When someone claims logic behind there absurd stances, do not let them go unchallenged. Ask them why they said that. For what reason do they believe what they said. Give them a chance to defend what they have said.
Depending on how contentious or confident you are, bet them.* If I were to categorize the results of doing this the resulting observations fall into 3 categories.
- Acknowledgement of you having a good question followed by some form of you needing to research that answer elsewhere. Very few times that they will research and come back to you.
- An attempt at talking points or recitations of the supporting theories and materials they have consigned to memory. If you press them they either head to the 3rd category or agree to continue the conversation later, only to either never bring it up again or preferably evaporate from your life.
- Third is a doubling down on the subject followed by and escalation of similar inanity accompanied by accusations of your ill intent towards themselves or those involved in the subject. This they often say is resulting usually from your level of intellect and a myriad of other disparaging things. At no point will they actually offer to explain what exactly the point is that you are unable to see despite expressing how clear it is to see.
A regular subject of a regressives’ liberal libel of is institutionalized disdain of women present in western societies. It was part of the foundation and at times is so prevalent today we can hardly notice it. We were born and raised into it. As you know, “Much has been done, but we still have a long way to go.”
Almost a decade ago, while taking a Women in Philosophy course this thought came to me. If society disadvantaged the female and privileged the male, it would have to be women teaching boys and girls these gender roles as they were and have since discovered still are** mostly in charge of early childhood.
I naively asked this question of the professor, whose answer ill assume fell into the fell into the first category in the above list, as any of the other 2 categories would have been far more memorable.
If gender roles were even mostly programmed then it was females that were responsible for programing the children to be the men and women that would populate the society. In the following More Liberal Hypocrites Stefan Molyneux touches upon that and some other things you and I may have noticed but not quite found the words to.
- This makes more sense if you look at it in the sense that treatment of women is a tool for the ideology versus the intended goal.
- *The betting technique is most likely inspired by listening to Aaron Clarey’s YouTube channel. He writes books, has a blog called Captain Capitalism, a service called Asshole Consulting as well as a podcast entitled The Clarey Podcast. Episode 40 is one where he discusses the betting technique. Its context is not one as i’d like to avoid interacting with certain folk, let alone to enable relations of the kind discussed.
- To be specific thing of the class that was written and documented the most from the Victorian Era was not that representational of the entire society. I would not be surprised to find that in general females today have far more control/authority over the raising of children than they did in the past.