Netflix Bans The Red Pill (1 Viewer)

Burgerbarbaby

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Contributor
Joined
Jan 5, 2001
Threads
30
Messages
915
Website
www.facebook.com
Ok! That makes some sense. I suspect, however, that it's probably counterproductive to be so dismissive of someone like @BlackGrape here

Where do you think this script is leading?
The script is wrongheaded. MRA's ARE cunts. The individual problems do not need the umbrella of reactionary misogynism devaluing them.
 

egg_

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
Since 1999
Joined
Nov 15, 1999
Threads
582
Messages
9,942
Location
Where dogs wear hats and birds fly backwards
The script is wrongheaded. MRA's ARE cunts. The individual problems do not need the umbrella of reactionary misogynism devaluing them.
IMO the script describes this thread reasonably accurately. I don't think @BlackGrape is an MRA in disguise come to troll us, he's a guy who saw a documentary he thought was good, and who knows some other guys who are having very guy-specific problems (as do we all, no doubt). I think it's unfair to be eyeing him so suspiciously, and to fail to assume good faith
 

therealjohnny

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
Nov 1, 2002
Threads
323
Messages
30,102
In response to the conversation within a conversation, this struck a chord just now
 

BlackGrape

Active Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Threads
16
Messages
378
@egg the problem with engaging with racists, and the above MRA argument, is that from the very first you have to trust that the person you're debating with is being sincere. Black Grape is not showing good faith...he is slinging around accusations of disingenuousness when in the very first post he attempts to conflate the real issues of suicide among men, and custody problems etc., with an umbrella group who have a very well-established reputation for misogyny. Even the thread title is misleading and inflammatory, as is his confrontational manner when debating. There's no need for it. It's a bludgeoning tool, it's disingenuous, and it immediately marks the poster as a person to avoid. I'm not sure whether the OP is doing this deliberately or just thinks this is the best way to debate, but either way. You won't win, you won't learn anything, you'll waste time, and you'll get angry.
Whereas racism, male suicide etc are certainly discussions which need to be had, it is a simple matter to assess whether the person bringing up the topic cares about your answer or is merely opening the door to an agenda that most "open-minded" "regular joe" types would want to have nothing to do with.
MRA is a backlash against feminism full of angry "what abouters" looking for a problem to co-opt.

TL/DR: Fuck this thread.
Avoid me if that is how you upset feel but I am sure Cassie would not have disavowed her feminism if through her two years of researching this group she had hard proof that they had an "established reputation for being misogynist".

And yes male suicide, unfair custody hearings, shorter life expectancy, mental health issues, addiction, homelessness, are disproportionately higher among men than women. Those are the facts, and those are the issues that MRA are trying to bring to the debate.

Maybe what you really mean to say as that the video is a documentary you to avoid because you are afraid that it will challenge your confirmation bias and deeply held notions and beliefs.
 
Last edited:

BlackGrape

Active Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Threads
16
Messages
378
In response to the conversation within a conversation, this struck a chord just now
Those fecking priveleged white women men again
Actually I re-read the thread, and the thumped regulars aren't being as mean as I had imagined. Getting caught up in the silliness myself. Never mind me, carry on
Far from it - its powerful viewing and typically causes liberals to feel a lot of silly hurt feelings, anger and ambivalence.
 
Last edited:

BlackGrape

Active Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Threads
16
Messages
378
IMO the script describes this thread reasonably accurately. I don't think @BlackGrape is an MRA in disguise come to troll us, he's a guy who saw a documentary he thought was good, and who knows some other guys who are having very guy-specific problems (as do we all, no doubt). I think it's unfair to be eyeing him so suspiciously, and to fail to assume good faith

You have moderated this thread wonderfully egg, thank you for your fairness, civility and good faith. And you are correct, I am certainly not an MRA, troll or sock puppet.
 
Last edited:

Burgerbarbaby

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Contributor
Joined
Jan 5, 2001
Threads
30
Messages
915
Website
www.facebook.com
typically causes liberals to feel a lot of silly hurt feelings, anger and ambivalence.
See it's this kind of comment that indicates bad faith, to my mind. Why bother saying this?

Right.
I DIDN'T think it was powerful viewing, to be absolutely honest. I thought it was one-sided unsubtle proselytising on behalf of a flawed movement, as expected. There WERE surprises though - I didn't realise the extent of domestic violence against men for instance.

The central thesis is that everything was fine until the 60's anti-capitalist protests were distracted into protesting the patriarchy instead, and as a result, Big Feminism is taking more than its share, and is hurting men. While it's not as straightforwardly polemical as I expected, I had issues with almost every argument as presented. To take an example: the stories about men's rights in custody battles are terrible, but I imagine the amount of deadbeat dads / abandoned mothers far outweighs the tragic demographic represented in this movie. The stories are used as examples of biased family law in the U. S. so what would be wrong with putting this larger context forward? Would the argument in the film suffer by comparison with the enormous numbers of deadbeat dads perhaps? Another one: The stuff about a man finding out that his 5 kids were actually fathered by the dude down the road...come on. An absurd legal backwater. Yep, it should be changed. Get it changed so. To take another example: The stuff about women breaking up traditional gender roles but still not going down coal mines to work, where valiant male wage-slaves keep their families afloat is also specious...surely women's selfish stranglehold on the cleaning industry needs to be busted wide open too. Another: the Boko Haram stuff is nonsense, I think. In order to paint a picture of an ignored narrative about men, the researcher describes Boko Haram as "chivalrous" because they killed so many men before taking those girls captive. Surely they weren't being chivalrous, they were killing people they saw as possible threats to themselves before they did anything else?

It goes on for two hours, and really, none of the arguments is without merit. But what is missing any sense of honest interrogation, which is weak given how controversial the movement is. It's a superficial appeal for sympathy, not a logical argument. It is too flawed to take anything from except for sympathy for some of its protagonists and admiration for the skills of the editor who I imagine had a fair amount of work to do to make that lawyer look sane. It did nothing to change my mind about a series of problems which deserve better examination, except for the issue of the extent of domestic violence against men, which as I said, was news to me. I would have had a lot more time for an entire movie about any one of the issues presented...for instance campus self-censorship. And I would have had much much more time for a movie, AND A MOVEMENT that didn't hate feminism so much.

Perhaps it is so one-sided because it was to a large extent funded by the MRA movement, for instance lovely people like Executive Producer Mike Cernovich who wants immigrants to submit to an IQ test and who thinks diversity is code for white genocide. Etc.
The thing stinks. Ok. Done.

TL/DR: Not much of an advancement of the cause, lads. :(
 

Burgerbarbaby

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Contributor
Joined
Jan 5, 2001
Threads
30
Messages
915
Website
www.facebook.com
Postscript: Won't be engaging with this thread again. It's an absolute embarrassment.
Because a cursory look at the subject of MRA will show what it is as a movement, and how unsavoury its most vocal proponents are. Several of these people are all over The Red Pill as investors and subjects. The movie itself is weak at best, maliciously spurious at worst. It does the often tragic situations is purports to represent no credit.

The Red Pill
 

BlackGrape

Active Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Threads
16
Messages
378
Postscript: Won't be engaging with this thread again. It's an absolute embarrassment.
Because a cursory look at the subject of MRA will show what it is as a movement, and how unsavoury its most vocal proponents are. Several of these people are all over The Red Pill as investors and subjects. The movie itself is weak at best, maliciously spurious at worst. It does the often tragic situations is purports to represent no credit.

The Red Pill

Aw poor you go back to your safe space and don't slam the door on the way out.
 
Last edited:

BlackGrape

Active Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Threads
16
Messages
378
The highlight for me which Burgerbar found so dismissive was Karen Straughans interview with Cassie making the very valid point that there was not a peep out of the media when Boko Harem slaughtered those men by the dozens.

Interest was only piqued when the girls were kidnapped. Powerful stuff and MRA can count themselves lucky to have such a strong vocal proponent as Karen Straughan on their side.

 

BlackGrape

Active Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Threads
16
Messages
378
They were school girls, hundreds of children basically.
Boko Haram was spun by the media as the utimate female hating extremist Islamist group that despised them so much that it wanted to deny them a basic education. Karen makes the point however, that these fundamentalist Islamic scum are against anyone having an education that their extremism is not just slanted towards girls getiing a "western secular or Christian education". That is not in any way to ameliorate their horrific actions in kidnapping those poor girls - far from it.

But, during those initial half a dozen attacks or so there were over 100 men slaughtered and 1 woman killed and the victims were described as Karen point out as "people" or "villagers". Then in the attacks before that on the primary schools - they freed all the girls telling them get married and to live a righteous life under Allah while they kept the boys in the school and burned the boys alive.

No outrage from the media on this horrific atrocity, given minimum media coverage, not opinion piece only until the girls were kidnapped. Instaed as Karen correctly explains - they were getting the media attention that they craved because they weern't getting any when they were burning boys alive. Only when they were kidnapping girls and selling them into slavery did this spark global outrage from the media, the UN, Michelle and Obama, the Canadian government with the promises of aid and support in getting these girls freed. All this outrage Boko Haram got all that attention because they knew by kidnapping these girls that they would get all that media attention to bear on their sick cause. Those extremist Islamic scumbags are chivalrous! if those girls were boys they wouldn't be getting an education - they would be dead. They wouldn't be sold into slavery with the hope of escaping - they would be burnt alive.
 

Lili Marlene

Wanna Get Out
Supporter
Contributor
Joined
Oct 14, 2002
Threads
288
Messages
25,791
Location
Way beyond the Rubicon
You have moderated this thread wonderfully egg, thank you for your fairness, civility and good faith. And you are correct, I am certainly not an MRA, troll or sock puppet.
LOL

SIR, SIR, THANK YOU SIR, WE LOVE CIVILITY AND POLITENESS SIR.

incidentally, here's a thread where I approvingly post a video by a guy who literally calls for a white ethnostate.

but politeness and decorum are the most important thing here
 

egg_

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
Since 1999
Joined
Nov 15, 1999
Threads
582
Messages
9,942
Location
Where dogs wear hats and birds fly backwards
Seriously @BlackGrape, make your point and stop trying to insult people.

Another: the Boko Haram stuff is nonsense, I think. In order to paint a picture of an ignored narrative about men, the researcher describes Boko Haram as "chivalrous" because they killed so many men before taking those girls captive. Surely they weren't being chivalrous, they were killing people they saw as possible threats to themselves before they did anything else?
Yikes. I just watched that piece.

The word 'chivalrous' is preposterous, obviously. But - Boko Haram is against all Western education? I didn't know that. They burnt a load of boys alive? I didn't know that either. It makes sense that the 'bring back our girls' thing took off though - it's easier to get behind something where there's some hope. I can't see how feminism is to blame for any of this though - sure men have been getting wiped out in wars for thousands of years
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create a thumped.com account. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Support thumped.com

Support thumped.com and upgrade your account

Upgrade your account now to disable all ads... If we had any... Which we don't right now.

Upgrade now

Latest posts

Trending Threads

Latest threads

Top