Male Privilege: and Right vs Left ♂️♀️

I don't know how the state sucked me back in, but they did it.

Not really, but there seems more of a real difference between "the right" and "the left" than there used to be.

Bush and John Kerry and Obama and McCain and Romney are all kind of the same thing. So their arguments with each other are just platitudes and creaky old boring shit.

Maybe on a particular topic one side or the other might have slightly better rhetoric, but there's nothing really engaging or veracious across the board.

But NOW there's an element of the left who is so rabidly off the rails, and a counter-narrative on the right that seems actually inspired and reasoned.

---

I don't believe in the state, and so I don't vote or consider that a way to enact change in the world. (If I had to vote, I'd probably pick the worst person. I'd want to do my little part to confuse the algorithm rather than do my little part to pick a guy.)

But as an outside observer watching it all playout on YouTube, the 'right' seems just so much better nowadays.

---

People like Stefan Molyneux, Jordan Peterson, Candace Owens, Lauren Southern, Paul Joseph Watson, others, all seem to be consistent and to have a logical method.

The 'left' has no consistency or method, because violently taking resources from people doesn't actually make sense. So anything that's predicated on that won't be grounded by a reasonable explanation. So their method is to manipulate and be emotional, rather than be thorough and break things down correctly.

The iconic War On Terror seems like old news now.

(Tragically it's still going. But in terms of narrative, I don't hear anyone defending it anymore.)

So the 'right' seems to just not really have much baggage these days.

And the more they're reduced to just opposing aggression from the 'left', the more they'll just naturally tend to make sense.

I guess it's like the hysterias can only go so far before it becomes easy for other people to poke away at them. And then it's like "ya, those guys are right".

Ultimately, the state needs to evolve to last longer. It needs to engage and make sense, for its own preservation. So it stays nimble and brisk. And all this Donald Trump stuff is I think basically an evolution of the show.

I think some anarchists are still used to the classic Ron Paul type of view of it, where the Democrats and Republicans are exactly the same. I think there's still some truth to that. But I think it's tipping. I think the state is evolving, and that there's more of a visceral difference between the sides now.

Nicely done, state.

---

Anyways, now that I'm an alt-right lover, I stumbled across this Stephen Crowder character and binge watched a little.

Lately it's Barstool Sports and the One Bite Pizza Review or Stephen Crowder who get my first YouTube click.

It's kind of like he lays a honey pot where he knows the people who walk into it probably won't do so well.

But, I find it to be an honorable way to troll. He's not manipulating or mincing words. He's just letting them shoot their load and probably expose how confused they are.

male privilege

Of all their hysterias, I think "male privilege" might be the most wildly backwards.

The boy's complaint largely centers around "rape culture" and that men aren't punished enough for raping women.

But then when you stop and think about it, you realize, wait.. "I bet the penalties for women who sexually assault men are HUGELY lower per capita".

I don't even feel the need to look up data, because I feel like that's just correct and unlikely to be disputed. (But feel free to fact check me.)

In general, a male who alleges sexual assault against a female would probably not even be taken seriously or given support. Let alone it gets looked into and acted upon by authorities. And then even the rare cases that go to trial or whatever, I really doubt the female offender will be punished as much as a male would get for a commensurate offense.

So if men aren't punished enough, women are even more not punished enough.

But, "male privilege", for some reason.

(It's a projection. It's right now favoring females, not males.)

double-standard

The double-standard might be fine. I'm not a psychologist or anything, but it seems reasonable to suggest that rape affects women differently than it affects men, and therefore that it makes sense to be more sensitive to when it happens to women. I'm fine with that.

I'm not sure if it should mean different penalty under the law. But being in general more concerned about a female victim seems reasonable and good to me.

If you look at all types of crimes, like not just rape related, I think you'd find that the justice system favors women with lighter sentences across the board, compared to a similar crime committed by a man.

Again, maybe there are arguments why the double-standard makes sense. Go for it.

But it seems silly to describe the justice system as being installed with "male privilege" if it's literally dishing out punishments that are more severe to men than they are to women.

I don't know what that term could possibly mean. If anything, seems clearly there's female privilege. I don't know how you're systematically privileged to be a male if being female means that the system would give you less punishment for the same crime.

some people will take an inch and run with it

Suppose you're nice to someone and give them a little leeway or benefit.

Some people realize that you're being kind and are appreciative. And others just interpret it as the new normal. So they grow to think of the thing that's in their favor as the 50/50 point of fairness. (It's really 60/40 in their favor, but they conflate 60/40 with 50/50, because they like this arrangement and want it to stay.)

So then anything you do to walk back the inch, or maybe even not extend it to more inches often enough, can be interpreted as unfair, when actually it's that they're being unfair currently and just thinking of it as even.

I feel like that's kind of the microcosm of what goes on here with the "male privilege" thing, and probably with basically all of the similar hysterias.

The classes of people who are currently most taking and are given the most benefits at the expense of others grow to think of that as normal and to regard the people they're leeching off of as being the bad ones and the oppressors, especially should they ever resist the leeching.

(Again, projection.)

The people who are violated are seen as being privileged, and the people who are getting special privileges are seen as being violated somehow.

Rape culture

Crowder is sharp to bring up the right to carry, and it's funny how the boy wants to not talk about that.

If the 'right' was good at using manipulation and emotion, they could actually be the ones talking about the "rape culture" and "male privilege", and it would actually make a bit of sense.

By taking a gun away from a woman who would choose to carry one, the system tips it more in favor of whoever is bigger and stronger, and it seems now easier for a man to rape a woman.

So I mean, to whatever extent these hysterias have any truth to them, I fail to see what the 'left' or any of their policies are possibly doing to help.

was she raped?

I mean, my instinct feels like probably not. But of course I have no idea.

It can be kind of gray too. Like drunken times happened, he was maybe more pushing it than she was, she was maybe more into than she remembers after she sobers up..

It doesn't matter, is the thing. If she doesn't want to release his name and there's no proof or any case against him, then of course the system can't act against the guy.

That's not an indication of men being favored by the system or whatever. That's just a fact of what the system can reasonably be expected to do when you give it an input of basically nothing.

(Removing him from the dorm seems itself like a strong and responsive move, given that all they have is hearsay and can't really know for sure that it wasn't drunken consensual sex. They're choosing to believe her. And rather than see how they're doing really all that you could reasonably expect, they assume this wasn't enough, and I guess that cops should magically arrest and convict him, based on no info and the alleged victim not cooperating?)

It's bizarre. If she doesn't want to make a thing out of it, that's her choice. But then you don't get to look at this as an example of "omg, the system isn't doing enough".

the boy

I like the boy. I think it's good to want to defend and serve women. But you should want to do that yourself by being an honorable and good person to them.

Not by spreading propaganda about the system being rigged and how dangerous it is out there or whatever.

I really doubt it's unsafe for a woman to walk to her car on that campus.

Or if that's true, then you shouldn't feel so safe yourself, cutie.

If push came to shove, those big muscles of yours probably aren't gonna be the difference. Usually criminals strike because they have a gun or multiple people or are good at fighting or whatever. It isn't like being a man is the tipping point where it's really difficult for a criminal to have an edge on you.

It might help a tiny bit at the margins, to have more muscle mass, but this isn't the pressing moral issue of our time.

They live in a privileged college cupcake land and talk about it like it's a warzone.

If your friend feels unsafe at night and needs her text book, you should walk with her to her car. Very easy.

But deep down they all know that she doesn't even need her book too bad and it was probably just code for "let's talk about how woke we are".