Hyper-masculinity in the third world - do Western conservatives really want to live like them?

[G-19]

I've mulled over this topic several times. But the recent testimonials of NBA players about depression and how growing up, particularly in low-income inner city areas, they were not able to discuss mental health for fear of seeming weak - it reminded me of the disparate existence of hyper-masculinity across ethnic and economic lines. Even within the society of the wealthiest country in the world (the United States), traditional concepts of masculinity persist much more strongly in poorer urban communities.

For instance African Americans, despite having disproportionately high incidence of mental illness, are far less likely to seek mental health treatment; African Americans and Hispanic Americans are more likely to be averse to homosexuality; African Americans and Hispanic Americans are more likely to be religious and intolerant of religious liberalism


But in poor communities and in underdeveloped countries from the Middle East, to Africa, to Latin America, traditional (to citizens of countries like the US, perhaps outdated) concepts of masculinity still persist to a much greater degree than even in poor US populations, concepts such as:

• inability to discuss personal problems and demonization of emotion
• small-mindedness, unwillingness to consider others' perspectives, or worldviews outside one's own
• pathological need to protect one's own image of "manliness" through irrational display/use of force
• hostility towards gender equality/women's rights and intolerance of sexual minorities (homophobia)

Meanwhile, ignorant nostalgia for the loss of traditional masculine concepts is really only present in Western societies whose standards of living and overall happiness are some of the highest in the world - and really only at the top of those societies at that.


So, social conservatives, do you see any problems here?

I don’t consider myself a social conservative but I’m friends with plenty and they don’t think that way at all. What I’ve noticed is that growing up in some of these third world countries where these types of men are the majority gives them the opportunity to institute “laws” which force others to submit to their perspective and I’m thankful that our society has a pendulum which swings both ways and corrects itself when too much shifts to one side.

 

[Trotsky]

Liberal havent brought in much of anything historically. The word Liberal today does not mean what it mean pre 1960 and the word progressive and progressivism was hijacked my Marx in the mid 1800s.

The liberals that actually did something positive historically are now called CLASSICAL Liberals because they refuse to be lumped in with the insane left of today, which is new and has little history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. It was liberals (not "classic liberal" neckbeards) who created First Amendment protections in the mid-century, insisted upon civil rights, fought for worker and consumer rights that allowed for the greatest economy the world had ever seen, ended slavery, and actually established a separation of church and state.

Don't bullshit someone who specialized in con law.

 

[NoDak]

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. It was liberals (not "classic liberal" neckbeards) who created First Amendment protections in the mid-century, insisted upon civil rights, fought for worker and consumer rights that allowed for the greatest economy the world had ever seen, ended slavery, and actually established a separation of church and state.

Don't bullshit someone who specialized in con law.

I love the way neo-liberal is used on here by some.

You'd fit the description alright, pal.

<Lmaoo>

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. It was liberals (not "classic liberal" neckbeards) who created First Amendment protections in the mid-century, insisted upon civil rights, fought for worker and consumer rights that allowed for the greatest economy the world had ever seen, ended slavery, and actually established a separation of church and state.

Don't bullshit someone who specialized in con law.

Incorrect. Even TODAY most "liberals" would not call themselves "Liberals" if they KNEW what the word means today. And THIS is why the classical liberal movement has grown so far and so fast in less than 2 years.

Liberal is not = give the government power. Never was. Also, Abraham Lincoln was not a "liberal"...he fought to "preserve" the nation and he said himself that he could do it without freeing ANY slaves, he would. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini however were all modern Liberals.

Also. We do not have only a choice between ultra masculine and the LEFTIST soyboy like you represent. The only reason why men had those social pressures was due to the FACT that psychology is still relatively NEW.

What, are you going to say that you ultra leftists are responsible for computers also since they did not exist back then! you and your false equivalences...also, did you really appeal to authority here?!?

 

[JonnyRingo84]

This is something you should actually do some research on, it is actually a very important issue in understanding evolutionary psychology and biology.

and what would make you assume that i dont understand these things? do you know my background?

If you want to understand why so many people are miserable, you need to understand what happiness is and what drives it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nd-significantly-cheerful-rich-countries.html

Here's an example though. Those populations that have changed little over the centuries tend to be the happiest, that doesn't mean they live the best lives but they live the life they are best adapted to. That isn't a defense of the way they live or any particular lifestyle. It is simply a psychological fact. About half of Jordan Peterson's shtick is telling people to live the lives they are adapted to instead of the one they are told they should live. The truth is somewhere in between. Personal happiness is only the end all to hedonists, narcissists, and nihilists.

I should note that I didn't include the modifier, outside of war zones and famine zones.

looks like you have it all figured out.

 

[Trotsky]

Incorrect. Even TODAY most "liberals" would not call themselves "Liberals" if they KNEW what the word means today. And THIS is why the classical liberal movement has grown so far and so fast in less than 2 years.

Yeah, again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Liberalism doctrinally insists upon freedom in both the economic and social spheres, and this is how it is (generally) maintained in the international community today. However, in the United States, modern liberalism came to represent accentuating freedom through positive allowances through the state and relegating collective negative economic freedom toward the exaltation of the comparatively more-important positive individual freedom. This is reconcilable with policy positions that would also be promote by "classical liberals," such as negative protections in the areas of the First and Fourth Amendments.

It is, however, important to note that early and mid-20th century conservatives would consider themselves "classical liberals" under the reductive and altogether stupid definition that you and the neckbeards insist upon: it was conservatives who wanted to illegalize unions, prevent minimum wages and child labor laws, and prevent government regulation of capital, and it was the liberals on the Court who moved the other way in the name of positive freedom.

I'm sorry that you need some semblance of American jurisprudential knowledge for this subject, but a person with sufficient self-awareness would have known this before embarrassing themselves.

Liberal is not = give the government power. Never was. Also, Abraham Lincoln was not a "liberal"...he fought to "preserve" the nation and he said himself that he could do it without freeing ANY slaves, he would. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini however were all modern Liberals.

Instead of responding to this part, I'll just punctuate my impression of it with an old classic: you're a fucking moron.

Also. We do not have only a choice between ultra masculine and the LEFTIST soyboy like you represent. The only reason why men had those social pressures was due to the FACT that psychology is still relatively NEW.

Capitalization does not make your points coherent. It only serves to match your style to your substance.

What, are you going to say that you ultra leftists are responsible for computers also since they did not exist back then! you and your false equivalences...also, did you really appeal to authority here?!?

The development of computer technology? I certainly wouldn't attribute it to "utlra-leftists," but it was certainly expedited by state funding and subsidy.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

Yeah, again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Liberalism doctrinally insists upon freedom in both the economic and social spheres, and this is how it is (generally) maintained in the international community today. However, in the United States, modern liberalism came to represent accentuating freedom through positive allowances through the state and relegating collective negative economic freedom toward the exaltation of the comparatively more-important positive individual freedom. This is reconcilable with policy positions that would also be promote by "classical liberals," such as negative protections in the areas of the First and Fourth Amendments.

It is, however, important to note that early and mid-20th century conservatives would consider themselves "classical liberals" under the reductive and altogether stupid definition that you and the neckbeards insist upon: it was conservatives who wanted to illegalize unions, prevent minimum wages and child labor laws, and prevent government regulation of capital, and it was the liberals on the Court who moved the other way in the name of positive freedom.

I'm sorry that you need some semblance of American jurisprudential knowledge for this subject, but a person with sufficient self-awareness would have known this before embarrassing themselves.



Instead of responding to this part, I'll just punctuate my impression of it with an old classic: you're a fucking moron.



Capitalization does not make your points coherent. It only serves to match your style to your substance.



The development of computer technology? I certainly wouldn't attribute it to "utlra-leftists," but it was certainly expedited by state funding and subsidy.

Because you felt the need before to use an appeal to authority I am going to quickly smash your idiotic post here and above with someone that actually IS an authority. A PROVEN knowledgeable person unlike Mr Board Warrior above.

Please fill my cup with your fake liberal tears.

 

[Trotsky]

Because you felt the need before to use an appeal to authority I am going to quickly smash your idiotic post here and above with someone that actually IS an authority. A PROVEN knowledgeable person unlike Mr Board Warrior above.

Please fill my cup with your fake liberal tears.

What is the point of my crafting detailed responses if you're just going to instantly reply with shit posts that don't respond to anything?

 

[Wingslaught]

and what would make you assume that i dont understand these things? do you know my background?

I do, you're a psychologist.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

What is the point of my crafting detailed responses if you're just going to instantly reply with shit posts that don't respond to anything?

So you are not going to watch the video shoot down all the idiotic horseshit you posted...obviously, leftists dont let anything that can burst their bubble have a chance to trigger them.

You have been proven wrong, with the words of an actual authority on the topic.

 

[Jack V Savage]

But those are the exact types of societies that are created by conservative economics, arbitrary focus of policy onto fleeting moral platitudes, and the very "harsh punishment of crime" that you mention.

You can harp all that you want about good manners and civility, but you can't proselytize a nation with a permanent and increasingly impoverished underclass. Preaching just isn't effective policy: you need to properly allocate opportunity and resources.

Yeah, there's a kind of emotional harmony there (in the view that @Vergilius is at least playing devil's advocate for), but it doesn't add up when you think deeply about it.

 

[Trotsky]

So you are not going to watch the video shoot down all the idiotic horseshit you posted...obviously, leftists dont let anything that can burst their bubble have a chance to trigger them.

You have been proven wrong, with the words of an actual authority on the topic.

Summarize it for me.

And, to be clear on our postures here, let's review what has been said:

1. You said "modern liberals haven't done anything; that was all done by CLASSICAL LIBERALS," nearly collapsing the thread into your black hole of derp.
2. I pointed to the great achievements of the liberal court of the Supreme Court and FDR-era liberals (social democrats) in the mid-20th century: First Amendment rights, consumer protections, worker protections, a coherent separation of church and state, labor organizing rights, pollution control, Medicare and Social Security.
3. You then had an aneurysm and posted a video by an anarcho-capitalist "expert" (on what, I am not sure) to prove.....well, I'm not sure.

So, in retrospect, I think I may be able to coax you closer to the water: do you believe that FDR-era liberals and the mid-century liberal jurists like Willliam Brennan, Louis Brandeis, William Douglas, Earl Warren, and Thurgood Marshall were off-shoots of the "CLASSICAL LIBERAL" class, or were they more analogous to a "new liberal" that appreciate positive freedom policies.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

Summarize it for me.

1. You then had an aneurysm and posted a video by an anarcho-capitalist "expert" (on what, I am not sure) to prove.....well, I'm not sure.

So, in retrospect,

Summarized, in retrospect, you dont take conflicting information into account and will even go so far as dismiss actual experts that gives conflicting information.

And we are still faced with the realization that you 100% avoided the point that was made that you presented this argument as if our only choices are hyper manly men and soyboys and you are fighting hard for the soyboy outcome!

Why do you want more soyboys so badly and why are you avoiding talking about your wanting them? Seems we finally found why you are so passionate about this topic.

 

[Trotsky]

Summarized, in retrospect, you dont take conflicting information into account and will even go so far as dismiss actual experts that gives conflicting information.

And we are still faced with the realization that you 100% avoided the point that was made that you presented this argument as if our only choices are hyper manly men and soyboys and you are fighting hard for the soyboy outcome!

Why do you want more soyboys so badly and why are you avoiding talking about your wanting them? Seems we finally found why you are so passionate about this topic.

Are you drunk or just this stupid? I can't keep track of what you're trying to argue. It seems like you're trying to backtrack to the OP because you realize you're getting embarrassed on our actual issue of discussion.

Let's return back to the statement that I took issue with and started this descent into your gif-laden expressions of mental illness:

1. You said "modern liberals haven't done anything; that was all done by CLASSICAL LIBERALS," nearly collapsing the thread into your black hole of derp.
2. I pointed to the great achievements of the liberal court of the Supreme Court and FDR-era liberals (social democrats) in the mid-20th century: First Amendment rights, consumer protections, worker protections, a coherent separation of church and state, labor organizing rights, pollution control, Medicare and Social Security.
3. You then had an aneurysm and posted a video by an anarcho-capitalist "expert" (on what, I am not sure) to prove.....well, I'm not sure.

Now, defend your position.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

Are you drunk or just this stupid? I can't keep track of what you're trying to argue. It seems like you're trying to backtrack to the OP because you realize you're getting embarrassed on our actual issue of discussion.

Refute the expert, mr appeal to authority. Come on, I never claimed to be one so I used the words of one to refute you with...come on, dont dodge the fight...I ceded ground to your high and mighty opinion, now defend yourself. lol...you dont even know who is and who isnt dodging the fight you are so wrapped up in trying to cover your ass.

Speaking of the OP...you once again dodged talking about your Soyboy fetish...why do you want more soyboys so badly? What are you not telling everyone?

 

[Trotsky]

Refute the expert, mr appeal to authority. Come on, I never claimed to be one so I used the words of one to refute you with...come on, dont dodge the fight...I ceded ground to your high and mighty opinion, now defend yourself. lol...you dont even know who is and who isnt dodging the fight you are so wrapped up in trying to cover your ass.

Speaking of the OP...you once again dodged talking about your Soyboy fetish...why do you want more soyboys so badly? What are you not telling everyone?

Let's try this again. I am giving you every opportunity to present your argument

1. You said "modern liberals haven't done anything; that was all done by CLASSICAL LIBERALS"
2. I pointed to the great achievements of the liberal court of the Supreme Court and FDR-era liberals (social democrats) in the mid-20th century: First Amendment rights, consumer protections, worker protections, a coherent separation of church and state, labor organizing rights, pollution control, Medicare and Social Security.
3. You then had an aneurysm and posted a video by an anarcho-capitalist "expert" (on what, I am not sure) to prove.....well, I'm not sure.

Now, defend your position. Present a coherent argument instead of projecting your retreat onto me.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

Now, defend your position. Present a coherent argument instead of projecting your retreat onto me.

I did, I presented an expert in the field that proved it.

Providing proof, is a refute, it IS defending ones position. I am still waiting for you to prove how you are an authority on this, still waiting for you to refute my expert with one of your own so I can do it with another and 1000 more since you are full of it and have no idea what you are talking about and history is against you...and still waiting for you to answer why you want more soyboys.

Prove something. Your opinion, isnt proof.

 

[Trotsky]

I did, I presented an expert in the field that proved it.

Providing proof, is a refute, it IS defending ones position. I am still waiting for you to prove how you are an authority on this, still waiting for you to refute my expert with one of your own so I can do it with another and 1000 more since you are full of it and have no idea what you are talking about and history is against you...and still waiting for you to answer why you want more soyboys.

Prove something. Your opinion, isnt proof.

Summarize what your expert said and respond to this line of argument with your own words. You can do it. I'm not going to let you post irrelevant videos so you can duck owning up to your stupidity.

1. You said "modern liberals haven't done anything; that was all done by CLASSICAL LIBERALS"
2. I pointed to the great achievements of the liberal court of the Supreme Court and FDR-era liberals (social democrats) in the mid-20th century: First Amendment rights, consumer protections, worker protections, a coherent separation of church and state, labor organizing rights, pollution control, Medicare and Social Security.
3. You then had an aneurysm and posted a video by an anarcho-capitalist "expert" (on what, I am not sure) to prove.....well, I'm not sure.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

Summarize what your expert said and respond to this line of argument with your own words. You can do it. I'm not going to let you post irrelevant videos so you can duck owning up to your stupidity.

Yeah, I thought you got nothing which is why you keep repeating the same list over and over.

Its not my job to do your research for you when you have a long history of ignoring things anyway. You got the link with the direct refute to all 3 things in your list even before you posted them...and still nothing on the soyboy desire on top of it.

I guess the world will never know. But anyone that actually watches the video WILL know you got refuted and just cant handle it like all leftists cant.

 

[Trotsky]

Yeah, I thought you got nothing which is why you keep repeating the same list over and over.

Its not my job to do your research for you when you have a long history of ignoring things anyway. You got the link with the direct refute to all 3 things in your list even before you posted them...and still nothing on the soyboy desire on top of it.

I guess the world will never know. But anyone that actually watches the video WILL know you got refuted and just cant handle it like all leftists cant.

1. You said "modern liberals haven't done anything; that was all done by CLASSICAL LIBERALS"
2. I pointed to the great achievements of the liberal court of the Supreme Court and FDR-era liberals (social democrats) in the mid-20th century: First Amendment rights, consumer protections, worker protections, a coherent separation of church and state, labor organizing rights, pollution control, Medicare and Social Security.
3. You then had an aneurysm and posted a video by an anarcho-capitalist "expert" (on what, I am not sure) to prove.....well, I'm not sure.

No one is going to watch a video posted by a guy who can't even attempt to defend his own statements.