/tg/Station 13

Discord account: niku.somepan

Ban/note type (Check what applies):
(x) - Discord Ban (polcon ban)

Ban/note length: Permanent
Ban/note reason: You'd have to tell me that
Time ban was placed: Either when i was discord banned or when i was unbanned and it retrograded to a polcon ban, your pick.

Why are you making this appeal?(Check what applies):
() - I do not know what to check here because the polcon ban reason is not clear.

Why should this appeal be accepted?:



For the sake of this appeal i'm going to assume you polcon banned me because you think i'm a closer misandrist based on what you said in the last appeal. Assuming this is the reason of this ban i will argue that the implication you made about my beliefs are wrong, because they are.

If the reason for my polcon ban is different from what i think, i invite you to clarify it and disregard what is written here, if you want to argue the content of what is written here, but it's irrelevant to the ban, we can argue about it, either in DMs or in Polcon (assuming you won't ban me again for it.

I will now bring up the things you said and address them :

What is the harm in just.... not telling men their issues are less important?

I have in fact never said this, the closest example to this is me saying that misoginy in men's right movements is more damaging to society as a whole than misandry in women's right movements/feminism because misoginy in men's right movements seeks to reverse societal advancements done by feminism while misandry in women's right movements/feminist circles is most often directed at the historical oppression of men on women.

Arguing about the truth in this statement is pointless unless you can pull a very specific study that i don't think exists and we're both biased in our own ways, we could argue for days and not find an objective truth. That doesn't mean you're misogynistic, nor that i am misandristic, just that we have different perspectives in a "conflict" with little objective positioning.

What is the harm in allowing the general conversation on sexual abuse to shift in the direction of gender neutral so that our brothers and enbies in arms can feel comfortable acknowledging their abuse?

There's none, no one has argued that, conversation about sexual assault shouldn't be gendered to begin with, glad we agree.

What is the harm in allowing people to use a (still relevant and in use in some spaces of the internet i might add) definition of autist that doesn't paint them with brush of the most visible minority?

You can use the word 1ncel for yourself, in an attempt to reclaim it, that's fine, but you can't except everyone's definition of the word to shift.
There is a discussion to be had around the dehumanization of people who are hateful to be had, and how we refer to them.
The truth currently is that the vast majority of people who self identify using that word know that it carries a negative connotation and they don't care, just like some transphobes use the word gender critical.

You can try to reclaim gender critical, or 1ncel, but it's a delicate topic and when you're the guy who has "this machine blocks feminist" in your discord bio, you're accumulating redflags for any internet user that knows anything about the mysoginistic part of the internet.
You can try to reclaim the word 1ncel, but you cannot force people to use the definition you use.

This is going to win me a godwin point but, if you were a political party trying to reclaim the term "national socialist" because you're a socialist party that's mainly focused on your own country, going around and blocking/banning people in media spaces you control because they keep saying that those words in common speech mean something else that what goes on inside your head, would be the easiest way to pass for an honest to god nazi trying to launder the term national socialist.

I'm not calling you a mysoginistic entitled man, i'm saying that's what you look like by trying to "clean" 1ncel of it's negative connotations. I personally don't think of you as an 1ncel, but the way you go about treating that word is raising red flags for some people, and i think that's fair.
Your overarching goal isn't evil, the way you go about it, looks evil.

What is the harm in allowing men to be mad at depictions of them as predators by default?

That is a point i'm willing to concede, yes perpetrating one gender as perpetrator reinforces societal biases, that is bad.

But being mad at a twitter user for portraying gamers are pedos, because the gamer was a dude, when the poster of the tweet was himself, seemingly a lolicon, is very silly.
Similarly someone portraying real stories of SA shouldn't be compelled to skew the gender of the aggressors.

But yes, in fictional media, portraying men and women as both victims and aggressors of SA is maybe a good, doesn't mean you should force someone to adapt their story around it, we go back to the topic of diversity in media, and that's a complicated topic.

What is the harm in acknowledging the role the stats play in reinforcing harmful stereotypes?

I have never done that, i even stated that people do misuse stats to draw false equivalences or correlations that are arguably flimsy, i pointed at my examples of it.
But you have a tendency to see bad faith arguments in all stats you see that leave a bad taste.

Yes some stats portray black people as comiting more crimes proportionally than white people
yes some stats portray trans people as more suiciadal than cis people.
Yes some stats portray men as mass shooters more often then women, or rapist.
Some stats say otherwise.

Analizing those stats and evaluation wether they're accurate or not and wether they should be used in public discourse is tough.

If the stats are true explaining why using them as a justification for portrayal in media is important.

Most social issues people are exposed to.
Non-transphobic people know that when RockThrow portrays trans people as suicidal for "comedy" in his comics, he does so because it portrays them (us) as damaged by the transness, which is why it's problematic.
Non-racist people know that if you portray black people with the stereotypes and all as criminals, you probably are a racist piece of shit who thinks black people do more crimes because they're simply black.

But the fight for men's right is a more niche one. Less people are woke about the biases that portray men negativly and why it may be damaging to portray men like that (i still think the specific example you were complaining about was, stupid, though, meme templates are individual works that only reflect what's the common perception of people, there is no one to hold accountable except, society)

You can use the 41% stat to talk about how trans affirmative healthcare actually makes trans people less suicidal and is helpful.
You can use the "Despite Being Only X Percent of the Population" to talk about how population that were formerly slaves then become culturally associated with crimes (Roma people, Black people in america) and how much of that is a product of a life that was rendered illegal and how survival societal practises affect behavior in a post slavery society (in the west) and how there's over policing of those people and how poverty affects the time of crimes that people do and etc etc.
And you can use the stats about Violent crimes in men to talk about how "Aggresivity = masculinity" leads to a society in which men resort to violence more often than women.

My point isn't "we should indulge all stat posting all the time" but sometimes, maybe, talk to the people that post them, explain why it's misguided, why it's not a good justification, instead of like, knee jerk muting them.

Currently in polcon i don't think i could have a discussion about how societal trends push towards certain behaviors, specifically in men, because you'd swoop in and go "Nuh uh your actually stigmatizing and a closet racist and also you're muted"

But i could easily make the same kind of argument about how a societal expectation of men as the providers in a relationship lead to alimony being paid towards exwives even in some cases where they're vastly richer.

What is the harm in expecting people put in the extra care when mentioning demographics of crimes stats to ensure they aren't doing little more then reinforcing harmful stereotypes and holding them accountable when they fall short?

You punish people for crossing your arbitrary line, the question of what is acceptable discussion and what isn't, and you do not communicate about it.

Unlike all other admin bans there is no precedent except what you deem bad at that given time.

This statement holds for all conversation involving :

• Not talking to you
  Talking about crimes stats, in anyway way
  Talking about common internet discourse surrounding misoginy (a passing meh on man vs bear may land you a multiple hour long mute)

You have a very rigid view of what impacts the world and how, and it makes discussing certain topic around you impossible, because if i say that 1ncel in common internet speech refers to a very specific kind of people who loaths their preferred dating pool for not choosing them, you're going to look at me in the eyes via your screen and go "You're being bigoted right now".
Because you have a perspective on that word, and you refuse to acknowledge that people have different definition of the same words.

You see that word used by two different people and assume they use it for the same people for the same purpose all the time.

If someone misuses that word to qualify someone that creeped them out, you're going to assume all uses of that word are similar, and that you should reclaim it to save autists (actually autists, not 1ncels getting autocorrected) from being insulted.


To be very clear, i think men's rights are very important, as important as anyone else's rights, but your view of the subject, and feminism lacks nuance, and i feel like in your head it's "The good MRAs that i love vs the Bad feminist that I hate"

I don't think you're fundamentally mysoginistic, because if you were i wouldn't talk to you, but getting to that point of understanding of your moral compass recquires some digging. Because of your fundamental innability to view things as nuanced.

You live in a reality in which MRAs are good because you did good things with MRAs, and feminists are bad because some feminists wrote bad shit or said bad shit on twitter.

And you're missing that there's good, and bad, in both movements, and that we should try to push away the bad parts while retaining the good, for both, without alienating whole movements of civil rights as a result.


Sorry for going on a rant, but this appeal is going to be a mess regardless, due to the vague nature of the ban reason

For clarity's sake, this is an appeal for the ban from the Polcon channel itself, correct?

Vekter wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 8:22 pm For clarity's sake, this is an appeal for the ban from the Polcon channel itself, correct?

Yes

Sorry for the delay, im gonna focus this post on helping you understand better why I banned you from polcon and addressing as many points along the way as I can.

For the sake of this appeal i'm going to assume you polcon banned me because you think i'm a closer misandrist based on what you said in the last appeal. Assuming this is the reason of this ban i will argue that the implication you made about my beliefs are wrong, because they are.

Sorta, you have engaged in a pattern of behavior that smells like a knee jerk reaction to pro-male advocacy bred out of misandry. You claim (and from all measure very likely believe yourself) that you support advocacy for these male issues, but conveniently find some excuse to frustrate any such attempts.

What is the harm in just.... not telling men their issues are less important?

I have in fact never said this, the closest example to this is me saying that misoginy in men's right movements is more damaging to society as a whole than misandry in women's right movements/feminism because misoginy in men's right movements seeks to reverse societal advancements done by feminism while misandry in women's right movements/feminist circles is most often directed at the historical oppression of men on women.

@niku.somepan wrote: Male Incels have an issue with mysoginy
Female incels have an issue with mysandry

MRAs have issues with mysoginy
Feminists have issues with mysandry

And you will hate me for this, but misandry from a group that has been for centuries inferiors, is while still bad, less important than the pressure exerced by those who have been superiors for the past centuries

Misandry within Feminism is a men's issue. in fact its one of the most important ones given how much power and sway the Capital-F Feminist viewpoint on gender issues has in liberal political circles and even office culture.

At the European Central Bank the number of male mid level managers who applied for a promotion and got it in 2022-2023 was 5%, the number of female mid level managers who applied for for a promotion and got it was 14%.

Until 2010 common sexual assault studies would only ask about actions preformed by men. (ie, all the questions used male pronouns)

These are forms of misandry within Feminism. The same misandry that you are implying is less important then divorced men bitter about the legal system letting their ex wife run rampant over their finance health, (which as the founder of the Seattle Mens Rights Association, and somebody who personally met with many leaders of the mens rights movement, I can authoritatively tell you is the primary form of misogyny in the mens rights movement).

Your argument is problematic because history is constant. it has already happened, it can never change. You are casting the sins of the father onto the son to explain to him why a form of bigotry towards him can never be addressed with the same rigor as a similar form of bigotry towards his sister (so to speak). I said it in my timeout message best. "it would have cost you nothing to not dismiss mens issues with bullshit historical arguments".

What is the harm in allowing the general conversation on sexual abuse to shift in the direction of gender neutral so that our brothers and enbies in arms can feel comfortable acknowledging their abuse?

There's none, no one has argued that, conversation about sexual assault shouldn't be gendered to begin with, glad we agree.

How can you honestly say that? You do understand that the point Yew was trying to make, was that because of the stats they were posting, the above should not happen, that because its only men who do it, there is no need to examine the gendering of the prep. Like thats what you were defending.
Yew was doing two things wrong, they were using arrest/conviction stats to make an argument what demographics commit a crime, which because of the number of humans involved in making arrests and convictions happen, are influenced by any culture zeitgeist misconceptions about who commits that crime, not reality. Because they did this to a protected demographic (gender), this became unintentional bigotry. and secondly, they were making the argument that because of those stats, it is ok to only ever portray that group as the one committing a type of crime. Because they did this to a protected demographic (gender), this became intentional bigotry. It doesn't matter that this latter argument falls flat in the context of the meme that sparked the discussion, it was still made.

What is the harm in allowing people to use a (still relevant and in use in some spaces of the internet i might add) definition of autist that doesn't paint them with brush of the most visible minority?

You can use the word 1ncel for yourself, in an attempt to reclaim it, that's fine,

and yet, when I do, in a conversation with somebody else, you butt in to argue im using the word wrong. (or did you forget, this is what got you that last time out you appealed) You know, for somebody that used to rag on me for being a language prescriptivist, you do seem to want to enforce a definition onto somebody else.

1ncel as a shorthand for lonely men irregardless of misogyny/bitterness/insecurity is still commonly in use, hell its still the prevailing definition on 4chan, or at least /soc/. Its never going away. You claim its ok if somebody wants to reclaim it, but then try to enforce the more harmful definition when they do, frustrating any attempt to reclaim it.

The truth currently is that the vast majority of people who self identify using that word know that it carries a negative connotation and they don't care, just like some transphobes use the word gender critical.

How can you say its fine to try and reclaim the word then here the next paragraph imply its bad that they continue to use the word knowing its connotations?

You can try to reclaim the word 1ncel, but you cannot force people to use the definition you use.

If i say, as the top dog on interpreting rule 11, the other definition counts as de-facto sexism against men by creating a linguistic link between lonely/insecure men and toxic behaviors by people who happen to be male, they may not have to use my definition, but they can't keep continuing to use theirs. if that means they have to stop using the word in my discord because they can't bring themselves to use the older and less problematic definition, so be it. We call that a "skill issue".

I'm not calling you a mysoginistic entitled man, i'm saying that's what you look like by trying to "clean" 1ncel of it's negative connotations. I personally don't think of you as an 1ncel, but the way you go about treating that word is raising red flags for some people, and i think that's fair.

Oh yes, the defensiveness argument!

"Why would you get defensive at people trying to cast gay/trans people as groomers unless you were secretly a groome-" oh whoops, wrong argument.

"Why would you get defensive at people trying to cast black men as rapist unless you were secretly a rapis-" oh whoops, wrong argument.

"Why would you get defensive at bathroom bills designed to protect women from predators unless you're one-" oh whoops, wrong argument.

"Why would you get defensive at a word that refers to all lonely men being corrupted by people making assumptions (fueled by gendered stereotypes) about why they are lonely which are treated as valid based on a tiny percent who receive a disproportionate amount of attention because of how vile their actions/words are" ah, there we go. surely it will logically make sense to assume guilt from defensiveness *this* time.

Did you know that in the US in the 50s, the common popular culture zeitgeist was that the word homosexual referred to a man who prayed specifically on young boys? Police departments were publishing televised PSAs telling parents to warn their sons to be on the watch for homosexuals. Fueled by harmful stereotypes about gay men (that itself, was morphed from stereotypes of men).

The truth currently is that the vast majority of people who self identify using that word know that it carries a negative connotation and they don't care

I suppose it's a fucking good thing gay men of the past didn't care about bigoted warped definitions that take a word about a general group, and shift it to only refer to the worse of that group.

This is going to win me a godwin point but, if you were a political party trying to reclaim the term "national socialist" because you're a socialist party that's mainly focused on your own country, going around and blocking/banning people in media spaces you control because they keep saying that those words in common speech mean something else that what goes on inside your head, would be the easiest way to pass for an honest to god nazi trying to launder the term national socialist.

I'm not calling you a mysoginistic entitled man, i'm saying that's what you look like by trying to "clean" 1ncel of it's negative connotations. I personally don't think of you as an 1ncel, but the way you go about treating that word is raising red flags for some people, and i think that's fair.
Your overarching goal isn't evil, the way you go about it, looks evil.

I suppose you would oppose a (irl meat-space) privately ran forum in the 1960 deciding to block/ban/censor people using the bigoted definition of homosexual because it might make them look like a nazi pedophile. Right?

What is the harm in allowing men to be mad at depictions of them as predators by default?

That is a point i'm willing to concede, yes perpetrating one gender as perpetrator reinforces societal biases, that is bad.

I was referring to man vs bear in general, but yes, this part counts to.

But yes, in fictional media, portraying men and women as both victims and aggressors of SA is maybe a good, doesn't mean you should force someone to adapt their story around it, we go back to the topic of diversity in media, and that's a complicated topic.

(Made more complicated when attempts to bring it up as a discussion get derailed by people pointing to prep stats to imply the discussion shouldn't happen. So your attempt to cast this as something you agree with falls short when in practice you defend (and participate in) attempts to shut down such discussions)

If the stats are true explaining why using them as a justification [...] is important

Those stats are never true, but even if it was, arguing its ok for media to portray people who commit x crime as mostly y demographic will fall on death ears (unless that demographic is men i guess). This happens, commonly, in media sure, but leftist spaces arguing against such cases like racial trends in gang members, or drug lords, or terrorists tend to be unimpressed by such stats as a justification. if you walked into a discussion in a pro-equality space about pop culture casting firefighters as male as sexist towards women and pointed to stats about what gender are firefighters you'd find yourself very quickly no longer welcomed in that discussion.
Back to the stats: Yew is progressive enough that i know they know about the problems around crime stats wrt to black people, the fact they couldn't take that same care and concern and apply it to crime stats wrt to men is misandry. They do not think men deserve the same care from biased stats being used to reinforce stereotypes about ones demographic being a threat that they are willing to provide to other demographics like stats on violence in black men.

because if i say that 1ncel in common internet speech refers to a very specific kind of people who loaths their preferred dating pool for not choosing them, you're going to look at me in the eyes via your screen and go "You're being bigoted right now".

Because you are. This caricature is invented out of stereotypes about men and male sexuality. It isn't real. The vast majority of incels do not. Feminists who have sexist views of men and male sexuality, see men just trying to express the emotional pain of consistent rejection and look for support, and having never seen a man express emotion before, starts to find some logical argument behind the the man's expression, dipping in to those pools of stereotypes to explain the real reason for their action. This plays in to how they also try to claim or blame why the avg incel is unsuccessful in the dating pool.

Most social issues people are exposed to.
-snip-
And you can use the stats about Violent crimes in men to talk about how "Aggresivity = masculinity" leads to a society in which men resort to violence more often than women.
-snip-
But i could easily make the same kind of argument about how a societal expectation of men as the providers in a relationship lead to alimony being paid towards exwives even in some cases where they're vastly richer.

The societal expectation of men as the providers isn't what causes alimony to be paid unfairly, the empathy gap in how people, including you and i, view fairness in respect to men and women, is what causes judges to be more empathetic to the woman's financial situation than the man's.

A study of babies not even a year old showed that parents responded more slowly to the cries of boys than girls. Whats worse, *other* parents did the same thing despite not knowing the gender of the child.
This is getting long, my gist is that your words of supposed acceptance of mens advocacy flys in the face of your repeated attempts frustrate any attempt to free men from the shadow of their stereotypes.


You say its fine to address representation of CSA and have conversations, but you defend somebody for trying to shutdown such a conversation with biased stats.
You say its ok for men to address stereotypes that cast them as the worse of their kind but laugh off the concept of men finding the bear vs man debate offensive and problematic.
You say its fine to reclaim 1ncel but then butt into conversations that are using it in the reclaimed matter to claim its invalid to do so, so which is it?

Even in this appeal you contradict yourself in this matter, telling me if i want to change the meaning of 1ncel i should reclaim it then in the next paragraph cast men who use dispite the negative connotations in a negative light.


You have unconscious biases against men. Its why consciously you are like "yes i support that" but then when you actually see it in action you find a way to frustrate and detract from it.

Does this make sense?

MrStonedOne wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 8:15 pm Misandry within Feminism is a men's issue. in fact its one of the most important ones given how much power and sway the Capital-F Feminist viewpoint on gender issues has in liberal political circles and even office culture.

At the European Central Bank the number of male mid level managers who applied for a promotion and got it in 2022-2023 was 5%, the number of female mid level managers who applied for for a promotion and got it was 14%.

Until 2010 common sexual assault studies would only ask about actions preformed by men. (ie, all the questions used male pronouns)

These are forms of misandry within Feminism. The same misandry that you are implying is less important then divorced men bitter about the legal system letting their ex wife run rampant over their finance health, (which as the founder of the Seattle Mens Rights Association, and somebody who personally met with many leaders of the mens rights movement, I can authoritatively tell you is the primary form of misogyny in the mens rights movement).

Your argument is problematic because history is constant. it has already happened, it can never change. You are casting the sins of the father onto the son to explain to him why a form of bigotry towards him can never be addressed with the same rigor as a similar form of bigotry towards his sister (so to speak). I said it in my timeout message best. "it would have cost you nothing to not dismiss mens issues with bullshit historical arguments".

You misinterpret my point, bigotries are not equivalent, based on the circumstances of the world and stuff, they have different impacts, if an ethnic minority is bigoted towards an ethnic majority, it's less likely to result into a genocide, because, it's harder logistically.

In the same way my point is that :

Misoginy in MRA group seeks to attack feminism, you're a prime example of it, you love to attribute all ills that happen to men as a result of academic feminism, wherehas misandry in feminist and women's rights group and women in general is more so directed at what men have been than what men are.
I think misoginistic MRAs are more likely to try to reverse societal good, like the ability to vote for women, or abortion rights, than feminist are to revert societal good for men like, idfk ???

I'm not saying these people don't exist, there is some "feminists" that will vehemently fight changes in what rape is to exclude men and such, i'm just saying that i think it's a less prevalent, and therefor dangerous, kind of hate.

(I already had this conversation with someone else and i think an example that's fitting is, palestinian antisemetism vs israeli dehumanization of palestinians, both are bad, but currently one side is bombing the other, their bigotry becomes a lot more important to be fought to me in that case)

What is the harm in allowing the general conversation on sexual abuse to shift in the direction of gender neutral so that our brothers and enbies in arms can feel comfortable acknowledging their abuse?

There's none, no one has argued that, conversation about sexual assault shouldn't be gendered to begin with, glad we agree.

How can you honestly say that? You do understand that the point Yew was trying to make, was that because of the stats they were posting, the above should not happen, that because its only men who do it, there is no need to examine the gendering of the prep. Like thats what you were defending.
Yew was doing two things wrong, they were using arrest/conviction stats to make an argument what demographics commit a crime, which because of the number of humans involved in making arrests and convictions happen, are influenced by any culture zeitgeist misconceptions about who commits that crime, not reality. Because they did this to a protected demographic (gender), this became unintentional bigotry. and secondly, they were making the argument that because of those stats, it is ok to only ever portray that group as the one committing a type of crime. Because they did this to a protected demographic (gender), this became intentional bigotry. It doesn't matter that this latter argument falls flat in the context of the meme that sparked the discussion, it was still made.

You started a conversation about how men are according to you represented overwhelmingly because of stereotypes as predators, someone shows stats to tell you "well maybe there's a reason since it seems like most perpetrators are men".

That has nothing to do with talking about SA, you can't start a conversation about how men are overrepresented doing something then complain they're making the narrative gendered by showing you stuff that shows that it's less so overrepresentation and just, representation.
If you're doing an official talk on SA and such yes using gender neutral language for victims and perpetrators would be optimal, but random people on the internet aren't to be held up to that standard, especially for a referential meme template that is heavily based on portraying specific characters.

What is the harm in allowing people to use a (still relevant and in use in some spaces of the internet i might add) definition of autist that doesn't paint them with brush of the most visible minority?

You can use the word 1ncel for yourself, in an attempt to reclaim it, that's fine,

and yet, when I do, in a conversation with somebody else, you butt in to argue im using the word wrong. (or did you forget, this is what got you that last time out you appealed) You know, for somebody that used to rag on me for being a language prescriptivist, you do seem to want to enforce a definition onto somebody else.

1ncel as a shorthand for lonely men irregardless of misogyny/bitterness/insecurity is still commonly in use, hell its still the prevailing definition on 4chan, or at least /soc/. Its never going away. You claim its ok if somebody wants to reclaim it, but then try to enforce the more harmful definition when they do, frustrating any attempt to reclaim it.

No, i correct you when you come in and say "YOUR DEFINITION IS WROOOOONNNNNNNGGGGG", when people hear or type the word 1ncel in most cases they mean a specific thing, a vague idea that's shared. Some people like you then come in and say "Erm actually 1ncel = Autist ???" of course i'm going to come in and call you stupid for that,

You dislike when people use 1ncel for mysoginistic lonely men because in your mind your definition is the one true definition and if you use the word in another way you must hate ALL lonely men.

And you do that all while trying to force people to use your definition which you picked arbitrarly.

"im not backing down on this, treating incel as having any other definition than short for involuntary celibate will be treated by me harshly"

When a slur is reclaimed it's used primarly by the group it was targeted at, aka, lonely mysoginistic men, the thing is that they already have reclaimed it cus they're very happy to use it for themselves, and then you come in, and go "No, actually, communities that call themselves 1ncels are actually the product of misandry and i should rehabilitate that word because back in my days, it wasn't used by those mysoginistic men, and they actually got it from the people calling them this as an insult".

I use the word 1ncel for a specific kind of people, ones who have 0 problem with elliot rogder, if you think that makes me bigoted because you saw some people on twitter of IRL use that word to describe men they thought were creepy, so be it.

If you want to reclaim that word so be it, but it's not going to pretend your definition is pristine and better, because by trying to rehabilitate it, you're also allowing bigoted people who use it as a label for themselves and their ingroup to be viewed in a more positive light, and that's an outcome i don't like either.

Again to me it's like if you were trying to reclaim gender critical, the term has been rotten by bigots, use it for the bigots who self identify as such, until they jump to the next term.
Reclaiming it only brings it legitimacy.

The truth currently is that the vast majority of people who self identify using that word know that it carries a negative connotation and they don't care, just like some transphobes use the word gender critical.

How can you say its fine to try and reclaim the word then here the next paragraph imply its bad that they continue to use the word knowing its connotations?

Reclaiming a word is fine, reclaiming that word, is a bad idea.

You can try to reclaim the word 1ncel, but you cannot force people to use the definition you use.

If i say, as the top dog on interpreting rule 11, the other definition counts as de-facto sexism against men by creating a linguistic link between lonely/insecure men and toxic behaviors by people who happen to be male, they may not have to use my definition, but they can't keep continuing to use theirs. if that means they have to stop using the word in my discord because they can't bring themselves to use the older and less problematic definition, so be it. We call that a "skill issue".[/quote]

The people who we are talking about when using the word incel majoritarly use it for themselves too, people who use that word didn't make that link.

I'm not calling you a mysoginistic entitled man, i'm saying that's what you look like by trying to "clean" 1ncel of it's negative connotations. I personally don't think of you as an 1ncel, but the way you go about treating that word is raising red flags for some people, and i think that's fair.

Oh yes, the defensiveness argument!

"Why would you get defensive at people trying to cast gay/trans people as groomers unless you were secretly a groome-" oh whoops, wrong argument.

When MAPs (pedophiles) tried to use LGBT has a label they got backlash, where is the backlash for 1ncels using 1ncels.

"Why would you get defensive at people trying to cast black men as rapist unless you were secretly a rapis-" oh whoops, wrong argument.

When have rapists self identified as black to form communities centered around rape ?

"Why would you get defensive at bathroom bills designed to protect women from predators unless you're one-" oh whoops, wrong argument.

The difference between seld iding as trans and as an 1ncel is that trans people are not a community centered around rape worship or misoginy, it would take me not 10 minutes to find swath of post from incels that do this though.

The term has been rotten, the only people using it to describe themselves are either mysoginistic cunts, or people who think they can salvage it, like you.

"Why would you get defensive at a word that refers to all lonely men being corrupted by people making assumptions (fueled by gendered stereotypes) about why they are lonely which are treated as valid based on a tiny percent who receive a disproportionate amount of attention because of how vile their actions/words are" ah, there we go. surely it will logically make sense to assume guilt from defensiveness *this* time.

Why would you not get defensive when you are told the word overwhelmingly used by bigots to describe themselves should be detached from that bigotry because it draws a bad link between lonely and mysoginistic"

Did you know that in the US in the 50s, the common popular culture zeitgeist was that the word homosexual referred to a man who prayed specifically on young boys? Police departments were publishing televised PSAs telling parents to warn their sons to be on the watch for homosexuals. Fueled by harmful stereotypes about gay men (that itself, was morphed from stereotypes of men).

Did pedophiles self ID as homosexuals, were almost all the homosexuals you were able to talk to pedophiles ?

The truth currently is that the vast majority of people who self identify using that word know that it carries a negative connotation and they don't care

I suppose it's a fucking good thing gay men of the past didn't care about bigoted warped definitions that take a word about a general group, and shift it to only refer to the worse of that group.


[quote
I suppose you would oppose a (irl meat-space) privately ran forum in the 1960 deciding to block/ban/censor people using the bigoted definition of homosexual because it might make them look like a nazi pedophile. Right?[/quote]
You missed the point.

But yes, in fictional media, portraying men and women as both victims and aggressors of SA is maybe a good, doesn't mean you should force someone to adapt their story around it, we go back to the topic of diversity in media, and that's a complicated topic.

(Made more complicated when attempts to bring it up as a discussion get derailed by people pointing to prep stats to imply the discussion shouldn't happen. So your attempt to cast this as something you agree with falls short when in practice you defend (and participate in) attempts to shut down such discussions)

If the stats are true explaining why using them as a justification [...] is important

The stats where used the because the stat made sense, memes aren't made by a small production of people they're made by diverse groups of people who do not give a fuck about diversity in media or whatever, of course they don't, if anything it's an indicator of what people think of men, but saying "Hey maybe people think of men that way because men do commit those crimes more than women" isn't wrong.

And yeah it's probably skewed towards men because those crimes are taken more seriously when men commit it, but i don't think you go to 90% of perps being men without some initial overrepresentation of men in these crimes.

because if i say that 1ncel in common internet speech refers to a very specific kind of people who loaths their preferred dating pool for not choosing them, you're going to look at me in the eyes via your screen and go "You're being bigoted right now".

Because you are. This caricature is invented out of stereotypes about men and male sexuality. It isn't real. The vast majority of autists do not.

Source ? Where are those non mysoginistic men who call themselves 1ncels ? (and don't tell me, ahah i am talking about the celibate men in general, because that's not what the discussion is, it's about who chooses to use that word for themselves)

If you can prove that the majority of people who call themselves incels are not mysoginistic, i'll happily concede that point.

Most social issues people are exposed to.
-snip-
And you can use the stats about Violent crimes in men to talk about how "Aggresivity = masculinity" leads to a society in which men resort to violence more often than women.
-snip-
But i could easily make the same kind of argument about how a societal expectation of men as the providers in a relationship lead to alimony being paid towards exwives even in some cases where they're vastly richer.

The societal expectation of men as the providers isn't what causes alimony to be paid unfairly, the empathy gap in how people, including you and i, view fairness in respect to men and women, is what causes judges to be more empathetic to the woman's financial situation than the man's.
A study of babies not even a year old showed that parents responded more slowly to the cries of boys than girls. Whats worse, *other* parents did the same thing despite not knowing the gender of the child.
This is getting long, my gist is that your words of supposed acceptance of mens advocacy flys in the face of your repeated attempts frustrate any attempt to free men from the shadow of their stereotypes.

Women are more present in nursing jobs, are women therefor made for those jobs ? No they were socialized to care about others more which leads to such thing, there is also societal expectation of nurses to be women.

Men are prevalent in perpetrators of SA, are they therefor made to rape ? No, they were socialized to pursue women and expect affection in response to specific types of behavior, this kind of thinking is reinforced by our current dating culture and pick up artists. There is also a societal expectation of men to rape more often than women.

Both of those statements acknowledge issues with how we socialize kids, we expect things out of them we drill stuff into their mind, like you can't wear pink etc, and i think those things are bad, the difference between you and me is that you do not acknowledge difference in behavior based on gender.
I do not like those differences, at all, and i wish they didn't exist either, but you are out there implying that if you think they exist, you're a bigot.

People don't act the same towards men and women, people don't act the same as men and women. Both are true, because of the empathy gap, because of societal expectation. But where do you think the empathy gap comes from, if not how we socializing children. Or rather, why do we socialize children in different ways based on their gender ?

It's the same issue really.

You say its fine to address representation of CSA and have conversations, but you defend somebody for trying to shutdown such a conversation with biased stats.

Men are represented as perpertrators in cases of CSA more often then women, that is true. You claim this is unfair representation based on stereotypes, sure.

If you ask random people on the internet to describe a situation of CSA, most of them will describe an adult man grooming a female child.

This would happen because in their mind that's the mental image of those situations, those mental image come predominantly from stats.
You cannot just dismiss all stats without explaining why they might be biased, which you didn't do with soreyew.

There is societal good to be had when you talk about about perpetrators and victims in a gender neutral way, because it allows people to think of themselves as any of those two roles, which is beneficial.

But if you can "Men are portrayed as X because of stereotypes" and someone pulls stats showing you that men do predominantly do this, the answer isn't
?timeout apply @Ostensibly Yew Object 1h using fbi crime stats to excuse and justify how depictions of people being criminal tend to show them as certain demographics isn't tolerated on this discord

The answer is
A) those stats might be biased : explain your logic
B) I know X does commit those crimes more, but this prevents some groups of identifying with their history of SA.

Especially when you got omega telling you "Hey it's actually those people self identifying as the pedophiles here not other people drawing them as such".

You love to detach yourself from context when you describe what you do cus the context makes you look like a fucking sicko.

You say its ok for men to address stereotypes that cast them as the worse of their kind but laugh off the concept of men finding the bear vs man debate offensive and problematic.

Women feel unsafe around men, if you shutdown these kinds of conversations you try to bury that fact. I think that's dumb.

You say its fine to reclaim 1ncel but then butt into conversations that are using it in the reclaimed matter to claim its invalid to do so, so which is it?

No, i butt in when you tell people their definition is wrong and yours is the only acceptable one from now on.

Even in this appeal you contradict yourself in this matter, telling me if i want to change the meaning of 1ncel i should reclaim it then in the next paragraph cast men who use dispite the negative connotations in a negative light.

You know what i think you're right, i should have never said you should reclaim it, because there's nothing to reclaim. That word is knee deep into "That's what i call me and my friends in our forum where we say awful things about women" territory.

You have unconscious biases against men. Its why consciously you are like "yes i support that" but then when you actually see it in action you find a way to frustrate and detract from it.

We, all, have biases, against every conceivable group,
You have biases against men women trans cis hetero gay black white asian, whatever, and so do i. What's important is acknowledging them and rethinking the things you think are acquired to try and eliminate biases.

I have expressed, many times, expressed that i think rape definitions should try and fit men victims more often, that who gets to keep the kids should be an impartial decision and the mother shouldn't be the default answer, that fighting for men's mental health, and everyone's mental health by promoting people talking about their suicidal ideation or mental anguish.

But, because i disagree with you on some things and some topics, i must be a bigot, you've decided that in my mind, i hate men more than you, and that deserve being removed from polcon, a channel in which i talk to, mostly men.
Your basis for this is :

Me disagreeing with how you mute people for bringing up stats,
Me disagreeing with you about how you mute people talking about the man vs bear thing (Hour bans for a passing "Eh", by the way)
Me disagreeing with you on the Forum Filter for 1ncel, And the discord timeout for 1ncel.
Me disagreeing with you on how important it is to fight different types of bigotry depending on environemental factors, and how it makes them more or less dangerous.
Me disagreeing with you on the existence of difference in behavior between men and women originating from our socialization.

You in your infinite wisdom, removed me from a channel because you thought i was biased against men, when in reality your own biases towards yourself as a person motivated the ban in the first place.

This is ultimatly a ban that only exists because you disagree with me, and you're the host. Anyone other discord user would have had to have a third party examine the conversation and deem if it was worthy of banning, but you as the host have the privilege of judging bans in which you are involved. This unsurprisingly leading to issues with how you ban people who argue against you.

You have decided to guess the content of my soul and what you guessed, you disliked. That is all.

Somepan wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2024 1:14 pm Misoginy in MRA group seeks to attack feminism, you're a prime example of it, you love to attribute all ills that happen to men as a result of academic feminism, wherehas misandry in feminist and women's rights group and women in general is more so directed at what men have been than what men are.

"what men have been than what men are" you can't draw this line, It doesn't work. Attacking men in general for the actions (now or in the past) of other people who happen to be male is attacking men for what they are. Especially when this ends taking the form of fear mongering about men as perpetrators of crimes.

Im gonna have to quote Ekaterina at you because they ended up saying this better than i would have:

ekaterina wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2024 5:53 pm Reverting progress is not the only way to cause harm. Impeding men from correcting existing anti-male inequalities is harm in and of itself (and vice-versa).
And MRAs, a tiny group with little influence relative to the leviathan that is modern feminism, are somehow going to revert women's right to vote? Laughable.
Misandry is directed at what "men have been"? Misandry is directed at, and harmful to, men, period.

You keep saying my approach lack nuance, but the worse you could honestly say is we have different ways of applying nuance.

I have said many times in polcon that bigoted harm that is socially acceptable in polite company, (or socially unacceptable to acknowledge in polite/mixed company) tends to be more *harmful* to the victim then bigoted harm that is seen and understood. One can not began to cope if they can not find others willing to empathize with them, (or worse yet, get called an 1ncel just for expressing the fact they were harmed. (yes, btw, its common in a lot of spaces to throw this word around any time men talk about men's issues, including ones that have nothing to do with dating or sex. Because it is a common kneejerk reaction to men's advocacy by people who call themselves feminists to turn it into some attack about our sexual history tied in to implications of us being ""an undesirable"". before the word gained popularity it was lonely virgin ""niceguys""))

(btw, this is how you make the kind of point you were trying to make without being a bigot about it. I focused on the individual, and pointing out the ways one can be more harmful to the individual, without making a point about importance or trying to tie it into some general point about all of that gender's issues.)

(I already had this conversation with someone else and i think an example that's fitting is, palestinian antisemetism vs israeli dehumanization of palestinians, both are bad, but currently one side is bombing the other, their bigotry becomes a lot more important to be fought to me in that case)

Uhhhhh. You do realize that in this case feminism is Israel, and MRAs is Palestinians right. We want feminism to stop dehumanizing us by comparing us to wild bears, attacking our worth as humans by our sexual history (1ncel), fearmongering about us as predators by broadcasting manipulated and uncontexualized sexual and domestic abuse stats, making excuses for why our issues can be ignored (usually done off the backs of the previous dehumanization techniques along with a sprinkling of what did i call them? "bullshit historical arguments") or pushing a notion that one can become safer by excluding us (pink train cars/parking spots). Feminism is bigger, has more recognition and support in the governments and large companies that run our lives, and consistently attacks men's motivations for every single action by casting it in the most negative or toxic light so that they can justify not caring about us while further reinforcing stereotypes about us (such as using stereotypes of men as sex obsessed as a bludgeon to cast """niceguys""" as entitled to sex and not just aspies confused at how the guy who is mean/a bully to them gets laid because he doesn't see the difference in how they treat women vs him and also (since they are aspie) misinterprets their teasing/ribbing of women as further bullying but targeted at the woman).

This is a very apt example, you are right =).

Somepan wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2024 1:14 pm But if you can "Men are portrayed as X because of stereotypes" and someone pulls stats showing you that men do predominantly do this, the answer isn't
?timeout apply @Ostensibly Yew Object 1h using fbi crime stats to excuse and justify how depictions of people being criminal tend to show them as certain demographics isn't tolerated on this discord

The answer is
A) those stats might be biased : explain your logic
B) I know X does commit those crimes more, but this prevents some groups of identifying with their history of SA.

Especially when you got omega telling you "Hey it's actually those people self identifying as the pedophiles here not other people drawing them as such".

You love to detach yourself from context when you describe what you do cus the context makes you look like a fucking sicko.

1: yes it is. We do not do A nor B when people bring up such stats about black people, so why do you think we would for other cases?
2: you keep forgetting, that Yew, reply mentioned omega, not me, because they were combating omega's point to say "no, its just because its only men who do that". Somepan, you love to detach yourself from context when you describe what you do cus the context makes you look like a fucking sicko. (doesn't feel so good to get called implicitly referred to as a fucking sicko now does it)

Women feel unsafe around men, if you shutdown these kinds of conversations you try to bury that fact. I think that's dumb.

Discussing this as if they are valid/right/justified to fear men or broadcast from the rooftops specifically *to* men that they fear them is bigotry, and not allowed in the discord. If you want to have this kind of discussion, it has to start from the position that it is wrong, that women are not justified for having that fear and that no amount of crime stats changes this fact. This is the starting ground, if you are not willing to start from this position, you have to do what every other bigot within our walls has to do, and keep your bigoted viewpoints to yourself.

but saying "Hey maybe people think of black men that way because black men do commit those crimes more than white men" isn't wrong.

What? yes it is!

---

Anywho I haven't seen anything that indicates you have learned your lesson on why you got banned from polcon.

You are still trying to find ways to excuse, minimize, and detract from mens issues because you think you can gatekeep victimhood and sympathy based on biological demographics.

Appeal denied.

(PS: It doesn't help that you even called me implied i am a "fucking sicko" (on top of "not rational" in your previous appeal and "statistical anomaly" in the one before that.) which was brought up to me by an admin that i have been way too lenient about, admins normally don't spend as much time entertaining appeals that insult the banning admin in the appeal with petty and (in this case) barely disguised name calling. something to think about when you make your next appeal in a year.)

in the previous appeal, you engaged with the peanut thread itself where the vast majority of people were telling you that you were engaging in a way that left no room for personal experience and instead relied on generalized thoughts extrapolated from things like statistics. for as much as you may personally disagree with MSO, arguing in this way already begins in bad faith and quickly leads to intolerance because it makes no room to tolerate the personal experiences of individuals. i tried to explain this in my own post in that thread, but the message seems to have not gotten through.

as long as you are arguing from behind these generalized abstractions, then it will never be rooted in any sort of true lived experience of those present, and it will minimize the lived experience of the person you're arguing against, namely MSO. if you did the same to me, it would drive me just as insane. you can't respond to someone's individual, lived experience with generalized abstractions. it's a clear example of intolerance, because not only are you minimizing that person's experience but you're denying them validity in expressing it.

generalizations about groups of people and their behaviours just create meaningless abstractions that are then addressed more than the actual individuals themselves, and in many ways it's dehumanizing.

of course, people aren't inherently bad because of their gender. it goes without saying. people that are bad will use whatever strengths are available to them to actualize the harm they want to commit. that "badness" isn't caused by any single characteristic, and using things like generalized statistics heavily implies otherwise. it's reductive and outright harmful to the rest of good, decent people to make those kinds of assumptions, and it disregards their individual experiences in doing so. in that sense, your arguments display a level of ignorance that becomes intolerance because you're constantly playing a zero sum game here - you refuse to concede any ground to MSO whatsoever because you seem to be driven by a need to prove him wrong by any means necessary. if that leads to you creating a bad environment by expressing intolerant opinions, then it's only suitable that you are removed, not only for the sake of everyone else, but for your own sake too.

the level of obsession here has created an argument which has no basis in anyone's actual lived experience. it's just throwing generalizations and statistics out there to create this nebulous, abstract narrative that has no association to anyone present in the actual conversation. that's incredibly frustrating.

MSO is a reasonable person who i think of as a good friend, and who has only ever shown me understanding and respect, and i've only ever tried to show him that same kindness in return. we live very different lives, we're very different people, but when we talk about our struggles, it has never turned to animosity because both of us speak only from our individual, lived experiences, which can't be refuted with things like statistics. in your last appeal you showed a sliver of vulnerability in doing that, and it earned recognition and even an apology from MSO - perhaps it's worth considering if finding common ground that way is better than what you're currently doing.

i have my own traumatic experiences in my past, and i've had to put in a lot of work to come to terms with them and not allow the individuals who inflicted that on me to create an inherent intolerance to all other people who may carry those same characteristics, because the reason people hurt me is not because of any single outward aspect of them. it was because they were bad people who were fine with causing harm. the way i live my life is to just meet people and try to understand them as individuals, and respect personal, individual experience much more then any generalized abstraction based on things like statistics or stereotypes or presumptions, and i believe that buying too much into those things cuts someone off from making meaningful connections to people, because they place generalized groups above the complex individual, who will always be a huge mix of groups. an uncompromising generalization of anything, men's issues included, minimizes how those issues might impact an individual and what they struggle with. people express pain and suffering in any number of ways, and restricting that expression by shaming or invalidating it because they're not doing it the "right" way, especially using statistics to do so, is absolutely an intolerant stance to take.

aside from that, i truly think this sort of obsessive argumentation can't be good for your wellbeing in any capacity. i think you should take the time and effort to detach from this vendetta and find a new hobby. there are much better things to be spending your time on.