Leedskalnin On Education

You know we receive an education in the schools from books. All those books that people became educated from twenty-five years ago, are wrong now, and those that are good now, will be wrong again twenty-five years from now. So if they are wrong then, they are also wrong now, and the one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is misled. All books that are written are wrong, the one who is not educated cannot write a book and the one who is educated, is really not educated but he is misled and the one who is misled cannot write a book which is correct.

The misleading began when our distant ancestors began to teach their descendants. You know they knew nothing but they passed their knowledge of nothing to the coming generations and it went so innocently that nobody noticed it. That is why we are not educated.

Now I will tell you what education is according to my reasoning. An educated person is one whose senses are refined. We are born as brutes, we remain and die as the same if we do not become polished. But all senses do not take polish. Some are to coarse to take it. The main base of education is one's "self-respect". Any one lacking self-respect cannot be educated. The main bases of self-respect is the willingness to learn, to do only the things that are good and right, to believe only in the things that can be proved, to possess appreciation and self control.

Now, if you lack willingness to learn, you will remain as a brute and if you do things that are not good and right, you will be a low person, and if you believe in things that cannot be proved, any feeble minded person can lead you, and if you lack appreciation, it takes away the incentive for good doing and if you lack self control you will never know the limit.

So all those lacking these characteristics in their makeup are not educated.

- Ed Leedskalnin, 1936.

http://www.leedskalnin.com/

Re: If You're A Dude On The Internet, You NEED To See This Video

http://www.upworthy.com/nailed-it-if-youre-a-dude-on-the-internet-you-need-to-see-this-video

I'm going to only criticize the video itself, because the video itself and the "ill doctrine" this guy spews out is the topic and not "feminism/MRM is/isn't..." or "men/women are/aren't" etc.  Again, I'm going to be using the list of prejudices from the "What Is Prejudice?" reference page which can be found on the right up there.

Let's break this down from a non gender-fanatical perspective:

Page Title:

If You're A Dude On The Internet, You NEED To See This Video

Assuming "dude" is being used as the slang label for "male" (also supported by the context provided by the video) this is clearly separation of and targeting people by gender.

Blatant prejudice - Right in the title of the page.
UT-1,2

From the video:

Recently, she set up a kickstarter page for a new project looking at the representation of women in video games...

a whole bunch of gamer dudes decided, even though they haven't heard what her opinion is yet, that the mere idea of this woman presuming to form an opinion about them...

Well, which is it?  Is this a judgement about the representation of women in video games, or a generalization about men who play video games? (which would be UPJ-1,2,3,4,5 and UGJ-1,3,4,5 by the way)

Those are two different subjects.  A representation of a demographic and an actual demographic are not the same thing.  One of them is a generalization - a stereotypical facade, while one is made up of actual living, breathing, individual people.  One of them is frequently possible to judge as a whole, while one simply can not be without turning it into the other.  So, is she attempting to judge the representation of women in video games, or make a generalization about male gamers?  Apparently, the answer to this question is unclear at the moment.

...the private army of sexist dudes...

Gendered cooperative sexism!
Yeah, I've heard the "conspiracy" claim before and I'm still not convinced that either gender is conspiring to keep the other down, regardless of how many times it's suggested.  There is most likely some individuals from all genders involved in such things, but I have yet to see any actual evidence that there is a mass organizational effort behind any of it.
UPJ-1,2,4,5, UPR-1,2,4,5, UGJ-1,4,5 and UGR-1,3,4,5

...has only succeeded in proving her right...

Quoted again from previous:

...even though they haven't heard what her opinion is yet...

Wait - can they prove something right that hasn't been said yet, or is the ultimate conclusion this woman will reach predictable enough that they might have figured out what it will likely be, as you apparently have, and they are reacting to that?

You can't criticize others for making assumptions and then make the same assumptions yourself to criticize them again.  The rules don't change depending on which side you argue for.
UT-1,2

...raises a whole bunch of questions about why this happens so often and why so many dudes think it's OK to persecute and harass and abuse women online.

I would assume, for the same reasons that so many men think it's OK to persecute and harass and abuse other men online so often, or for the same reasons that so many women think it's OK to persecute and harass and abuse men online so often, or for the same reasons that so many women think it's OK to persecute and harass and abuse other women online so often.  Sexism doesn't exist in only one direction and bullying in general is a rainbow of different colors of hate.  Even though this incident is possibly statistically gender-weighted in this regard, he is broadening the scope to include everything by referencing how often and online in general, so it's very sexist of him to suggest that "dudes" in general are the problem, instead of certain people.
UGJ-1,2,4,5 and UGR-1,2,3,5

A lot of these dudes...will tell you...that they don't really hate women - that they just think it's funny to treat women as if they hate them...first of all, you're lying to yourself...

I'm not familiar with his psychological credentials.  Is he adequately qualified to make an assessment about the inner workings of the minds of internet bullies?
UPJ-1,2,4,5 and UGJ-1,2,4,5

Only somebody who hates women and sees them as less than human would think that's a meaningful distinction.

Again, I'm not familiar with his psychological credentials.  Is he adequately qualified to make an assessment about the inner workings of the minds of internet bullies?
UPJ-1,2,4,5 and UGJ-1,2,4,5

Also, did he observe this reaction from people actually involved in this incident, or is he projecting this reaction on to them based on different experiences he has had and his own emotional reaction to this particular incident?
UPJ-1,2,4,5 and UGJ-2,4

And I don't know what I could say that would get through to someone that is so invested in detaching from their own humanity...

The person who is dehumanizing "dudes" with condescending labels and blatantly prejudicial accusations is also claiming that those people having the same type of view of women is actually them being "invested in detaching from their own humanity?"
UT-1 and UAS-4

...so I'm just going to think about that and come back to it.

Yeah...me too.

But for now I'm just going to say to everyone else and especially my fellow dudes that when you see something like that going on, you and by "you" I mean "we" have an obligation to speak out against it more often.

UPR-1,2, UGR-1,2,3, UT-1,2 and UAS-4

However, I agree that people should call out bullshit, which is why I make statements like this as well as this.

It's really not cool for us to just shrug our shoulders...

I agree.  Apathy about prejudice is "really not cool."  That includes the blatant prejudice this guy displays, which is why I'm "speaking out against it."

And it's really not OK for you to jump into somebody's discussion of this harassment and derail it with a bunch of comments about (mocking voice ->) "well sure, harassment is bad, but men are discriminated against too. Feminists are always makin' somethin' out of nothing and bababababa."

In the case of discussing a single instance of harassment without prejudicial themes, it would be very impolite to jump in and start discussing gender issues, yes.  However, if the tone of the "harassment" discussion is as prejudiced and offensive as the accusations and mocking present in this video, you can not fault people for attempting to defend themselves against the dehumanizing and belittling intent behind it, because

...when you see something like that going on, you and by "you" I mean "we" have an obligation to speak out against it more often.

Right?

...if you need to show off your debating skills and make fetch happen with the misandry thing...

"The misandry thing?"  You mean, like, suggesting men are ignorant about gender issues, as with the title of the page?  Like, making negative generalizations about specifically male gamers, as the kickstarter project may or may not have been intended to do?  Like, suggesting that when debating possible negative generalizations about themselves, men are not allowed to use the same reasoning as the people putting them down?  Like, suggesting men are exclusively responsible for bullying?  Like, suggesting men are conspiring with each other to keep women down?  Like, suggesting that dehumanizing men with insults, prejudicial accusations and mocking is simply respecting women and that same prejudice against women is men actually dehumanizing themselves?  Like, suggesting that especially men should be responsible for protecting specifically women from exclusively male bullies?

That "misandry thing?"

Fuck referencing each one individually, just read them all:
http://jeenyusatwerk.blogspot.com/2013/07/what-is-prejudice.html

...But none of that stuff is the issue right now.  The issue right now is the bullying and abuse and harassment that she's facing...

That depends on what kind of history her statements have had so far, actually.  If she's a reasonable person, who makes rational judgments of things instead of simply throwing blame at demographics, she certainly doesn't deserve such treatment.  However, if she is as sexist as this guy, attempting to fault people for things based on what gender they are, I can totally understand why she might be harassed when asking for money to do presumably the same thing again.

...regardless of your political position on (funny face and mocking finger quotes ->) "misandry and men's rights and blablablablabla."

Condescending, much?  Men have just as much right to have rights as any other demographic.  You may not agree with some people about what those specific rights should or shouldn't be for each demographic, but the very issue of a human being having rights is not one worthy of mockery, regardless of what their genitals may look like.

This kind of abuse and harassment matters and when it happens in our corner of the internet we need to treat it like it matters.

I agree, even though you just contradicted your mocking stance on the subject of misandry.  Misandry is the same kind of abuse as misogyny, in case you weren't aware.

We need to speak up and let them know we're not impressed by how edgy and fearless they are.

Again, I agree.  Which is why I post things like this.  I know I'm likely to get harassed for it, but unless somebody can point out where I'm making prejudicial comments in response to your prejudicial comments, the haters can just fuck off.

If you are a dude on the internet and you see other dudes in your scene harassing women (or transgender people, or anyone else who's outside of our privileged little corner of the gender spectrum) we need to speak up!

Again, blatant sexism.  Those poor women (and trans and blablablablabla) need our protection!  They need to be able to say what they want without some mean ol' men being mean to them!  Seriously, The level of benevolent misogyny this guy is displaying is as disgusting as the hostile misandry.  And I hope I don't need to revisit the subject of gender privilege again for you. 

We need to add some extra humanity into our scene to counteract their detachment from their humanity.

You mean, after dehumanizing other people in online discussions, you find the "humanity" coming from others to be lacking in online discussions?  I'd never have guessed! /sarcasm

---

So really, if any of my commentary makes any prejudicial statements about any demographic, be it gender, gamer, etc. feel free to point it out.  You have a whole list of offenses to choose from.  Feel free to suggest improvements to that list there as well, as long as they're constructive and aren't simply petty attempts to be difficult, because you're pissed off, but lack the ability to argue intelligently.

However, I suspect that in order to be legitimately accused of prejudicial statements about a demographic, I would first have to make a statement about a demographic and since I believe I have debated this entire piece of crap video without making a single judgement about any person or group based on any demographic feature (including voluntary demographics, such as chosen ideology labels) this may simply prove that you can debate prejudice and piss people off plenty without also being a bigot like that guy.

---

Is this the type of "bullying" he's talking about, I wonder?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJeX6F-Q63I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGAvjwQPCHE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_O1R7Zq9EI

MRM/Feminism - two sides of the same coin?

I'm sure you've noticed that there's no shortage of people involved in either the MHRM or Feminism camps willing to label the other as "a hate group."  The truth is, both sides are guilty of derogatory, generalizing rhetoric.

Yes, the MHRM has been classified as "a hate group" by the SPLC, but it seems the integrity of the organization doing the classification and the circumstances surrounding such is controversial, at best.  The MHRM have, on the other hand, done a good job of exposing many examples of feminist hatemongering, such as the deliberately misleading domestic violence and rape data and publicity, volumes of anti-male/female-superiority rhetoric and even what's called "The Agent Orange Files" which is a compilation of plots for anti-male eugenics and social engineering by feminists even in prominent public positions.  However, they are not innocent of negative, generalizing, anti-female rhetoric, themselves.

One of their favorite lines when accused of misogyny seems to be "...but they can never give any examples!" so here's a few examples:

"Women, it is apparent now, lack an ethical sense. They are without the capacity for moral agency."

"This is why for at least several generations, a major fraction of adult females have operated with the singular self-interest and disregard for others of overgrown children."

"Men are, indeed, more intelligent and creative than women, on the whole."

"Men's Rights" and "Feminism" aren't inherently anything but a discriminatory focus, which isn't automatically a negative for anybody else.  It is the specific rhetoric and opinions often voiced by members of both which make them negative.  That's not to say that both sides don't have some good points as well, some of which I agree with, but negative generalizations about the "other" gender are why I consider both "ant-_____" instead of "pro-_____" groups.

So, are the MRM and Feminism two sides of the same coin?  I'd say yes.  One seems to be less extreme and more likely to provide references to factual data in their arguments, but both seem to have similar (albeit, polar opposite) gender ideology themes to their literature.

Re: Re: Superior?

 

If you think you can judge an entire demographic by statistical, emotional, "logical" or anecdotal evidence, you are superior to nobody, regardless of which demographic you happen to be in.

The person who created this, as well as those who perpetuate it, have never been forced to die in war.

The person who created this, as well as those who perpetuate it, lack the ambition and devotion to elevate their arguments above prejudicial attacks.

The person who created this, as well as those who perpetuate it, lack enough logical reasoning skills to understand that prejudice is still prejudice, even when it's on their side and will never actually solve anything.

The person who created this, as well as those who perpetuate it, have never ruled the world.

The person who created this, as well as those who perpetuate it, only feel the need for such hateful rhetoric due to a sense of inferiority imposed by the same types of arguments against them.

The person who created this, as well as those who perpetuate it, have not invented anything worth mentioning or that are used in daily life in the last thousand years.

The person who created this, as well as those who perpetuate it, did not create mathematics, philosophy, science, medicine, or any other important building blocks of society.

The person who created this, as well as those who perpetuate it, are only valuable as individual people, but since they seem to prefer to lump themselves into groups based on gender, etc. they make themselves essentially worthless and in the case of hatemongering, even of negative worth to humanity.

Now go reconsider whether you'd rather be thought of as a statistic or as a human being.

Re: Reproductive Rights

Really?

Let's look at birth control options available for both genders.

Women:
Abstinence
Condoms
Diaphram
Sponge
Cervical Cap
Pill
Morning After Pill
Patch
Ring
IUD
Implant
Shot
Sterilization
Abortion

Men:
Abstinence
Condoms
Sterilization

In addition to more birth control options, women also have more options after birth.

Women:
Parental Rights
Public Assistance Programs for "Mothers And Children"
"Safe Haven" Abandonment
Putting The Child Up For Adoption

Men:
?

Men (unmarried to the mother) have very little say in how or by whom a child is parented.  Family courts have a demonstrated bias in favor of mothers regarding custody.  In "Safe Haven" or adoption cases, men often do not have the option of reclaiming a child they wanted, but the mother gave away.  Men are also often pursued by the state for financial support for a child they never wanted in the first place, but it is rare for child support to be extracted from a mother when the father is the sole caregiver.

The final note on this image:

The penis demonstrated is a circumcized penis, effectively labelling even the common lack of basic genital integrity and body self-ownership for men as "having a say."

Activist Guidelines

It seems to be a popular tactic these days for "social justice" to focus on "who's to blame" and "whom to attack" and "whom we don't like" and such.  If you ask me, an entirely offensive fight does more harm than good.  It hurts people labelled as "offenders" without actually benefitting anybody.  Harming people for no real purpose is not activism, just bullying.  It's done for the same petty reasons as any other type of bullying; insecurity, jealousy, anger and hate.

So, I think it's worth making a list of simple guidelines for anybody interested in doing something worthwhile, instead of just lashing out for the sake of being nasty.  That way, people know the difference between participating in a cause and just being a bully.

First, do no harm.

Anybody who truly intends to help people isn't going to try to hurt people.  The people not in your preferred group are still people and don't deserve any less, simply because you aren't focused on them, specifically.  Trying to hurt them isn't going to help you, or the people you claim to be fighting for, or anybody else, for that matter.  All generalizing about, projecting motive upon or dehumanizing others will do is piss off everybody.  As an activist, your job is to elevate, not tear down - to advocate, not attack.

Focus on your cause.

If your focus is on "fighting the system" or "sticking it to the man" or anything of that sort, your focus is not on the people you claim to be fighting for.  Focusing on trying to attack others or convince them that they are bad people is going to make them defensive, not receptive.  Instead of slinging derogatory insults like "privileged" and "ignorant" focus on things like "disadvantage" and demonstration of the information you think they lack.

Don't be a hypocrite.

If your problem is stereotyping and/or dehumanization of a demographic, it's not going to serve your cause to stereotype or dehumanize other demographics.  If you want sympathy and serious consideration for your cause, mocking the concerns of others isn't going to get it.  If you claim to represent "truth" then ignoring or minimizing the importance of facts and sound logic presented by the other side isn't going to speak well of your integrity.

Don't hate.

This is one of the biggest pitfalls I regularly see.  Regardless of a person's demographic, status, position, association, or power, they are no less human, nor less an individual as you.  None of those things negate their experience, perspective, or potential input toward a discussion.  Making judgements about or attempting to negate their personhood is not the same as making judgements about or contradicting their arguments.  Personal/political attacks and/or dismissals are not a form of rational debate.