Not-Good Things People Say on the Internet

[Skybison]

No it doesn't.  "Teach men not to rape" is a response to rape victims being told they were asking for it by not wearing enough clothes, daring to go outside at night etc instead of putting the responsibility on the rapist.  If you prefer "teach rapists not to rape" fine, but it's not about saying men are rapists by default.

[Ultimate Paragon]

No it doesn't.  "Teach men not to rape" is a response to rape victims being told they were asking for it by not wearing enough clothes, daring to go outside at night etc instead of putting the responsibility on the rapist.  If you prefer "teach rapists not to rape" fine, but it's not about saying men are rapists by default.

Except the idea that men have to be "taught" not to rape, as if it's something we naturally do.  It doesn't outright say it, but it heavily implies it.

[mellenORL]

I'm siding with UP on this one. It reminds me how some people - without intending any disrespect at all - just did not get the what the statement, Black Lives Matter, means in context. "But, all lives matter!"...riiiight....aaaand....black people get killed a lot more often for way worse reasons than any other group, 'k?

Teach Men NOT to Rape? Learn How Not to Insult, whether out of crappy sentence composition, or cluelessness, or paranoid bigotry.

[Ironchew]

No it doesn't.  "Teach men not to rape" is a response to rape victims being told they were asking for it by not wearing enough clothes, daring to go outside at night etc instead of putting the responsibility on the rapist.  If you prefer "teach rapists not to rape" fine, but it's not about saying men are rapists by default.

Except the idea that men have to be "taught" not to rape, as if it's something we naturally do.  It doesn't outright say it, but it heavily implies it.

UP, grow some thicker skin.

If conservatives were half as offended at rape apologetics as they seem to be about this then it never would've been a problem in the first place.

[Eiki-mun]

Let's take a look at the original quote:

...Sometimes I am still amazed at how people can not criticize themselves or their beliefs and can miss the point even when it is shown to them as clearly as it is in pic related. I believe the word I am looking for is introspection.

We see here Elsa asking "what is hateful about teaching men not to rape?" Certainly a fair question. Goodfella replies by asking two other, similar questions: "what is hateful about teaching black people not to steal?" and "what is hateful about teaching Muslims not to blow things up?" In this, he is establishing a direct comparison: men, black people, and Muslims, with raping, stealing, and blowing things up. Elsa then replies that those two things are hateful because "it implies that all black people steal things and that all Muslims blow things up", which by the comparison made in the post, implies she's perfectly okay with implying that all men rape. Which is, I believe, the problem people have - the implication that all men rape, that rape is a natural thing men do and they need to be taught not to do it.

Which, if that's actually true, I need to get on with my raping. I haven't even done it once.

[rageaholic]

Yeah, 6oodfella's point was pretty logical and went right over the head of Elsa. 

[SCarpelan]

I accidentally posted this in the SJ thread so here it's also in the proper place.

re: the rape discussion

tl;dr: The examples are not directly comparable since the contexts and ideas they express are different despite superficially similar statements.

The offensiveness is not in the form of the statement but in the idea behind it. "Teach men not to rape" is not an optimally constructed statement* but the context is different from the similar statements about blacks and Muslims. The stereotypes of blacks as criminals and Muslims as terrorists actually exist and those examples are based on and strengthen these stereotypes. Men as rapists is something only an extreme radical wing of feminism sees as a real stereotype.

The idea behind "teaching men not to rape" it is that we need to change the culture that leads to some men not taking the idea of consent seriously enough and justifies their actions. The only case where it promotes an actual stereotype is when someone who belongs to the aforementioned wing of feminism uses it. The crime statistics among African Americans and the terrorism among Muslims have more complicated causal relationships behind them and a constructive approach can't really be simplified into such a statement.

[rambling]

Actually, when I think about it more carefully, one big issue separating these examples is power. (Yes, I went there but hear me out before judging.) Rape is about subjugating the victim and the perpetrator is the one who has more power. The one who has more power in the context is the one who we need to put pressure on. Muslim terrorism is a reaction of an underdog to a political and societal issues** and the crime among African Americans is a result of economical and social circumstances.

"Teach muslims not to commit terrorism" and "teach blacks not to steal" don't have identical contexts either. Depending on the particular context in which someone uses the statement the former can actually be interpreted as an extremely flawed way of simplifying an idea worth considering. For example, the issue with power is more complicated: factions within the Muslim world hold a lot more power and carry more responsibility of terrorism than is the case when discussing African Americans and crime.

[/rambling]

* While I don't think the superficial interpretation of the flawed statement as too generalizing is a major problem there is the issue that women also commit rapes.

** Religion is naturally interwoven with these factors

Disclaimer: There are other dimensions of rape that fall outside this discussion such as its use as a weapon against civilian population.

[TheUnknown]

Posted by an allegedly "former male feminist":

I think we should survey feminists on what they think about declawing cats and circumcising infant boys.
I bet you we’d find a lot more feminists objecting to declawing than circumcision.

I don't know, anti-circumcision in all circumstances seems to be growing sentiment to me.  Also, how is the removal of a piece of skin around the penis head at all comparable to removing the toe tips of a cat?

[Ironchew]

Posted by an allegedly "former male feminist":

Is that like those pastors with the "I used to be an atheist" backstory?

[RavynousHunter]

Posted by an allegedly "former male feminist":

Is that like those pastors with the "I used to be an atheist" backstory?

As in "I'm making a completely unprovable claim that's likely bullshit to not-so-subtly add credibility to my statements?"  If so, then yes.

[rageaholic]

This video on a gay couple that was attacked with boiling water.  That's bad enough, but some of the comments think that the attacker was in the right, even though this was clearly an unprovoked attack. 

Although I have to chuckle at the line "get out of my house with all your gay". 

[Ultimate Paragon]

Here we see an idiot trying to reframe the Holocaust as the end result of a struggle between Jews and gentiles in Europe:

Holocaust scholars are not impartial, they are operating within a particular political and ideological framework that determines how they interpret historical events.

That is not to say that the material they present is not factual, or that they falsify historical events. What they do do is to interpret those events according to a particular ideological formula, the main element of which is the concept that the Jews of Europe were purely victims, and that their massacre during the war was some sort of mystical emanation of evil without any rational explanation.

In fact, "Holocaust" scholars seem to regard any attempt to find a rational explanation for the massacre of the Jews as a form of "denial", of justification or approval, which in itself is also some sort of emanation of evil.

In that respect, the study of the massacre of the Jews of Europe by the German Government during the Second World War differs in essence from the study of other large-scale massacres in history. Those other massacres are not usually seen in the same apocalyptic terms, not as cosmic conflicts between absolute good and absolute evil, but rather as the outcome of conflicts between rival groups that have rational and explicable causes.

While those other massacres are usually deplored by the historians writing about them, and the victims attract their sympathy as being for the most part innocent, those historians can see the objective reasons why the victims attracted the ire of the victimisers, and while they condemn the murderous actions of the victimisers, they can understand the motivations for those actions and do not simply write them off as the result of some evil force.

In the case of the massacres of Jews perpetrated by Ukrainians (and some other East European peoples), "Holocaust" scholars tend to deny that those peoples had any rational motivation for their actions, no genuine and understandable grievance against their Jewish neighbours. They describe the those peoples as either acting out of some internal evil tendency, or else as being passive dupes of the evil Germans.

It is for the above reasons that the works of the "Holocaust" scholars are flawed, even though they give an accurate account of the course of the Judeocide. Where they fail is in their explanations of its causes, seeing it in apocalyptic terms, as an outburst of totally irrational evil.

[Canadian Mojo]

Okay, curiosity got the better of me so I'll bite.

...no genuine and understandable grievance...

Does this dipshit say what would those consist of?

[RavynousHunter]

I think what he means is anything that can't be linked to Christendom or the rise of Martin Luther, which is (I'd bet) next to nothing since all this crap is basically linked to the idea that "DA JOOS KILLED AR SAVIOUR!"  Completely ignoring the fact that there'd be no salvation if there'd been no sacrifice because Yahweh is kind of a prick like that.

[Skybison]

Woman are friends with woman, and they have sex with men. So if you’re her friend, you’re a vagina.  You ask this girl to be your gf, she rejects you but ask if we can still be friends. That’s a insult, she thinks less of you.  A male and female aren’t suppose to be friends, they’re suppose to be love intrest. So basically you’re a vagina, because girls are suppose to be friends with girls, and fuck men. Also girls are horrible friends, all they do is leech off you, and cause drama.

So when a girl rejects you, and puts you in the friendzone, it’s a insult. Next time she says let’s just be friends, say no thank you.

Wow I had know idea being friends with a woman meant I was a vagina.  i thought it just meant I was a normal person who shared some interests with people with two X-chromosomes without wanting to bang them.  Thanks you r/TheRedPill for showing me the way.