Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I think most people would say, "No".


But if that was true, what is the motivating factor behind those who absorb social activism?


Take women and the earning gap. I listen to a lecture on how women make less money then men (Not an invitation to debate the concept), and I think to myself "Boy, that's pretty messed up. Something should be done".


That's a moral decision. Feminist rhetoric is based on appealing to the public's conscience. Otherwise, nobody would care. They'd say "Eh. Life is unfair, glad I'm not a woman".


So if feminism is an appeal to morality, then doesn't also hold true that the same moral framework should apply to civil rights?

Or bullying?



That being the case, we can assume people are intrinsically moral, and once you learn empathy for one cause, you should apply that empathy to most causes, without needing to be lectured to.


Correct?



Asking, because that's not what I'm really seeing from people. It almost seems like women are only interested in women's problems, and parents of bullied children with bullying, and black people with civil rights problems.


And the general public, only seems to care about causes that have a strong lobby. They'll.defend against transphobia, yet call a chinese person a "chink". The very SAME people do this.


Which makes someone like me, who looks at the world in terms of black and white morality, at a loss as to whether I should be allying with causes. I mean, if people were sincere, it would be easy, but the fact people are NOT sincere makes me feel like maybe I'm just being taken advantage of by a bunch of self interested people, who could care less if I dropped dead tomorrow.


And that's pretty selfish, too, but empathy IS selfish. It hinges on the belief that empathy is reciprocal, and that people wouldn't leave you flapping in the wind any more then you would to them.



I guess that makes me a little nuts, but I'd rather be a sincere loonie then a heartless social chameleon any day.

Originally posted by cdtm
Feminist rhetoric is based on appealing to the public's conscience. Otherwise, nobody would care. All public, loud rhetoric is an appeal to conscience in some way. Which is a nicer way of saying appeal to emotion. Pure pathos f*cking works.


Originally posted by cdtm
So if feminism is an appeal to morality, then doesn't also hold true that the same moral framework should apply to civil rights?

Or bullying?



That being the case, we can assume people are intrinsically moral, and once you learn empathy for one cause, you should apply that empathy to most causes, without needing to be lectured to.


Correct?



Asking, because that's not what I'm really seeing from people. It almost seems like women are only interested in women's problems, and parents of bullied children with bullying, and black people with civil rights problems.


And the general public, only seems to care about causes that have a strong lobby. They'll.defend against transphobia, yet call a chinese person a "chink". The very SAME people do this. Too many causes. Most people can't afford to direct too much time and mental energy to every cause so they pick the few that hits their beliefs and emotions hardest. And even then, they're not always keen or able to dive deep to find out what is right; much easier and personally cost effective to devote energy on finding out who is right. Rally around a chosen flag, defend it, disparage other flags and their defenders. Us v. Them is terribly easy, resource-wise.



Originally posted by cdtm
Which makes someone like me, who looks at the world in terms of black and white morality, at a loss as to whether I should be allying with causes. I mean, if people were sincere, it would be easy, but the fact people are NOT sincere makes me feel like maybe I'm just being taken advantage of by a bunch of self interested people, who could care less if I dropped dead tomorrow. Maybe stop doing that, it's not helpful.

They are sincere, just not in a way you like or about the things you prefer. They are your Them, and They are not as good as your Us. And in that way you're no different from Them.

Also, don't know if you really realized this or not, but most people outside of your close friends and family genuinely don't care if you die, regardless of their social conscience, political ideology, or "sincerity." They can't afford to so will see no real reason to.

Originally posted by cdtm
And that's pretty selfish, too, but empathy IS selfish. It hinges on the belief that empathy is reciprocal, and that people wouldn't leave you flapping in the wind any more then you would to them. You may be confusing empathy with altruism (or charity). Empathy isn't defined by your actions toward others, but by your internal processing of other people's emotions--actions may simply be an expression of that internalization.


Originally posted by cdtm
I guess that makes me a little nuts, but I'd rather be a sincere loonie then a heartless social chameleon any day. In Americaland, loonie's are called dollars. Or buckaroos.

Originally posted by cdtm
Take women and the earning gap. I listen to a lecture on how women make less money then men (Not an invitation to debate the concept), and I think to myself "Boy, that's pretty messed up. Something should be done".

You don't wanna debate it, but you apparently just take it as face value that women earn less because they are women. You don't find an issue with that?




Some of the rhetoric is based on appealing to the public conscience with lies. You just demonstrated this by showing you don't think critically or question it when you're told that women earn less, you just think "oh damn that is bad something should be done". And of course, short of paying women *more* cuz vaginas, nothing can be done.

The response to being told "women earn less" should be "why? what factors are in play?". It's wrong if women are earning less because vaginas. It's not wrong(or a problem needing of fixing) if they earn less because men and women are different and make different choices.



It's an appeal to the morality of those who can't or merely refuse to think critically.




Those women aren't actually feminists. At least, not if we are to buy into the talking point that feminism is about equality.



And look at how much money goes into research for breast cancer compared to say...diseases that impact men(like prostate cancer). Maybe when the "Women can get prostate cancer" tag becomes popular that might change.

And how many shelters for men who are on the receiving end of domestic violence are there compared to ones for women? Does it reflect the ratio of how often men suffer from domestic violence vs how often women do?(I don't think it does).

And just watch, I'd be shocked if my comments about breast cancer and prostate cancer and the shelters do not trigger someone.




I understand viewing some things in a black and white manner, but it's dangerous to view *all* things that way.

In your black and white world an 18 yr. old who gets a statutory rape charge for f*cking his willing 16 yr. old gf is the same as a guy who is drugging women and then raping them.