3 ms·

>Take a look at the Australian PM. What a stick in the mud, the whole state of NSW is practically on fire, and all he can say is that isn’t not really caused by

>Take a look at the Australian PM. What a stick in the mud, the whole state of NSW is practically on fire, and all he can say is that isn’t not really caused by climate change, there are “other factors involved. Aren’t there almost certainly other factors involved? Acknowledging that climate change is one factor among several doesn’t seem to me outrageous.

igorkraw 7y ago
Sure, but what's next. Are you gonna do something about the other factors? Are you saying that because of the other factors we shouldn't do anything? This is the same trick that non-feminist MRAs try to pull when they talk about men being raped as well whenever women being raped comes up. Most don't care about the men being raped and won't really care about asking the question "and how do we stop that from happening", they just want to stop the conversation. Fuck no, if you want to comment on serious issues, comment constructively (on the bushfires example "it's also caused by XXX so we should do less of that/fix that" would be reasonable to ask for, then we can talk about prioritising this over fighting climate change)
- leereeves 7y ago
  Your claim is so incorrect as to border on slander. MRAs are mostly men who have been victims of institutional sexism: victims of domestic violence or sexual assault ignored by every institution meant to help such victims, or presumed guilty after false allegations, or discriminated against in custody disputes, or forced to pay child support for children that aren't theirs or after being raped, or other events like those. Watch The Red Pill if you're interested in learning something real. And if it helps you overcome your biases, you should know that it was made by a feminist woman who also regarded MRAs as the enemy, until she heard their stories.
  - igorkraw 7y ago
    This is why I specified non-feminist MRAs, e.g https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/ https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/. If you want to have an example for how to do it right, check out https://old.reddit.com/r/MensLib/ https://old.reddit.com/r/MensLib/ (currently on holiday private to give the excellent moderators a break but check it out after christmas) Once it's available again you will notice that in the latter, the focus is on actually helping men. Thing like the male domestic abuse shelter, Terry Cruz joining the #metoo movement, discussion of toxic masculinity and how it fucks up men+how to overcome the damage it did. All of that is good stuff, necessary and compatible/part of the feminist lens onto the world, figuring out how the traditional view on masculinity (stoic, unfeeling rocks that only want sex and power) fucks men in similar way as it does women. Now, when you check out https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/ https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/, you will notice that they also do that to some degree, but they seem to be mainly obsessed with pointing out women's hypocrisy, shutting down feminism, playing bullshit evopsych games etc. Basically, anti-feminism as a way to continue doing things that hurt the bulk of men, with the promise that if they try hard enough they will be the winners. Also, before this gets flagged as well, come on guys, just engage. My statement is clear: feminist MRA which recognizes men getting fucked doesn't mean women are doing the fucking and wants to change our social structure to the benefit of both gender roles (or dissolve them)=> good. Reactionary MRA which doesn't actually care that much about helping men and more about shutting down women's rights movements=> bad. If you are a conservative that disagrees with e.g. abolition of gender but agree that men should not have to real men and that women are not fact out to manipulate all men into doing the work for them (something r/theredpill has in their sidebar: https://dontmarry.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/the_manipulated_man.pdf https://dontmarry.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/the_manipulate...) then you are part of the feminist MRA crowd, not the anti-feminist one. And if you feel I am being uncharitable, come at me, I have sources and am always up for a good debate with strangers on the internet :-)
    - leereeves 7y ago
      There's a good reason MRAs are sometimes anti-feminism: because feminists are sometimes anti-men. A few examples: That documentary I mentioned, The Red Pill (which is not related to the reddit sub), faced a lot of opposition from feminists and screenings were cancelled because of it. Affirmative action in Swedish universities ended because feminists were opposed to the fact that affirmative action was helping men (who are vastly underrepresented in Swedish universities). The education minister, from a party that has traditionally supported feminism and affirmative action, said: "The education system should open doors -- not slam them in the face of motivated young women". The message is clear: equality for women, but not for men. The infamous Dear Colleague policy for handling sexual assault allegations on campus blatantly ignored the rights of men, and suffered many defeats in court, but continued to be popular with feminists until the "non-feminist" MRAs ended it. I looked at the other subbreddit you mentioned, MensLib, a few times before it was locked down, and I never saw them opposing feminist policies that hurt men. I'm willing to engage with you if you're willing to move past attributing all good things and only good things to feminism and slandering anyone who opposes feminist overreach. If you can't acknowledge that feminists, like any other special interest group, sometimes advocate their own interests at the expense of others, you've deified them in a completely unwarranted way. (Also, the Reddit sub TheRedPill is not an MRA sub and doesn't claim to be; it's a sub advocating a "sexual strategy" and their introduction clearly says "I'm not here to parade the concepts of Men's Rights". It's not related to the film I mentioned and has nothing to do with this discussion. I honestly don't know why you brought it up, except perhaps in another attempt to slander MRAs.)
bamboozled 7y ago
What are the “other factors”? Ultimately the issue is that year after year, Australia has suffered the worst droughts and heatwaves ever experienced. The climate is...warmer. It doesn’t really matter what else happened, the conditions are badly exacerbated by the climate emergency. Dry wood and foliage burns easily, that’s what’s happened.
blablabla123 7y ago
> Aren’t there almost certainly other factors involved? Acknowledging that climate change is one factor among several doesn’t seem to me outrageous. When working on a purely scientific level one should also allow to check assumptions. Otherwise science would degrade into mysticism. At the same time it is in the nature of science to take previous results into account, especially if those have been peer-reviewed and find a wide range of consensus, so more effort can be put into research that is based on that. On the other hand Scott Morrison is a politician and not a scientist so he has an obligation to base his decisions on public will and take research results into account. He should not do research as a Prime Minister. A lot of modern research is based on probabilities, in the world of politics this translates to risks. In the startup world people are somehow obliged to take high risks, on the other hand governments must keep risks low.
bjowen 7y ago
Sure, but like Igor says, they’re either distractions — or those other factors would make them look bad, because they’ve also been mishandling policy on those fronts. So we are getting these feeble talking points attempting to blame fire on the policies of the Greens party (who have never held office), a cancelled dam project (which would have been built just in time to lie empty in the worst drought in the area’s history), and ... no joke ... “self-combusting manure.” It’s a sort of hapless denial / self-consistency thing they’ve trapped themselves in, to the point that the subject of climate change is taboo, and so is any adjustment to policy that would respond to it. It might not be in HN memory, but the guy who is currently PM came into the House cuddling a lump of coal not long ago. The factors driving these fires are of course manifold, but the warming climate is making most of them worse. Fire seasons are longer, the seasons when it’s safe to conduct fuel reduction burns are shorter. Rainfall is scarcer, winds are stronger and hotter. We’ve just had the four hottest days on record in the last week. But anything that might address those factors is climate-adjacent, and even risk-mitigation strategies can’t be discussed. The extremely permissive land clearing policies stay [1], the ruinous water management for the Murray-Darling river system that allows cotton farmers to pay peppercorn-rent for practically unlimited water while downstream towns run dry stays, firefighting resources are cut and / or left to volunteer crews. It’s pretty outrageous to refuse to acknowlege the major driver of severe fire conditions and try to blame flaming horse shit instead. Or comical, I don’t know any more. [1] Counterintuitively, clearing is worsening fire conditions https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/to-reduce-fire-risk-and-meet-climate-targets-over-300-scientists-call-for-stronger-land-clearing-laws-113172 https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/to-redu...

igorkraw 7y ago

Sure, but what's next. Are you gonna do something about the other factors? Are you saying that because of the other factors we shouldn't do anything? This is the same trick that non-feminist MRAs try to pull when they talk about men being raped as well whenever women being raped comes up. Most don't care about the men being raped and won't really care about asking the question "and how do we stop that from happening", they just want to stop the conversation. Fuck no, if you want to comment on serious issues, comment constructively (on the bushfires example "it's also caused by XXX so we should do less of that/fix that" would be reasonable to ask for, then we can talk about prioritising this over fighting climate change)

leereeves 7y ago
Your claim is so incorrect as to border on slander. MRAs are mostly men who have been victims of institutional sexism: victims of domestic violence or sexual assault ignored by every institution meant to help such victims, or presumed guilty after false allegations, or discriminated against in custody disputes, or forced to pay child support for children that aren't theirs or after being raped, or other events like those. Watch The Red Pill if you're interested in learning something real. And if it helps you overcome your biases, you should know that it was made by a feminist woman who also regarded MRAs as the enemy, until she heard their stories.
- igorkraw 7y ago
  This is why I specified non-feminist MRAs, e.g https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/ https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/. If you want to have an example for how to do it right, check out https://old.reddit.com/r/MensLib/ https://old.reddit.com/r/MensLib/ (currently on holiday private to give the excellent moderators a break but check it out after christmas) Once it's available again you will notice that in the latter, the focus is on actually helping men. Thing like the male domestic abuse shelter, Terry Cruz joining the #metoo movement, discussion of toxic masculinity and how it fucks up men+how to overcome the damage it did. All of that is good stuff, necessary and compatible/part of the feminist lens onto the world, figuring out how the traditional view on masculinity (stoic, unfeeling rocks that only want sex and power) fucks men in similar way as it does women. Now, when you check out https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/ https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/, you will notice that they also do that to some degree, but they seem to be mainly obsessed with pointing out women's hypocrisy, shutting down feminism, playing bullshit evopsych games etc. Basically, anti-feminism as a way to continue doing things that hurt the bulk of men, with the promise that if they try hard enough they will be the winners. Also, before this gets flagged as well, come on guys, just engage. My statement is clear: feminist MRA which recognizes men getting fucked doesn't mean women are doing the fucking and wants to change our social structure to the benefit of both gender roles (or dissolve them)=> good. Reactionary MRA which doesn't actually care that much about helping men and more about shutting down women's rights movements=> bad. If you are a conservative that disagrees with e.g. abolition of gender but agree that men should not have to real men and that women are not fact out to manipulate all men into doing the work for them (something r/theredpill has in their sidebar: https://dontmarry.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/the_manipulated_man.pdf https://dontmarry.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/the_manipulate...) then you are part of the feminist MRA crowd, not the anti-feminist one. And if you feel I am being uncharitable, come at me, I have sources and am always up for a good debate with strangers on the internet :-)
  - leereeves 7y ago
    There's a good reason MRAs are sometimes anti-feminism: because feminists are sometimes anti-men. A few examples: That documentary I mentioned, The Red Pill (which is not related to the reddit sub), faced a lot of opposition from feminists and screenings were cancelled because of it. Affirmative action in Swedish universities ended because feminists were opposed to the fact that affirmative action was helping men (who are vastly underrepresented in Swedish universities). The education minister, from a party that has traditionally supported feminism and affirmative action, said: "The education system should open doors -- not slam them in the face of motivated young women". The message is clear: equality for women, but not for men. The infamous Dear Colleague policy for handling sexual assault allegations on campus blatantly ignored the rights of men, and suffered many defeats in court, but continued to be popular with feminists until the "non-feminist" MRAs ended it. I looked at the other subbreddit you mentioned, MensLib, a few times before it was locked down, and I never saw them opposing feminist policies that hurt men. I'm willing to engage with you if you're willing to move past attributing all good things and only good things to feminism and slandering anyone who opposes feminist overreach. If you can't acknowledge that feminists, like any other special interest group, sometimes advocate their own interests at the expense of others, you've deified them in a completely unwarranted way. (Also, the Reddit sub TheRedPill is not an MRA sub and doesn't claim to be; it's a sub advocating a "sexual strategy" and their introduction clearly says "I'm not here to parade the concepts of Men's Rights". It's not related to the film I mentioned and has nothing to do with this discussion. I honestly don't know why you brought it up, except perhaps in another attempt to slander MRAs.)

bamboozled 7y ago

What are the “other factors”? Ultimately the issue is that year after year, Australia has suffered the worst droughts and heatwaves ever experienced. The climate is...warmer. It doesn’t really matter what else happened, the conditions are badly exacerbated by the climate emergency. Dry wood and foliage burns easily, that’s what’s happened.

blablabla123 7y ago

> Aren’t there almost certainly other factors involved? Acknowledging that climate change is one factor among several doesn’t seem to me outrageous. When working on a purely scientific level one should also allow to check assumptions. Otherwise science would degrade into mysticism. At the same time it is in the nature of science to take previous results into account, especially if those have been peer-reviewed and find a wide range of consensus, so more effort can be put into research that is based on that. On the other hand Scott Morrison is a politician and not a scientist so he has an obligation to base his decisions on public will and take research results into account. He should not do research as a Prime Minister. A lot of modern research is based on probabilities, in the world of politics this translates to risks. In the startup world people are somehow obliged to take high risks, on the other hand governments must keep risks low.

bjowen 7y ago

Sure, but like Igor says, they’re either distractions — or those other factors would make them look bad, because they’ve also been mishandling policy on those fronts. So we are getting these feeble talking points attempting to blame fire on the policies of the Greens party (who have never held office), a cancelled dam project (which would have been built just in time to lie empty in the worst drought in the area’s history), and ... no joke ... “self-combusting manure.” It’s a sort of hapless denial / self-consistency thing they’ve trapped themselves in, to the point that the subject of climate change is taboo, and so is any adjustment to policy that would respond to it. It might not be in HN memory, but the guy who is currently PM came into the House cuddling a lump of coal not long ago. The factors driving these fires are of course manifold, but the warming climate is making most of them worse. Fire seasons are longer, the seasons when it’s safe to conduct fuel reduction burns are shorter. Rainfall is scarcer, winds are stronger and hotter. We’ve just had the four hottest days on record in the last week. But anything that might address those factors is climate-adjacent, and even risk-mitigation strategies can’t be discussed. The extremely permissive land clearing policies stay [1], the ruinous water management for the Murray-Darling river system that allows cotton farmers to pay peppercorn-rent for practically unlimited water while downstream towns run dry stays, firefighting resources are cut and / or left to volunteer crews. It’s pretty outrageous to refuse to acknowlege the major driver of severe fire conditions and try to blame flaming horse shit instead. Or comical, I don’t know any more. [1] Counterintuitively, clearing is worsening fire conditions https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/to-reduce-fire-risk-and-meet-climate-targets-over-300-scientists-call-for-stronger-land-clearing-laws-113172 https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/to-redu...