Well, the denizens of Reddit’s TOTALLY ALPHA Red Pill subreddit have weighed in on the stolen celebrity nude pics that have so many Redditors — and other skeezballs — so excited. And they have some, well, intriguing explanations for why feminists are troubled by the widespread dissemination of stolen nude pictures that were never supposed to be seen by the general public.
In a thread with the lovely title Why are the feminazis so buttdevastated about the leaked nude pics?, a RedPill dude with the lovely handle trpmdsrfggts explains that said feminazis are angry because the pics — some of which show the celebrity women looking like, you know, actual women — are driving down the “price of pussy.”
I’ll let him explain, because his logic is obviously more sophisticated than anything I learned in my pussy economics classes in college:
Wow. That seems completely ass-backwards to me, but what do I know? I’m just a beta or gamma or epsilon or pi or whatever Greek letter it is that dudes like me are.
Others in the thread expand upon this, er, argument. I’m just going to paste some of their comments in, because, honestly, trying to parse their “logic” in order to think of funny things to say about them hurts my brain. (Clicking on any of these pics will get you to the original quote in context.)
Oh, there’s more, so much more, but that’s about all I have time for now, as I need to get back to poppin bottles and, you know, doing whatever else I can to keep up the price of pussy, because, as a male feminist, that’s obviously job number one for me.
@Belladonna993 I am in no way trying to play a “my pain is worse than your pain” game. I’m trying to highlight the differences between the way a person with Bipolar Disorder such as myself would take the word “crazy” as opposed to someone with a depressive disorder such as yourself who says it doesn’t bother them. I hear a lot of “bipolar” being slung around to describe negative traits in a person, but never “depressive”. It’s a matter of perspective. “Crazy” is a term you hear often associated with “bipolar” or “schizo”, etc., in a derogatory manner, so I would perhaps have different negative associations with it than you.
Keyword: perhaps. I’m not pretending to know your circumstances–I’m describing the view from mine.
OT:
There is some gendered crap in the diagnosis of certain behaviors.
Girls and boys / men and women can be diagnosed differently for the same symptoms.
Medical professionals are not immune to sexism.
Belladonna,
Personally, it disturbs me to see bad behavior and ideas associated with mental illness for a couple reasons. It implies that only mentally ill people are evil. It also implies that bad ideas and actions are merely the result of a flaw in individual humans’ brain chemistry. To my mind that contributes to the belief that things like rape are just natural disasters that happen because some people are just not right and that they have nothing at all to do with personal choice or enculturated beliefs that ‘it’s not rape if”, “It’s not abuse if” or “It’s not murder if”.
@ryeash, I apologize if I took offense too easily. I can definitely see what you’re saying. I too have heard “bipolar” used that way but not “depressive.” I think, though, that on the other end of the spectrum, depressive disorders are among those “invisible diseases” that are treated with a lot of contempt by those who don’t understand them. It doesn’t actually qualify as “crazy” (even though psychotic episodes can be one of its symptoms), it’s just laziness or some other thing. So your statement that it was “arguably more acceptable in the public eye” rubbed me the wrong way. That said, all of this only further supports your argument about our different relationships to the word “crazy.”
In a somewhat loosely related thought, my friend and coworker died a couple of weeks ago. She suffered from chronic debilitating migraines and died of unknown causes. The last time I saw her, I overheard her telling her boyfriend on the phone, “I didn’t think I was high-maintenance; I thought I was ill.”
So in the category of terms to really, really hate, I’d like to put forward “high-maintenance.” I imagine others have done so before me, but talk about dismissive, highly gendered terms.
@Lea, Yes, thank you. I have definitely been convinced by you and others about the reasons for avoiding words that associate these assholes with mental illness.
No surprise to find that MRAs know the price of everything – including ‘pussy’ – and the value of nothing – likewise.
There is a quate floating around the internet along the lines that calling someone “crazy” usually just means they were upset and I did not want them to be. I thought that was a fair assessment.
@Belladonna: Actually, I’m pretty sure “sociopathic” would fall into the same category as “crazy” for dismissing their bad choices as mental illness.
No, I have to disagree – I don’t think sociopathy is a mental illness. It’s a label we stick on an identifiable condition, but an “illness” is defined as something causing the sufferer distress and making them less able to cope with reality (whatever that might be).
Sociopaths don’t suffer. Given the choice they wouldn’t want to be like us; they think we’re chumps for worrying about others. Further, they don’t necessarily have problems coping with reality; for many, sociopathy is something that helps them get ahead in life. The true cost is born by the individuals and organisations around them – the condition is socially rather than individually maladjustive.
A sociopath is happy being a sociopath, and if halfway intelligent, usually more successful in achieving their personal goals through being a sociopath. It is not a mental illness, nor is labelling people “sociopaths on the basis of them being a danger to those around them in the pursuit of their own goals inaccurate.
@Phoenician, I’m not really arguing against your points about what a true sociopath may be like, but the DSM defines Antisocial Personality Disorder and “sociopath” is generally considered to be just another word for people with that disorder.
In addition, there’s this quote in the WHTM welcome packet:
Ultimately, as I’ve learned in this very thread, though, it’s not about insulting sociopaths. It’s about dismissing or excusing the behavior of the misogynists as “not normal,” which lets us ignore other important political and social issues driving their behavior.
Calling violent people “psychos” “sociopaths” “crazy” “insane” or any variation thereof is always ableist.
Probably true – but not all sociopaths are violent by a long shot, and not all violent people are sociopaths. I’m not dismissing them; I’m applying a word deliberately to make an exact statement about their behaviour – they hurt others callously to achieve their personal goals.
🙂 I’m a happy clam at high tide now.
Also, Phoenician… sociopathy is really not a good substitute for “someone who behaves callously to obtain their personal goals”.
@Phoenician, The reason I pointed out that quote from the welcome packet, is that, regardless of what you or I may think, I’m pretty sure the quote was saying that using the word sociopath to refer to the misogynists we talk about here is against WeHuntedtheMammoth policy. 🙂
I was using it to refer to libertarians – “Ayn Rand and her acolytes”.
I also feel like I really have to point out something that the brilliant Alais said earlier, which is that it’s not really okay to make armchair diagnoses. You may think sociopathy is not a mental illness, but the DSM disagrees with you. Sure, I look at some of their statements and think they fit the DSM criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder, but I’m not a trained psychologist. And I think you must not be either, since if you were I can’t imagine your arguing that you should be able to diagnose people with APD based solely on stuff they wrote on the Internet.
Sorry, I had forgotten that. Although, whether that means it is an exception and falls permissibly within WHTM policy is not my call. 😉
Phonecian: I’m kind of a borderline libertarian with a tinge of socialism for flavor and contradiction.
I don’t think that makes me borderline sociopathic.
Can we not make political affiliations grounds for DSM diagnoses?
Yeah, that has ended badly, historically.
Oh please, if you don’t agree with my politically, you’re clearly unfit to reason and suffering from some sort of mental defeciency. It’s the only possible reason you’d disagree with my positions. Don’t pretend that’s not the case.
( Mmmmh )
You may think sociopathy is not a mental illness, but the DSM disagrees with you
That’s the problem – the DSM-IV defined a mental disorder as “A mental disorder is a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress or disability or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom.”.
Sociopathy didn’t necessarily count.
So they changed the definition for the DSM-V – which, since this doesn’t change anything in the real world, leads us to the interesting question of whether this is done to better help people or to justify keeping them within their jurisdiction:
“A mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual’s cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental functioning. Mental disorders are usually associated with significant distress in social, occupational, or other important activities. An expectable or culturally approved response to a common stressor or loss, such as the death of a loved one, is not a mental disorder. Socially deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) and conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are not mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict results from a dysfunction in the individual, as described above.”
But again, there’s the same problem – if someone has ASD / is a sociopath, but actually benefits as an individual, in what way are they “dysfunctional”?
The DSM-IV noted “… although this manual provides a classification of mental disorders, it must be admitted that no definition adequately specifies precise boundaries for the concept of ‘mental disorder.’ The concept of mental disorder, like many other concepts in medicine and science, lacks a consistent operational definition that covers all situations. All medical conditions are defined on various levels of abstraction–for example, structural pathology (e.g., ulcerative colitis), symptom presentation (e.g., migraine), deviance from a physiological norm (e.g., hypertension), and etiology (e.g., pneumococcal pneumonia). Mental disorders have also been defined by a variety of concepts (e.g., distress, dyscontrol, disadvantage, disability, inflexibility, irrationality, syndromal pattern, etiology, and statistical deviation). Each is a useful indicator for a mental disorder, but none is equivalent to the concept, and different situations call for different definitions.”
Again, I don’t regard everything that might be considered a “personality disorder” in the DSM a sign of “mental illness”, mainly because some do not really fall into those concepts of distress, dyscontrol, irrationality etc. In any other science, you’d get your ass kicked by playing so fast and loose with definitions.
I am specifically thinking of the sort of people dealt with in stories like this
http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/business/7833693/Workplace-psychopaths-bring-suffering-for-all
“The articles I read said you are wrong to think you will spot a workplace psychopath straight away because they can be charming and highly respected by their superiors. This is because they usually have drive, high levels of energy, are highly intelligent, and appear as natural leaders.
What makes workplace psychopaths different from ordinary horrible people is that they are manipulative, egocentric, callous, ruthless, and remorseless. They use “superficial charm”, intimidation and aggression to control others and satisfy their needs.”
Bearing in mind the distinction made between socially deviant behaviour and mental disorders, how exactly can they usefully be called “ill”?
Phonecian, illness isn’t the problem.
Diagnosing someone over the internet, when you lack both the training and the direct interaction with the individual needed to make a good diagnosis, is.
Please stop?
Regardless, I’m kind of done with this conversation and will be hiding on other threads. If you want to talk about anything else (within reason) I’m game.
Phoenician, I still question applying the label of “sociopath” to someone just because of their political beliefs or ideology. I mean, are all Ayn Rand fans really likely to be sociopaths? Was Ayn Rand even one? Many of the Randroids that I’ve known were young (late teens) and didn’t have much experience with the world. They think that Ayn Rand’s great because they don’t understand that her policies won’t work in the real world. A lot of them were also parroting their parents’ political beliefs.
Also, assuming that someone is doing something bad because they’re a sociopath ignores all the people who do terrible things in spite of knowing that they’re wrong. It ignores people who can rationalize their actions, no matter how wrong. It also assumes that doing evil is an anomaly. And that’s simply not true. Do you, for example, really think that all of the Nazis were sociopaths?
Yes, Kittehserf, I was amazed that they didn’t get the element of theft being wrong, And that one comment in protest that I posted has been voted down so bad you have to click to see it. 20-2 against, last I looked.
Phoenician, I still question applying the label of “sociopath” to someone just because of their political beliefs or ideology.
True enough – Rand herself, interestingly enough, doesn’t seem to have been (although she was staggeringly narcissistic). The ideology is inherently sociopathic, though.
Imagine a society of sociopaths (suspend disbelief for a moment). You’d have a place where Objectivism might be the self-evident obvious choice for most – they wouldn’t even have to question it.
Now imagine that 1 to 3% of that society were what we consider “normal”. It would be pretty obvious to the sociopaths that these people were mentally ill by the definitions given above – their caring for others made them easily exploitable, they gave up their own interests to help others, and they would be continually exploited by those around them. They would be under constant distress and disadvantage.
From the point of view of a sociopath, a normal person is mentally ill.
The kicker is in the term “a society of sociopaths” – you wouldn’t have that. Sociopaths are parasites on a society that only works because of notions of altruism and the greater good. They seek their personal goals at the expense of the organisations and people around them, and first require that social capital has been built up by others in order for them to exploit. Objectivism appeals to this tendency because it provides an intellectual justification to being such a parasite.
IMHO.
@Phoenician in a time of Romans
Why are you so invested in being able to refer to some particular group as sociopaths? I’m genuinely curious.
Why are you so invested in being able to refer to some particular group as sociopaths? I’m genuinely curious.
I’ve been musing on them for a while since running into some as a union rep. There’s a couple of good books out there on sociopaths in the workplace – they are well worth a read.
Some what? Randians, I assume? Yeah, that can be pretty frustrating, and I sympathize with the desire to characterize them as pathological.
However, I have to point something out to you here: sociopathy seems to be a permanent condition. It’s not something someone can change. You may argue that it’s not an illness; someone who was born without legs might argue, with as much if not more validity, that their condition is not a disorder either. But having no legs is not a choice that someone can just change their minds about tomorrow, and sociopathy seems to be the same way. A person can learn to work around a lack of legs and live a full and uneventful life, and not see themselves as disabled in any way. Sociopaths are also able to (if they choose) work around their issue and operate fully in society.
A political view is not a permanent condition. So there’s a fundamental lack of equivalency between libertarianism and sociopathy already.
If your argument is, as it seems to be, that the philosophy is inherently sociopathic, I think that would be an interesting discussion, but even if one grants it, that doesn’t make the people who follow it automatically sociopaths.
If your argument is (including or instead) that the philosophy attracts only sociopaths, I would have to say that you’re wrong there because lots and lots of kids fall into Objectivism and then grow out of it as their brains develop a little further and/or they gain some life experience.
In any case, it’s not legit to draw the equation “Randian = sociopath” because in all instances you are lumping non-sociopaths in with sociopaths and treating them all the same, and simultaneously excluding lots of sociopaths who aren’t Objectivist at all. Your Venn diagram has some overlap, but the degree of overlap is not sufficient to make a generalization of that nature.
Being a Randian seems to be relatively common among teenagers and college students. That’s not sociopathy, it’s just adolescent selfishness and hubris coupled with a lack of life experience.