Dems win big! The Incels subreddit is banned! Celebrate in this open thread

Okay, yesterday was a political talkshow in german TV.
While their were some inteligent people. But their was a certain person who was bad. A woman who did defend the poor men, “who don’t know what they are allowed to do or not.” (I wil not name her)

But what the hell? In all or most of the cases (they are to much to check and it it to dipressing to do so) we are talking of actions that everyone should know that are not okay, hell most of this cases discused here are criminal.

That they don’t know what they were doing is rubish. (Yes a stronger word could be used but let’s make it easy for David) Most of them did know that they were doing somethink that is criminal/wrong/hurtful to others, they just didn’t care.

Okay, if you go in milder forms of sexismus, I buy that sometimes there are cases where people don’t realise that they do somethink wrong. So not everyone who says somethink inapropriet is a lost case. People have a talent to hurt someone whitout wanting to do that, beeing in a group has a very devastating effect, etc.

I don’t see the excuses working on the cases of Weinstein and co.

Other topic:
Addiction: I don’t know if sexaddiction exists or not, but one think I know about theorapie. It only works when people want to chance.

Personal experience: I know 2 people who quit smoking from on day to another. On was a chainsmoker, who was pregnant. Stopped and only tried a cigaret a few years later. Realised she still liked the taste of the cigaret, after one smoke. She stop and hasn’t smoked since.

@ WWTH

It’s an article on AVFM. To be honest I couldn’t make head nor tail of it. I just thought it was ironic a self styled ‘MRA’ should be so proud he doesn’t do any actual ‘advocacy’.

(He’s quite blatant that his sole raison d’etre is just to annoy women and people who don’t hate women)

Yeah, here’s a doozy of a headline from The Hill: “Poll: 37 percent of Alabama evangelicals more likely to vote for Moore after allegations”

Roughly a third of evangelicals said they were less likely to vote for Moore, a third think the allegations make no difference, and a third just love them some pedophile Moore.

Fuck evangelicals in general.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee
November 13, 2017 at 9:38 am

I’m bookmarking this article for the next time someone comes in here and whines about mean we are for calling all Republicans bigots/bad people

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/alabama-republican-voters-stand-roy-moore-n819906?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiossneakpeek&stream=top-stories

Of more than 15 Republican voters in Alabama interviewed by NBC News, none said their support for Moore would change.

Most said they didn’t believe the allegations and some said even if they are true, that wouldn’t sway their vote for him next month because they think Moore is a good man, should be forgiven and they could never bring themselves to vote for a Democrat anyway.

Bodenheimer, who voted for Sen. Luther Strange in the primary and runoff, said he was now backing Moore because Jones is “an absolutely immoral man,” citing the Democrat’s support for abortion rights.

Outside the local convenience store, a woman who gave her name as Carol said she has known Moore her whole life and called him a good man. Carol doesn’t believe Moore’s accusers, but she said even if the allegations are true, “there’s a thing called grace — God’s grace,” noting that the allegations are decades old.

Inside the store, a man who declined to give his name said, “This is Republican town, man. (Moore) could have killed Obama, and we wouldn’t care.”

Cox, of the Greenwood Baptist Church, said as long as Moore is on the ballot, the GOP candidate would have his support.

“Everything else,” Cox said, “is for the Lord to sort out.

Fucking despicable. This article has made me so angry that I can’t do much more than sputter out swear words. When you’re proudly the party of defending child abusers and advocating murder while calling abortion immoral, YOU HAVE NO FUCKING GODDAMN RIGHT TO COMPLAIN THAT LIBERALS THINK YOU’RE CRUEL BIGOTS!

Sorry for yelling but this kind of thing is so upsetting. Not surprising. But upsetting. Anyone got brain bleach?

ONE BIG BLOB O’ BLEACH, COMMIN’ UP!….

….and, of course….

….WOMBAT!

I dunno; I just like the Wombat. Hope this epic Brain Bleach Spam clears everyone’s noggins.

@SpukiKitty:
Thanks for the pics. I wouldn’t call them Spam, though.

@LittleLurker:

Yes was Anne Will, and their were some decent guest, just one very bad one. (Interesting, that the only men Gerhard Baum mad some very interesting points)

This whole thing really hits #7 on Eco’s Ur-Fascism list

The obsession with a plot. “The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia.”

Republicans have been trained to constantly feel besieged despite the fact that many of them are quite privileged. Any time a Repub is caught doing something heinous, it’s just more proof that they’re being besieged by the Democrats/the media/brown people/whatever. So in their minds it becomes perfectly rational and moral to defend their group members no matter they do (unless it’s siding with the liberal enemy of course). It’s some scary shit.

Anyway, thanks for the brain bleach. Here’s my contribution

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01987/leopard_1987076i.jpg

http://40.media.tumblr.com/821c53ebcce193da55a35ca743446a7f/tumblr_nhhdy6JKqd1qi4ucgo1_500.jpg

WWTH, I feel like the critters in that bottom picture are judging me, and they are more disappointed than angry.

Alan, that reminds me of the donkey sanctuary a few miles from where I grew up. It’s still around, despite the death of the couple who ran it. At its peak (peak donkey), it had over 500! They only rehome donkeys in pairs, which is sweet.

There is a tradition in some evangelical churches to marry girls 14 and younger to older men, so the response to Moore isn’t too surprising. He didn’t do anything they wouldn’t do.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-brightbill-roy-moore-evangelical-culture-20171110-story,amp.html

Who?
November 13, 2017 at 10:17 am

@SpukiKitty:
Thanks for the pics. I wouldn’t call them Spam, though.

I know.

Love the other blobs of Brain Bleach here as well.

********

Tovius
November 13, 2017 at 11:27 am

There is a tradition in some evangelical churches to marry girls 14 and younger to older men, so the response to Moore isn’t too surprising. He didn’t do anything they wouldn’t do.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-brightbill-roy-moore-evangelical-culture-20171110-story,amp.html

What is it with frummies and their penchant for being nonces?

@mildlymagnificent

People forget that all of us, all the time, play roles dictated as much by our circumstances as by our decision or volition or morality

aaaaaaaaaaa

This, it’s so darn true. Like, brains do that. It’s how we behave when we’re not consciously evaluating – when we’re in ‘near’ cognitive mode. That mode has its own major problems, but one thing it’s good at is stepping out of patterns.

I could babble on this effect for ages. We need to teach this stuff to kids, teach them how to do it consciously, be aware of it. Arglebargle.

@mrex,

You are speakin my language! I have replies.

Apologies for being long-winded. I have edited and re-edited the bottom bit of this nonsense far too long, but it still feels a bit raw to me. I apologize if I’ve said something mean, it’s not my intention.

[1. I think the high failure rate is built-in.]
Interesting, but what’s your evidence or reasoning behind this?

There are lots of addiction therapy treatments that are widely supported, but also horribly ineffective. Alcoholics Anonymous is a great example – it has an enormous failure rate. That’s because it’s mostly about religious conversion to my understanding – all about “surrendering to a higher power”. More generally, the relapse rate of these clinics is enormous, but they’re still widely accepted as being a good response to a violation.

“Rehab” is about regaining social acceptance, not actually curing the thing. In my unprofessional opinion! It’s like the “social roles” that @mildlymagnificent brought up above. It’s part of the script. Get caught doing bad thing -> go to rehab -> return a “better person.” Being a better person isn’t required, just going through the script is what’s needed.

Once you have a particular pathway in your brain, it never really goes away. I’m not saying that you can’t strengthen or weaken pathways by either using them or not, but the brain isn’t quite so pliable that a problematic pathway ever disappears.

You are talking about long term potentiation effects here! There are some super interesting things going on in that set of processes. It’s very much related to how we learn in general. It’s true that addiction is something that lingers. The LTP effects involve the neurons growing additional receptors, permanently sensitizing them to their afferent connections. One of the basic functions of neurons and fundamental to so much of personality development. It’s so cool you guys

I agree! I wrote a whole paragraph about how sex addiction is the new “drinking problem” that rich white men use to weasle out of accountability.

Yeah. Because they don’t have sex addiction. They have rape addiction, if anything. The neurological mechanics of what they’re doing are likely completely different from the mechanics of sex addiction. Sex addiction involves oxytocin and the sexual response. What they’re doing is about social power dynamics, involving testosterone and aggression displays.

(I mean, yes, testosterone is related to the sexual response, but its expression is very different, and is coupled with cortisol and norepinephrine and you get an autonomic response and – well, it’s very different.)

Discussing sex addiction at all when talking about these rapists and creeps is a huge bait and switch at best. It muddies the water, and conflates sex and rape. Men don’t rape ’cause “they’re really horny guys, men are just horny.” They rape ’cause they’re taught that’s what sex is supposed to be like.

And yes, I realize that’s what you had said! I think we’re all on board with “these assholes aren’t sex addicts, they’re just assholes.” It just grills my biscuits to hear their “sex addiction” excuse. They say that to go to some frickin’ resort and drink themselves into oblivion for a few weeks.

That conflation is the problem here, I think. “Sex Rehab” isn’t about recovery from sex addiction. That’s what it’s supposed to be, but it’s not. It’s about giving rich, powerful men a way to escape the repercussions of sexual assault. That’s why the whole “women can’t wear tight clothes if they work at sex rehab!” rings so hollow. These fuckers aren’t going there to get better, they’re just laying low until they’re allowed to come back to civil society. Telling women that they can’t wear tight clothes there is just another “women are foul temptresses” excuse.

But if you want to argue, I’m giving you a big [citation needed]. Here, I’ll get you started;

Er…

First, it’s a great article. Very thorough, does a good job of covering recent work, with a very impressive list of references. Great stuff.

That said: Jesalin was trying to make a point; it’s the point I was making above. Replying by smashing down a bunch of paragraphs instead of a concise “Sex addiction is a real thing, even if these assholes don’t suffer from it” does not encourage her to consider what you’re saying, it’ll just push her away. Freel free to provide a link, but if you need to cite something, the quote should be a couple sentences at most. Beyond that and the conversation turns into an argument.

More worryingly – leaning on science is a very tricky thing, and it’s very easy to get it wrong. Not just you, this is a human-universal thing.

This article is great, but it’s all very new science. There’s no strong consensus yet. Look at the references. The evidence for sex addiction is very new. The earliest neurological study I’ve seen is 2014, here:

Voon, V., Mole, T. B., Banca, P., Porter, L., Morris, L., Mitchell, S., … & Irvine, M. (2014). Neural correlates of sexual cue reactivity in individuals with and without compulsive sexual behaviours. PloS one, 9(7), e102419.

There’s only three years worth of study on the neurology, and this specific article was cited in a critique of hypersexual disorder, here:

Reid, R. C., & Kafka, M. P. (2014). Controversies about hypersexual disorder and the DSM-5. Current Sexual Health Reports, 6(4), 259-264.

From the abstract:

Criteria for hypersexual disorder were proposed for consideration for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), but ultimately rejected by the American Psychiatric Association despite a field trial suggesting the criteria were valid and reliable.

The article goes on to talk about all of the controversies and problems, citing a lot of politics and false positives in the literature. This is complicated stuff, and as outsiders it’s dangerous to take the science as settled before they do. Taking sides before then leads to Sargon saying that African people are genetically “less intelligent”, and how women evolved to prefer the colour pink. It leads to being wrong, even horribly wrong. Don’t be confident about this stuff yet.

It does appear that the consensus will eventually land on compulsive sexual behaviour having a strong neurological component related to other addictive behaviours, as your linked article supports. But we aren’t there yet, and we need to be cautious and compassionate until we get there. I think we should be running with your position as our go-to theory, but we need to be open to change until we’re sure.

Earlier on in this thread I talked about how I think that it’s confidence that’s the root of all evil. This is one reason why. Please be careful, my duck!

“Poll: 37 percent of Alabama evangelicals more likely to vote for Moore after allegations”

On the bright side, that means there’s at least one state where only 37% of the Trumpists have raped a child. I’d honestly figured they all had.

@Catalpa

Well, technically Moore didn’t break God’s law, seeing as god never actually mentioned age for marriage in the manual. So fundies can excuse it.

Now I’ve got the picture in my head of God sitting there facepalming, saying “Oh my ME! Do I have to write everything down for you idiots? I gave you a good brain for a reason!!! Should have gone with cats, like I first planned.”