Are you a dunce, or just too cowardly to stand behind your own words?
Introduction of a group opposed to MRA: "the vocal, hateful group of internet 'feminists' constantly claim they are against sexism in all forms, and thus men's rights advocacy should not exist ..."
Your counter of said group's supposed reason for believing MRA to be superfluous: "But in reality, when obvious sexism like this happens, those same 'feminists' do not speak out against it."
> I have said absolutely nothing about your opinion
Exactly. Yet you are strenuously trying to dismiss it nonetheless -- but doing so by attacking the messenger and other weasel tactics, rather than by honest disagreement.
Don't be disingenuous. Your comment introduced a group opposed to MRA's existence, then argued that they were wrong in doing so.
As for the rest, I have no interest in labeling people into petty little tribal buckets. I don't care what you call yourself.
That said, the amount of effort you are expending trying to undermine my opinion by personal attacks and misdirection strongly suggests you find my beliefs threatening, but lack either the evidence or the intellectual capabilities to produce a counterargument.
Finally, of course you are angered. On what other basis can you label my comments "inflammatory"?
The post I replied to was, in part, a (poorly worded) justification of the need for "men's rights advocates," and that is the part I chose to reply to.
If you're angered by my disagreement, it's not because I'm being inflammatory. I have not engaged in the name-calling you have, nor have I tried to undermine your posts by pretending to be unable to understand them. I have simply stated my honest opinion.
Perhaps you really do have trouble understanding what I'm communicating; if so, my condolences.
But it's more likely that you're simply unprepared for direct challenges, so you avoid the topics at hand and try to score points via misdirection.
Just because you have no response to something doesn't make it trolling.
The men's rights movement as it is should not exist. Not because male inequality is covered by feminist ideals, though it is, but because the "men's rights" movement is largely nothing more than a pretext for men to openly and self-righteously flaunt their anti-woman beliefs.
A transcript would be nice! But I doubt there's one out there; it took a lot of trawling to find a mirror of the podcast in the first place, unfortunately.
So, it took a while to dig up a working link, but there's a memorable/revealing story I listened to a while ago about a visit to Brad Blanton's Radical Honesty workshop... worth a listen.
Further... that's what the article was suggesting, too, although without the totalitarian overtones: "We start by accepting that food and shelter are basic human rights."
Your belief that "new jobs take their place" will only remains true so long as increases in demand can keep pace with productivity: Sure, there's more demand out there in the developing world, but demand is finite in a way that productivity increases are not.
If we're not turning that particular corner today, we will someday; and from that point forth, there will be an inexorable decline in employment.
> Same thing in today's USA. The mob of teens who broke Emily Guendelsberger's leg could not be arrested because the policemen were afraid of charges of racism.
I don't get it: Arresting/picking up black teenagers in a large city simply because of their skin color would be racist, would it not? Isn't that exactly what the policeman is saying?
Your belief that targeting black teenagers in general would of course lead to the arrest of the specific (unidentified) perpetrators doesn't sound all that likely to me.
As a very random anecdote, I attended NYU myself ages ago and while I was not a business student, I did take classes at Stern.
Unless things have changed, the amount of cheating in Stern is astronomical compared to courses from the other schools within NYU: Of course there were cheating problems elsewhere, but nowhere else was it done as brazenly or as part of the shared culture of the student body.
Introduction of a group opposed to MRA: "the vocal, hateful group of internet 'feminists' constantly claim they are against sexism in all forms, and thus men's rights advocacy should not exist ..."
Your counter of said group's supposed reason for believing MRA to be superfluous: "But in reality, when obvious sexism like this happens, those same 'feminists' do not speak out against it."
> I have said absolutely nothing about your opinion
Exactly. Yet you are strenuously trying to dismiss it nonetheless -- but doing so by attacking the messenger and other weasel tactics, rather than by honest disagreement.