Particularly distressing to see Scott describe men's rights as a "made-up, reactionary concept". Not unusual - men's requests for fairness have been scoffed at for at least 50 years - but saddening.
The generally pointless, time-wasting semantic debates that tend to devolve into motte-and-bailey or no-true-Scotsman arguments might be avoided if society just had a healthy respect for non-identification. It should almost never be controversial to not identify with a label; someone who doesn't identify with anti-communism or antifa can't be reasonably suspected thereby of being a communist or fascist, respectively. Complaints that one's issues with an ideology are mere nitpicks aren't really persuasive. As a general rule, it is reasonable for people to shy away from brand-name ideologies for the sake precision and nuance in expounding their views.
"Women can abort a child she does not want, but a man cannot legally refuse to fund a child he does not want."
A man can not abort a child because men don't have an uterus (cis men at least). But after the child is born, both men and women cannot legally refuse to pay child support. Child support laws are not gendered. If Britney Spears has a child with an unemployed man and after 3 days she leaves her child, the father can charge Britney Spears for child support. You are wrong to call child support laws oppressive to men, Bryan.
And of course there are orders of magnitude differences in being not allowed to have an abortion and not allowed to skip child support (which no gender is anyway).
Your statement implies that women abort children only because they can’t afford it or don’t want to pay for it. Does having to pay for a child that has already been born ever cause a man to pee their pants every time they sneeze for the rest of their life? Or resulted in them receiving an episiotomy?
“To be honest, I don’t talk to people who talk this way. I don’t think Scott should talk to them either. They’re a lost cause. I am happy to converse with almost anyone who wants to politely exchange ideas, but arguing with hysterical fanatics is futile.”
In hindsight, this is why it was a waste of time to do the last round table discussion you did on NPR.
There are many asshole vegans online (and in the real world)*.
Bryan's view of feminism would be like saying, "People who call themselves vegan are mean to me and friends on Twitter. Therefore, just ignore all the issues of factory farming."
*As I talk about in the "The End of Veganism" section here:
Particularly distressing to see Scott describe men's rights as a "made-up, reactionary concept". Not unusual - men's requests for fairness have been scoffed at for at least 50 years - but saddening.
The generally pointless, time-wasting semantic debates that tend to devolve into motte-and-bailey or no-true-Scotsman arguments might be avoided if society just had a healthy respect for non-identification. It should almost never be controversial to not identify with a label; someone who doesn't identify with anti-communism or antifa can't be reasonably suspected thereby of being a communist or fascist, respectively. Complaints that one's issues with an ideology are mere nitpicks aren't really persuasive. As a general rule, it is reasonable for people to shy away from brand-name ideologies for the sake precision and nuance in expounding their views.
"Women can abort a child she does not want, but a man cannot legally refuse to fund a child he does not want."
A man can not abort a child because men don't have an uterus (cis men at least). But after the child is born, both men and women cannot legally refuse to pay child support. Child support laws are not gendered. If Britney Spears has a child with an unemployed man and after 3 days she leaves her child, the father can charge Britney Spears for child support. You are wrong to call child support laws oppressive to men, Bryan.
And of course there are orders of magnitude differences in being not allowed to have an abortion and not allowed to skip child support (which no gender is anyway).
Your statement implies that women abort children only because they can’t afford it or don’t want to pay for it. Does having to pay for a child that has already been born ever cause a man to pee their pants every time they sneeze for the rest of their life? Or resulted in them receiving an episiotomy?
“To be honest, I don’t talk to people who talk this way. I don’t think Scott should talk to them either. They’re a lost cause. I am happy to converse with almost anyone who wants to politely exchange ideas, but arguing with hysterical fanatics is futile.”
In hindsight, this is why it was a waste of time to do the last round table discussion you did on NPR.
Professor Caplan: Is there a time or place, now or ever, in which xenophobia is a rational and reasonable response?
I finally came up with the analogy I've wanted.
There are many asshole vegans online (and in the real world)*.
Bryan's view of feminism would be like saying, "People who call themselves vegan are mean to me and friends on Twitter. Therefore, just ignore all the issues of factory farming."
*As I talk about in the "The End of Veganism" section here:
https://www.losingmyreligions.net/
PS: Thanks to Scott for getting Bryan to engage more thoroughly.