7 ms·

Most men I know are pretty heavily in favour of equality. That might change if we treat equality as a war against men, instead of something we all work towards.

Most men I know are pretty heavily in favour of equality. That might change if we treat equality as a war against men, instead of something we all work towards. Adapting behavior is reasonable, but there's men also need to be able to have a voice, or you're going to get some major pushback. Hopefully we can keep this kind of war at a low simmer when trump is up for re-election. More specifically, that means making sure that men do have a voice. I've seen a lot of silencing tactics deployed that are based on gender, or social class. It's all well and good to say "well that's how minorities always felt", but it doesn't actually make any part of this situation better.

ZeroGravitas 9y ago
Yes, we shouldn't treat equality as a a "war against men". I think we all learned our lesson from the "War against Christmas" when after early victories the Christians somehow caught on to our plan to distribute plain red cups in Starbucks and be considerate of those who celebrate other holidays around the same time. With the element of surprise gone we had no nope of crushing them under our athiest/muslim/jewish/hindu/sikh/pagan/christian-that-doesn't-watch-fox-news heels and had to retreat. So yes, tactically disguising our true aims under the banner of "equality" is definately a good plan and the only way to actually defeat men. Good thinking sister.
- pc86 9y ago
  I can count at least three points in the guidelines[0] this comment violates. > Be civil...Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. (could be multiple but is the same paragraph so assuming combined as 1 point) > Assume good faith. > Please don't use Hacker News primarily for political or ideological battle. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
    Fair point on the snark. I wasn't however assuming bad faith, I was attempting to use humor to jolt someone out of uncritically adopting what I consider an asburd position (that there is any danger of a metaphorical "war on men", in any sense other than as a talking point).
collyw 9y ago
"Equality" is the sticking point. Equality of opportunity (meritocracy) or equality of outcome (sounds like a nasty place where people are selected on things like race, or gender)?
- pc86 9y ago
  Strict equality of outcome means quotas, and that if the distribution of races, sexes, genders, sexual orientations, etc doesn't exactly match the entire population (or exceed it for certain disenfranchised groups) then something is horribly wrong and needs to be fixed. Very few people are in favor of that. That being said, you can't have a strict equality of opportunity without acknowledging which people didn't have that opportunity. I think it's much easier to fix this problem if you focus on the person (e.g. Sandra couldn't afford college) rather than the group (Sandra's black and statistically less likely to have been able to afford college). The problem is people use these bullshit heuristics that happen to suit their mental model of how they want their neighborhood/workplace/world to look ("We don't have a black woman in accounting, what's wrong with that hiring manager?" or "Everyone on the database team is Indian why can't they hire a white guy?") rather than just trying to be fair while still acknowledging systemic issues people have had because of the groups they may belong to.
  - kazagistar 9y ago
    Strict equality of opportunity is a pure lottery, which is just as absurd (if not more) as strict equality of outcome. Otherwise, it is claiming that certain factors (maybe, genetics or upbringing or geographic location or whatever else) should contribute to inequality of outcome, while others should not. The whole phrase, therefore, is a thought terminating phrase, allowing a speaker to ignore the nuance of which specific inequalities they belive are just vs not just, and why.
    - pc86 9y ago
      It's just the other side of the same absurdity coin (ooo next ICO?).
    - 9y ago
Mountain_Skies 9y ago
The problem with silencing tactics currently in use that doesn't seem to be understood by those using them is that there is no such tactic that works in the voting booth. As long as we have secret ballots, the Shy Tory Effect is going continue to catch the censorship crowd off guard. I doubt this is going to be kept on simmer because we're already past that point. To continue the analogy, the pot will eventually boil over but eventually run out of water.
- jcadam 9y ago
  I personally don't see how we get out of this toxic situation with our Republic intact.
  - Balgair 9y ago
    We work for it. I know that sounds simple, but it really it. We get to work and we fix it. Are you in Denver? Let's meet up if so and talk about trying to fix this mess. If any other HNer is in Denver, the invitation stands. Let's meet up and talk and try to fix it.

ZeroGravitas 9y ago

Yes, we shouldn't treat equality as a a "war against men". I think we all learned our lesson from the "War against Christmas" when after early victories the Christians somehow caught on to our plan to distribute plain red cups in Starbucks and be considerate of those who celebrate other holidays around the same time. With the element of surprise gone we had no nope of crushing them under our athiest/muslim/jewish/hindu/sikh/pagan/christian-that-doesn't-watch-fox-news heels and had to retreat. So yes, tactically disguising our true aims under the banner of "equality" is definately a good plan and the only way to actually defeat men. Good thinking sister.

pc86 9y ago
I can count at least three points in the guidelines[0] this comment violates. > Be civil...Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. (could be multiple but is the same paragraph so assuming combined as 1 point) > Assume good faith. > Please don't use Hacker News primarily for political or ideological battle. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  Fair point on the snark. I wasn't however assuming bad faith, I was attempting to use humor to jolt someone out of uncritically adopting what I consider an asburd position (that there is any danger of a metaphorical "war on men", in any sense other than as a talking point).

collyw 9y ago

"Equality" is the sticking point. Equality of opportunity (meritocracy) or equality of outcome (sounds like a nasty place where people are selected on things like race, or gender)?

pc86 9y ago
Strict equality of outcome means quotas, and that if the distribution of races, sexes, genders, sexual orientations, etc doesn't exactly match the entire population (or exceed it for certain disenfranchised groups) then something is horribly wrong and needs to be fixed. Very few people are in favor of that. That being said, you can't have a strict equality of opportunity without acknowledging which people didn't have that opportunity. I think it's much easier to fix this problem if you focus on the person (e.g. Sandra couldn't afford college) rather than the group (Sandra's black and statistically less likely to have been able to afford college). The problem is people use these bullshit heuristics that happen to suit their mental model of how they want their neighborhood/workplace/world to look ("We don't have a black woman in accounting, what's wrong with that hiring manager?" or "Everyone on the database team is Indian why can't they hire a white guy?") rather than just trying to be fair while still acknowledging systemic issues people have had because of the groups they may belong to.
- kazagistar 9y ago
  Strict equality of opportunity is a pure lottery, which is just as absurd (if not more) as strict equality of outcome. Otherwise, it is claiming that certain factors (maybe, genetics or upbringing or geographic location or whatever else) should contribute to inequality of outcome, while others should not. The whole phrase, therefore, is a thought terminating phrase, allowing a speaker to ignore the nuance of which specific inequalities they belive are just vs not just, and why.
  - pc86 9y ago
    It's just the other side of the same absurdity coin (ooo next ICO?).
  - 9y ago

Mountain_Skies 9y ago

The problem with silencing tactics currently in use that doesn't seem to be understood by those using them is that there is no such tactic that works in the voting booth. As long as we have secret ballots, the Shy Tory Effect is going continue to catch the censorship crowd off guard. I doubt this is going to be kept on simmer because we're already past that point. To continue the analogy, the pot will eventually boil over but eventually run out of water.

jcadam 9y ago
I personally don't see how we get out of this toxic situation with our Republic intact.
- Balgair 9y ago
  We work for it. I know that sounds simple, but it really it. We get to work and we fix it. Are you in Denver? Let's meet up if so and talk about trying to fix this mess. If any other HNer is in Denver, the invitation stands. Let's meet up and talk and try to fix it.