They don't have the morally high ground. They chose to help a fascist get to power.
Kamala Harris, the Democratic Presidential Nominee, lost. Because of her poor campaign tactics, she allowed a fascist to get into power. Are you equally upset with her for not doing what it takes to stop fascism?
If not, why was the "right answer" for this election to support Israel when we know that she lost following that tactic, and not supporting Palestine?
All I can really say is, if you don't want your personal image to be commodified, you probably shouldn't commodify it. The fact that Alex Jones has used his company that's deeply tied to his personal image to attack and lie about the families of the victims of Sandy Hook make his case particularly unsympathetic, and so now that he owes an absurd amount of money to those families I think he should be forced to give up his social media accounts if it helps give those families what they're owed.
It also doesn't help that he still thinks there are "unanswered questions" about what happened at Sandy Hook and doesn't feel any remorse for lying and spreading misinformation about the families for years.
Take his real assets and sell them.
This is exactly what the lawyers trying to take the account think they're doing. There's some real value in having access to his social media followers, especially if that access can be tied to the purchase of the larger operation.
But I think they’re not ‘his’ assets, they’re the choices of those subscribers. To ‘buy’ them seems like defrauding the people who chose to listen to him.
And those subscribers can easily unfollow him as soon as they don't like what they're hearing. It's not like once you follow someone on twitter you're forced to see updates from them for the rest of your life. But since they're following TheRealAlexJones probably to get updates about his business at InfoWars, it makes sense that the social media account that he uses to promote the business being sold needs to be considered as part of the business.
For something like t-shirt likenesses, I suppose I think the line is the person’s consent
So if he had a warehouse full of tshirts with his name or face on them and decides after filing bankruptcy that he doesn't want to sell them anymore, should he just get to keep it? Should it all be destroyed?
If he took a cattle brand and burned his name into everything on set, does that mean he shouldn't have to sell it any more?
In the extreme case: a person is legally entitled to sell nude images of themselves, but surely a court would never order it, even if that person had been previously selling nude images.
If someone was already selling porn before, do you think if they continued to that they shouldn't have to give any of that money they earned to the people they owe money to? This case isn't anywhere near that extreme because he's not the only person in the world named 'Alex Jones', so how much of his 'likeness' is being sold is debatable to begin with. And also, we aren't talking about future permission to use his likeness, we're talking about a social media account used to promote his business.
You can either mitigate the inevitable damage
At some point we need to admit that harm reduction still means harm. At the very least, we shouldn't berate people for looking for alternatives when the options presented would both cause unnecessary damage.
Yeah, but have you considered the electoral college? For most people, their vote for president doesn't matter.
“Driven” suggest more than half of total pregnancies,
Less than 20% of a total is “significant”?
The amount the percentage represents is irrelevant. A billion people could be involved, but if the total is 7 billion, it’s not going to be a significant part of the total trend.
In the terms of your analogy, this is about 3 people out of 20 pedaling a (weirdly long) bike and steered by all of them (somehow). Would you say that group of 3 are driving? Or would you concede it’s the two groups of 6 that are mostly driving the bike?
Your "words wholly" includes more than whatever you think it does.
My point has always been about this study
Has it? I think you're far less clear and careful with your words than you think you are. You've been arguing from the start that less than half of something isn't and can't be significant. We aren't even discussing the text in this study that you can read in the screenshot:
More than half the drop of America's total fertility rate is explained by women under the age of 19 now having next to no children.
What you're saying now about “the traditional driver of USA birth rates” isn't reflected in your other comments.
I have been in locker room conversations enough to know what goes on in both boys and girls sides, because I am a privacy advocate (I write guides) and people find it easy to trust me, and know their secrets will never leak out. Taboo topics are a massive part of it. Being a fuckboy/hoe is often discussed. Dark humour and alcohol is often there. There are plenty things that go on, that never come out. And both sides do it.
Taboo topics are always spicy and welcome when the public morality filter/mask is worn off in a private setting. Humans are evolved animals and the primal instinct desires sometimes want us to get dirty, messy and perverted. Practically nobody is an exception to this.
Again, do you want it to be normal that some people get objectified? Do you think it's good that sometimes you go on a rant about some perceived negative quality other people have? You could try actually talking to the people you're gossiping about, give them some kind of feedback if their behavior is anti-social. But instead, you're here defending group chats where people share (fake) nude photos of their (underage) classmates.
You also haven't shown any real evidence that feminism is behind any of the problems you see in the world. Don't you believe in the pareto principle? Do you think it might be possible that all the negative, vitriolic things you see (that you assign to all of women and feminism) comes from a small minority of people? And that, just maybe, those people don't even have to be part of the feminist movement at all?
And I really don't care about your favorite youtubers, I just think you shouldn't listen so much to just one source. Especially when all they do is react to the latest social media outrage. But specifically for Fresh and Fit: that video you linked came out at the beginning of June, and the demonetization happened in mid August.
I don't want to debate the finer points of what makes a fascist. Maybe just take a minute and do some self-reflection as to why so many people see the things you write and instantly think "this belongs in the red-pill, right wing section of the internet."
Should I start to assume when someone says they are a feminist, they are NOT a feminist? This line of logic does not fall in very well with the act of consenting. If someone says they are a feminist, they ARE a feminist. No debate. A woman says she is a feminist, she IS one. Counter her points about female privilege and how good it feels.
Nowhere does she say she's a feminist. She's telling a story about being a model in California. Feminism isn't just being a woman. Google "feminist pretty privilege" and the top reddit post you find is way more compelling for what a feminist would say about "pretty privilege" than a random tiktoker your favorite youtubers managed to find.
I am not asking about what someone is saying. Does the preaching get practiced in real world? It is all that matters.
Why are men told to approach women and get rejected, but never women told by feminists to be “bold” and “brave” and approach and get rejected?
You very literally were asking about what people are saying. You asked "why don't women get told to talk to guys?" and the answer is "they do."
Why am I assuming a body positive feminist is a body positive feminist? What is this kind of argumentation? An apple is not an orange, and a banana is not a papaya.
At no point in the video does anyone even claim the woman was a body-positive feminist. Your favorite youtubers start talking about body-positivity as if she was, but she never claimed to be one and we never get to see any kind of evidence that she actually is.
Men are told not to approach. Men are obeying feminist agenda. Young feminists are sad and pissed the dating market is Sahara desert. Men chose to adapt and become risk averse in the same ways women neurobiologically have behaved in all of human history. Laws favour women and ignore men. Feminists favour women and ignore men (not their responsibility). Society favours sympathising with women to earn brownie points with other women. Nobody helps men, so men help themselves.
Maybe watch the podcast.
Again, I watched the part labeled "What is causing the rise in sexless men?" and the expert didn't say anything at all about feminism. The podcast host brings it up briefly as a possibility, but then they move on to another topic. They aren't talking about feminism. You're bringing it up like it's the most natural thing in the world, but to do that you need to make a lot of assumptions that aren't supported by these things you're linking. I'd tell you to watch some of these videos again, but I'm sure you'd just inject your own narrative into them again.
Your argumentation is based on a false premise that I indirectly love rape fantasies and locker room talk.
You're the one that keeps bringing it up. "Locker room talk" has become a euphemism for sexualizing and objectifying women. I asked if you meant private conversations between boys, but the one real world example you brought up of locker room talk was a group chat where a bunch of teens were sharing photos of their classmates. If you want to be talking about private, girl-free conversations, tell me. Otherwise I'll keep assuming you think the kinds of things described in the "locker room bois" story should be normal and acceptable.
Women objectify men in girl locker rooms more than men could ever objectify women in boys locker rooms,
I've never heard of a girls' only chat where they shared fake nude photos of guys in there class, and yet here's a story from last week of your "boys locker room chat" that ends with a someone killing themself.
because objectification of women is very normalised in porn
You'd think this right here would be enough of a reason to understand why the feminism movement exists, but oh well.
Taboo factor is the core tenet of what entices people towards BDSM, gore, zoophilia, pedophilia and other acts of depravity. The more exclusive something is, the more exciting and demanded it secretly is. These locker room talks provide space for taboo discussions more than anything else.
You'd think there'd be a much larger audience for the truly taboo subjects, like cannibalism and cutting your arm off with a rusty pocket knife. The kind of things everyone knows you obviously shouldn't be doing. They definitely exist, but they're a very small group considering how "exciting and demanded" it should be based on your logic.
They are what I consider to be the most balanced, sensible, non-controversial and non-reactionary centrist social commentators on YouTube. That is the consensus.
Where are you getting this consensus from? One of the videos you sent me was literally all about how one of the guys said something controversial on twitter, and all they do is react to other people's content. Even if you use the more relevant definition of reactionary, they seem like they'd be pretty opposed to feminism making any real ground and actually changing the way they life their lives.
They are the reason why Pearl and Fresh&Fit, giant redpillers close to Tate/Sneako, got demonetised.
I'm pretty sure JustPearlyThings got demonetized for her pro-hitler song, not even Fresh&Fit know for sure why they got demonitized but I get the feeling it wasn't because of Aba N Preach. I just don't think the 0.5-2 million views they get per video is enough clout to get a video demonetized.
You are labeling and cancelling them without knowing about them
What does it even meant to cancel them? I'm absolutely labeling them, but do you think I have the power to make them stop producing new content? Or is canceling something just the same as not liking something?
I consider it very fascistic that feminists choose to call masculinity “fragile” and masculinity is somehow weak and strong at the same time.
Alright, what does "fascism" mean to you? Because it seems to just be "insulting a thing I like/believe in". And what does it mean to "cancel" someone? Because all that can happen to you here is you get some downvotes, unless you do something to break the rules.
Fragile masculinity means that a person is so insecure about their "manliness" that they go too far in the other direction and overcompensate, usually to the point of being either annoying or actively harmful in some way.
Women have a lot of privilege that got carried over on top of all the equality stuff going on
Do you want to describe any of these privileges? I'd hate to keep making assumptions about your beliefs.
men continue to shoulder the burdens of creating and maintaining society, and men are only surviving due to their strong masculinity and natural biological advantages, which the current feminist agenda does seem to want to equalize.
There are plenty of jobs that aren't involved with construction. I'd be willing to bet that most men don't work in construction or infrastructure repair. And at least in the US, the percentage of women working in construction is growing, so maybe someday it'll be an even split and your entire argument will be moot.
Too many are “dumb” and “hurtful” and are amplified by social media. Harvard research on Twitter shows misinformation gets 6x faster amplified than facts. Similar thing is said about common sense being not so common. There is a reason why men are leaving the dating market in droves, population growth is slowing down and men are refraining from having sex at an alarming rate. They do not want to deal with crazy.
You won't catch me saying that social media has been a net benefit for society. All the more reason to step away from it.
Declining population growth is normal in any developed/developing country. These are society-wide trends that can be seen in countries all around the world. You're going to have to give some kind of evidence that it's because men "don't want to deal with crazy," instead of just following the population pyramid like so many other countries in a similar economic situations.
forgot to tell about locker room part
I don't know much about the story other than what you posted and this article says. It's tragic that someone unrelated became the center of attention and was targeted by online vigilantism, but you still shouldn't want to normalize what you're calling "locker room talk".
I'm pretty sure this article was written before all the information about the case was sorted out. But even if you remove that last part, the "locker room talk" should in no way be acceptable.
No, masculinity being about resilience does not mean you just sit silently while people run towards you with axe and hammer. You can absolutely defend yourself and when cornered, attack when necessary. Masculine resilience does not mean you become this statue that remains so even if birds come and poop in the mouth. Eventually you will grab one bird by the neck.
Grabbing the bird by the neck would probably count as an abusive behavior, the second half of your definition of masculinity. You're very quick to compare whatever treatment you've received (I haven't really seen anything) to physical violence, which probably feeds into why a lot of people you interact with come off as so hostile to you and your beliefs.
Women have always been privileged in different ways than men have. It just so happens men focused on money (key form of capital) and ended up as being more advantageous. Men also have biological advantages that favour them over women.
It wasn't all that long ago that women gained the right to vote, so it should be pretty obvious that women had fewer privileges than men just 100 years ago. Time marches on, and things are more equal now, but there's still a measurable difference in pay by gender just for an example.
I was even being labelled (Jordan) Petersonian by some person despite insisting I have never pushed his conservative talking points or wanted to.
I try not to listen to Jordan Peterson, but if you're saying things in line with his general philosophy, it doesn't really matter whether or not you want to be pushing his talking points or if you even know you're doing it. I can't say for sure you are, but I would generally associate this kind of "women are actually more privileged then men" talk as at least similar.
I have encountered radical feminists wanting genocide of men, men being called male (animal implication), hand signs for dick size, feminists saying “all men bad/die” and “men are not our responsibility”, feminists faking boys locker room chats to gain online attention and harass men, and so on, so I have zero faith in anyone, leftists or rightists.
You meet people that say dumb and hurtful things all the time. My own grandfather once told me that immigrants dying while trying to cross the border was a good thing because it would send a message to others that they aren't welcome and they shouldn't try to come. But that doesn't mean you always need to take them seriously and apply the absolute worst things you've heard to a larger group of (mostly unrelated) people. But also, are these "locker room chats" the harmless kind, or the fantasizing/reminiscing about sexual assault kind?
Since when has youtube had text/image posts? How do you even get to them? Are they a mobile only feature?
So the key to beating fascism in your mind was to platform the same policies, but a little less? What do you actually think Harris should have done differently that would have helped her win the election? Because clearly, doing the same thing but slightly less bad didn't work this time.