The Pledge Drive continues! If you enjoy this blog, and can afford it, please click on the “donate” button below! Thanks!
The reviews are in! Well, technically speaking, a review is in.
The Village Voice’s Alan Scherstuhl has posted his review of Cassie Jaye’s The Red Pill, her totally objective documentary about the Men’s Rights Movement that was funded in part by some of the people featured in it and that will be opening in theaters a theater Friday
Let’s just say he didn’t like it:
[F]or two agonizing hours, Jaye tumbles slowly down America’s stupidest rabbit hole, discovering that Men’s Rights Activists are actually just dudes who have been dicked over by a culture that punishes masculinity. …
Jaye acknowledges in the opening and closing minutes that MRAs sometimes spew nasty garbage online, but she never presses them on this in her many interviews. Instead, she lets them moan about how hard it is to be a dude in 2016, endorsing their anecdotal complaints about unfair family courts, incidents of men being tricked into being fathers and — I didn’t quite follow this one — one father’s conviction that the women who had custody of his son were systematically trying to make the boy fat.
One can only assume that they are fattening him up before they EAT HIM.
Confused MRAs, apparently unable to understand how anyone could possibly hate a film they’re pretty sure they’re going to just love, have responded to Scherstuhl’s review by crying “conspiracy.”
In a comment on the Village Voice, MRA David King (presumably the same David King who is the “Chief Information Officer” for A Voice for Men) suggests that “[s]omething definitely stinks, and it’s not the film under review.”
He submits these, er, facts to a candid world:
• September 29, Cassie Jaye tweeted “Events surrounding The Red Pill documentary are getting curiouser and curiouser”, the same day Scherstuhl tweeted that he’d “agreed to review” TRP, the same day Scherstuhl invited a well-known anti-male MRA antagonist to DM him via Twitter.
Just FYI, the “well-known anti-male MRA antagonist” in question is apparently little old me, though I’m pretty sure I am not actually anti-male. I didn’t DM Scherstuhl, though I think I retweeted a couple of his Tweets.
King continues:
• October 4, HP and Village Voice publish this hit piece using present-tense language (“this movie is playing in two American theaters”) strongly implying that the author has seen a film which doesn’t debut for another 3 days on October 7,
HOW ON EARTH DID A FILM REVIEWER SEE A FILM BEFORE IT WAS EVEN OUT oh wait that’s how film reviewing works.
• so Scherstuhl has not seen it at a theatre and cannot have seen it anywhere else unless either a) invited to by CJ (in which case HP and Village Voice, at which Scherstuhl is an editor, have violated the embargo such previews usually carry) or b) he has acquired a copy illegally.
Since both HP and VV have published this review already, since embargoes on unreleased films are the norm, and barring decent evidence of mismanagement on the part of CJ and her team, that rather heavily points at the latter. Whichever the case, violation of contract (best case) or breaking the law (worst case) doesn’t look good for either HP or Village Voice.
Yes, because films are NEVER reviewed before they hit theaters oh wait.
• If the author has not seen it, then he’s lying through his teeth both in the article’s content and about its provenance. He misrepresents the review as being based on an alleged viewing post public release but, owing to an editorial screw-up, the copy got released days before it should have been, proving that his article is a premeditated and contrived attack motivated by political animus.
• There are numerous tells in the language used in this article that strongly hint at an agenda and a prior conclusion (read: closed mind) so it almost doesn’t matter whether Scherstuhl did see it or not because the actual content of the film would make no difference to the content of the article.
King blathers on for a while along these lines, and even mentions me by name once! It’s good to be noticed.
Meanwhile, on Twitter, the lovable Dan Perrins seems to suggest that I might have actually paid Scherstuhl for his review.
A ? for the lawyers.
I'd also suspect some payola for the review as well.
Given @DavidFutrelle lack of integrity— Dan Perrins (@BlackBeard20096) October 4, 2016
Apparently Dan lives in an alternate universe in which men are oppressed and I am filthy rich.
Speaking of films, here is a short documentary about a capybara who jumps into a pool and plays with a pool noodle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=291Bry2FlsU
@Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
By all means, please do. Despite my enjoyment of picking apart shitty beliefs and what comes from them I’ll very nearly always side with the people tired of being targeted by or experiencing them.
@Roger
BS. It’s your specifically irrational use of knowledge we are critisizing, not the mere use.
Also your way makes me less safe, and hypocritically tries to put the onus on me to learn to tie terrible acts to whole groups. Don’t whine at me about onus when this implicitly has to do with a social responsibility to interact with a problem in some way.
You have no shame at all do you? Now you want to steal the concept of privilige to reinforce bigotry?
BS. By eliminating the bigotry there is no need for a group under social attack to be so rationally insular. It would make it easier for them to welcome policing into their communities, and as a side benefit there could be more focus on the general problem of in-group violence that you want to wield as if it were not a factor in whatever group you are in.
Save the compliments. They are not welcome from you .
“I read it, imagined it said a whole bunch of stuff that it didn’t, and decided I was right all along.”
“I can’t believe that what I read has stated that immigrants don’t cause a spike of crime and infact its typically racist nazis like me that triple the amount of assaults.”
Yes it must be the poor tan people.
You didn’t even fucking read a passage. My mistake was thinking you’d actually read as a sign of good faith.
So, in summary –
– I have given evidence that immigrants who have more or less no screening (Germany) are more likely to commit crime than the general population. (German government statistics)
– There was a statement that immigrants are about the same likelihood to commit crimes as Germans “of a similar type”. I’ve been given links to thing that show “when controlling for socio-economic factors etc.” there is no difference in rate of crime.
I’m now being asked to give proof that people from a lower socio-economic background are more likely to commit crime.
– If I provide evidence that people from a lower socio-economic background commit crime, all I will be doing is demonstrating that my interpretation of the statement made about immigrant crime is correct – otherwise it is irrelevant. But what is the alternative interpretation. What could “controlling for socio-economic factors” mean, if not that?
– If I provide this evidence, what then? Does that mean I’m right?
What evidence would you like me to provide to show that I’m right? You seem to be ignoring the stats I linked you to.
– Seems like you’re saying “Oh – if we just say that the crime rate isn’t higher for certain groups, then it won’t be!” That’s the reason why young men commit more crime is it? Because we think they do?
Again, I don’t think you can get too upset if I don’t subscribe to this unproven (and possibly unprovable theory)
@Roger
Have some courage. Include the actual things people are saying that you connect to paraphrased, scare-quote impressions.
BS. Again there is the problem of focusing on groups instead of the problem itself, that also affects all communities. Focus on the actual problem and you solve the local one and have a culture that helps immigrants with the problem, and avoids the bigot splash damage that makes us less safe.
Like I said, it’s not the knowledge, it’s how you are using it.
Roger, I’m putting you on moderation due to excessive boring posting and racism.
I’m not banning you, but I also won’t be checking the mod queue for a looooong time so you might as well find somewhere else to post for a while.
Hoo, another mess’o text to wade through. Work is still hectic, so I’ll have to be brief here. Mea culpa. First, Roger addressed me specifically with one post, so I better reply to that.
There are two kinds of immigration. The first kind is the normal kind, people living in farlandia who want to live in your country because – I dunno, they’re looking for work, or they have friends and family in America, or something like that. In this case, you’re describing exactly what America does already. They filter for a very low criminality, high chance of employment – they bring value to the country when they come.
The second kind is humanitarian immigration. This is admission of people who are fleeing war, disaster, or loss of homeland. Admission requirements also filter for criminality and the like, but the “bringing value” aspect isn’t as big a deal, since it’s humanitarian. This is the process that’s done now.
What do you think that the US government is doing during that two year procedure for refugee immigration, Roger? Sitting on their hands? Immigrants to the US are grilled for whether they’re a liability.
The only way to apply more control at this point would be to stop immigration. Close the border, build a wall. Let the fuckers out there die.
The same argument you’re making can be made for the complete destruction of your own freedom. After all, having a more controlling police surveillance policy would reduce crime, right? More cameras on street corners, more wiretapping and monitoring. It’ll make you safer, right? Nothing bad about that, right?
Home of the brave, land of the free, indeed.
Conclusive evidence that humanitarian immigration poses a clear and present danger to the population of the country, i.e. notably greater than the danger presented by that population itself.
No, they aren’t. People of colour in the US have a much, much higher rate of being falsely accused of criminality, of being frisked, of having their rights abused or ignored by police, of being stopped on the road, of being abused or injured by police, of being shot by police. The schools their children go to are much more likely to be under armed guard and high surveillance like a prison, they’re far more likely to be given more severe sentences, and they’re more likely to be falsely convicted.
The shooting of black people by police is the cherry on top. It’s notable for its violence and can occasionally make headlines, and is an obvious violation of justice. BLM is about systemic bias against people of colour within law enforcement. If you don’t think that’s a massive problem, all that does is indicate that you don’t have any friends affected by it.
Er, do you read German? That’s not crimes committed or even arrests. It’s suspects. The title of the chart is “Share of immigrants in the suspects at selected offenses / groups”. And “crimes against life” are homicides. And there are many reasons why immigrants would show up at higher proportions there. Same reason why people of colour are suspects at much higher rates in America – because they’re minorities.
This is what I meant when I said you need to learn statistics instead of relying on your smart-dood instincts. Actual statisticians don’t make the amateur mistake of conflating covariates like you’ve done.
See above. Also, see the fact that law enforcement officials are paid by the government to protect people. Immigrants aren’t. If we’re talking about just deaths-by-violence-per-ethnicity, then sure, it’s a tiny slice of overall deaths. But these are government officials who are killing people, at a much higher rate for one ethnicity than another.
(And, I note, at a much higher rate overall than most western countries.)
Sure. Why don’t you make it a three year eriod instead of two? And they can wear an anklet with a trace beacon on it, like some criminals on probation. That’d deter crime. In fact, why don’t we give those anklets to everyone? That’d deter all sorts of crime. And we can make the immigrants check in with an immigration officer every week to make sure they havent’ done anything wrong. Heck, let’s just do that for everyone – can’t be too safe yanno!
Good! Trump is terrible. Thank you for updating.
How would you tighten immigration? Considering that the process is already incredibly tight, how would you tighten it further without just saying “total ban on immigration”?
You already do that.
It’s actually a bit funny, I can’t read a lick of German, but strangely not only is there not a single 15% on page 70 in net format or the actual page labled 70, could it be that Roger made it up? /s
EDIT: You even brought up stats that when you can’t even read the language the report was written in, and mistranslated on top of that too.
Thanks David, he was getting way too, uh, too Roger.
Let me recap his recap, though! ’cause that’s fun.
As I showed, those stats didn’t show what you thought they showed, because it turns out that you’re not that good at reading for comprehension. It’s okay, since it’s in german, of course.
(I’d also point out that, if it took you a half hour to find that statistic, you’re doing something called ‘directed reasoning’. You have a conclusion and are looking for evidence to support it. That ain’t how you science.)
That’s because you, yet again, don’t understand statistics. You need to control for socio-economic factors if you aren’t looking at socio-economics. You’re being asked to provide evidence to support the idea that poor people are more likely to be criminals because you’ve been saying that America needs to keep refugees out – refugees who have lost everything but the things they’re carrying. I.e. they’re poor.
Learn statistics. Seriously, this is intro to statistics stuff. Take a course if you’re that interested. I’m not gonna teach you how stats works, you can do that on your own. Khan Academy is pretty good.
That’s because your stats are bad and you should feel bad, because you’re trying to use stats as a convincing argument when you don’t understand them.
(Frankly, even if the stats you gave were in the proper scope, I’d be suspect of them. There were no efforts made to control for a wide range of variables, making the raw data relatively useless.)
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/955/225/70f.gif
@OoglyBoggles, it’s there, he didn’t make them up. It’s the pamphlet’s page 70. Remember that they use commas instead of dots as decimals.
His error wasn’t in fabrication, it’s just plain old amateur misinterpretation. He was hunting for a half hour to find something – anything – that agreed with him, so when he stumbled on this, he lept at it. Unfortunately for him, the chart tracks suspects and not arrests, and, well. The police there are right in the refugee camps, which are cramped and chaotic, and full of foreigners speaking languages the police likely don’t understand, not to mention the fear-mongering from the right. Those cops are hyper-vigilant in that sort of a scenario, so you’d expect there to be less tolerance for infractions.
(That’s why you can’t just trust raw numbers on these things, Roger, you have to control for variables like that. Which is incredibly hard.)
@Roger
http://i.imgur.com/tWiDc5M.jpg
@Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Oh yeah, if I count commas then it’s there, my mistake.
Just so we’re clear, Roger, the goalposts have never been: Prove that immigrants commit violent crimes at higher rates than non-immigrants. That is not a good reason to ban an entire class of people from immigrating. Hence the drunk driving example — it’s not a good example; it’s a bad one, too — but it’s still a better reason than terrorism. (You followed with linking statistics about traffic fatalities per capita per country, showing that you further misunderstood my point: by conflating overall road and highway safety, which is heavily dependent on infrastructure, with the safety of the drivers themselves, and their attitudes toward drinking and driving, which has much more to do with how safe they would be on our roads, than the overall traffic fatality rate in their countries.)
It has been pointed out to you: getting killed by police and getting killed by terrorists are both low-risk, yes. However:
–BLM is about more than the safety of black people. It is about racial bias in policing more broadly, and in the country more broadly, that allows people to think a black man “looks like a real bad dude”.
–There is literally no social cost to confronting this bias, only benefit. Police reforming how they interact with communities that have a deep distrust and fear of the police, and confronting how differently they feel around black people, makes the public safer, and makes the police safer.
–The solution BLM proposes is not to ban the fucking police. (You ignored this when weirwoodtreehugger posted it, so I’m italicizing it.)
–Your solution to terrorism of banning all Muslim men from immigrating from Syria would have disastrous social consequences, and be completely ineffective. It is not a ho-hum thing to institute a religious test for citizenship. Beyond the bigotry, it would have a hugely negative effect on our ability to collect intelligence on terrorists, and it is a security measure that is absolutely trivial to circumvent.
–In most cases, the men in these families are the breadwinners. Separating families in this way would create an underclass of women and children refugees dependent on the goodwill (what there is of it) of their host countries, and stoke deep resentment.
These are families that are at the end of their rope, looking for hope. When you see stories about toddlers drowning and washing up on shore, you have to ask yourself: What could be worse than that, to make that risk worthwhile?
So we have these families that are desperate for some kind of hope; hope that their children will…live. We could embrace these people; show them warmth and kindness; give them hope that with hard work, their children will not only live, but thrive; and then, when the war in their country ends, and some want to go back and help to rebuild it, they would bring a different story of The West with them.
We could do that. Or, we could decide that the possibility of even one of them doing something bad means that we should shut our doors and leave them all out in the storm. We could let states fail and become rogue, and also institute blanket discrimination policies at the same time. We could roll the dice and see how safe that makes us. I suppose the messages of “Death to America” and America as the “Great Satan” would find far fewer receptive ears if we took that option.
Roger, I realize you are in timeout, but I have a book for you to read. It’s called Three Cups of Tea.
Yeah, about those “men’s rights” claims that they’re getting the short end of the stick in custody cases… no, they aren’t. In fact, according to studies conducted by The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence (Domestic Violence), men are gaining custody of children even in cases of abuse:
“High conflict families are disproportionately represented among the population of those contesting custody and visitation. These cases commonly involve domestic violence, child abuse, and substance abuse. Research indicates that that custody litigation can become a vehicle whereby batterers and child abusers attempt to extend or maintain their control and authority over their victims after separation. Although, research has not found a higher incidence of false allegations of child abuse and domestic violence in the context of custody/visitation, officers of the court tend to be unreasonably suspicious of such claims and that too often custody decisions are based on bad science, misinterpretation of fact, and evaluator bias. As a result, many abused women and their children find themselves re-victimized by the justice system after separation.”
https://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/dv.html
The “men’s rights” nutters are attempting to maintain the status quo, attacking feminists simply because they’re organizing for change.
Also, ladies, there is no such thing as a Libertarian “feminist”: “Libertarians get medieval on women”
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/04/201244104251611609.html
The Libertarian Party platform: defund Planned Parenthood (no the platform has not changed no matter how many times Libertarians claim that it has): http://www.sanders.senate.gov/koch-brothers
“Why Libertarians and MRAs Sound the Same When They Talk About Feminism” http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/why-libertarians-and-mens-right-activists-sound-the-same-when-they-talk-about-feminism-398
Libertarians are the far right racist fringe. Period. History 101: https://thepoliticalspectator.com/tag/john-birch-society/
@kfreed
Comments policy. Thanks
Hiya, I’m Axe! But I get what you mean…
If I may ask, tho, what brought that on? Nobody even mentioned libertarians (upper or lowercase). Appreciate the link drop, but it seems somewhat (excuse the pun) outta ‘left’ field
ETA: was gonna let it pass, but might as well. “Ladies”, seriously? Why?
@Axe
Kfreed’s a spambot, just ignore them.
@SFHC
Fair enough. Still got my pun in. Worth! 😀
As a lawyer, I can confirm that men have an easier time in court getting custody of the children.
The myth that women have an easier time seems to be some bastard offspring of the idea that women are more “motherly” and that courts are liberal.