TeeHee [ToxicFemininity] [RageFuel] "All men benefit from the actions of violent men. TEEHEE". Foids in my community have been sharing this.

[DirtyCurryCell]

So according to this bitch, when she decides to ride the cock carousel and the chads and tyronne's beat her up when she gets too clingy, I benefit from it somehow.

Toxic masculinity is real. But women are not the victims of it.

Imagine being this narcicistic. Most victims of violent men, are other men. The men women refuse to date.

 

[Mainländer]

Men are keeping women in check? They're doing a very, very poor job then tbh.

 

[PPEcel]

This actually presents an interesting line of philosophical inquiry. Bear with me as I try to explain this as concisely as I can.

That "free riding" is morally reprehensible has been propounded by some political theorists for decades. As H.L.A. Hart notes in his reciprocity principle, "When a number of persons conduct any joint enterprise according to rules and thus restrict their liberty, those who have submitted to these restrictions when required have a right to a similar submission from those who have benefited by their submission." He concludes that all of us have political obligations to cooperate in a "joint enterprise", i.e. with the state.

The tweet, however, reminds me of a more recent work by Candice Delmas. Delmas takes Hart's argument further, and not only argues that "justice" requires a "duty of fair play", but that such a duty entails political obligations for participants in unjust schemes. Per her argument,

1. Fairness prohibits free riding.
2. Fairness does not require cooperating with an unfair and unjust scheme of coordination.
3. Benefiting from an unfair and unjust scheme involves the same kinds of wrongs that make free riding reprehensible.
4. Therefore, fairness prohibits benefiting from unfair and unjust schemes

Delmas concludes by suggesting that all individuals, including those who benefit unwillingly and unknowingly, have the political obligation to resist an unjust scheme.

If we apply Delmas' "duty of fair play" argument to feminist theory and critical theory (i.e. the tweet), all men (including nonviolent, "good" men) are free-riding off the "scheme" of "violent men". This also means that nonviolent, "good" men have the moral obligation to resist "violent men".

Now, of course, I have personal reservations about any theory of justice which engenders political obligations over my participation in a scheme in which I benefit unwillingly and unknowingly. The best counterargument to the "duty of fair play" would be Robert Nozick's radio station example in his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia; taken to the extremes, Nozick concludes that "the [duty] of fair play would allow others to place us under an obligation to them simply by conferring benefits on us". Another argument against such a duty is advanced by Wellman and Simmons, who makes the moral distinction between someone who is receiving benefits, and one who is accepting benefits; a case involving the mere reception of non-excludable goods does not necessarily generate "a duty of fair play".

It would seem that the tweet is an implicit endorsement of Hart and Delmas' argument. And based on Nozick's as well as Wellman and Simmons' points, I don't think that I face political obligations over my involuntary participation of a scheme (if indeed we accept the existence of such a scheme) by "violent men" (i.e. low inhib Chads and Tyrones). I will have to conclude that even if I (as a nonviolent high-inhib subhuman male) did benefit from the actions of violent men, I have no moral obligation to resist (nor any moral culpability of) the actions of violent men.

OP what do you think? Also tagging highIQcels @BlkPillPres @Anonymous MG @ChinaCurry

 

[Lame Dude]

Men are keeping women in check? They're doing a very, very poor job then tbh.

 

[radishman]

View attachment 284474

So according to this bitch, when she decides to ride the cock carousel and the chads and tyronne's beat her up when she gets too clingy, I benefit from it somehow.

Toxic masculinity is real. But women are not the victims of it.

Imagine being this narcicistic. Most victims of violent men, are other men. The men women refuse to date.

Always replace "men" with chads when holes speak

 

[Hartenberch]

Another argument against such a duty is advanced by Wellman and Simmons, who makes the moral distinction between someone who is receiving benefits, and one who is accepting benefits; a case involving the mere reception of non-excludable goods does not necessarily generate "a duty of fair play".

It would seem that the tweet is an implicit endorsement of Hart and Delmas' argument. And personally, I don't think that I, as a nonviolent individual, face political obligations over my involuntary participation of a scheme (if indeed we accept the existence of such a scheme) by "violent men" (i.e. low inhib Chads and Tyrones).

I’d agree with this assessment. The largest issue with the tweet’s argument seems to be the ”acceptance of the existence of such a scheme”:

Men are keeping women in check? They're doing a very, very poor job then tbh.

But ignoring that, the argument that the nonviolent benefit from violence because it grants the nonviolent a modicum of (self-)esteem for their being nonviolent is a non-sequitur, in as far as, were we to remove all violence from our society, nonviolence would still be a virtue, and one that it would reasonable to “feel good“ about having. There is a strange sense of “entitlement” that foids especially feel for “basic decency” from others notwithstanding their own behaviors which is especially deep-rooted, that ignores how much “basic decency” isn’t a guarantee for many, and ignores how easy is it to offend “basic decency”—by say, not psychically knowing what offends her; further, the lack of incentive for “basic decency” bleeds over into the lack of the same for going “above and beyond” that these types are always demanding, and without recognition of the taxing effects of such effort on the actor, and that’s all without discussing what we know about how bad actors (psychopaths, dark-triads) are rewarded for their lack of “basic decency” and more by people, and especially w*men.

But if we generalize to free-riding from violence generally, a much stronger instance of the accrued benefits from the violence of others should be given than this sloppy “bad people doing bad things makes non-bad people feel good” plus or minus “women are (very ambitiously) oppressed by this” argumentation. More, a better guideline for the application of the duty of fair play should be given by those arguing men in general benefit from this violence than the unrealistic expectation to “pay back” all unjust externalities in one’s life, even the unknown ones, implied by Delmas, which here involves the further complication of the implication that the sort of political action demanded would be preventative towards the violence here being discussed.

 

[PPEcel]

But ignoring that, the argument that the nonviolent benefit from violence because it grants the nonviolent a modicum of (self-)esteem for their being nonviolent is a non-sequitur, in as far as, were we to remove all violence from our society, nonviolence would still be a virtue, and one that it would reasonable to “feel good“ about having.

Absolutely. It is not unreasonable to "feel good" to fulfil a moral obligation, even if it is "the bare minimum".

But if we generalize to free-riding from violence generally, a much stronger instance of the accrued benefits from the violence of others should be given than this sloppy “bad people doing bad things makes non-bad people feel good” plus or minus “women are (very ambitiously) oppressed by this” argumentation. More, a better guideline for the application of the duty of fair play should be given by those arguing men in general benefit from this violence than the unrealistic expectation to “pay back” all unjust externalities in one’s life, even the unknown ones, implied by Delmas, which here involves the further complication of the implication that the sort of political action demanded would be preventative towards the violence here being discussed.

To be fair, Delmas does not specify precisely what action she expects, she is just here to justify the political obligation of "resistance and radical reform", whatever that entails is...well, we don't know.

And Delmas is not the one trying to implicitly integrate "fair play" theory into feminist theory, it's the Tweet in question. Just another feminazi trying to blame men for...something, I guess.

 

[Deleted member 27159]

Men are keeping women in check? They're doing a very, very poor job then tbh.

Tbh. They are all cucks nowadays

 

[Hartenberch]

To be fair, Delmas does not specify precisely what action she expects, she is just here to justify the political obligation of "resistance and radical reform", whatever that entails is...well, we don't know.

And Delmas is not the one trying to implicitly integrate "fair play" theory into feminist theory, it's the Tweet in question. Just another feminazi trying to blame men for...something, I guess.

I'd like to be more accurate about Delmas' ideas, but don't have 40 USD to shell out for one article. Maybe I can find it on JSTOR or something less costly.

 

[PPEcel]

I'd like to be more accurate about Delmas' ideas, but don't have 40 USD to shell out for one article. Maybe I can find it on JSTOR or something less costly.

I have access to it via my institution, I'll just upload it here.

 

[guaucel]

We can apply the same logic to anything bad women do. Women/NPC cumdumpsters blaming everything on men again

I have access to it via my institution, I'll just upload it here.

Oxford maths is easier than Cambridge/LSE/Imperial/Ivies...

 

[BlkPillPres]

Men are keeping women in check? They're doing a very, very poor job then tbh.

 

[Emba]

Her Whig is broken.

 

[your personality]

Twitter scumbags calling out sub 8 males and treating them as men when it is convenient and trying to get them to act selflessly on women's behalf.

"All women, including self-proclaimed anti-feminist women benefit from the actions of feminist women. It allows women to perform the barest minimum virtue signaling and still feel good about themselves. The existence of feminist women grants "anti-feminist" women awards for basic decency..."

 

[Blackcel rigth wing]

Men are keeping women in check? They're doing a very, very poor job then tbh.

This

 

[PPEcel]

Oxford maths is easier than Cambridge/LSE/Imperial/Ivies...

I'm not studying maths

Cambridge maths definitely mogs though, I can't deny

 

[Reprobus]

Men are keeping women in check? They're doing a very, very poor job then tbh.

Tbh.

 

[ShiiOfTheSPLC]

they contradict themselves so much. "Women just want a guy who's nice and respects them!" then "Being nice isn't a personality. You need to have more than that." to "Women have no expectations of men, they just need to do the bare minimum!". it's all so tiresome