaded many monologues but Karen has also been on TV multiple times (most recently in Australia) to talk about men's issues and anti-feminism. Here is season 1 (of 4) of Janice's Fiamengo Files
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHt1Hh27h4Bs3gYpWa5qAu_kOChBKDIaw

Karen's latest appearance (on her youtube channel)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPeM3v1EJrw

 

[pharphis]

Sorry for not including examples of the controversy in my opening post. There have been several and people are picky about sources so I'll just link to a google news search on the topic. Take your pick!

https://www.google.ca/search?q=the+...he+red+pill+movie+screening+cancelled&tbm=nws

 

[TraneWreck]

I'll admit I have little to no knowledge of he MRA, but is this site really a useful resource? They are writing up stories from forums/reddits/white supremacist sites etc, not exactly what I would feel are the 'leaders of the MRA'. Guess they could all be one in the same, but to point to them as a reference seems less than adequate to support your view.

MRA's, like the broader alt-right, only exists online. Again, I just think that people really aren't aware of what I'm referring to and what "Red Pill" means.

I'm somewhat intrigued at what the doc will cover, and since it's free on Amazon Prime I'll probably take a look if I get the time. I feel it would be appropriate to at least see the doc before professing inside knowledge of what/who is in it and why it was made.

Have at it. I am totally against any effort to ban the film. I watched Loose Change, for ****'s sake, so I'm used to watching nonsense just to see what was presented.

My point is that we don't need to wait for the film to draw conclusions about the MRA movement.

I do dislike attempts to dismiss ideas/movements etc due to the worst words/actions of any member. Very useless method of debating.

You aren't serious about this. When you evaluate the KKK, for example, do you take time to set aside the worst?

Even take something like the Republican or Democratic Parties: shouldn't your evaluation of them take into consideration the worst things they've done as well as the best?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Read Elam's piece, he says this:



He's playing a coy little game for the rubes: "I'm serious, just kidding, but not really."

I'm just being facetious, but seriously, it would totally be ok.

Do you find this sort of tap-dancing at all convincing?

It's a satire article. It explicitly says so. It's stupid writing, but it's still satire. Even the tap-dancing is satirizing other peoples tap-dancing. The fact that you can't figure out what is and what isn't satire in an article explicitly described as satire is exactly the reason why people shouldn't write these kinds of satirical articles.

 

[TraneWreck]

So they both wrote sarcastic pieces? What's the problem? You don't like his writing style or something? Did you read the editor's note? (what I referred to as the first paragraph)

Because Elam wasn't being sarcastic. He does the "I'm joking, but seriously" routine.

Saying horrible things and adding, "just kidding" is not super convincing. And for the record, the Jezebel piece was done, even if it was transparently mocking the weird opening of the piece.

Karen and Janice have done lectures and uploaded many monologues but Karen has also been on TV multiple times (most recently in Australia) to talk about men's issues and anti-feminism. Here is season 1 (of 4) of Janice's Fiamengo Files
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHt1Hh27h4Bs3gYpWa5qAu_kOChBKDIaw

So, opening of her first video we get, absent any citation, academic feminism, "promotes the idea that women's feelings are more important than objective reality or the search for truth." Great stuff.

What part of this do you find convincing?

 

[TraneWreck]

It's a satire article. It explicitly says so. It's stupid writing, but it's still satire. Even the tap-dancing is satirizing other peoples tap-dancing. The fact that you can't figure out what is and what isn't satire in an article explicitly described as satire is exactly the reason why people shouldn't write these kinds of satirical articles.

Saying it's satire doesn't make it satire. The fact that you're fooled by a guy who rants and raves then says, "Just kidding, but seriously..." is the reason why people can get away with that nonsense.

Here's how the article concludes:

I will say this, though. To all the men out there that decided to say “Damn the consequences,” and fight back, you are heroes to the cause of equality; true feminists. And you are the honorary Kings of Bash a Violent Bitch Month. You are living proof of just how hollow “don’t **** with us,” rings from the mouths of bullies and hypocrites.

Is he saying fight back or not? Does he mean violently or not? Are they heroes, or was that part of the joke?

Come on, you're better than falling for this ****.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Saying it's satire doesn't make it satire. The fact that you're fooled by a guy who rants and raves then says, "Just kidding, but seriously..." is the reason why people can get away with that nonsense.

It's satire.

Is he saying fight back or not?

It's satire.

Does he mean violently or not?

It's satire.

Are they heroes, or was that part of the joke?

It's satire.

Come on, you're better than falling for this ****.

It's satire. I still don't like the article. But it's satire. Stop acting like any of it was supposed to be taken seriously.

 

[Belz...]

Again, I am the one with the knowledge, here.

I'm right because I'm right. Religious dogma, basically.

Have fun with that.

You're defending them here.

Now that's a lie, and you know it. Saying that you're talkin nonsense is not defending anyone.

Why are you so invested in not learning about MRA's?

Irony. Nice.

You have yet to point out a fallacy.

Then you're ignoring the content of my post like you're ignoring her video.

 

[rdwight]

MRA's, like the broader alt-right, only exists online. Again, I just think that people really aren't aware of what I'm referring to and what "Red Pill" means.



Have at it. I am totally against any effort to ban the film. I watched Loose Change, for ****'s sake, so I'm used to watching nonsense just to see what was presented.

My point is that we don't need to wait for the film to draw conclusions about the MRA movement.



You aren't serious about this. When you evaluate the KKK, for example, do you take time to set aside the worst?

Even take something like the Republican or Democratic Parties: shouldn't your evaluation of them take into consideration the worst things they've done as well as the best?

Of course I am serious. Don't try to KKK your way out of this one.

For reference, think of the alt-rights attempts to dismiss the BLM movement due to any single instance of wrong doing, or a specific tweet/article/interview/video put out by a member/leader of that organization. Should we ignore any points they make or actions they are attempting due to the worst actions and words of anyone associated with them?

I see this stuff used far to often of late, specifically in a way to avoid having to discuss or debate an issue. Simply demean and categorize the opposing side/author as something negative and dismiss away without any need to actually address anything. It's intellectually dishonest.

 

[TraneWreck]

It's satire. I still don't like the article. But it's satire. Stop acting like any of it was supposed to be taken seriously.

That's a really bad take. I find it frightening that someone slapping "satire" on a screed will convince people.