05-20-2017, 12:00 AM
Kao13 wrote:JJ, with regard to your failed attempt to manifest change in wiki: why would you bother? I don't go to the Freemason page and say, "We accept women in our meetings!" I create a sister page and gather a group of powerful women who flirt with the Masons. What **** would try to change anything directly? You did it for the lolz didn't you Well, no. When I made the changes there I didn't know about the wiki-feminists. I did suspect that some, probably most, and perhaps all of the qualifiers I added would be removed eventually. Still I wanted to watch it happen and see what reasons were put forth for doing so as a social experiment.
Your thoughts on patriarchy are interesting. We only see what we're capable of perceiving: if you can't see patriarchy, how does this reflect your internal vision? Whereas I see patriarchs, matriarchs, and unicorns--and you know who I am.This seems to be leading to the question of is there an objective reality? I suppose I could imagine patriarchy. And perhaps I could project that imagination onto the world I see around me. Maybe I could do it well enough to even see it with my eyes. But would that make it real? The world seems to me to have a strong degree of consistency. I've never mentioned trees to someone and heard a reply like "Trees? WTF are those?!" The "gurus" I've read have talked about a consensus reality, which implies that there is an objective reality to a degree, even if it isn't fully objective. In Jed McKenna's movie-theater based version of Plato's cave we may all be watching just a movie but it is the same movie, at least for the most part. I find it doubtful that the world is so subjective that I'm likely to meet another person my age who watched a movie called "Star Wars" as a child, in which... 1. all the stormtroopers were female, as was Vader and everyone else on the death star2. they all died almost completely silently with the movie making sure not to show any of their pain, or that of anyone else who loved them and lost them just like the movie I saw did with it's male villains when they were killed3. a few woman risked their lives to save the beautiful prince, who flirted back and forth with both of them while protesting the one's desire to get paid for the job as if by virtue of being born female she didn't naturally have an obligation to risk her life to protect his.4. together they killed many more stormtroopers, (again all of which were female) until they finally managed to blow up the whole death star full of them before being decorated as heroes.5. what was considered a reasonable argument against sexism in that movie was that there weren't enough male heroes helping kill all those women and that the male prince had to be rescued, was left out of the final battle, and didn't get an award at the end. That all the villains were female and thus the movie was one of many that was teaching society to be desensitized towards men's pain, deaths, etc. was meanwhile considered such a ridiculous and man-hating argument most wouldn't risk stating it, if they even could think it. Likewise, I think most other things about the world around me are part of the consensus world, and thus as objective as objectivity gets. So generally, I take the world for objective. Similarly, I find it doubtful that other things related to the question of patriarchy are subjective. I exaggerated slightly when I said I'd seen no evidence for patriarchy. After all, what about the fact that in some Muslim countries women are beheaded for adultery? This is evidence, but when you take ALL the evidence of whose been beheaded for adultery in Muslim countries, (in an average year 6-12 women are beheaded for it, in an average year 1,100 - 1,400 men are beheaded for it), a different story emerges. Really, this happens anytime you look into a common feminist claim. Look closely and you'll see either there is no sexism or the sexism is worse against males. But modern day feminists want to create things to benefit females only. They don't want males benefiting from their "charitable work" in any way, (though they'll certainly take money from males for it). They'll go into a Muslim country where nobody is getting an education and say "Girls aren't getting an education here!", ignoring that neither are boys. That way, when Oprah's leadership charity goes in and sets up girls-only schools it can be seen as a good thing, and not the blatant bigotry that it is. I could go on for weeks with more examples, but suffice to say this is what I've found everytime I've heard a claim of patriarchy. Thus, for patriarchy to actually exist, the world must be much more subjective than it seems to me.
Your thoughts on patriarchy are interesting. We only see what we're capable of perceiving: if you can't see patriarchy, how does this reflect your internal vision? Whereas I see patriarchs, matriarchs, and unicorns--and you know who I am.This seems to be leading to the question of is there an objective reality? I suppose I could imagine patriarchy. And perhaps I could project that imagination onto the world I see around me. Maybe I could do it well enough to even see it with my eyes. But would that make it real? The world seems to me to have a strong degree of consistency. I've never mentioned trees to someone and heard a reply like "Trees? WTF are those?!" The "gurus" I've read have talked about a consensus reality, which implies that there is an objective reality to a degree, even if it isn't fully objective. In Jed McKenna's movie-theater based version of Plato's cave we may all be watching just a movie but it is the same movie, at least for the most part. I find it doubtful that the world is so subjective that I'm likely to meet another person my age who watched a movie called "Star Wars" as a child, in which... 1. all the stormtroopers were female, as was Vader and everyone else on the death star2. they all died almost completely silently with the movie making sure not to show any of their pain, or that of anyone else who loved them and lost them just like the movie I saw did with it's male villains when they were killed3. a few woman risked their lives to save the beautiful prince, who flirted back and forth with both of them while protesting the one's desire to get paid for the job as if by virtue of being born female she didn't naturally have an obligation to risk her life to protect his.4. together they killed many more stormtroopers, (again all of which were female) until they finally managed to blow up the whole death star full of them before being decorated as heroes.5. what was considered a reasonable argument against sexism in that movie was that there weren't enough male heroes helping kill all those women and that the male prince had to be rescued, was left out of the final battle, and didn't get an award at the end. That all the villains were female and thus the movie was one of many that was teaching society to be desensitized towards men's pain, deaths, etc. was meanwhile considered such a ridiculous and man-hating argument most wouldn't risk stating it, if they even could think it. Likewise, I think most other things about the world around me are part of the consensus world, and thus as objective as objectivity gets. So generally, I take the world for objective. Similarly, I find it doubtful that other things related to the question of patriarchy are subjective. I exaggerated slightly when I said I'd seen no evidence for patriarchy. After all, what about the fact that in some Muslim countries women are beheaded for adultery? This is evidence, but when you take ALL the evidence of whose been beheaded for adultery in Muslim countries, (in an average year 6-12 women are beheaded for it, in an average year 1,100 - 1,400 men are beheaded for it), a different story emerges. Really, this happens anytime you look into a common feminist claim. Look closely and you'll see either there is no sexism or the sexism is worse against males. But modern day feminists want to create things to benefit females only. They don't want males benefiting from their "charitable work" in any way, (though they'll certainly take money from males for it). They'll go into a Muslim country where nobody is getting an education and say "Girls aren't getting an education here!", ignoring that neither are boys. That way, when Oprah's leadership charity goes in and sets up girls-only schools it can be seen as a good thing, and not the blatant bigotry that it is. I could go on for weeks with more examples, but suffice to say this is what I've found everytime I've heard a claim of patriarchy. Thus, for patriarchy to actually exist, the world must be much more subjective than it seems to me.