The Istanbul Convention

Hey, moderator of the Politics sub, can we please reopen the 'Istanbul Convention' thread?
Since they’re about to debate this in US Congress, news outlets have been scrubbing the topic left and right. I think the discussion here was actually heading in a really good direction, especially from some of the more constructive posters. This whole proposal to ratify the Council of Europe convention on preventing domestic violence is a massive deal right now.
Thanks!

🙂
Hey guys, can we please start a new thread🙂

The issue is that the conversation never actually went where it was supposed to... despite a few moderator warnings and bans, it just kept getting dragged away by people obsessing over this supposed global misandry, so when the thread finally got locked, it was basically just a bunch of noise about that or other random tangents... We'll likely reopen it soon, we just need to iron out a few more details first.

lonebadger6 said:The whole issue is that the discussion wasn't even heading in the right direction. Despite a few moderator warnings and some bans, the thread just kept getting derailed by people whining about supposed global misandry. By the time it got locked, everyone was basically just talking about that or other random off-topic stuff. We’ll probably reopen it soon once we iron out a few more details.

Thanks, lonebadger6, I appreciate it. 🙂

lonebadger6 said:The whole issue, I suppose, is that the discussion wasn't actually heading anywhere productive; instead, despite a handful of moderator warnings and various strikes or bans, it just kept getting dragged away into this endless loop about alleged widespread misandry, and by the time things were finally locked down, almost everything being said was either about that or some other off-topic nonsense. We'll probably reopen it soon, though we just need to hammer out a few more details first.

I mean, where exactly are we forbidden from discussing "alleged misandry"? Is that even an actual restricted topic?

silentridge3 said:Where exactly are we allowed to discuss "alleged misandry"? Is that even a valid topic here?

Not on the PDF. Politics.☕

It is much the same for me, this attempt to spark a meaningful conversation regarding the Red Pill movie

Red Pill Censorship targets us immediately

You might want to move the discussion about that movie over to the Film subforum.

Regarding those theories about society—specifically the idea that men (white, Christian, etc.) are being persecuted or stripped of their rights—well, even if there are genuine injustices against men, you guys had a thousand chances to keep the conversation grounded in reality, but you never once took the opportunity... On Politics, we basically lump those ideas in with anti-vax conspiracies and chemtrails. So, if the mods are feeling generous, you could try posting about it on Alternative or Fringe Science instead. I don't see why they wouldn't agree, though I can't exactly speak for them.

And I don't mean that to be provocative; those are just standard, full-fledged subforums here on the site. It's much like how anti-vaxxers think we're all just sheep who don't understand anything.

lonebadger6 said:If you find yourself wishing to discuss that particular documentary, I would suggest migrating your conversation over to the Movie subforum.

I find myself quite amused by that particular expression of mirth.

They informed me at the local cinema that they simply could not screen it, citing the fact that the subject matter is far too politically charged.
It strikes me as quite peculiar, and frankly rather unusual, that this particular movie chooses to delve so deeply into matters of political discourse. I find myself genuinely at a loss to comprehend how the director arrived at such a contentious subject matter for this project.

I am truly grateful for the recommendation regarding where I ought to initiate this discussion. You have certainly managed to sway my perspective on the matter, leaving me quite convinced that censorship tends to be a pervasive and fluctuating force in various corners of the digital landscape.

Furthermore, there exists neither an Ali nor even a theoretical possibility that we are entering an era where the rights of white men are being undermined, as lonebadger6 so eloquently suggests. If I were of any other complexion, perhaps then I would find grounds to protest and demand my own rights.

And what if, according to my father, I am one-eighth Arab? Would that suddenly grant me the standing to demand such things?

lonebadger6 said:When it comes to all those theories and grand ideas about a world where men—specifically white, Christian men—are being persecuted or stripped of their rights... I mean, look, I’m not saying there isn't injustice directed toward men, obviously, but you guys have had like a thousand opportunities to keep this conversation grounded in actual reality, and yet, somehow, you haven't taken a single one of those chances. On Politics, we pretty much brush those ideas off the same way we handle stuff about anti-vax movements or chemtrails and that kind of thing. So, I guess if the moderators feel like it, maybe you could try moving those discussions over to Alternative or On the Edge of Intelligence. I don't really see why they wouldn't agree to that, though, I suppose I can't exactly speak for them, can I?

So, I guess...

I guess we really need to talk about how blatant the discrimination against men has become lately, especially over at Alternative and those fringe outlets that claim to be operating on the edge of science, though I'm not so sure they actually are. It feels like there's this constant, heavy bias working against guys in those spaces, and honestly, it’s just exhausting to watch.

And what about all that talk regarding discrimination against women in politics? I mean, I guess you could look at it from a dozen different angles, maybe, but there’s always that lingering sense that the playing field isn't exactly level, regardless of how many laws we pass or how much rhetoric we hear in Washington. It feels like one of those things where you think you've made progress, only to realize the systemic hurdles are just shifting around, which is honestly pretty exhausting if you ask me.

I mean, I don't know, does it not feel like you guys are basically just practicing a different kind of discrimination against men right now? It seems like that's what's happening, I guess, though maybe I'm just looking at it through a pretty cynical lens.

So, what are we actually doing here? Are we really going to sit around and talk about how twenty thousand men—not women, mind you, though I guess the advocates for that kind of discrimination are staying suspiciously quiet—are being essentially crushed by the "military reserve" system? Or maybe we’re supposed to pivot and discuss the latest batch of laws and regulations being pushed through Congress, those things that look perfectly fine on paper until you actually live through them? I don't know, I guess it feels like we're just circling the drain of the conversation. I guess you could say things are looking a bit different now, or maybe I’m just seeing them through a slightly more jaded lens than I used to, but everything feels somewhat... varied, if that makes sense. It’s all just a little different, I suppose. I mean, I guess you could say they’re treating men and women like they’re just some kind of... Alternative? It feels like that, maybe. Everything is shifting, and honestly, I don't know where we're headed with all this, but it feels like the whole concept of how we view gender is being pushed onto this weird, experimental Alternative path, if that makes any sense. I don't know. It's all a bit much, I suppose.

So, I was sitting there watching this movie, and I couldn't help but feel like the whole thing was built on a bit of a lie—specifically regarding that official title, the Istanbul Convention. It just felt... off, you know? Like they were trying to sell us one version of reality while the actual substance was doing something else entirely. I guess it’s just one of those things where the branding doesn't quite match the weight of what's actually being discussed, though maybe I'm just being overly cynical about the way media handles these big, heavy topics. It felt a little deceptive, if I'm being honest, almost like the title itself was a bit of a smokescreen.

There’s really no point in getting bogged down in endless debates or nitpicking specific examples—whether they hold water or not—because the core issue remains exactly this:

which doesn't mean men aren't being treated unfairly, but you had a thousand opportunities to keep this narrative grounded in reality, yet you failed to take even one...

Cheers.

That big, white, wicked man is the root cause of every single tragedy occurring across the globe, because frankly, who cares if someone gets trampled along the way? He truly deserves it, I suppose.
What is even the point of engaging in a reasoned debate regarding actual, tangible issues when everything being discussed is merely Alternative nonsense on the edge of intelligence?

Now, I am going to attempt to start that discussion over there. I am genuinely curious to see how long it will actually last, and whether it will fall under that specific moderator policy where everyone supposedly has the right to express their opinion regardless of what it is, or if we are simply going to run straight into walls of restrictions, limitations, and outright censorship.
Will one be permitted to write that the Earth is a flat disc or that the ancient Egyptians possessed power saws, yet remain forbidden from suggesting that the rights of true, righteous men are being threatened? Find out in the upcoming episode of On the edge of intelligence.

silentridge3 said:So,

The idea that the official title is "the Istanbul Convention" is essentially a lie—like a deceptive plot in a "movie"?

This is the crux of the matter: the title is misleading and serves to obfuscate the issue for anyone attempting to engage with it. The full, actual title is "Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence."https://rm.coe.int/1680462470
What the moderators seem to grasp perfectly—while the rest of us only realize it after a thread is locked or we're hit with a ban—is that the "domestic violence" component is actually "outside the realm of reality." This convention isn't designed to deal with children, specifically boys (and let’s not even get started on adult men), because the text itself repeatedly focuses on women and girls (even though it's clarified that "women" in this context includes girls under 18). Boys are directly addressed only once, and even then, not as victims, but rather as potential future aggressors—which, frankly, is quite a stretch from reality.

Recent examples in the US demonstrate the terrifying power such a convention holds, especially when wielded by NGOs (who, according to the treaty, act as the oversight mechanism). These groups often function solely as vehicles to push through the agendas of specific ideological orchestrators.
Right now in America, we are seeing an epidemic of individuals being accused of various sexual misconduct allegations dating back decades. Without getting bogged down in the specifics or the veracity of these claims, I will simply say: this provides a perfect blueprint for unfairly discrediting any man. What is truly disturbing is watching people lose their careers, their reputations, and everything they have built without a shred of tangible evidence, based purely on "he said, she said" (where the identity of the accuser doesn't even matter). No one wants to be associated with a "predator," regardless of whether anything has been proven. It's fascinating, really. For now, these tests are being conducted on celebrities, but the way this can be weaponized for political gain is clearly illustrated by the Strauss-Kahn case, where the accused was eventually cleared, yet the stain on his name remains forever.

Ultimately, this convention exists for precisely these purposes: to establish mechanisms that can be used to destroy or sanction political opponents, dissenters, or anyone standing in the way of global policy architects. The notion that some woman and her child will benefit from this is merely a pipe dream for those who view this convention as a way to force through what is already embedded in most European laws. It is almost better that many viewed this convention—which is, in truth, a disgrace to human rights—as the "introduction of gender ideology," leading them to fight against something that isn't even explicitly in the text.
This forum has taken a political stance and aligned itself with the mainstream, which is quite opportunistic and convenient today. There is no need to blame them; rather, one should express regret that an exceptional forum has become anything but a place for the exchange of opposing views—a quality that once allowed it to rise to the top of its class, particularly regarding politics.

And am I diving into conspiracy theories? That sounds suspiciously like the global left screaming about Russian interference whenever events don't unfold according to their expectations.

I see you've read the opening post... or perhaps you haven't?

You might want to take that opening post up with your moderators, because it’s clearly sowing the seeds of discord. To put it bluntly, they’ve set the bar far too high—or perhaps just in the wrong place entirely—regarding the dominant mindset and how this forum should be moderated.
Managing this thread should be a breeze—until it isn't. We’re talking about twenty pages in fifteen days before things get heated, then dropping to four pages in twelve once the dust settles. For a moderation team that seems all too eager to hand out bans the moment someone dares to disagree, it should be child's play.
But here’s the catch: discussing domestic violence is a minefield. Since we aren't supposed to frame fathers or children—specifically males—as potential victims, we end up with this absurd concept of "reframing." The very term feels like a bad joke when you consider that even the architects of our laws and international treaties can't agree whether unreported violence is ten, twenty, or thirty times higher than what actually makes it into an official report.
Ultimately, it’s like trying to moderate a discussion about sex where certain anatomical terms are strictly off-limits. It’s probably best if the conversation regarding the Istanbul Convention stays buried alongside theories about chemtrails and Alternative ideas, or we might as well just lock the whole thing down.

I wrote it, and the rest of you read it. No harm done.