Black Dog

Well I think I'm starting to see why you don't get what cultural appropriation is if you think nasty racial slurs are NBD.

Well it kinda depends on the level of expertise and involvement of the person commenting. No you don't. You listen to black music. That's exchange or appreciation. Appropriation is like when Pat Boone came out with sanitized versions of '50s black rock and roll songs. Taking the good stuff and erasing the references to the culture that created it. I don't think you understand the question. Do you think it's ok for a white person to use the word in the same way as black people do; that is, not as an epithet but a jocular expression of camaraderie or solidarity?

Shouldn't that be up to the people whose culture is being borrowed? Let me ask you this: would you say it`s ok for a white person to use the word nigger because they heard it used by black people in rap lyrics?

I thought it was clear: there's a difference between cultural exchange and cultural appropriation that drains certain symbols or practices of their meaning. White people making or eating curry is cultural exchange. White people dressing up in bindis to go to take drugs at a music festival is probably appropriation.

Is wearing an Armani suit a specific symbol of a specific culture? If so, what culture? IMO cultural appropriation becomes problematic when people use specific symbols with specific meanings to specific cultures in ways that are divorced from that meaning. Wearing a ceremonial headdress at a rave because it looks cool is a prime example. There's is the issue of the historical context; again, with the headdress example, it's like, what, first you take the land, now you take the cultural symbols?

Which no one has done, but keep harping on that strawman! I doubt that. Or, you know, have actually attempted suicide and failed. Lots of people have suicidal urges you know. No idea what you're talking about. Uh: no I didn't. They are when they are specious.

Ok Lionel Hutz. You don't even have anecdotal evidence to support this claim. It's a complete fabrication. Pretty gross to turn this poor dead kid into a pawn for your personal crusade against feminism. And did you consider how much sympathy you were likely to get? And "having the urge" is a lot different from "deciding to follow through." Well this has nothing to do with anything at all. You're going off the track here. Yes let's look to the culture that gave the world tentacle porn for guidance. Aaaaaannnnnd we're in the ditch.

It doesn't support your claim. Your claim was that it was a contributing factor in this specific suicide. See above re: suicide and impulse. It follows, then, that if you suddenly are seized by the urge to top yourself, you'll use what is nearest at hand be it a gun, pills, or a big fucking bridge. No dummy. And how do they do that? By telling men that showing emotions is womanly and weak. Japan is a extremely conservative (compared to western countries) and patriarchal culture where suicide is literally accepted as a viable solution. I'm aware that the gap exists in other countries as well where the most common method of suicide for men is the next most lethal: hanging.

The New York Times recently ran a couple of pieces on a USMC battalion that had been plagued by the suicides of its former members. This piece talks about some of the reasons why, some of which would certainly apply to society at large.

Anecdote is not evidence. Nor have you presented evidence proving your assertion that this York student's suicide was a result of the fight over International Men's Day. You know what is the biggest factor in people's choice of method? Accessibility. In what way are you not? You quote them, you repeat their talking points...I see no functional difference here. It's less about society not caring about the emotional concerns of men than it is society conditioning men not to show emotions in the first place.

Who's saying this? It's well documented men kill themselves at higher rates than women. But women are more likely to attempt suicide (something euler and fellow MRAs gloss over when this subject comes up). None of this is a big secret and there's some superficial explanations that go a long way to explaining the gap. Men are more likely to have access to firearms than women for one thing, while women are more likely to have prescription drugs on hand. Men are also more likely to self-medicate with booze and make decisions under the influence. Hell, maybe women are also just more concerned about leaving a mangled corpse for their loved ones behind? There's lots of potential explanations and certainly it's worth exploring. But you know what doesn't help? Simply brandishing the fact that men succeed in offing themselves more than women and using it as a cudgel against the great gynocracy.

There's no evidence of that. Nor have I ever denied men's issues: my issue is with the people who use those issues as ways of scoring debate points and shaking down suckers without doing anything to actually help. That's exactly what it implies. Unless you don't understand what the word "incentive" means? And they aren't choosing those less lethal methods because they suspect it will fail and they'll get hugs and sympathy out of the deal either. Research has shown that most women who attempt suicide are - brace yourself! - actually trying to end their lives. I did deny it and any such implication is found only in the fever swamp of your mind. So what? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, posts links to videos of other ducks on YouTube, it's probably a duck.

Unless you know the victim personally or there was some kind of public suicide note stating that as a factor, you're absolutely, 100 per cent full of shit in saying there's a connection between this specific suicide and the specific circumstances of university feminist's issues with International Mans Day. Like, it's one thing to cite this case and say [Alanis voice]Isn't it ironic?[/Alanis voice]; another, much stupider, thing to actually try and create a direct link between the two. But you did it! You get a golden fedora! Again, here's what you said Let's put it this way: you are a lot closer to saying women intentionally flub suicides to get sympathy than I ever was to saying women are too dumb to kill themselves properly or whatever nonsense you like to pretend I said. That's a real shame. I usually like to think the real garbage people on the internet are just personas. Actually, you being who and what you say you are does more to bolster my worldview with regard to MRAs than any made up character ever could. So by all means: keep on digging!

That's a general comment. Are you saying this specific student killed himself as a result of the pressure feminists were putting on the university? Because that's the implication. Oh I'm sorry, I thought my asking "where did I say that?" was enough but I guess I need to spell it out for you: I have never said, or even implied, that. This from the guy who thinks women scheme to fake suicide attempts for lulz. Admit it: you're faking this whole schtick, aren't you? It';s gotta be a Poe's law thing: the straw MRA. I hope that's the case, because if not....woof.

Where did I say that, exactly? Even if I did, that's still less retarded than your claim that women intentionally select less lethal methods as a way to get sympathy.

So what does the suicide have to do with? Are you suggesting the pressure from feminists led to the suicide?

Since you're being disingenuous as usual, can you provide cites for the following clams: That women who attempt suicide just don't want to kill themselves as strongly as men. That if you attempt suicide and fail, you are more likely to gain sympathy as a women than as a man. That said sympathy impacts women's suicide methods.

What a pile of garbage. But it does say a lot about how you view women.

Three things: the same people who were railing against the original target will be all over Trudeau for going back on his promise. Book it.

Objection: relevance?

That's part of it, yes. Not sure why the eyeroll is there.

Looks like the wrong bear got poked, no?

Does Canada offer opportunities of immigrants to become citizens (Germany didn't do that until, IIRC, 2010)? Do we have strict laws banning public expressions of religious belief (as in France)? Does Canada have a complex and fraught history with the peoples of its former colonial possessions (uh, most of western Europe here)? "We're Canada" means more than you think it does.

Well if Putin says they weren't in Turkish airspace, it must be true!