Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
Careful tho, being a women doesn't mean that women can't abuse. It happens more than you think. But - and this is important - women do not face the justice and social system the same way as men. Women will be hammered while men will mostly go free. And again, this is not an invention, but a documented reality.
Of course it includes me. We are all sexist (even women), all men have biases and behavior that can hurt women. That how we are educated and act. Some are just mild sexist remarks at one point of the lives, some other are abusers.. but it all comes down to the level of domination seeked by men in this capitalist society. In the worst case, this situation creates the space for the Epstein situation to exist.
Yup, that's not surprising. What started as a movement in the incel and masculinist group became a social phenomenon that spreaded outside their group. It's social propagation. You don't have to be an incel to adhere to incel rethoric. And what happened with heard is exactly what I'm fighting in the OP community in regard to the spreading of hatred. I talked about a way to counter that here >>>
Change usually comes from the outside. It's because the environment's evolution that we start to change, not because of something inside of us.
Let's take an example to understand why:
Put 100 person on a field of a stadium for 2 hours. You will give 4 people an earpiece and you will place a big speaker in the middle. We will try to make them dance together.
Now.. Before going further, I need to explain to you a few things about crowd and group psychology and the way informations or elements are shared among groups:
There are, in group behaviors like in epidemiology, two types of sharing (called contagion) of elements:
- The Simple contagion : For example, diseases or informations. It's a type of contagion where only one contact is enough to propagate the element
- The Complex contagion : It can be non familiar behavior or risky behavior that are hard to adopt. This is a contagion that will need a social reinforcement, in other word a certain % of individual in a group will have to adopt those elements or behavior to propagate it to others.
In 1978, a sociologist, Mark Granovetter, published a paper where he proposed a new concept to understand group behavior : The Threshold model for those complexe contagion. The threashold effect is the INDIVIDUAL threashold in % that people will have before they start to adopt a behavior or an element adopted by someone with a lower threashold.
For example, Activists or very motivated people (from the right or the left) will have a very low threashold % for certain things, they will directly adopt a belief or a behavior because they are completely convinced. On the other side, people who will be very conservative to adopt new belief systems or behavior will have a very high threashold % (the political side doesn't matter, it's just a question of our ability or refusal to adopt new elements. (said threashold can fluctuate in function of the subject or the behavior)
What we need to understand is that this Threashold effect create chain reaction effects after a certain point that we call "the critical mass".
But first : With our example, we can sort the 100 persons from the lower to the highest threashold.
Here is a screenshot representing the lower part of the graph:
It comes from this video. If you want you can watch it with subtitles I think you can make the translation work:
As you can see, among those 100 persons, there are 4 that have a threashold of 0%, they will adopt the behavior very easily. After that, you have one that has a threashold of acceptation of 4%. This means that to adopt the behavior, said person will need to see 4 people adopt the behavior first.
And by domino effect, the one with a threashold of 5% will adopt the behavior and so on.. until everyone else adopt the behavior. In our example here, it means that 4 people are needed to start the spreading. 4 is therefore the critical mass of the example.
But we also need to understand that critical masses and threashold are different from context to context. For ex, in a period of crisis, people are more sensible and therefore to spread information that could create conflict, the critical mass will be lower.
Another important thing to understand is that the more you have a group that is highly connected, the more the threashold for the members of said group will be lower. For example: You will be more encline to adopte a belief or a behavior if all your friend do it than if a group of stranger does it.
This is why revolution don't start because of influencal people, but because of the streets where people are highly organized and connected on peripheries. Revolutions are a peripherical phenomenon. (The Arab spring is a good ex of that). So it's very unlikely from a big personnality to spread beliefs if the audience doesn't have a very low threashold to adopt said belief in the first place.
Now, lets come back to our example : if, after serving some drnk and let people enjoy their time, you put music in the big speaker of the stadium and you ask to the four people with earpieces to go dance... chances are that you will create a group phenomenon where people will start to dance one after the other. Like this in this example where the critical mass was very low due to the relax context and where the threashold was only 1 guy :
Of course. But justice and society will be much harder with them than men. That's one of the effect of patriarchy.
Helydia
Of course it includes me. We are all sexist (even women), all men have biases and behavior that can hurt women. That how we are educated and act. Some are just mild sexist remarks at one point of the lives, some other are abusers.. but it all comes down to the level of domination seeked by men in this capitalist society. In the worst case, this situation creates the space for the Epstein situation to exist.
Yup, that's not surprising. What started as a movement in the incel and masculinist group became a social phenomenon that spreaded outside their group. It's social propagation. You don't have to be an incel to adhere to incel rethoric. And what happened with heard is exactly what I'm fighting in the OP community in regard to the spreading of hatred. I talked about a way to counter that here >>>
V - THE SCIENCE BEHIND THE PROPOSITION:
Now, I will go more into details on the notion of change to make you understand how such a change is possible. For that, I will use a post that I have already made elsewhere about the science of groups and crowds.
Change usually comes from the outside. It's because the environment's evolution that we start to change, not because of something inside of us.
Let's take an example to understand why:
Put 100 person on a field of a stadium for 2 hours. You will give 4 people an earpiece and you will place a big speaker in the middle. We will try to make them dance together.
Now.. Before going further, I need to explain to you a few things about crowd and group psychology and the way informations or elements are shared among groups:
There are, in group behaviors like in epidemiology, two types of sharing (called contagion) of elements:
- The Simple contagion : For example, diseases or informations. It's a type of contagion where only one contact is enough to propagate the element
- The Complex contagion : It can be non familiar behavior or risky behavior that are hard to adopt. This is a contagion that will need a social reinforcement, in other word a certain % of individual in a group will have to adopt those elements or behavior to propagate it to others.
In 1978, a sociologist, Mark Granovetter, published a paper where he proposed a new concept to understand group behavior : The Threshold model for those complexe contagion. The threashold effect is the INDIVIDUAL threashold in % that people will have before they start to adopt a behavior or an element adopted by someone with a lower threashold.
For example, Activists or very motivated people (from the right or the left) will have a very low threashold % for certain things, they will directly adopt a belief or a behavior because they are completely convinced. On the other side, people who will be very conservative to adopt new belief systems or behavior will have a very high threashold % (the political side doesn't matter, it's just a question of our ability or refusal to adopt new elements. (said threashold can fluctuate in function of the subject or the behavior)
What we need to understand is that this Threashold effect create chain reaction effects after a certain point that we call "the critical mass".
But first : With our example, we can sort the 100 persons from the lower to the highest threashold.
Here is a screenshot representing the lower part of the graph:
It comes from this video. If you want you can watch it with subtitles I think you can make the translation work:
As you can see, among those 100 persons, there are 4 that have a threashold of 0%, they will adopt the behavior very easily. After that, you have one that has a threashold of acceptation of 4%. This means that to adopt the behavior, said person will need to see 4 people adopt the behavior first.
And by domino effect, the one with a threashold of 5% will adopt the behavior and so on.. until everyone else adopt the behavior. In our example here, it means that 4 people are needed to start the spreading. 4 is therefore the critical mass of the example.
But we also need to understand that critical masses and threashold are different from context to context. For ex, in a period of crisis, people are more sensible and therefore to spread information that could create conflict, the critical mass will be lower.
Another important thing to understand is that the more you have a group that is highly connected, the more the threashold for the members of said group will be lower. For example: You will be more encline to adopte a belief or a behavior if all your friend do it than if a group of stranger does it.
This is why revolution don't start because of influencal people, but because of the streets where people are highly organized and connected on peripheries. Revolutions are a peripherical phenomenon. (The Arab spring is a good ex of that). So it's very unlikely from a big personnality to spread beliefs if the audience doesn't have a very low threashold to adopt said belief in the first place.
Now, lets come back to our example : if, after serving some drnk and let people enjoy their time, you put music in the big speaker of the stadium and you ask to the four people with earpieces to go dance... chances are that you will create a group phenomenon where people will start to dance one after the other. Like this in this example where the critical mass was very low due to the relax context and where the threashold was only 1 guy :
Helydia
Patriarchy. It's a complex system of domination of men over women where men are benefiting from. And the big important point to understand is that patriarchy is not "above" us, patriarchy is the result of our own systems, own institutions, own educations, own actions.
There is a very good way to understand patriarchy and it is this:
Omit the two people dancing in the center and focus on the circle of dancer. This circle.. it's patriarchy. This shape is the system that is patriarchy, it moves in a specific direction and it is composed by people. In real life, these people are actually institutions, all of us are participating in the shape, educations too. So we need to find ways to break this circle and momentum, not individually but as a system.
There is a very good way to understand patriarchy and it is this:
Omit the two people dancing in the center and focus on the circle of dancer. This circle.. it's patriarchy. This shape is the system that is patriarchy, it moves in a specific direction and it is composed by people. In real life, these people are actually institutions, all of us are participating in the shape, educations too. So we need to find ways to break this circle and momentum, not individually but as a system.
Patriarchy. It's a complex system of domination of men over women where men are benefiting from. And the big important point to understand is that patriarchy is not "above" us, patriarchy is the result of our own systems, own institutions, own educations, own actions.
There is a very good way to understand patriarchy and it is this:
Omit the two people dancing in the center and focus on the circle of dancer. This circle.. it's patriarchy. This shape is the system that is patriarchy, it moves in a specific direction and it is composed by people. In real life, these people are actually institutions, all of us are participating in the shape, educations too. So we need to find ways to break this circle and momentum, not individually but as a system.
There is a very good way to understand patriarchy and it is this:
Omit the two people dancing in the center and focus on the circle of dancer. This circle.. it's patriarchy. This shape is the system that is patriarchy, it moves in a specific direction and it is composed by people. In real life, these people are actually institutions, all of us are participating in the shape, educations too. So we need to find ways to break this circle and momentum, not individually but as a system.
A random dude like me could die a dog's death tomorrow and the patriarchy will still be the exact same as it was when I was alive.
So...
Once you start to see patriarchy as a system where we are ALL participating in, with a momentum that push us to act a certain way.
You start to see that society has MANY domination system such as this and in reality, it's not just one circle called patriarchy, but multiple all feeding on the momentum of the others, ableism, capitalism, patriarchy, racism etc.
Are you sure about that? Perhaps this won't apply to you, but how many mothers of people here were actually doing the dishes while men were on their chair drinking a bear after a "hard day of labor"? How many of you here were taught to stay with girls in the street at night "just in case of a creep"? How many of you believe depp more than Amber? How many laughed when I talked about consent?
This is why individual change are not enough. We must attack the entire system.
Funny that you would ask that. This is a good remark and no not only does it not cancel but the violence of men of color against women is a specific problem that feminist are facing. Especially because these violence are often directed at women of color. In France, activist call what they are facing "mysoginoire" short for "mysoginy and black". Because of this women of color are facing a very specific domination
So...
Once you start to see patriarchy as a system where we are ALL participating in, with a momentum that push us to act a certain way.
You start to see that society has MANY domination system such as this and in reality, it's not just one circle called patriarchy, but multiple all feeding on the momentum of the others, ableism, capitalism, patriarchy, racism etc.
Are you sure about that? Perhaps this won't apply to you, but how many mothers of people here were actually doing the dishes while men were on their chair drinking a bear after a "hard day of labor"? How many of you here were taught to stay with girls in the street at night "just in case of a creep"? How many of you believe depp more than Amber? How many laughed when I talked about consent?
This is why individual change are not enough. We must attack the entire system.
I never got the argument of "Being a housewife is contributing to the patriarchy". You're still contributing a lot to the relationship and holding down the forte while your husband is away.
Obviously that doesn't mean the husband can just do nothing to keep the house looking good and all that, but, you get my point.
Also why is it bad to protect women at night?
The idea I'm trying to convey is not that we are all necessarily "trash" but rather that we should understand that we are all, men and women, participating in domination system such as patriarchy, capitalism or racism, where some of us have material interest in dominating others and where these others are fighting to make their voices heard. And we should all fight to help them do just that.
And what about women who want to have a job and where this still happens?
There is a lot to say about that, we could dive in the fact that most violences actually happening in intimate circle, we could also talk about the idea that if women have to be protected it's because they can be hurt, which means that it is not just a "powerfull" problem but a systematic. We could talk about the fact that we tell more to women to be careful rather than we say "stop being a creep" to men etc.
And what about women who want to have a job and where this still happens?
There is a lot to say about that, we could dive in the fact that most violences actually happening in intimate circle, we could also talk about the idea that if women have to be protected it's because they can be hurt, which means that it is not just a "powerfull" problem but a systematic. We could talk about the fact that we tell more to women to be careful rather than we say "stop being a creep" to men etc.
I get the point here, but if someone's heart is set on raping someone, you can't do shit.
You wouldn't look at a guy poking a lion and say "See, the lion is the one completely at fault here! He bit that dude's head off because he's a savage beast!!", although that is true, because that's common knowledge. You can't change the way a lion behaves, but you can stop people from poking that lion with a stick and provoking it to eat them.
To put it in a simpler way, I do not believe you should rape someone under any circumstances. However, it's clear that a potential victim should still act as though they are indeed a potential victim.
You wouldn't look at a guy poking a lion and say "See, the lion is the one completely at fault here! He bit that dude's head off because he's a savage beast!!", although that is true, because that's common knowledge. You can't change the way a lion behaves, but you can stop people from poking that lion with a stick and provoking it to eat them.
To put it in a simpler way, I do not believe you should rape someone under any circumstances. However, it's clear that a potential victim should still act as though they are indeed a potential victim.
