4chan, memes, language, Trump, alt-right, etc.

riseagainstrocks · 02-24-2017, 12:37 PM

Yes, yes, we have a thread that has touched on these topics, but the 'What did Trump do now' thread has become unwieldy.

https://medium.com/@DaleBeran/4chan-...8cb#.9ah3d27fp

The article above, while not exactingly correct in it's timeline of 4chan, raises some very interesting points about the sociological motivations behind a lot of the trolling "culture" that has grown exponentially. As a former 16 year angsty troll, I absolutely thought that women would never want anything to do with me, that metal music and video games were solely the domain of men, and that casually saying 'f@g' or 'whore' as insults were funny and shouldn't be construed as sexist or homophobic. Some strong cognitive dissonance there, huh?

But I was also 16, and have grown far past such myopia. The question is, why haven't others? I know we have some MAGA/MRA types on the board, and I would appreciate some honest discussion about the points raised in the article. I legitimately have a list, but let's see if things come up organically.

Ol’ Qwerty Bastard · 02-24-2017, 01:04 PM

i think you hit the nail on the head when you said "when i was 16." i think for a lot of people it's just something they'll grow out of. there's also this element where people can rise to fame just from feeding that select group of people. ones like milo, gavin mcinnes, malik obama, etc etc.

speaking of milo, any thoughts on the whole pedophile + book deal controversy?

**Frownland** · 02-24-2017, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qwertyy

speaking of milo, any thoughts on the whole pedophile + book deal controversy?

To start, I think he's been misquoted to a degree because he clarifies that he isn't for paedophelia because paedophelia is an attraction towards prepubescent boys and his whole spiel was about pubescent people being prepared for sex below the age of consent, rendering age of consent laws meaningless laws made by dumb liberals. I find his opinions about it from that point on disgusting and ignorant of the power dynamic of these situations but I think this point is important to clarify.

My other two thoughts are (1) really? It took the air of being pro-paedo to cut his book deal? and (2) I really hope this is the nail in the coffin of his career and that he doesn't manufactroversify himself back into the news so that free speech advocates can have a better face to represent them.

Ol’ Qwerty Bastard · 02-24-2017, 01:18 PM

i haven't seen anyone turning on him tbh, just based on social media there seems to be a lot of people jumping to his defense. for that reason i don't think his fame is going anywhere. i agree with you on the book deal though, it's strange that out of everything possible this somehow pushed things over the line.

**Frownland** · 02-24-2017, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qwertyy

i haven't seen anyone turning on him tbh, just based on social media there seems to be a lot of people jumping to his defense. for that reason i don't think his fame is going anywhere. i agree with you on the book deal though, it's strange that out of everything possible this somehow pushed things over the line.

I've seen pretty much unanimous dissent save for the people that seem to think that not getting the book deal is breaking the first amendment.

He's been saying this kind of thing for a long time though, so anyone who's well versed in his material shouldn't be too surprised.

Ol’ Qwerty Bastard · 02-24-2017, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

I've seen pretty much unanimous dissent save for the people that seem to think that not getting the book deal is breaking the first amendment.

i'm talking about from people who are fans of his though. i don't think any of his supporters see this as a reason to condem him.

**Goofle** · 02-24-2017, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riseagainstrocks

Yes, yes, we have a thread that has touched on these topics, but the 'What did Trump do now' thread has become unwieldy.

https://medium.com/@DaleBeran/4chan-...8cb#.9ah3d27fp

The article above, while not exactingly correct in it's timeline of 4chan, raises some very interesting points about the sociological motivations behind a lot of the trolling "culture" that has grown exponentially. As a former 16 year angsty troll, I absolutely thought that women would never want anything to do with me, that metal music and video games were solely the domain of men, and that casually saying 'f@g' or 'whore' as insults were funny and shouldn't be construed as sexist or homophobic. Some strong cognitive dissonance there, huh?

But I was also 16, and have grown far past such myopia. The question is, why haven't others? I know we have some MAGA/MRA types on the board, and I would appreciate some honest discussion about the points raised in the article. I legitimately have a list, but let's see if things come up organically.

How is this group relevant to a discussion about Donald Trump or any of the other things mentioned?

I skimmed through the article. It seemed a little silly and jumped to quite a lot of conclusions but maybe it went deeper than I understood from a brief viewing. I'd like the list you mentioned, either in PM (I'd respond directly) or as a spoiler (my return would also come as a spoiler).

riseagainstrocks · 02-27-2017, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goofle

I skimmed through the article. It seemed a little silly and jumped to quite a lot of conclusions but maybe it went deeper than I understood from a brief viewing. I'd like the list you mentioned, either in PM (I'd respond directly) or as a spoiler (my return would also come as a spoiler).

Sorry, busy weekend. These questions aren't strictly dispassionate, but I think they're generally fair. Will read through and respond to more of these when I have time.

Spoiler for questions:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goofle

How is this group relevant to a discussion about Donald Trump or any of the other things mentioned?

in reference to MRA, as Frownland astutely stated, it's a Venn Diagram that's more flush circle than small intersection. After all, the wage gap is "fake news", right? I brought MRA into this because, as I see it, it stems from the same white, male disaffection with the cultural and social changes over the last 30 years. Men, especially white men, have gone from masters of their demesne, to partners, subordinates, or excluded parties. Whether through choice, circumstance, cultural shift, etc., the hows don't matter as much as the reaction, which as far as I can tell, has been extremely negative. As a man working in the Oil and Gas industry, the amount of sexism I see is absolutely shocking. 95% occurs when the woman has left the room. And this in a place where women occupy 4 of 6 senior VP positions. Do MRA types have fair points? Sure. Custody is one of the very few areas where the sexism is reversed. It's not fair, it's not in the best interest of the child, and it's one of the artifacts of a patriarchal society... ironic, imo.

**Goofle** · 02-27-2017, 12:24 PM

Spoiler for questions:

Chiomara · 02-27-2017, 01:49 PM

I'll address that outdated custody myth momentarily, but for now, a response to the original thread topic:

I can't comment on 4chan, but in regards to young male alt-right/neo-nazi types who consistently act obnoxiously online and off: Yes, I feel many can grow out of it. Just like most grow out of their Ayn Rand phase. (It has always been de rigueur for teenagers/early-20-somethings to adopt a facade of ironic detachment in addition to your standard contrarian-edgelord behavior. Because being a decent human being is uncool.) I'm not as familiar with the modern-day version of these children, but when I was a teenager, I was actually physically stalked and harassed by two of these types-- one older, one my age. For years. So, while it may not be the majority, some of them do indeed have some serious psychological issues/complexes which they overcompensate for in obnoxious ways.

Psychologically, they're very interesting, as they seem to believe they're some sort of modern-day antiheroes and the one true subversive voice, even though they're about as subversive as your typical drunk racist Fox news-watching uncle. (But yeah, you sure are an envelope-pushing comedic genius, Kevin!) It's also hilarious to me that these Schrodinger's douchebags are always railing on about free speech and "PC culture" yet absolutely cannot handle any criticism from others whatsoever. (Some do not understand that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism/public ridicule) And, as already noted they're not too dissimilar (in terms of pitiful debate tactics) from those that they're vehemently against. But, a lot of these kids--the trolls-turned-neo-nazis, anyway-- grew up believing South Park was the pinnacle of nuanced social commentary/humor, so... They'd be far less irritating if not for their insistence that they're somehow oppressed. I'm curious as to what they'll be like 20 years from now.

..And regarding the other kind that mainly stick to trolling and harassment (while indiscriminately latching on to whatever they perceive as opposite to "sjws", be it Trump or whatever)-- namely the younger MRA guys that enjoy harassing women non-stop-- I notice they all have an enormous entitlement problem (and barrels of weird sexual issues and complexes which they like to blame on random women/female friends), stemming from some perceived but actually extremely minor "betrayal". And then they restrict their social interactions to internet echo chambers without any real, varied real-life experiences to balance it out. But again, I'm assuming that most grow out of this once they gain more life experience/learn that people are not puppets for them to project their internal psychodramas upon.

I really wish they (MRA) spent a bit more time practicing some sort of productive, real activism that doesn't revolve around demonizing others and yelling on reddit behind anime avatars. (What about male rape victims, or men--young adolescent men, especially-- in prison facing abuse and injustice, victims of police brutality, mentally ill homeless men with PTSD, disabled men or men with autism or severe chronic illnesses who are deprived of any real platform or voice, etc.. Or even elderly men experiencing neglect or abuse in nursing homes.. People who all could use help!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by riseagainstrocks

Custody is one of the very few areas where the sexism is reversed. It's not fair, it's not in the best interest of the child, and it's one of the artifacts of a patriarchal society... ironic, imo.

That's a bit of a myth, actually. It may have been true many decades ago (and depending on which list of cherry-picked half-true factoids one reads, it may even appear to be partly true on the surface), but it hasn't been for a good while-- that is, when men actively seek out custody in court and don't drop the case. It's fairly likely that they'll be awarded custody, in fact. And a great deal of custody settlements happen outside of the courtroom, and are reached based on mutual agreement.
Source: Gender Bias Study of the Court System in Massachusetts

Quote:

The preliminary findings of the Middlesex Divorce Research Group relitigation study show a similarly high rate of paternal success, but fewer awards of joint physical custody. In their sample of 700 cases in Middlesex County between 1978 and 1984, fathers had sought custody in 57 cases (8.14% of the sample). In two-thirds of the cases in which fathers sought custody, they received primary physical custody (42% in which fathers were awarded sole legal and sole physical custody, plus [*832] 25% in which fathers were awarded joint legal and primary physical custody). Joint physical and joint legal custody was awarded in 3.5% of cases. In 11% of the cases, mothers received primary physical and joint legal custody; in 12%, mothers were awarded sole legal and physical custody; other custodial arrangements were ordered in the remaining cases. Thus, when fathers sought custody, mothers received primary physical custody in fewer than one-quarter of the cases in the Middlesex study. Information about which parent had been the primary caretaker was not available for the Middlesex cases.

These trends were apparent in an earlier study of a sample of 500 Middlesex County cases filed between 1978 and 1981. Fathers had sought sole custody in about 8% of the cases. They received sole custody in 41% of those cases, and joint custody in 38%. In 5% of the cases, custody went to someone other than a parent. In instances in which fathers sought sole custody, mothers received sole custody in only 15% of the cases (Phear et al., 1983).

These statistics may be a surprise to many. They are, however, consistent with findings in other states. A study of court records in Los Angeles County, California, in 1977 found that fathers who sought sole custody obtained it in 63% of the cases (up from a success rate of 37% in 1972) (Weitzman, 1985, p. 233). A nationwide survey of all reported appellate decisions in child custody cases in 1982 found that fathers obtained custody in 51% of the cases, up from an estimated 10% in 1980 (Atkinson, 1984).

The high success rate of fathers does not by itself establish gender bias against women. Additional evidence, however, indicates that women may be less able to afford the lawyers and experts needed in contested custody cases (see "Family Law Overview") and that, in contested cases, different and stricter standards are applied to mothers.

..In summary:
Study 1: MASS
2100 cases where fathers sought custody (100%)
5 year duration

29% of fathers got primary custody
65% of fathers got joint custody
7% of mothers got primary custody

Study 2: MASS
700 cases. In 57, (8.14%) father sought custody
6 years

67% of fathers got primary custody
23% of mothers got primary custody

Study 3: MASS
500 cases. In 8% of these cases, father sought custody
6 years

41% of fathers got sole custody
38% of fathers got joint custody
15% of mothers got sole custody

Study 4: Los Angeles
63% of fathers who sought sole custody were successful

Study 5: US appellate custody cases
51% of fathers who sought custody were successful (not clear from wording whether this includes just sole or sole/joint custody)

"...The high success rate of fathers does not by itself establish gender bias against women. Additional evidence, however, indicates that women may be less able to afford the lawyers and experts needed in contested custody cases (see “Family Law Overview”) and that, in contested cases, different and stricter standards are applied to mothers."

There are still plenty of problems in custody cases regardless, (and biases galore, among both judges and jurors) but it is not at all as black-and-white as many assume. I've bolded the most worrying bits:

Spoiler for Long wall of text:

"According to attorneys at listening sessions, there is another type of bias in the enforcement of visitation orders that reflects the different situation of custodial parents, usually mothers, and noncustodial parents, usually fathers. Although the child's interest is supposed to be primary, courts will not order a father to visit his child, even if his failure to visit distresses the child. The psychological harm that missed visits cause children also has an impact on the custodial mother, for it is she who must deal with her child's distress. In addition, female litigants participating in focus groups noted the havoc caused to their lives when fathers fail to exercise visitation or change plans at the last minute. Last minute changes make it necessary for women to scramble to find appropriate child care and impose extra monetary costs. Women expressed anger that the courts do not listen to their complaints in these matters. The essence of their concern is that visitation seems to be viewed entirely as a right of the father, rather than as a responsibility of the father toward the child and the other parent.

Similar bias exists concerning moves out of state. A noncustodial father is free to leave the state at any time, even if his children will miss their association with him. However, a good mother who leaves the state without permission may find custody taken away by the probate court. n65

[*847] The punitive approach taken by some courts toward women who interfere with fathers' visitation rights contrasts with the tolerance shown by some judges to fathers who fail to pay court ordered child support (see "Child Support") and to men who commit acts of violence against women, in violation of the criminal law and court orders (see "Domestic Violence").

Inappropriately harsh punishment for violation of a court order is troubling enough, but the possibility that mothers might be punished for violating orders rooted in gender bias that put them or their children at risk is even more troubling. And this possibility, according to attorneys' testimony in focus groups, is very real. Even if all errors were obvious enough to be corrected on appeal, many women do not have access to legal help. Correcting the bias in the trial court is the only answer.

CONCLUSION

Our charge was to study and make recommendations concerning gender bias. Thus, the goal of the recommendations that follow is to eliminate the gender bias we observed. Before making any recommendation, however, we also considered the effects our recommendations would have on the welfare of children.

Family service officers, probate judges, and appellate judges all say that giving primary consideration to the parent who has been the primary caretaker and psychological parent is in the best interests of children. n66 In practice, however, it appears that as soon as physical custody is contested, any weight given to a history of primary caretaking disappears. Mothers who have been primary caretakers throughout their child's life are subjected to differential and stricter scrutiny, and may lose custody if the role of primary caretaker has been assumed, however briefly and for whatever reason, by someone else.

We believe there is a need for a clear statement that primary consideration should be given in child custody disputes to the parent who has been the primary caretaker and psychological parent. Such a statement would advise lawyers and litigants about the applicable legal standard, [*848] and would reduce both the possibility of judgments influenced by bias and the bargaining advantage that men who have not been primary caretakers can gain by merely threatening to seek custody. The requirement that the identity of the primary caretaker and psychological parent be determined by considering each parent's commitment to the child throughout the child's life would promote fairness for both men and women. On the one hand, it would ensure that the actual behavior of individual men is considered, and not stereotypes about fathers. On the other hand, it would ensure that temporary relinquishment of custody does not result in permanent loss of custody, without regard to what went before.

Our research also considered gender bias in the awarding of shared legal custody. We found that the presumption in favor of shared legal custody which is currently held by many family service officers results in the awarding of shared legal custody in inappropriate circumstances. Such custody is being ordered over the objections of parents, when parents cannot agree about childrearing, and even when there is a history of spouse abuse."

That last bit is especially distressing, yet not even remotely surprising seeing as how inept our legal system is when there's any kind of abuse (child or spousal) involved. I've witnessed both abusive men and abusive women being unfairly granted certain things while the complaints and concerns of the other are dismissed entirely.

I found this thesis floating around that addresses the financial issues which follow divorce; it may be interesting: https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstre...BA1?sequence=2

Edit: In conclusion, children are the real victims in these situations, as always.

02-24-2017, 12:37 PM	#1 (permalink)
riseagainstrocks Music Addict Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: DC Posts: 3,297	4chan, memes, language, Trump, alt-right, etc. Yes, yes, we have a thread that has touched on these topics, but the 'What did Trump do now' thread has become unwieldy. https://medium.com/@DaleBeran/4chan-...8cb#.9ah3d27fp The article above, while not exactingly correct in it's timeline of 4chan, raises some very interesting points about the sociological motivations behind a lot of the trolling "culture" that has grown exponentially. As a former 16 year angsty troll, I absolutely thought that women would never want anything to do with me, that metal music and video games were solely the domain of men, and that casually saying 'f@g' or 'whore' as insults were funny and shouldn't be construed as sexist or homophobic. Some strong cognitive dissonance there, huh? But I was also 16, and have grown far past such myopia. The question is, why haven't others? I know we have some MAGA/MRA types on the board, and I would appreciate some honest discussion about the points raised in the article. I legitimately have a list, but let's see if things come up organically. __________________ One note timeless, came out of nowhere...