generalchelseamayhem

[generalchelseamayhem]

The Coalition collapsed, chaps

[generalchelseamayhem]

Putting a bunch of "radfems please interact" tags on posts about how to improve your mental health, escaping cults, acceptance of other people, and so on.

The funniest thing about radfems is when they add a bunch of tags to every post begging people to interact with them.

[generalchelseamayhem]

Hello UK folks,

Trans people and allies outnumber transphobes by a long, long way. Please express your support for trans people to your MP.

WriteToThem.com makes it very easy. You just put your postcode in, and then it tells you who your MP is and gives you a form to send them an email.

Write from the heart, tell them you think trans people should be recognised socially and legally as the sex and gender that they are, not the one they were born as. It doesn't have to be long or eloquent. If you're cisgender, say so.

Make them count us all.

[generalchelseamayhem]

I guess the whole problem with this debate is that

on the one side you have the prison abolitionists, who think that a system of punishment being flawed is evidence that no system like it should exist, not even one that works better, and every question about potential replacements is generally met with "well here is yet another comprehensive breakdown of why the current system doesn't work (leaving the original question largely unanswered)"

and on the other side you have radfems, who are secretly all cops in their own minds and occasionally come up with dystopias like "shoot a man on sight if a poor innocent woman victim thinks he's a little bit dodge"

It's extremely hard to agree with either of them more than 30% of the time at their best!

Meanwhile I'm the crazy one for saying "I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to expect police to actually follow the law and stop resorting to violence against Acceptable Targets, while also taking issues like domestic abuse seriously."

[generalchelseamayhem]

EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

people invent "the police again but worse".

And I'm smart enough to know this question was answered by radfems and not sincere prison abolitionists, but... where are the prison abolitionists on this question, exactly?

i have actually never seen a prison/police abolitionist give a reasonable alternative for domestic violence victims, not even once :|

[generalchelseamayhem]

Rian Phin

[generalchelseamayhem]

I see both men who are misogynistic, and men who are lonely. I see two Venn diagram circles overlapping to some extent, and someone using that overlap to deny the other parts of either two circles exist on their own. To point at a vanishingly small group, suggesting of a larger group that they suffer because they deserve to suffer. To deny that there are plenty of men who are lonely but don't deserve to be, and plenty of men who are misogynistic but perfectly well-accompanied.

...And which, of these, are the subset of dudes defending the rape game or whatever it is? Unknown. That was almost entirely irrelevant, except to illustrate that misogynistic men exist—something we all already know.

[generalchelseamayhem]

I-no, that's not the point.

The causation works both ways. Socially maladjusted guys are lonely because they're socially maladjusted, and lonely guys are socially maladjusted because they're lonely! "Normal dudes" will not stay normal if every healthy avenue for social engagement is taken away from them, or simply out of the scope of things people around them can offer.

And like, it's fine if you don't care about the male loneliness epidemic, or think that as a concept it's worthy of scorn! Just know that when you say "Look at these idiots who are complaining about being lonely, when they're ALSO being provocative on the internet for attention and believing things that no socially well-adjusted person would believe!", you're kinda just answering your own question.

"There's a male loneliness epidemic! Why does no one care that young men are so alone??"

The "young men": "Banning a game about r@ping your mom is an attack on free speech!!!"

[generalchelseamayhem]

I'm happy to agree with you, but the juxtaposition of the two ideas in your original post suggested some kind of contrast, at least.

"There's a male loneliness epidemic! Why does no one care that young men are so alone??"

The "young men": "Banning a game about r@ping your mom is an attack on free speech!!!"

[generalchelseamayhem]

I'm not sure I see the contradiction between saying you're incredibly lonely, and behaving as if you're uncommonly socially maladjusted and unhealthily attention-seeking.

"There's a male loneliness epidemic! Why does no one care that young men are so alone??"

The "young men": "Banning a game about r@ping your mom is an attack on free speech!!!"

[generalchelseamayhem]

I'm trying to glean what the argument is here.

What I've come up with is "The Male Loneliness Epidemic (doesn't exist/isn't worth caring about), as evidenced by these (dozens/scores/thousands?) of men I have encountered who are woefully socially maladjusted and will fervently seek the slightest attention from anyone who might give it to them."

But I'm really hoping that's not it, and that I've just missed something.

"There's a male loneliness epidemic! Why does no one care that young men are so alone??"

The "young men": "Banning a game about r@ping your mom is an attack on free speech!!!"

[generalchelseamayhem]

OP: "I am 100% serious about this, I am not joking."

Replies: "umm why are people mad about this obvious joke post? is it because men are programmed to always take women seriously because they think they're too stupid to make jokes? that must be it."

[generalchelseamayhem]

Goldberg says up front that he had every reason to doubt the veracity of the group chat until the bombs hit because people try to do this sort of thing all the time except fake, in order to discredit journalists or otherwise mislead them.

Saying "Omg guys a totally legit high ranking official just added me on Signal and JD Vance (totally real) was there and Tulsi Gabbard (totally real) was there and they all say they're about to bomb Yemen!!" accomplishes nothing except making him look like an idiot until it's too late. Except also an arrested idiot, as noted above.

In fact the idea that the people objecting here would allow themselves to be added to a Signal group chat full of could-be-anybodys, take any purported war plans at face value, and consider yelling about it immediately in the interest of saving lives who are definitely going to take their words seriously, instead of taking the time to verify the information as Goldberg did, speaks a lot to the ongoing credulity problems of the pissing-on-the-poor website.

That article really was disgusting in its absolute disregard for human life like when he said that about how he saw where the chat said they were going to strike and instead of idk warning any people who lived there or doing anything to prevent it he used it to "confirm that the chat was real" or some bullshit by going to social media and seeing people's scared tweets as they were being bombed. Useless and voyeuristic scum. Do you understand that when the us drops bombs, people die? Real people?

[generalchelseamayhem]

Actually it just seems like Goldberg is keeping his outrage separate from his reporting. Which is the actual professional thing to do.

Readings that interpret Goldberg as being outraged at Trump, and readings that have him excusing military intervention in Yemen, are just that: readings projected onto the piece by the audience.

Goldberg is giving us cold hard information: who was bombed and when, who was known to have access to this information, people who had this information who definitely weren't supposed to, and how the high-ranking government officials were acting/reacting during this event. Plus, after the fact, a comprehensive breakdown of the laws each of these elected officials were breaking, with expert legal advice to back him up.

And like, fair enough, if you want to be outraged about any and all of that... go ahead! Nobody is stopping you! But journalists shouldn't need to hold your hand through how you personally should feel about the events they're reporting.

(He is also being far more sensible than anybody else involved about what information he discloses, and I can't fault him for that.)

The most emotive word he uses in the article is "bizarre", and this is for something that you have to remember

is completely unprecedented in U.S. politics as far as we know

happened to him personally.

What exactly does an uncharitable reading of Goldberg and his motivations accomplish here?

Everybody is shocked that US journalist was invited to a top secret chat discussing military strikes and then just left (honestly that's the funniest thing) while refusing to reveal sensitive information but that's about what I expected. You can read on his article, he doesn't care about the fact that the US military is striking one of the poorest countries in the world. In fact, he probably even supports it.

What he is outraged about is how dare Trump be so incompetent, how dare him compromise the effectiveness of the US military, which is doing its job to 'protect this country'. You will see this in media from other countries, there's little to no mention about WHERE the airstrikes were directed to, WHY and WHO they killed. It's all "oh Trump let a random journalist on his chat, how embarrassing!" If it had been Obama or Biden or whoever, the journalist probably wouldn't even had published anything, because after all I imagine (ha!) that they talk about bombing third world countries with propriety and decorum, not unlike these guys who are so, so cringe.

this is why I tell you that the US has a level of military worship seldom seen and completely naturalized

[generalchelseamayhem]

I think the thing that annoys me about a lot of this type of obviously incorrect 2014 discourse is that it's original proponents (radfems) could choose to revive it at any time, and be taken just as seriously now as they were then, but they don't because they like, forgot about it.

remember when there used to be that tidbit passed around a lot back in 2014 or so (though I am sure it is much older) that goes something like,

there are specially-gendered insults just for women [bitch, cunt], but no gendered insults for men, isn't that sexist? the only male-specific insults [bastard, son of a bitch] are still sexist against women

but I was thinking about this the other day and I think that it's just that almost all insults are male-gendered, but no one notices it

but, when's the last time you saw a woman called a jackass, dick, asshole, jerk, etc. probably never, right? or it's at least vanishingly uncommon

[generalchelseamayhem]

people really cannot stand when you come out the other side of "nuance" ultimately holding the same position but more principled. yes i know about that thing, i hold this position as someone who knows that and has factored it into my worldview. you just think the only acceptable response is to drop your beliefs entirely or spend an hour prefacing everything you say with a million exceptions

[generalchelseamayhem]

Personally I can't wait for the next time I open up to the people in the notes about how lonely I'm feeling, and their response is to tell me I don't see women as people. And then they punch me in the face, apparently.

about to say something mean but i feel like every "male-specific" issue is something that also happens to women its just that a lot of you dont seem to see women as people