Are All Men Trash? Discussion

PostRe: Are All Men Trash? Discussion by **That** » Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:53 pm

I think we would at least both agree that posting on GRcade is not meaningful praxis.

To be fair, this seems to have evolved into more of a meta-discussion about what styles of discussion are effective in general.

Karl_ wrote:Radical rhetoric is not mutually exclusive with liberal rhetoric. Successful social movements typically have both. As simple examples---obviously there is nuance here but the thrust is correct---look at the liberal suffragists vs. the radical suffragettes, the nonviolent Martin Luther King Jr. vs. Malcolm X, or liberal pride parades vs. the radical queer riots.

Not to give too much importance to Twitter, but the "not happening five years late on GRcade" version of this discussion already happened in c.2014 and was a moment of real radicalisation for women on that platform. Funnily enough, the reactionary #NotAllMen countertendency resulted in further radicalisation of women under the #YesAllWomen tag, which was a direct precursor to e.g. #MeToo, which resulted in real life change via radical direct action (a form of "outing" oppressors, which was already used in a different form as a direct action tactic in radical queer communities).

Radicalising the oppressed is well worth annoying the oppressors in the calculus of revolution. Change does not come from above. An angry oppressed class who knows their enemy and is motivated to fight for their rights is a precondition for any genuine, radical change.

This is a really interesting/useful post

In general how do you direct (I want to say "lense") radical rhetoric towards the oppressed class, and the liberal rhetoric towards the wider public, while minimising the exposure otherwise of potentially counterproductive radical rhetoric seen out of context?

That seems to me to be where the problems arise, and where that radical rhetoric (our "men are trash" of the discussion) gets communicated to an unreceptive audience. If you're crunching the numbers, presumably you want to minimise that crossover.

The political right appear more effective in doing that, when you look at how different their messaging is through different bubbles and when targeted at different demographics, and in "hiding" their equivalent extreme rhetoric. In contrast they draw attention to the radical rhetoric of the left to make it look absurd.

Last edited by Peter Crisp on Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Am I the only person more upset about the use of the word "Trash"?

The word Rubbish is just so much better :shifty:

.

I've not read any of this topic though so this may have been discussed but then again I'm a man so I'm obviously rubbish at reading.

In answer to the opening post, No, all men aren't rubbish, just those that don't think Luton is the new Dubai.

Peter Crisp wrote:Am I the only person more upset about the use of the word "Trash"?

The word Rubbish is just so much better

I'm rather fond of the term 'garbage', even though it's more of an american term.

Moggy wrote:
Knoyleo wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Karl_ wrote:Women and men as social groups exist in a social hierarchy, comparable in some ways to that of the proletariat and bourgeoisie. Phrases like #MenAreTrash and #EatTheRich are useful as a rallying idea, and a message of radicalisation, for the oppressed group in those hierarchies. Social movements typically need radical rhetoric to be effective.

Some #NotAllMen men might need the thrust of the argument to be clarified, but we can do that in the ensuing conversation. Other #NotAllMen men are reactionary counterrevolutionaries who won't be happy with any genuinely radical change. The risk with apologising for or changing a movement's radical rhetoric is that if you give reactionaries an inch they'll take a mile.

When has radical and alienating rhetoric ever resulted in a positive change though?

Consider:

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of “interposition” and “nullification”, one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today.

For it’s time that was a radical speech, but Dr King was clever enough to not say “those white people are bastards!”, his whole speech was about the races coming together and living together in harmony and with true justice.

Dr King would have been well within his rights (well well well well within!!) to have said that white people are trash. They damn well were and most still are. But it doesn’t advance the cause to say something that instantly allows the oppressor to get out of answering the actual question. Saying “white people are trash” converts nobody. Saying “I have a dream of peace, equality and unity between races” is a lot harder to argue with.

One of the main troubles with progressives at the moment is the branding. I understand what is meant by “Men are trash” and I don’t disagree, but you lose the argument when it’s used, as instead of getting a rational discussion you will simply get a barrage of “not all men!” comments and your actual point is lost.

The far right are absolutely kicking the ass of progressives in this regard. People like Farage wised up a long time ago. Rather than scrawling swastikas on walls and writing “Pakis go home!” on family homes, they realised that they get better results by hiding their message. Saying “Isn’t all this Muslim terrorism bad” is far far more effective than saying “Pakis eh, they smell of curry lol!”. By being smarter they can suck in people that wouldn’t even contemplate being racist and it’s then easy to gaslight them into worse and worse positions.

If you want to win, then you need to be less radical and more diplomatic. Not because the arseholes deserve diplomacy (they don’t) but because you need the undecideds in the middle. You don’t have to become a centrist (god forbid ) but you need to get those centrists broadly agreeing with you before they get swept up by the arseholes.

King also bemoaned white moderates as well, though. People who were purporting to be allies of the rights movement.

Sure, but which method was remembered and which method continues to inspire people worldwide?

Both?

It's interesting to look at how both quotes are used by people to further their own ends though. Both King and Malcolm X are widely quoted by black activists and those on the left, when taking about the weak inaction of "liberal" allies.

Meanwhile, the "I have a dream" speech is frequently quoted by people who attempt to shut down discussion about race by preaching colourblindness. Given King's comments about white moderates and their attempt to stifle radical action, that clearly isn't its message, but it is how some "remember" it.

Corazon de Leon

Knoyleo wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Karl_ wrote:Women and men as social groups exist in a social hierarchy, comparable in some ways to that of the proletariat and bourgeoisie. Phrases like #MenAreTrash and #EatTheRich are useful as a rallying idea, and a message of radicalisation, for the oppressed group in those hierarchies. Social movements typically need radical rhetoric to be effective.

Some #NotAllMen men might need the thrust of the argument to be clarified, but we can do that in the ensuing conversation. Other #NotAllMen men are reactionary counterrevolutionaries who won't be happy with any genuinely radical change. The risk with apologising for or changing a movement's radical rhetoric is that if you give reactionaries an inch they'll take a mile.

When has radical and alienating rhetoric ever resulted in a positive change though?

Consider:

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of “interposition” and “nullification”, one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today.

For it’s time that was a radical speech, but Dr King was clever enough to not say “those white people are bastards!”, his whole speech was about the races coming together and living together in harmony and with true justice.

Dr King would have been well within his rights (well well well well within!!) to have said that white people are trash. They damn well were and most still are. But it doesn’t advance the cause to say something that instantly allows the oppressor to get out of answering the actual question. Saying “white people are trash” converts nobody. Saying “I have a dream of peace, equality and unity between races” is a lot harder to argue with.

One of the main troubles with progressives at the moment is the branding. I understand what is meant by “Men are trash” and I don’t disagree, but you lose the argument when it’s used, as instead of getting a rational discussion you will simply get a barrage of “not all men!” comments and your actual point is lost.

The far right are absolutely kicking the ass of progressives in this regard. People like Farage wised up a long time ago. Rather than scrawling swastikas on walls and writing “Pakis go home!” on family homes, they realised that they get better results by hiding their message. Saying “Isn’t all this Muslim terrorism bad” is far far more effective than saying “Pakis eh, they smell of curry lol!”. By being smarter they can suck in people that wouldn’t even contemplate being racist and it’s then easy to gaslight them into worse and worse positions.

If you want to win, then you need to be less radical and more diplomatic. Not because the arseholes deserve diplomacy (they don’t) but because you need the undecideds in the middle. You don’t have to become a centrist (god forbid ) but you need to get those centrists broadly agreeing with you before they get swept up by the arseholes.

King also bemoaned white moderates as well, though. People who were purporting to be allies of the rights movement.

He did indeed, but I don't actually think this contradicts the point that Mogs is making, which is that King was by and large smart enough to use unifying rhetoric in his speeches, to avoid the alienation of the group he needed to influence the most. MLK was a genuinely impressive orator and he(and the people around him) knew how to use his words at the right times, to the right people, to get the right results.

The point that Orange Rakoon(?) made about the propaganda war is a very strong one - it's *the* most important war that is being fought right now. I don't actually disagree with the points that Taf has made, at all, but the aggressive nature of the "All men are trash" standpoint runs antithetically to the more inclusive style used by MLK and others of that ilk that worked so well. It immediately alienates a huge proportion of your potential support, whether it's a salient point or not.

Can't believe it's taken me seeing the new thread name to make the connection, but we've had 6 pages with no mention of the indisputable trash man:

Corazon de Leon wrote:
Knoyleo wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Karl_ wrote:Women and men as social groups exist in a social hierarchy, comparable in some ways to that of the proletariat and bourgeoisie. Phrases like #MenAreTrash and #EatTheRich are useful as a rallying idea, and a message of radicalisation, for the oppressed group in those hierarchies. Social movements typically need radical rhetoric to be effective.

Some #NotAllMen men might need the thrust of the argument to be clarified, but we can do that in the ensuing conversation. Other #NotAllMen men are reactionary counterrevolutionaries who won't be happy with any genuinely radical change. The risk with apologising for or changing a movement's radical rhetoric is that if you give reactionaries an inch they'll take a mile.

When has radical and alienating rhetoric ever resulted in a positive change though?

Consider:

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of “interposition” and “nullification”, one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today.

For it’s time that was a radical speech, but Dr King was clever enough to not say “those white people are bastards!”, his whole speech was about the races coming together and living together in harmony and with true justice.

Dr King would have been well within his rights (well well well well within!!) to have said that white people are trash. They damn well were and most still are. But it doesn’t advance the cause to say something that instantly allows the oppressor to get out of answering the actual question. Saying “white people are trash” converts nobody. Saying “I have a dream of peace, equality and unity between races” is a lot harder to argue with.

One of the main troubles with progressives at the moment is the branding. I understand what is meant by “Men are trash” and I don’t disagree, but you lose the argument when it’s used, as instead of getting a rational discussion you will simply get a barrage of “not all men!” comments and your actual point is lost.

The far right are absolutely kicking the ass of progressives in this regard. People like Farage wised up a long time ago. Rather than scrawling swastikas on walls and writing “Pakis go home!” on family homes, they realised that they get better results by hiding their message. Saying “Isn’t all this Muslim terrorism bad” is far far more effective than saying “Pakis eh, they smell of curry lol!”. By being smarter they can suck in people that wouldn’t even contemplate being racist and it’s then easy to gaslight them into worse and worse positions.

If you want to win, then you need to be less radical and more diplomatic. Not because the arseholes deserve diplomacy (they don’t) but because you need the undecideds in the middle. You don’t have to become a centrist (god forbid ) but you need to get those centrists broadly agreeing with you before they get swept up by the arseholes.

King also bemoaned white moderates as well, though. People who were purporting to be allies of the rights movement.

He did indeed, but I don't actually think this contradicts the point that Mogs is making, which is that King was by and large smart enough to use unifying rhetoric in his speeches, to avoid the alienation of the group he needed to influence the most. MLK was a genuinely impressive orator and he(and the people around him) knew how to use his words at the right times, to the right people, to get the right results.

The point that Orange Rakoon(?) made about the propaganda war is a very strong one - it's *the* most important war that is being fought right now. I don't actually disagree with the points that Taf has made, at all, but the aggressive nature of the "All men are trash" standpoint runs antithetically to the more inclusive style used by MLK and others of that ilk that worked so well. It immediately alienates a huge proportion of your potential support, whether it's a salient point or not.

That.

My point is that to win you need to bring the undecideds and moderates along with you. Dr King’s biggest strength was being able to do that with his speeches.

If he had made speeches calling whites evil or bemoaning progressives then his words would have lost all impact.

You don’t have to moderate your beliefs but if you want to win then you sometimes have to moderate the way you express them. The far/alt right are very good at this at the moment, the left/progressives are miles behind.

PostRe: Are All Men Trash? Discussion by **Hexx** » Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:44 pm

What's more likely to get people to listen to your message?

Tafprof: MEN ARE TRASH
Undecided: Well that's a strong viewpoint tell me more?
Tafprof: **USES OVERWHELMING VERBOSITUDE"
Undecided: You've made me think.

JenuKoon: Some men might need to think about their behavior
Undecided: What's happening over there?
JenuKoon: Wait come back...some people need to change! you might be one of them...maybe?

I mean....a propaganda war? what do you think are the most viewed videos on youtube? One's that court engagement or ones that softly entice? The answer will shock you!

PostRe: Are All Men Trash? Discussion by **Jenuall** » Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:49 pm

Hexx wrote:What's more likely to get people to listen to your message?

Tafprof: MEN ARE TRASH
Undecided: Well that's a strong viewpoint tell me more?
Tafprof: **USES OVERWHELMING VERBOSITUDE"
Undecided: You've made me think.

JenuKoon: Some men might need to think about their behavior
Undecided: What's happening over there?
JenuKoon: Wait come back...some people need to change! you might be one of them...maybe?

I mean....a propaganda war? what do you think are the most viewed videos on youtube? One's that court engagement or ones that softly entice? The answer will shock you!

Okay now you're just going out of your way to misunderstand surely?

PostRe: Are All Men Trash? Discussion by **Moggy** » Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:51 pm

Hexx wrote:What's more likely to get people to listen to your message?

Tafprof: MEN ARE TRASH
Undecided: Well that's a strong viewpoint tell me more?
Tafprof: **USES OVERWHELMING VERBOSITUDE"
Undecided: You've made me think.

JenuKoon: Some men might need to think about their behavior
Undecided: What's happening over there?
JenuKoon: Wait come back...some people need to change! you might be one of them...maybe?

I mean what do you think are the most viewed videos on youtube? One's that court engagement or ones that softly entice? The answer will shock you!

Except your missing an important element. It goes more like this:

Tafprof: MEN ARE TRASH!

Undecided: What? All men?

Alt-right fuckwit: HE CALLED YOU TRASH!

Tafprof: OVERWHELMING VERBOSITUDE

Undecided: Eh?

Alt-right fuckwit: See, he used big words to confuse you because he thinks you’re thick AND he thinks you’re trash!

Undecided: Really?

Tafprof: *20,000 words on institutional sexism and the history of toxic masculinity*”

Alt-right fuckwit: We don’t hate women, we just think men should be allowed to be men

Tafprof: EAT THE RICH! MEN ARE SCUM!

Undecided: Not all men!

Corazon de Leon

I'm not sure what the point you're making is there Hexx?

Last edited by Hexx on Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Corazon de Leon wrote:I'm not sure what the point you're making is there Hexx?

My point is same from the start aiming your moderating your communication at the lowest common denominator already predisposed to reject to you is daft.

It also ignore the multitude of other reasons for such strong rhetoric.

Also I find the talk round Martin Luther King pretty pointless because his speech failed on quite a few bits of it's aims. It's hardly a poster child of sucessful outcomes.

PostRe: Are All Men Trash? Discussion by **That** » Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:57 pm

I thought I was fairly concise but ho-hum

PostRe: Are All Men Trash? Discussion by **Hexx** » Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:59 pm

Karl_ wrote:I thought I was fairly concise but ho-hum

In this thread? You're the most concise and effective sure.

PostRe: Are All Men Trash? Discussion by **That** » Thu Jun 27, 2019 4:01 pm

Ha, was just amused by "overwhelming verbositude" as I've been trying to avoid that. But I get you meant more a style of argument in general, than a particular person in this thread

PostRe: Are All Men Trash? Discussion by **<]:^D** » Thu Jun 27, 2019 4:02 pm

im quite happy to be called trash and get on with my life

PostRe: Are All Men Trash? Discussion by **Hexx** » Thu Jun 27, 2019 4:03 pm

Karl_ wrote:Ha, was just amused by "overwhelming verbositude" as I've been trying to avoid that. But I get you meant more a style of argument in general, than a particular person in this thread

I meant "overwhelming" as in "unarguable" or "irrefutable". Strength not size.

Last edited by Jenuall on Thu Jun 27, 2019 4:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hexx wrote:
Corazon de Leon wrote:I'm not sure what the point you're making is there Hexx?

My point is same from the start aiming your moderating your communication at the lowest common denominator already predisposed to reject to you is daft.

It also ignore the multitude of other reasons for such strong rhetoric.

Also I find the talk round Martin Luther King pretty pointless because his speech failed on quite a few bits of it's aims. It's hardly a poster child of sucessful outcomes.

It's like pulling teeth.

The point is that you start tailoring your communication for your audience. You don't have to change your message, just how you express it.

And the other point is that you can have more than one mechanism of communication.

#MenAreTrash may work well on a lot of moderates, and lets face it - the people who are broadly already on your side. In addition to this it can act as a fantastic call to arms and identifier of people with shared views - that is A Good Thing™

But this approach will rile the strawberry float out of the people who you most need to get your message across to - y'know the ones who genuinely are full on trash. It should not be seen as a crushing defeat to explore other options for bringing more of those people on board.

EDIT: Unless the aim is not to "convert" people or engage them in any kind of pro-active change for society but simply to brand them as trash, hope others agree that they are trash, and that as a result of this greater awareness of trash natural factors lead to a future where there is less trash?

Hexx wrote:What's more likely to get people to listen to your message?

I haven't read any studies but anecdotally your invented examples aren't the kinds of interactions I see.

Are All Men Trash? Discussion

Who is online

Affiliates