Does White Nationalism = White Supremacy?

[miscinbro]

If you changed it to "White Lives Matter", would you then consider it to be racist?

No.

[SWDeath]

The funny thing is that most white nationalists aren't even close to resembling the ideal race they claim is superior, and therefore would not be permitted to live in a white nationalist country. Lmao @ the British genetics of all these "white nationalists".

Fantasy:



Reality:

I dont think you understand how it works little guy, try check out some history in to the SS and notice the "superior" non sense was propaganda.

Time to learn actual history instead of what your pubic school education taught you.

[InstantLoser]

No.

Funny, most leftists I've spoken with/seen online seem to think the concept of being ok with whiteness (as if "whiteness" is a thing outside of a skin pigmentation) is synonymous with white supremacy/being a Nazi.

It's ok to be white. White lives matter. You heard it here first folks: Miscinbro says these are not racist statements.

[anonymous]

See’s number of members banned in this thread...

...leaves immediately

And stay out, you white supremacists aren't welcome here

[miscinbro]

But you can reasonably infer what feminism actually IS based on the actions of feminists, which is of course female supremacy/anti-male rhetoric & hatred. That makes feminism sexist.

That’s not been my experience with feminists.

[miscinbro]

Funny, most leftists I've spoken with/seen online seem to think the concept of being ok with whiteness (as if "whiteness" is a thing outside of a skin pigmentation) is synonymous with white supremacy/being a Nazi.

It's ok to be white. White lives matter. You heard it here first folks: Miscinbro says these are not racist statements.

Yea, it’s ok to be white.

[InstantLoser]

That’s not been my experience with feminists.

Then you aren't speaking to feminists, you're speaking to women who may generally support the rights/privileges that feminism gained them in the past (like 1st/2nd wave). 3rd/4th gen Feminists are blue-haired nutjob man haters, or the're mindless sheep who parrot the wikipedia definition as if it were accurate. If feminism were actually about "equality between the sexes" (and by equality, I'm referring to equality of opportunity, not OUTCOME which is what they actually want) they'd disband, as there are no rights which women in the western world do not have. They have more rights than men in certain realms.. definitely not less. The only reason to continue their existence is to push for additional free ****/more privileges that they don't need and haven't earned, almost always at the expense of men.

Feminism is misandry.

[z4v4]

No.

Man, you gotta give these guys credit for trying really hard with the slew of whataboutisms. Next up: Are cities like Little Italy and Chinatown racist?

[InstantLoser]

Man, you gotta give these guys credit for trying really hard with the slew of whataboutisms. Next up: Are cities like Little Italy and Chinatown racist?

Explain how it's not ok to make checks for hypocrisy in your ideological opposition by asking basic questions like "If it's ok to be black, is it also ok to be white"? Considering the large amount of leftists who actually think it's NOT ok to be white, I think it's a perfectly legitimate question to ask.

[z4v4]

Explain how it's not ok to make checks for hypocrisy in your ideological opposition by asking basic questions like "If it's ok to be black, is it also ok to be white"? Considering the large amount of leftists who actually think it's NOT ok to be white, I think it's a perfectly legitimate question to ask.

Who thinks it's not ok to be white? Perhaps you're conflating people being against white nationalist groups with being anti-white?

[miscinbro]

Then you aren't speaking to feminists, you're speaking to women who may generally support the rights/privileges that feminism gained them in the past (like 1st/2nd wave). 3rd/4th gen Feminists are blue-haired nutjob man haters, or the're mindless sheep who parrot the wikipedia definition as if it were accurate. If feminism were actually about "equality between the sexes" (and by equality, I'm referring to equality of opportunity, not OUTCOME which is what they actually want) they'd disband, as there are no rights which women in the western world do not have. They have more rights than men in certain realms.. definitely not less. The only reason to continue their existence is to push for additional free ****/more privileges that they don't need and haven't earned, almost always at the expense of men.

Feminism is misandry.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[miscinbro]

Man, you gotta give these guys credit for trying really hard with the slew of whataboutisms. Next up: Are cities like Little Italy and Chinatown racist?

It’s even worse, now he’s defining huge groups of people (“leftists,” “feminists” etc.) based on how he perceives them. I guess my wife who would call herself a feminist but loves a man isn’t actually a feminist because some butthurt incel on the internet thinks she isn’t bitter enough.

[InstantLoser]

Who thinks it's not ok to be white? Perhaps you're conflating people being against white nationalist groups with being anti-white?

Liberals. Far left college professors. The mainstream media. "Verified Blue Checkmarks" on Twitter. The CEO of Twitter.

Should I continue?

It’s even worse, now he’s defining huge groups of people (“leftists,” “feminists” etc.) based on how he perceives them. I guess my wife who would call herself a feminist but loves a man isn’t actually a feminist because some butthurt incel on the internet thinks she isn’t bitter enough.

I'm defining them based on their behavior.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Doesn't apply.

[miscinbro]

I'm defining them based on their behavior.

Doesn't apply.

So when I tell you I know a whole bunch of feminists but you say they aren’t actually feminists because they don’t match some criteria you have you ... really don’t see how that applies?

Amazing.

[InstantLoser]

So when I tell you I know a whole bunch of feminists but you say they aren’t actually feminists because they don’t match some criteria you have you ... really don’t see how that applies?

Amazing.

Based on the motives and behaviors of modern feminists, no they aren't if they aren't insane man haters. Do they believe in Patriarchy Theory? Then they're man haters. Do they believe there's a wage gap and that men are paid more than women for the same work? Do they think manspreading and mansplaining are real things? Do they feel oppressed by air conditioning? If not, they're not feminists by modern standards.

[miscinbro]

Based on the motives and behaviors of modern feminists, no they aren't if they aren't insane man haters. Do they believe in Patriarchy Theory? Then they're man haters. Do they believe there's a wage gap and that men are paid more than women for the same work? Do they think manspreading and mansplaining are real things? Do they feel oppressed by air conditioning? If not, they're not feminists by modern standards.

I disagree.

[z4v4]

Liberals. Far left college professors. The mainstream media. "Verified Blue Checkmarks" on Twitter. The CEO of Twitter.

Should I continue?

Sure. Just post a link to the CEO of Twitter saying, "It's not okay to be white." That should suffice.

[InstantLoser]

I disagree.

Any reason why?

[BetaAsPhuck]

Then you aren't speaking to feminists, you're speaking to women who may generally support the rights/privileges that feminism gained them in the past (like 1st/2nd wave). 3rd/4th gen Feminists are blue-haired nutjob man haters, or the're mindless sheep who parrot the wikipedia definition as if it were accurate.
Feminism is misandry.

Some feminists are misandrists, some aren't.

Some feminists are paranoid, hysterical, and perpetual victims, and some feminists just highlight socio-political issues that disproportionately affect women.

I used to have your view, until I found some feminists who did just highlight socio-political issues that disproportionately affect women.

There are some MRAs and Masculinists that are misogynists, and there are some that just highlight socio-political issues that disproportionately affect men.


This is a film critic, applying Feminist theory to movies, I think she's brilliant. Not hysterical, and argues her case very well. These aren't the kinds of feminists IME that are thrown in front of cameras, because they aren't hysterical enough...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKyrUMUervU




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNkTeHpHj_I

Hopefully you (or anyone on the misc) isn't going to claim that gender representation in media isn't a worthwhile issue to examine, because how men are depicted in ads, movie, and TV is a common complaint I see in right wing circles online.

[miscinbro]

Any reason why?

I’m just stating how I feel about it - just like you.

[Aesthetical]

If you changed it to "White Lives Matter", would you then consider it to be racist?

Of course not, but you need to put it in context with whats happening.

I believe the phrase 'black lives matter' was born from black americans believing that they are really being treated as if their lives dont matter and are expendable. Just look at the prison and judicial system thats been in place for decades. Its quite obvious who the legal system was targeting when they decided to make cannabis a schedule 1 drug.

With that being said, black lives matter seems to have been taken to an extreme and I think thats where white lives and blue lives matter come from. Its a rebuttal from just taking the phrase "black lives matter" at face value. By saying that, it does not mean white or blue lives dont matter. And when people make those statements to rebut black lives matter, its usually because they think they they are saying their lives dont matter.

One thing comes to mind from the democratic primaries when the candidates were asked if "black lives matter"?
The obvious answer is yes, black lives do matter. They matter the same amount as everyone else. But when candidates said, no, all lives matter, its not in context and deflecting from where the phrase originated from.

[InstantLoser]

test

The site will not let me post a reply/quote people. I can make this standalone post, but if I quote someone I get an error about the "Site taking a rest today".

quote

Representation as a term, when used by the left/feminists, is typically used to claim that there aren't "enough" of a certain demographic (women, homosexuals, minorities, etc) in a given form of media. Representation on that level is meaningless.

Now, if you're using it how you just did (ie representation of males being constantly portrayed as morons while women are portrayed as Mary Sue's who can do no wrong), then yes I'd agree it's an issue. Falsely portraying an entire demographic as being borderline retarded in order to prop up/make another demographic look better is pretty much what happens in every feminist-inspired TV show, ad, and movie. The guys are morons, and the women are impossibly talented... even when it comes to physical activities where men are obviously more adept in reality (like physical strength/speed/agility/grip strength, etc). BRB, 17 year old 90 pound waif beats up 4 highly trained 200lb male soldiers. Because vagina.

[BetaAsPhuck]

test

The site will not let me post a reply/quote people. I can make this standalone post, but if I quote someone I get an error about the "Site taking a rest today".

I get the same message from time to time, I made a thread about it. Glad to see I'm not alone...

https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showt...hp?t=176908421

I found that if I put brackets in posts, it's more likely to trigger.

Sometimes I have to delete sentences, for it to post.

Wincel reckons it's something to do with the code that a combination of words, symbols, and numbers triggers, and then makes it impossible to post.

Basically, chitty programming.

Now, if you're using it how you just did (ie representation of males being constantly portrayed as morons while women are portrayed as Mary Sue's who can do no wrong), then yes I'd agree it's an issue. Falsely portraying an entire demographic as being borderline retarded in order to prop up/make another demographic look better is pretty much what happens in every feminist-inspired TV show, ad, and movie. The guys are morons, and the women are impossibly talented... even when it comes to physical activities where men are obviously more adept in reality (like physical strength/speed/agility/grip strength, etc). BRB, 17 year old 90 pound waif beats up 4 highly trained 200lb male soldiers. Because vagina.

I would argue that there are problems with how both men and women are represented, like the videos made using Feminist Theory that I linked argued. (Honestly, the Meghan Fox one was an eye opener, and I agree with her analysis completely. )

[InstantLoser]

I get the same message from time to time, I made a thread about it. Glad to see I'm not alone...

https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showt...hp?t=176908421

I found that if I put brackets in posts, it's more likely to trigger.

Sometimes I have to delete sentences, for it to post.

Wincel reckons it's something to do with the code that a combination of words, symbols, and numbers triggers, and then makes it impossible to post.

Basically, chitty programming.



I would argue that there are problems with how both men and women are represented, like the videos made using Feminist Theory that I linked argued. (Honestly, the Meghan Fox one was an eye opener, and I agree with her analysis completely. )

The 1st video so far she seems to acknowledge that Shia's character is portrayed as an incredibly dumb fuk, but she still thinks it's a bigger deal that Megan's character is dealt with as eye candy (that the audience sees that and not her as a character), even though I'd argue the entire reason to hire an actress like Megan Fox in the 1st place is that she's hot and draws in box office dollars due to that fact.

At least she's not as obnoxious as most feminist content makers I've seen on YT.

Her 2nd video is full of mental gymnastics about the "male gaze" within the first few minutes.. how it's ok when women do it but not when men do it, despite admitting that there are movies/media wherein women engage in identical behavior. It's the same kind of moronic "argumentation" put forward by those who claim black people can't be racist, or women can't be sexist.

[Austanian]

Nationalism while being white =/= white supremacy.

Promoting nationalism with the purpose of benefiting whites while disparaging people of color is.

[BetaAsPhuck]

The 1st video so far she seems to acknowledge that Shia's character is portrayed as an incredibly dumb fuk, but she still thinks it's a bigger deal that Megan's character is dealt with as eye candy (that the audience sees that and not her as a character),

I think you've jumped to conclusions.

She's arguing that Meghan's character had depth and development, but noone remembers that due to the framing. She also says (and rightly so) there was another equally beautiful blonde Australian female actress who wasn't portrayed like that, and so the audience takes her seriously.

She's talking about the power of framing and aesthetics in film/TV, over plot and dialogue.

In the 2nd video she argues that the way the men were portrayed in the movie was chitty.


I was hoping the 2nd video would be a nice surprise to you. She applies feminist theory, to how the men are portrayed, and shows how chitty it makes them.

[InstantLoser]

I think you've jumped to conclusions.

She's arguing that Meghan's character had depth and development, but noone remembers that due to the framing. She also says (and rightly so) there was another equally beautiful blonde Australian female actress who wasn't portrayed like that, and so the audience takes her seriously.

She's talking about the power of framing and aesthetics in film/TV, over plot and dialogue.

In the 2nd video she argues that the way the men were portrayed in the movie was chitty.


I was hoping the 2nd video would be a nice surprise to you. She applies feminist theory, to how the men are portrayed, and shows how chitty it makes them.

I haven't watched the full 2nd video yet, but in the first couple minutes she's already going into double-think about how it's ok for women to fetishize men, but not the reverse.

As the video progresses, she keeps conflating how Michael Bay sees men/his audience with "The Male Gaze", which is odd.. it's not like Michael Bay is representative of how men see women in general.. Not sure why she's picking him as a model of maleness and then claiming "his gaze" = "the male gaze".

Secondly, she (around the 12 minute mark) gets into the whole "men should be able to cry/be vulnerable" schtick that feminists so often push, even though it's women who don't like men who show any weakness, and lose attraction/respect for men who do so.

I'm pretty sure Michael Bay is a mega-feminist himself, so I find it kind of ironic that the whole time she's ripping on him for his "Male Gaze" and claiming that he's portraying Megan Fox's character Michaela as a brilliant mechanic that nobody takes seriously because she's hot because this is how "The Male Gaze" works, when he's portraying the male characters as misogynists and morons, because he made the movie through a feminist lens.

[BetaAsPhuck]

I haven't watched the full 2nd video yet, but in the first couple minutes she's already going into double-think about how it's ok for women to fetishize men, but not the reverse.

She doesn't say that. You've misunderstood.

What she says is that when when some women try to make a sexually appealing movie for women, they frame men like men frame women. They just use the same framing and narrative that male directors use, and switch the protagonists to women.

As the video progresses, she keeps conflating how Michael Bay sees men/his audience with "The Male Gaze", which is odd.. it's not like Michael Bay is representative of how men see women in general.. Not sure why she's picking him as a model of maleness and then claiming "his gaze" = "the male gaze".

That's not what the male gaze means, nor was is what's she saying that Michael Bay = a model of maleness, she never argues that a single direct represents 'a model of maleness'.

She defines male gaze at the start of the video, I would advise rewatching it.

Secondly, she (around the 12 minute mark) gets into the whole "men should be able to cry/be vulnerable" schtick that feminists so often push,

No, she says that in Michael Bay's films men are ridiculed for any vulnerability (except towards a robot). And she says the only men who are framed with respect, are in the military.

even though it's women who don't like men who show any weakness, and lose attraction/respect for men who do so.

Different issue, that's about dating not film theory.

(No disrespect, but did you watch the video whilst miscing, or doing other things?)

[InstantLoser]

She doesn't say that. You've misunderstood.

What she says is that when when some women try to make a sexually appealing movie for women, they frame men like men frame women. They just use the same framing and narrative that male directors use, and switch the protagonists to women.




That's not what the male gaze means, nor was is what's she saying that Michael Bay = a model of maleness, she never argues that a single direct represents 'a model of maleness'.

She defines male gaze at the start of the video, I would advise rewatching it.



No, she says that in Michael Bay's films men are ridiculed for any vulnerability (except towards a robot). And she says the only men who are framed with respect, are in the military.



Different issue, that's about dating not film theory.

(No disrespect, but did you watch the video whilst miscing, or doing other things?)

You and I interpreted what she said differently. That doesn't mean I didn't watch it. She did not properly define "the male gaze" because as I stated, she then goes on to claim that when women do the exact same thing, it's still "The male gaze" (even though females are doing it), which is nonsensical. Then she claims that Michael Bay's characters are how they are because he views them with his "Male Gaze", which isn't even the original definition of that term in feminist theory. She originally defines the Male Gaze as a means of men viewing women in a fetishistic manner/objectification of women by men, but that doesn't make sense in the context of his male characters.

I'm not sure what lesson I'm supposed to be getting out of this anyway RE feminism. Feels like we're just muddying the waters with irrelevancies. Her videos are full of double standards about how it's ok for women to objectify men in the same way she complains about women being objectified. You can read some of the comments on YT.. other people drew similar conclusions.

[BetaAsPhuck]

You and I interpreted what she said differently. That doesn't mean I didn't watch it.

I understand.

She did not properly define "the male gaze" because as I stated, she then goes on to claim that when women do the exact same thing, it's still "The male gaze" (even though females are doing it), which is nonsensical.

This is her explanation, based on the concept...

Filmmakers were originally men, and they took the techniques of framing from men. So when women are framing men sexually speaking, they are using the male gaze, that is framing men by emulating the way men frame women.

That's not blaming men, that's simply stating that the framing technique originates from men.

I think she's right, female sexuality tends to be different. Women tend to gravitate toward erotic literature, and men tend to gravitate towards visual porn. Female psychology generally care more about context and psychology, than does does male sexuality.

Female stripping is a thriving business where men go to get sexual kicks, whereas male stripping is seen as having 'fun' with their friends.

When some women try to create a film about men (eg.. Magic mike), they use the same framing techniques as men would use for a female film (eg. Striptease, Showgirls).

An example of the non-male gaze female erotica in film would be 50 Shades Of Grey and (seriously) Twilight.

She never said either one was OK (she actually criticizes Twilight), but she just point out that based on the concept of male gaze, films like (not all films) Magic Mike fit under the male gaze.

Then she claims that Michael Bay's characters are how they are because he views them with his "Male Gaze", which isn't even the original definition of that term in feminist theory. She originally defines the Male Gaze as a means of men viewing women in a fetishistic manner/objectification of women by men, but that doesn't make sense in the context of his male characters.

She talks about that at the start of the 2nd video.

Male Gaze is a theory/critique of how women and the world is depicted from a masculine perspective. Normally it's about how women are depicted. She explores how men are depicted.

Her videos are full of double standards about how it's ok for women to objectify men

She never says that.

That seems to be something you are assuming.

(Note: In hindsight, I would think that the videos I linked would only be eye opening - in regards to the value of feminist theory - to people who really love movies and TV series. I didn't check if you fell into that camp.)