Controversial problems with the evolution of green stage relationships? Confused

[billiesimon]

This is mainly a question I have for Leo and for the advanced people here, because I'm still puzzled and can't undestand this.

I'm not demonizing green, I'm somehow half orange half green, and a huge pacifist myself.

For what I can see, orange stage is all about freedom of sex and love, living fast, living young etc. This enabled the rock and roll lifestyle for both men and women.

What I start to see these years is that green stage is trying to limit the dating freedom by accusing everyone of BS harassment, in such a way that boys are becoming stifled and scared of dating. Isn't this kind of green thinking a defect of this stage? 
The feeling that I get is that some excesses of green stage might turn into a matriarchy with women becoming entitled to every guy's money and men becoming scared and stiff interacting with them. I'm not using a MGTOW argument, since I'm not one LOL. I like getting to date and know a girl intimately.

I'm just asking. Since I don't undestand why green isn't promoting free love and sex like orange was doing. I see a lot of shaming of sexuality, random allegations of harassment without evidence, and all that. Also all this blabbering about men being evil is just insane.

I think that a true green stage should be about loving everybody, not just women. 
Share your insights.

[billiesimon]

14 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Third-Wave Feminists are usually sex-positive and support body positivity and fat acceptance. They are pro-freedom of sexual expression for everyone regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation. They are also usually accepting of polyamory. And they disapprove of double standards against women being promiscuous, and dislike slut-shaming. And many support sex workers and want the profession to be legalized and safer.

So, Greens are actually radically accepting of sexuality in all shapes and forms... except if it encroaches upon the lives of others. So, they have discovered the pattern of rape culture which is an outgrowth of the stages before it that see female sexuality as a commodity and the woman as an object and not a subject that still flows as a strong undercurrent through society.

Bottom line is, the problem is that women have to deal with a lot of issues relative to sex that men don't have to deal with and that men usually aren't aware of. So, unaware men usually end up stepping on women's toes in various ways and going over boundaries. Or some don't even care or hate women and want negative things to happen to them. So, because these experiences are so common and sexual harassment and misogyny is just a given if you're a woman, there are many Green initiatives to fight against this problem.

The issue is that many Orange men are usually unconscious to these social patterns, given that they don't know what it's like to experience it firsthand. And they're also likely to equate female interest with their own worth, seeing female sexuality as an object and hot commodity to enhance their status. Then Blue men shame women for having sexual feelings or any divergence from monogamy. Then Red men don't care and will just do whatever they want without any qualms about what women think because they see women as property. 

So, men from these stages will be very unsympathetic to the struggles women go through and will make initiative like #metoo all about them and the restriction of their own freedom, without considering the state of society that produced so many "metoo" stories. They'll be like, "But what about my sexual desires?" and will even conjecture that women are making things up always assuming the perpetrator to be innocent of sexual misconduct and the accuser guilty of false accusation. 

But as a woman who was molested as a child by an older child and who has woken up three times in my teenage years to three different full grown men trying to do things to me in my sleep (and countless other minor experiences ranging from mild catcalling to outright stalking threats), this concern for men not wanting to date just isn't a priority compared to the broader social issues and their unique effects on me as a person. So, Greens gets very angry at Oranges especially for prioritizing their desires over the physical, psychological, and emotional safety of women.

That's why all the blue haired ones are always pissed off and yelling at everyone and jumping up and down like yo yos. But it's not because they're anti-sex. Quite the contrary. It's because they see that some people are taking up all the room in the collective "bedroom", leaving little room for others. 

I deeply appreciate the response and I feel sorry and empathetic for your past. I have been bullied in the past and have had a lot of issues with people, so I understand your struggles with corrupted people in the past. I want everybody to feel safe.

I just get this feeling that you're treating me like one of those "arrogant" guys out there LOL. 

It's the same feeling that I get when I talk about TRUE equality with some "feminists". They get triggered. And I don't get why! 

We should all stop talkin about evil this and evil that, and just learn to love everybody, regardless of their gender.
Even all this hetero-shaming is insane. Let gays be gays, let heteros be heteros. What the heck is the problem?!? 
That's why, even though I AM half green, I don't get what these activists are doing. Just let everyone be gay, lesbians, or hetero. Who cares what you are?! Be what you want to be, be free, be happy! And also let me live my life without shaming my sex and my orientation.

I'm not attacking you  I just want people to be free of judgement, not to turn the pendulum the other way into an all female perspective. Also I don't like an all male perspective. Just let everybody do the fuck they wanna do!! Without harassing people of course. But let's just stop talking about it like it's a problem of MEN. It's not a problem of MEN. It's a problem of SOME people, of some individuals, who are ignorant and arrogant and intolerant. 

Let the other men be free and happy. So be the women.
Peace 

[billiesimon]

9 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I understand that you don't have any malice in your intentions at all, and I know you're not attacking me. So, I moreso see your post and the ideas in it as a mild outgrowth of the larger system that creates blind spots. Basically, I see you as thinking un-systemically and taking a narrow view on the issue causing you to have blind spots. So, I'm trying to communicate to you why things are the way they are, and show you that you're taking a narrower view on the issue than is beneficial in hopes that you will zoom out a bit more.

I get why you're all about what you call "true equality". I used to have the same exact belief. Just treat everyone the same and it will be fair. But while that idea would make perfect sense in an equal society, which you probably assume we have like I did before I became more aware. But in an unequal society (which is the reality) it's just becomes a feel-good platitude for those who have it quite good already and don't realize the struggles that others are dealing with. It's a way to sweep problems with fairness under the rug and not address issues that affect real people's lives. These ideas of equality mostly function in ways that keep people in an inherently better position in their comfort zone and assured of their own goodness, while washing their hands of systemic societal problems. 

Also, I've never heard of people engaging in "hetero-shaming", and if there are people doing that it isn't typical of the LGBTQ community. There's FAR more of the opposite. So, focusing on hetero-shaming which isn't a systemic issue EQUALLY to focusing on discrimination of LGBTQ community which is a systemic issue, is inherently unequal and unfair to people in the LGBTQ community who deal with discrimination all the time. Versus straight people who have to actually do a Google search titled "hetero-shaming" to actually find evidence of it.

Ask yourself, has anyone in your life every shamed you for being heterosexual? Have you ever lacked representation in the media as a heterosexual? Did your parents ever disown you for being heterosexual? Did you ever get bullied for being heterosexual? 

So, it's focusing on a non-issue to obscure a real issue. So, it's focusing too much on the smallest potatoes and missing the biggest ones. That's probably why people get mad at you. If someone is in Green, they may even assume that you're being intentionally hateful due to their lack of perspective.

So, I agree that it would be ideal if everyone could be free and happy. But society has barriers to freedom and happiness built into it, and ignoring it with sunshine and rainbows platitudes like "let everyone be free and happy" just ignores this fact and allows for those barriers to continue to exist. 

I may have a better example for you to illustrate the blindspots. Do you happen to be an atheist or follow an uncommon religion? 

 

I want to be honest, I don't like the finger-pointing energy coming from your posts  but I get it that you want to fix these issues, I get it and I like it.

But... why are you assuming that I'm the bad guy?

Why are you assuming that I'm hetero?
Why are you assuming that I've had it EASY in life?

This is a HUGE blindspot. NOBODY has an easy life. Not even rich people. Life is harsh to everybody, in different ways. I've always been mocked for being skinny, a little bit feminine, too sensitive to be a boy, and all that crap. Yet you assume that I've had it easier than women.

Nobody has it easy. This is true equality, it's called life. Life is hard, and life always finds a way to traumatize you. My family treated my badly, so did a lot of my teenage friends. 
Stereotyping men as bullies and women as victims is just pure ignorance. Let the guilty ones be judged by their ACTIONS, not their sex. I've never treated a girl badly, and so did a lot of my friends. Are there bad men out there? YES! are there bad women out there? YES!

Should we stop it? YES! 
But the solution is not to shame me because you assume that I'm hetero and that I've had it easy. 
This shit about having it easy triggers me a LOT I want to be honest  I've had a lot of issues in my life and in my psyche, it's very disrespectful to treat me like a privileged noble class.

Peace  

[billiesimon]

I'm agnostic. I was christian in my teenage years, and left religion because I hated so much the christian community for sex shaming,

Now that I'm pretty green I'm very neutral towards religion.

[billiesimon]

@Emerald even though we're arguing I still love you ahah 

I'm just saying that it's not by shaming peaceful and caring guys like me that you will fix society.

You're just shooting your allies in the head and then complaining that you're all alone in your battle.

[billiesimon]

17 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I'm not arguing with you or trying to point fingers. You read it that way because it's probably what you expect. I don't think you're a bad guy at all. I just think you have blindspots. So, I was just trying to answer your original question to make you aware of why people are acting like they are to give you more context.

But, I assumed that you were heterosexual because most people are, quite frankly. Plus, your post made it seem like you're a guy concerned about dating women in the modern world. So, I just assumed that you were. But if you're not, I apologize for assuming. I'm bi-sexual myself. 

Also, I'm not assuming that you've had an easy life. I'm only assuming that you've never experienced the experience of being woman. And with that, I assume that you haven't dealt with the sexuality and dating landscape from the vantage point of a woman, which has very specific perils that men don't have to deal with. It is these issues, that men often get uncomfortable about and don't like to talk about. 

But it isn't just willful assholes that contribute to these patterns. The real culprit is unconsciousness. So, even peaceful and caring guys can unwittingly allow and even contribute to these negative patterns without meaning to. So, everything that I've written to you so far is not meant to be a personal indictment. It has been an attempt to show you that you have some blind spots.

The first thing is to let go of the limiting belief that everything always needs to be 100% equal to be fair. Sometimes blind mechanical equality can enforce pre-existing inequalities. 

But it's perfect that you're an agnostic for the analogy. So, Christianity is the most popular religion and Christians get certain privileges in society that people who are agnostic (or any other non-Christian religious orientation) don't get. Because Christianity is so popular, they tend to run with the idea that their religion is best, without being checked on it too much. And they can often think that they're being discriminated against, just by people having a different set of religous beliefs.

So, it can be an uncomfortable situation, for example, to be at a public event when everyone bows their head a prays to Jesus. It makes it a social expectation to conform to Christian norms. Or if a Christian person confronts you and asks you what your religion is or tries to convert you, it can be a very uncomfortable experience where you might be tempted to lie just to avoid it. 

Now, not all Christians are like this. And certainly, most of the Christians that are like this mean well. But it doesn't make the experience any more comfortable for non-Christians. 

So, if you as an Agnostic complained about that and noted your experience to a Christian. 

And then the Christian didn't really address your experiences and just answered with, well not all Christians are like that. Anyway, I believe that everyone should be able choose whatever makes you happy and so should Christians. So, those bad Christian shouldn't do that. But it's also important for the non-religious not to Christian-shame too. There are bad people on both sides.

But they are not really being empathetic and they aren't really listening. They are just trying to defend themselves and the thing they're identified with. The conversation is meant to shift the focus from real problems to their problem with the solutions. 

I'm not trying to be confrontational but this just proves my point  

I don't give a fuck what a muslim or a christian or a jew would say. It's my life. Got a problem with that? Go pray your allah. (not you, it's just an example )

If a christian says that I have a right to believe in what I want he's JUST RIGHT. It's not him defending himself, you're just distrusting people. He's just right on the facts. Who cares who says the facts straight? they are the right facts. If a terrorist says that you have a right to live, he IS right. Even though he is a terrorist. Who the fuck cares what other people think, You care too much.

If all people had the same mentality like me NOBODY would shame other individuals. There would be no latent sexism, 

And no... i don't have blindspots. If i see a muslim guy shaming a woman, I SEE sexism. I SEE IT. I DON'T like it. I don't want these people around women. I don't have no fucking blindspots, sister  i just want to encourage people to be empathetic and positive and NON-judgemental.

If we start to point finger to eachother... it's never going to end!!! Radical fems have to stop pointing fingers at normal positive guys, because these are the guys who just want women to live a happy and fullfilling life, rich of experiences, love, sex, money and success.

Society is shaped by mindsets, and by consensus. The consensus we need is to normalize social freedom for everybody: men, women, gays, heteros, lesbians, trans etc. Normalizing means NOT talking about it and encouraging people to be themselves.

 

What you call sweeping under the rug it's actually called rewiring society with positive values. If we all start to act like everynody has the same value, we will ALL get the same value, The old fashioned peace and love <3 nonetheless I'm still the bad misogynist guy who treats women like property  

 

P.s. I think that if you knew me in person you would categorize me immediately as a very very liberal person towards women. But here you are misunderstanding me, since it's the internet  

[billiesimon]

35 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I'm not arguing with you or trying to point fingers. You read it that way because it's probably what you expect. 

Yes, I expected it. Because nowadays nobody cares about leading a rich and fullfilling life, loving people and accepting everybody.

Now the trend is to scream and hate everybody. Liberals, conservatives, libertarians, etc... It's all screaming. It's all about "me me me me". "muh problems". It's not about the gift you can give to the world, it's not about the neutral playing field that we can create together, for world peace.

It's all about smashing cars and starbucks windows with antifa.

Sucks.

[billiesimon]

12 minutes ago, Emerald said:

If you don't want uncomfortable answers, don't ask uncomfortable questions. 

I never said that. I just made a point about the actual social freedom you have, but you don't want to acknowledge. Who cares if some old man from the 1930s doesn't like your sexuality? I've been shamed a lot by christians years ago, and also for my open sexuality. WHO CARES. I have the law on my side, and you too. Leave them alone. I'm here to hear these uncomfortable truths, if you please tell me.

Still you don't get that I'm on your side though  

[billiesimon]

Ooooook..... You don't even know me and the values that I have, and you have already decided that I unconsciously spread sexism and contribute to the problem lol. That's so offensive in regard to all the emphasis I put in my life to be accepting and non-judgemental of everybody's sexuality but... ok... I'm the problem. I'm the ignorant bigot.

My bad. Thanks for the patience of taking part in the discussion. I sincerely appreciate the exchange. Have a nice day.

[billiesimon]

Ok, I'll follow your suggestion.

[Spiral]

It’s interesting how often feminists and anti-feminists don’t understand each other when they argue. I don’t mean the two of you above I just mean in general. Both constantly misunderstand each other as if you spoke different languages.

[billiesimon]

3 hours ago, Spiral said:

It’s interesting how often feminists and anti-feminists don’t understand each other when they argue. I don’t mean the two of you above I just mean in general. Both constantly misunderstand each other as if you spoke different languages.

I'm not anti feminist. I'm just against "only one sex perspectives". Womens issues and mens issues are both important, at the same level.

[billiesimon]

On 3/7/2018 at 1:53 AM, Emerald said:

 So, if two issues run at cross purposes to one another in some way, the bigger issue should get priority and more focus.

I completely agree. Completely. I totally appreciate your effort, but it's not you the problem.

The problem is that if you even DARE to chat about mens issues like suicide, not having purpose in life etc the left destroys your life and attacks you like you were the KKK, and at the same time they want tolerance for terrorists and ISIS. 

I think the left is in need of an insane asylum. How can you trust such a "progressive" movement? And I'm not from the right, I don't like conservatives. I'm very centrist politically.

 

Another thing that worries some men and boys, in my opinion rightfully, is that we hope that once the womens issues are fixed, which I'm ALL IN FAVOUR and supportive, we can also get attention and empathy towards our problems. And at the end to get a pleasant society where everybody is accepted and not screamed at. Where there is no slut shaming and no "kill all men" and "all men are rapists". 
Why is it so hard to just care for our own life and let the other live their own? As a very calm and peaceful young man I find it very very cowardly to be classified as evil by the left. At the same time I don't like hearing slut shaming, because it's none of people's business what a woman does in her life.

What I'm trying to say is that you can't fix some biases towards women by treating men like monsters, we are people with emotions and feelings and fears too. We love and breathe too.

But to the left this is just nazi propaganda.

[billiesimon]

The ironic part is that I'm one of the most peace and love people you can find, but that doesn't mean that I like seeing one gender being treated like an evil entity. Otherwise it is called being a doormat. Or a slave.

 

Sorry I forgot a point 
Another thing that worries good men (I'm not talking about assholes) is that while there are A LOT of progressive men who help womens issues to be fixed, there are almost zero women interested in fixing at the same time mens issues. Men are just thrown under the bus by divorce courts and unjust and unfair legal systems, including the atrocious and inhuman treatment of losing your children forever in divorce. It's NOT a small issue. Men love their children and love being fathers. But women just don't care, while we still care a lot about fixing their issues. Just look at how many men are there in the progressive crowds.

It's very sad because I just want both sexes to help eachother. Probably women just care for human issues when it's theirs.

Edited July 5, 2018 by billiesimon

[SFRL]

 

[billiesimon]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

The left doesn't want tolerance for terrorists and ISIS. The left wants tolerance for Muslims to be able to practice their religion peacefully without discrimination.

But the reason why the left tends to be less receptive to men's issues is that they are often brought up as a cudgel to invalidate any sustained focus toward women's issues and to steer the conversation about women's issues over to a conversation about men's issues, thus showing why Feminism is invalid. And then the conversation gets brought to even less relevant ideas about how all things are essentially equal because everyone has problems and that everyone should just stop complaining and sit around campfires singing Cum-By-Ya together.

And the effect of this conversation steering is that the person has essentially side-stepped the topic of conversation ENTIRELY to focus on totally different topics. So, wanting to talk about "men's issues" is often a dogwhistle that people on the left pick up on that others don't. When men's issues are brought up in relation to Feminism or as a way to invalidate Feminism, it's not really meant to focus toward men's genuine issues. It's mostly just a method of being able to control the conversation and steer it away from uncomfortable topics thus blocking any possibilities for change. 

Like, imagine if you were bringing up an important issue, then someone used your important issue to segue into a completely different topic.

For example, imagine that you were at a place where everyone had pre-purchased a meal and were waiting to have it brought out. But they forgot to bring your meal out. So, you're trying to address that issue of not having any food with the workers, and the workers use your issue as a way to pivot the conversation about how they get hungry sometimes too. Then, they steer the conversation to some point about how it's not just you that deserves food... in fact, everyone deserves food. And how all people in the world should have food whenever they want it. And that even bringing up the fact that you didn't get your food is invalid because there are other issues out there. Then, they send you out of the kitchen without the food you paid for.

But it's just them fast-talking you out of getting your meal. They were never concerned about world hunger in any serious way. They really just want you to stop bitching. 

But the left does actually focus on men's issues as well. It focuses a lot toward the effects of toxic masculinity on men and the social patterns that create a lot of self-esteem issues for men. They also are very critical of the rigid gender roles that give way to so much expectation put upon men to be stoic. And they are critical of the biological determinism argument that women are inherently better caretakers than men, which is the reason why men get the shittier end of the stick in family courts. That said, they do get a bad taste in their mouths about discussing issues like that because they are so often used to invalidate other issues. 

So, not knowing that the left also focuses on men's issues, just makes it seem like you've gotten most of your information on the left from Anti-SJW YouTube, where they find the lowest common denominator of the left. Then, they pass it off as though everyone on the left is some raging man-hater. There is also a huge attempt to make Feminism into a monolith, where everyone in that group has the same beliefs. But there are as many kinds of Feminism as there are flavors of ice cream. 

But if you're a Centrist, you should really question what center is first. And you should recognize that Centrism has no principles of its own because it always exists in relation to the most common poles of whatever the current political climate is in the place you live. So, Centrism in Nazi Germany is to be a Nazi. Centrism in a China is to be a Communist. So, basically, Centrism is a way for people to convince themselves that they have the principles of tolerance toward both sides as long as those sides aren't too far from the center. But too often, Centrism makes a person very non-principled in every other way. This makes Centrists very easy to manipulate by extremists because they often choose Centrism as a stand in for actual principles, and as a way for them to convince themselves that they have nuance. Centrists will often have the very same talking points as extremists because extremists specifically target them with their veiled rhetoric. 

The picture below is a good illustration of why Centrists are easy to manipulate into agreeing with harmful things. It uses the extreme example of genocide to show how dogged Centrism can be a huge weakness. 

 

 

Lol using memes to debate deep topics makes no sense.
There are similar memes about the left and about the right, and about libertarians.
You can make fun of every single position because no one is perfect.

Centrism has many meanings, and does NOT mean being open to every single political move. A centrist is generally a moderate position where you take elements of the center-left and elements of the center-right. Get your facts straight lol. What you described in your nazi example is the common masses who are ignorant of politics. Not centrists. But it's true that centism changes with the evolution of society. 

Nowadays centrism is basically classical liberalism from the 60s - 70s adapted to our times. In fact I'm a classic liberal, I like left wing elements like public funded medical care, basic senior welfare for everybody etc, but also I like right wing elements like less economic regulations and boosting entrepreneurship. Centrists also tend to be very socially liberal, they appreciate free sexuality and free speech. By the way free speech was a very important victory of the classical left in the past, but now the left is completely rejecting it lol.

I suggest to follow some free thinkers from the american and english political center, not to use examples from the '30 in germany. Today they tend to fall in the classic liberal archetype.

Also you're displaying the typical intollerant left behaviour. If one has a slight slight different approach to politics from a left winger... he's a nazi LOL. Centrists are just liberal folks who don't like extreme reformation of society and extreme welfare programs. But they still like a lot of the products of the old left.

 

 

No, the family court is run by feminists. Men just want to see and raise their children. No one on the conservative party would say that a father should stay away from his kids. That's just feminism. 

Anyway.... I think that the ONLY solution to these problems, womens issues and mens issues together, is to stop arguing and start doing.

I don't care what we call these solutions, but we have to stop arguing amongst political parties and start solving these problems for both genders.
And I literally mean BOTH genders, not just womens. Women need to have their issues solved, absolutely, and so do men.

By the way I remark again that you see no women caring for true male problems, but there you have all the men caring for women in the left. Including me 

[Sea]

 

It's difficult to understand why she gets misrepresented and vilified so much. Her views are very reasonable. I think her anger is just a reaction to the hate she gets. 

However, I still believe men need their movement. @Emerald As you said yourself, feminists don't like to address divorce laws as a particular issue. Waiting for feminists to destroy the patriarchy and then waiting for that change to percolate through society is not option. Especially since laws getting more progressive in one area doesn't mean they'll get more progressive in another. For example, there are still some remnants of religion left in modern secular nations. Unless an issue is talked about enough for people to care, it's not going to change.

Edited July 5, 2018 by Sea

[Sea]

38 minutes ago, billiesimon said:

No, the family court is run by feminists. Men just want to see and raise their children. No one on the conservative party would say that a father should stay away from his kids. That's just feminism. 

Yes, conservative men would consider themselves good fathers but would they be ok with leaving their children in the hands of another man? Probably not. They see themselves as upstanding family men while seeing a majority of other men as potential pedophiles. It's not hard to see how conservatism led to inequalities in divorce court in the first place. Though there are some feminists who say all men are rapists, which isn't helping either.

[billiesimon]

18 minutes ago, Sea said:

Though there are some feminists who say all men are rapists, which isn't helping either.

SOME? 

[billiesimon]

30 minutes ago, Emerald said:

This meme uses hyperbole to illustrate a really common political pattern that can be observed. So, the meme actually contains a lot of truth. 

Now, Centrists (and the majority of people on the right) wouldn't support genocide at this point, because genocide is currently still an extremist view. Most people don't want to be lumped in with extremists. Most people like to think of themselves as moderates. And most people like to think of themselves as good, normal people who are on the side of righteousness who could never be influenced to do/support bad things like racism, sexism, etc.. 

But because Centrists' political alignment is relationally dependent on the Center Left and Center Right for context, Centrism will naturally shift as society shifts and the idea of what the Center is shifts with it. So, Centrists (like most other people) are often not very politically educated and choose the Center because it seems more reasonable. But they are often not principled and not standing on a firm foundation because their desire to be Center makes them easy to trick if the political environment starts changing or the goalposts start moving. 

And this is a problem, because there are extremist groups on the outer fringes of the right wing (KKK, Neo-Nazis, etc.), who realize this weakness and actively target Centrists with veiled propaganda that's designed to normalize extremist views and make them seem like they're closer to the Center and more reasonable. And truly, they don't have to seem reasonable in a vacuum. They just have to seem more reasonable in comparison to the left. That's what this meme is trying to illustrate. Centrists will think the people on the right are being more reasonable just because their willing to compromise more. 

It's kind of like sticking a pill in some peanut-butter so the audience doesn't realize.

So, because these groups are acting in bad faith, they don't mind lying or using whatever political manipulation necessary to get extremist views circulating through society in a respectable package. So, they love to hide the pill of their radical viewpoints in ideas like freedom of speech, homeland security, traditions, the idea of personal responsibility, the idea of absolute equality, and being against the "radical" (or not so radical) left. 

The issue here is that most people who identify as Centrists are not very principled or nuanced with political thought. To call one's self a Centrist is easy. And they tend to miss the pill hidden in the peanut butter. And I'm sure that most people in Nazi Germany were both politically ignorant and identifying themselves with following along with what they considered to be the Center. 

Now, Classic Liberalism is actually a political stance. But the unfortunate thing is the Classic Liberalism also tends to be very susceptible to manipulation by the far right. Because they value freedom of speech a lot (which is good). But they value it without understanding that the appeals to the freedom of speech can be used as a dishonest rhetorical device by those operating in bad faith. That way, whenever someone on the left advocates for people in a protected class's rights to equality, it can be easily framed as an argument against freedom of speech. A lot of far right propaganda comes in the form of criticizing initiatives toward a more fair society as being 'anti-freedom' and 'anti-speech'.

Now, of course, Centrists and Classic Liberals would never go for any argument that is openly pro-racist or pro-sexist. Those things are the things the 'bad guys' do only. But they would certainly support arguments against those who are anti-freedom and anti-speech no matter how righteous their stance was. And they would see the supposed "anti-speech" person as the bad guy in an interaction even if they are protesting someone who supports terrible things.

So, all the Alt Right has to do is proliferate the idea that the left is anti-free speech and have that idea percolate through mainstream politics. That way, whenever there is an issue with hate speech or advocating for things that negatively effect people in protected classes, anyone who calls these things into question will get a lot of "pro-freedom of speech" arguments and accusations of being anti-speech.

But saying that the left is against free speech is just a silencing tactic to put a gag on minority voices rising to the surface. So, it is ironically a huge attack on open public discourse. Because if you can put someone in the "anti-speech box" you don't have to listen to them. And if you can put someone in the "identity politics box" you don't have to listen to them. And if you can put someone in the "Cultural Marxism box" you don't have to listen to them. 

Richard Spencer who is a well-known white supremacist, uses freedom of speech in this way. He's all about advocating for free speech, and it makes him seem more normal. But in a video he made with another white supremacist, the other one asked him if he really supported free speech. He basically said, (paraphrased) 'No, but it's in the benefit of our movement to pretend like we do to attract people who are more moderate'. And it's not just him. It's a political strategy specifically to mainstream racist and xenophobic views in more attractive wrappers. 

I'm just trying to very thoroughly illustrate to you the potential dangers of your line of thinking. There is nothing intolerant about my viewpoint at all. I don't think you should be forced to believe in this or that. I'm not trying to silence you. I'm not even criticizing your character or throwing ad hominem arguments at you. And I can totally relate to your views because I used to believe the same exact things, so I understand that you're not acting in bad faith. And the core of your beliefs aren't bad. They just really lack in the area of nuanced, systemic thinking. And there are tons of radical people out there that are specifically strategizing to exploit that lack, to shift the Overton Window further to the right and make their views appear closer to center. 

But I won't concede, because I'm not wrong about the things I've said. You really do have some blindspots. So, you probably read my lack of compromise as being intolerant. Or you take my attempt to educate you as an attempt to shame you and vilify you or even glump you in with extremists. 

I need some evidence if you say that the Family Courts are run by Feminists. I tend to be pretty well educated on Left Wing talking points: the smart ones and the dumb ones. And I've never even heard them saying anything about Family Courts. Plus, I'm pretty sure the family court system is run by (mostly male) judges. And they are probably of the belief that women are superior care-givers, because a large percentage of people in society (who aren't Feminists) tend to believe that men are better in the workplace and women are better taking care of kids. 

But Conservative politicians would likely say that families should stay together, and bypass the "Who get the kids?" argument. Because there is no answer that would appeal to their supporter base. Conservatives would divide their audience if they said, "Women are superior at raising children and should get the kids", because they rely on the voter support of a lot of men who think that's unfair. They would also divide their audience if they said, "Men and women should raise the kids equally because both the mother and father are equally good caretakers of children." This would divide them because Conservatives tend to believe strongly in rigid gender roles and biological determinism. So, they probably wouldn't talk that much about family courts at all. They would just frame it as an argument against single parenthood.

But I agree that all problems need to be solved. Unequal treatment of men in family courts is a huge issue. And the left isn't the best at addressing this one, because it is this issue is used to vilify and delegitimize the concerns of Feminists (and sometimes women in general) by placing them as the cause of that inequality. But the problem actually doesn't come from Feminists at all. It comes from common folk ideas about the inherent rigidity of gender roles. It comes form the very system that Feminists are attempting to dismantle. 

Ok, I thank you for all your clear explanations. I really don't like SJWs who scream loudly and can't reason with people. So I really really like your calm minded and logical explanations, thanks.

I think you missed the point that a lot of feminists are just plainly sexist towards men in speech and articles. Not all of course. But if you've read the literature you have to know that some are sexist as fuck. You can't run a movement for equality with some big rotten apples inside. And then talking to me about classic liberals being nazis LOOOOOL.

If someone is a classic liberal in ACTIONS he/she cannot by definition integrate with far right ideologies. What the heck... This is textbook example of naziphobia from the left. Everyone who disagrees with communism is a nazi. Everybody who says that antifa is SLIGHTLY violent is a nazi and a rapist. What the fuck is going on in the world?

I like most of your reasoning, don't get me wrong! But you clearly suffer of naziphobia and project german nationalsocialist values onto CLASSIC LIBERALS like JFK or martin luther king WTF!!! How in the heaven's fuck is it possibile for a true classic liberal to become entrenched in nationalsocialism or the italian nationalsocialist party? (fascist party)

That's the definition of insanity! Leftism nowadays is just pure insanity and anti-rational. I just want to be honest, no offense for you.

But who the fuck cares if some fake classic liberal in the past changed idea about nazism and joined it? That means he was not really a liberal!

This is the exact same insane and hysterical argument we all hear from far left crazies who see everybody, including people following martin luther king and Kennedy, as NAZIS!!! that's literally worth of mental institution!!!

I want you to really think about that.

Hugs and kisses  study classic liberalism and then talk