Video and Topic Review
November 2018 Monthly Meeting
Next meeting happening on the 12th of December 2018 at Crowd HQ. See further details here.
Two videos reviewed during the meeting:
Video 1 - Meeting The Enemy
Video 2 - Self Defence Doesn't Exist in Australia
Video 1:
Meeting The Enemy
A feminist comes to terms with the Men's Rights movement
Cassie Jaye - TEDxMarin
"By facing long-held assumptions, one woman reevaluates her own gender biases."
Presenter Cassie Jaye is the documentary filmmaker who created the The Red Pill
Video 1 In Review:
URL: https://youtu.be/3WMuzhQXJoY
Video Title: MEETING THE ENEMY A feminist comes to terms with the Men's Rights movement | Cassie Jaye | TEDxMarin
Featuring: Cassie Jaye
Produced by: TEDxMarin https://www.ted.com/about/programs-initiatives/tedx-program
Publishing Date: 18 October 2017
Platform where video was found/displayed: You Tube
Video 1 Discussion:
Crowd HQ
1240 Albany Hwy, Cannington WA 6107
Topics emerging from Video 1:
The following is a list of topics that were either observed directly being discussed in the video or they were associated with the video by meeting chair Cameron Gibbs or by others in attendance at the monthly meeting. These topics were used to lead the discussion. Meeting participants then responded to these, elaborated on some or went in different directions.
Feminists not actually listening to men - A generalisation that could be taken from the video.
Generalisations to be avoided.
People not actually listening to others in groups they think are their opposition.
Nobody will listen to you more than someone that transcribes your words.
Statements honouring unique contributions to society not necessarily anti- or oppositional.
Care and compassion for all.
Adding to the gender equality debate rather than being oppositional.
Incompatible counter arguments.
Argument and counter argument is not a contest. Counter arguments don't necessarily invalidate arguments so we need to be able to counter the counter.
An idea should exist until someone finds fault with it but that fault is an idea and should exist until someone finds fault with it. This is a principle that Politify is founded on.
Group think and tribalism
When you begin to humanise your enemy, you yourself may be dehumanised by your own tribe.
Your enemy is your own ego, your own self labels.
Not identifying with a label that is being abused or misused is not the same as being opposed to the core issues that spawned that label.
Video 2:
Self-Defense Doesn't Exist In Australia
"The issue being highlighted here is the need for public scrutiny of legislation. If a YouTube blogger with no formal qualifications in law, can spot a logical flaw in the legislation and the people responsible for creating the law can't, then this demonstrates a clear need for public scrutiny and crowd based problem solving." Says Politify founder Cameron Gibbs.
Defense = American English
Defence = British English
Video 2 In Review:
URL: https://youtu.be/t5ltfJFkiiA
Video Title: SELF-DEFENSE DOESN'T EXIST IN AUSTRALIA
Featuring: Sydney Watson
Produced by: Sydney Watson
Publishing Date: 14 March 2018
Platform where video was found/displayed: You Tube
Video 2 Discussion:
Crowd HQ
1240 Albany Hwy, Cannington WA 6107
Topics emerging from Video 2:
The following is a list of topics that were either observed directly being discussed in the video or they were associated with the video by meeting chair Cameron Gibbs or by others in attendance at the monthly meeting. These topics were used to lead the discussion. Meeting participants then responded to these, elaborated on some or went in different directions.
Crime and violence getting worse and worse
People committing crimes are likely to be armed
Three main areas of defence:
Defence of yourself or another person with a weapon
Defence of yourself or another person with fists or your body
Defence of your home/property
Banning weapons (even some considered as defencive weaponse) appears to be more about limiting the opportunity for abuse with those weapons rather than limiting opportunity for defence.
If nobody has access to a weapon then we reduce the chance of a weapon based abuse and we require that people find other ways to resolve disputes.
Whether or not you agree with the restrictions on access to weapons for defencive purposes, it is still clear that there are problems with the laws. Victims of crime can be double punished by also becoming victims of the law.
If the experts can't see these problems in law and a self righteous video blogger can, how can we trust our authorities?
Fight or flight behaviours need to be understood and be included as a consideration within the law.
Defence against any wrong needs the chronology of the wrong doing to be considered. So if a person commits a crime against you first and you respond, even if the outcome of your response is considered excessive/unfortunate/tragic, if you wouldn't have had opportunity or cause for the response without the crime first being committed against you, then you can't be seen to be open for prosecution.
Subjective measures of force.
What is reasonable and excessive?
Criminals break laws and they carry weapons.
If people can't legally defend themselves, what is the social incentive not to commit crime?
Is it moral to respond excessively?
Disclaimer: Politify is a neutral platform created to allow anyone to share their ideas and to debate those ideas. Views expressed by Employees, Directors, Volunteers, Authors, Sponsors and/or Affiliates of Politify are their own views shared with equal opportunity using the Politify network. The veiws expressed are in no way indicative of any official policy of Politify as an organisation.
Share our news and articles and help create real social and political change.
Show your support for Politify.org and Register for an account today.
When you share this article please make sure you link to the Direct Article Link to help support our proof of audience efforts. Your cooperation with this is much appreciated.
In a scenario where the Australian military sneaked into China and stealthily occupied a Chinese city, should China not be expected to kick out the invaders with guns? If a state can defend itself, why not an individual?
And the 'bazooka' argument with respect to proportionality of the response is a straw man - it would be totally impractical as a self defence weapon, and no one is suggesting one be used in that context anyway. Melee combat simply wouldn't be an option if the attacker is larger than you are, or if you are frail or wheelchair bound - so your only option would be a firearm. Multiple attackers or concealed weapons are also real possibilities. Shouldn't the right to self defence not include having the means to do it effectively?
* Corporal Punishment and its role in a civil, moral, functional society.
* Capital Punishment and its role in a civil, moral, functional society.
* Arguements for and against the death penalty. The risk of government authorities getting it wrong or abusing it for ideological/political reasons.
* Do countries control their military?
* Should countries have the right to forcefully remove non-engaging military personnel during peace time? Is this a law enforcement issue or a military issue?
* Can military hypotheticals have logical connection and say over civil discourse?
* Amongst those who are worried about governments taking over their homes and hence wanting the right to have guns, why are the same people often happy to trust those same governments to make decisions about capital punishment? Is this a contradictory set of values or are these different aspect to a point of view in balance?
RSS feed for comments to this post