Should gaming be a “safe space” for nerdy dudes who hate women? The Men’s Rights perspective
I’m back from a brief vacation in Migraineland, and thinking about the ways in which Men’s Rights Activists love to appropriate the language of feminism and other progressive movements, usually in ways that are face-palmingly ass-backwards.
Take this recent discussion on the Men’s Rights subreddit of the dire threat of “fake gamer girls” invading the “male space” of gaming. The generically named guywithaccount sets up the discussion with this post:
![I want to talk about "fake geek girls" (self.MensRights) submitted 9 days ago by guywithaccount For those of you who don't know about this, there's a bit of a controversy in what I'll call the geek community. Apparently, when women attend geek conventions (that is, those celebrating e.g. video games, comic books, sci-fi and fantasy), some men accuse them of being "fake geeks" or demanding that they prove their "geek cred" by correctly answering trivia questions made up on the spot. Here's one article (of many) that talks about it: [1] http://bookviewcafe.com/blog/2013/08/08/the-fake-geek-girl-nonsense/ My concern for this issue is that, like anything else that involves gender, feminists and feminist sympathizers are attempting to dominate the discussion and frame the whole thing from a feminist and gynocentric perspective. The prevailing analysis might be summed up as "geek culture is deeply misogynistic, and the people complaining about fake geeks are just sad little losers who hate women." IMO, the geek subculture has provided a somewhat-safe space for many men who have been snubbed by the rest of society, where they are not expected to prove their value to each other by carving notches in a bedpost or exemplifying traditional masculine traits. The increase in mainstream appeal and female participation over the past decade or so threatens the safety and exclusivity of this space, and the backlash from male geeks is a somewhat-predictable response to the invasion of their space. Of course, there are few spaces just for men, and when someone tries to create or preserve one, they're accused of misogyny. I suspect that some of you don't give a crap about any of this and see the whole thing as petty, but realize that it's not happening in a vacuum. I believe it's merely a symptom of the fact that men have almost no voice in gender discussions and their needs are routinely denied or ignored.](http://manboobz.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/fakegeek.png?w=604)
Now, there is a teensy bit of gold in this pile of bullshit: the notion of a “safe space,” where oppressed people can come forward and discuss their issues without fear of being talked over or shut down by those outside their group — who have more power in the world and who may not have their best interests at heart (or who may just be Blabby McBlabbypants types).
But there are a couple of giant problems with this notion when it comes to gamer dudes declaring gaming a “safe space” for men. The first is that, despite lingering resentments over being “snubbed” in high school or wherever — evident in the OP and in comments throughout the discussion — these guys are not actually an oppressed people by any measure that really matters.
Indeed, many of them — as tech dudes in a male-dominated tech world — are in fact in fairly privileged positions. For them to claim they need a “safe space” to protect themselves from the evils of “fake gamer girls” is a bit like Klan members claiming they need a “safe space” to protect themselves from blacks, Jews and Catholics. (Which is more or less what Klan members have argued over the years, albeit in less PC language.) No, I’m not claiming that all MRAs are the equivalent of hood-wearing Klan members. Only some of them are.
The second problem with the “game world as safe space for men” aregument is that YOU CAN’T JUST DECLARE BIG CHUNKS OF THE WORLD TO BELONG TO MEN. Yes, men dominate the gaming world in sheer numbers, both as game-makers and game-players. (While women make up nearly half of all game players — 47% — men tend to dominate the “serious” games that many geek dudes claim are the only ones that really count.) But gaming doesn’t “belong” to men any more than, say, novel-reading “belongs” to women — even though surveys suggest that women make up a staggering 80% of the fiction market in much of the English-speaking world.
Yep, that’s right: Women dominate “noveling” much more dramatically than men dominate gaming. Yet you don’t find women denouncing “fake noveler boys” or declaring that the male brain isn’t wired to understand the subtleties of written fiction.
No, in fact men are actively welcomed into book clubs. And my best friend, a woman, has spent much of the 18 or so years or our friendship trying to get me to read this novel or that novel, though over the years she’s only succeeded in getting me to read maybe one or two of her suggestions, which were pretty good, I have to admit. (I do plan to read some of the others, really.)
If you’re a socially awkward guy and want a safe space to discuss that, find a therapist, find a support group. Don’t pick on women gamers and pretend this is somehow your right because you’re oppressed as a socially awkward guy.
Anyway, here are some other dumb comments from the Reddit thread. YetAnotherCommenter warns feminists that they may lose some powerful allies if they continue acting so feministy.
Speaking of nerds who can’t get laid — which we weren’t but which these guys keep bringing up (and identifying themselves as) again and again — guia7ri seems to harbor some lingering resentments from high school, and who better to take that out on than attractive geeky women?
Hey MRAs, if you wonder why feminists sometimes describe MRAs as bitter men who hate women because they can’t get laid, it’s because MRAs like gui7ri so often EXPLICITLY DECLARE THEMSELVES BITTER MEN WHO HATE WOMEN BECAUSE THEY CAN’T GET LAID.
Meanwhile Byuku blames it all on evil feminists pretending to be geeks in order to make trouble. Because that’s what feminists do.
That’s how they get you!
EDIT: Added a sentence to temper and clarify my assertion that men “dominate” gaming.
Posted on August 20, 2013, in a woman is always to blame, all about the menz, antifeminism, are these guys 12 years old?, bullying, creep-shaming, dozens of upvotes, entitled babies, evil women, facepalm, female beep boop, geek girls, imaginary oppression, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, no girls allowed, oppressed men, reddit, straw feminists, video games and tagged antifeminism, fake geek girls, gaming, geek girls, men's rights, misogyny, MRA, reddit, video games. Bookmark the permalink. 1,189 Comments.
the one who submits to argument and demonstration,
Argument and demonstration. What the “citations please” crowd does is leave out the argument part. What commenters on blogs such as this tend to do is accept vaguely held notions of what is generally accepted and only deviate from it if they see something from a peer-reviewed journal.
The only difference between yourselves and the people who Al Hazen was critiquing is that for the latter group the “ancients” were Plato and Aristotle, whereas your “ancients are Noam Chomsky and Andrea Dworken. Not all blind adherence to “the wisdom of the ancients” is equally daft.
I don’t remember Petey. It’s the wall of blah effect kicking in again.
Zombie Dworkin (note the spelling, Ash) ACTIVATED!!!
He’s still here? Wow.
Aren’t you supposed to wait till someone dies before you start referring to them as one of the ancients? It seems more polite.
Sounds like a Petey. I’m waiting to be called a bitter bitch again.
@Hellkell
So should we all activate evil feminist zombie mode? Cuz I can do thatXD
According to your logic, the enslavement of a group must necessarily be counter-balanced by some positive thing the enslaved group has.
Um, no. Most ensalved peoples weren’t eventually emancipated and mass enslavement usually resulted in a people’s disappearance. Notice that my reference to “eons” indicates a long term equilibrium. Sure, when you have two distinct people’s involved in one social space short-term disequilibrium is possible.
Now, care to offer the male gatekeeping function that is the compliment to the female one as gatekeepers of sex?
Yeah, but if you’re 19 and full of shit like Asher, everyone’s ancient you .
@hellkell, and you ninja’d me. How do you remember them all? They all blur together for me.
I missed it. Who’s Petey?
Dude, everyone is the gatekeeper of whether they have sex because that’s how consent works. Fool.
^to you.
titianblue: They all have their little tells. I guess this is another of my superpowers like remembering combinations, pin numbers, and phone numbers from way back.
Technically that was directed at me, as he was quoting me, but seeing how I’ve already emailed pecunium regarding my inability to deal with this shit today…*grabs some popcorn*
First though, because I’m just that much of a masochist…
Where to motherfucking begin. How about the part where torture “light” is still fucking torture. How there’s a very solid definition of what torture is (which I await pecunium explaining to you). How about how rules such as the Geneva convention use that definition and by any logic waterboarding falls under it? How about how we waterboarded far more people than those who “masterminded the killing of tens of thousands of unarmed civilians”. And how even if we had limited it to those people, we’d still be debasing ourselves by violating the rules and laws we’ve sworn to uphold?
So yes, I start with the conclusion that long established conventions defining war crimes are in fact a sound basis of argument. And you continue to be repulsive, repugnant and revolting.
Complimenting your gatekeepers may indeed make them more likely to want to have sex with you (unless your bloviating has already put them to sleep, that is).
“You aren’t a true rock climber until you have sex with other rock climbers.”
I rock climb but it’s silly to think that rock climbing is central to my identity in the same way that it is central to the identity of male tech geeks. BTW, having been to rock climbing gyms I’m pretty sure that committed rock climbers tend to be more likely to be having regular sex with other rock climbers than with a random representative of the population.
In other breaking news from Asher, one is more likely to have sex with people they hang out with, in comparison to random people (okay that was phrased awkwardly). The shock! The wit! I can’t handle it!
PS Asher aren’t you going to tell me about my sexuality yet?
“Complimenting your gatekeepers may indeed make them more likely to want to have sex with you (unless your bloviating has already put them to sleep, that is).”
In my household, the Geologist is the gatekeeper of sex. I find he responds well to jokes about rocks and hammers.
PPS, Zombie Marie mode activated, just because.
Our whole society was created by and is maintained by scientists,
Science of the sort you are describing is only possible because of the massive advancements in social institutions that have occurred over the past couple of thousand years, mainly in Europe. The science you are talking about is a late stage development in civilization and not its precondition.
Oh let’s have some more dancing goalposts and intellictual dishonestly! There’s a huge difference between the implication that “real” geek girls have to have sex with geek guys to be geeks and the statement that members of a group are more likely to have sex with members of the same group.
I love how the linguistic skills deteriorate as he gets more flustered. Note that rock climbing is now central to the identity of male geeks, and rubbing people with pleasantly skin-soothing “salves” is now a crime against humanity.
“Ensalved” is my favorite typo of the day.
*intellectual
Spell check, how does it work?!
hahahahahahahhaaha
hahahahahahahhahahahahahahha
AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
You poor thing. Learn2history.
“Lesbians tend not to have much sex; it’s called “bed death”. Testosterone is *the* sex hormone and lesbian relationships tend not to have enough of it to sustain a sex life – there are, of course, exceptions.”
I don’t even know where to begin with this. This and the “gatekeeper” remark. He really wants to live in a world where women just don’t want sex.
They don’t just do them for the sake if doing them *eyeroll*.
Publish or perish, anyone?
My father is elderly now but before he retired he was a nuclear chemist (his
The concept of the role of a scientist has changed *a lot* in just the past several decades. Watson and Galton were interested in truth. Jared Diamond? Not so much.
You use applied science every day of your life and you’ll continue to do so as long as there are scientists to expand and maintain it.
I enjoy being able to browse my favorite blogs via my Samsung Galaxy but the engineers who developed it are not interested in truth (no, that doesn’t make them bad people). Putting out new gadgets or improved methods of farming is engineering, not science.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…
@Asher
Fascinating definition there, bub. So what is science, if you’ll tell us.
It’s really that simple. It’s what feminism is all about, and it’s why a lot of men are against it. They want to continue oppressing women
Throughout history, most men have not oppressed most women. People who are oppressed have no incentive to contribute to the well-being of a society in which they reside. However, women have, generally, contributed to the societies in which they lived, therefore, women haven’t been oppressed.
It’s really that simple. The idea that a peasant farmer’s wife was “oppressed” because the people with the formal titles involved with establishing societal rules were men is inane.
Well, I’m late to the party but…
@atdevel: Dude, subcultures are fractally nested, get over it.
@asher:
Aa-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Doesn’t make it right. Would this be an appeal to authority? Ah, looked it up, it’s an Appeal to Tradition.
Ah, so Mr. Intellectual Honesty wants us to accept his speculation as a valid argument.
And the male geeks in question do not simply want to have picnics with other male geeks. They follow it up with harassment and assholery.
Bwa-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Also, lemme rewind a bit to this:
Once again, just because it’s been done before, by many people, doesn’t make it reasonable. Another Appeal to Tradition.
It does involve terrorising target groups.
Where does geek culture involve willful and systemic terrorizing of others? Be specific. Cite examples, because willful and systemic terror was the core identity of the Klan – that’s what it was all about.
“It’s really that simple. The idea that a peasant farmer’s wife was “oppressed” because the people with the formal titles involved with establishing societal rules were men is inane.”
Oppression based on gender cannot exist because oppression based on class does exist!
Someone needs a dictionary. Luckily I always have one handy, being that there are multiple versions online. Merriam-Webster fan myself.
science noun
1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study
b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
Yeah, please do explain how philosophy is the only science. You’ve excluded everything else anyone says, or qualified it as “not sufficient”.
“Argument and demonstration. What the “citations please” crowd does is leave out the argument part.”
“Cite examples”
No comment.
Curses, I tempted the blockquote monster and was devoured
Someone intellectually honest would say, “I find it hard to believe these claims. I’m not very familiar with geek culture, and the parts of it I’ve see make it hard to credit. Could you show some evidence?”
Klan terror was widely-known and if the geek community engages in systemic and willful terror of others then it is logical to assume that it would also be widely known in the general public consciousness. That “it” is not widely known makes the claim an extraordinary one, and the original post should have already justified the position that male geek culture engages in systemic and willful acts of terror.
Honestly, I’m just laughing even typing those words and trying to picture the geeks I’ve encountered running around terrorizing people. BTW, I grew up in a neighborhood full of guys like the ones who shot the baseball player in Oklahoma so I know a bit about systemic and willful terror.
Anita Sarkesian, Rebecca Watson, cons, existing while female on the internet.
Fuck off.
Zzzzz…bwa?
Hmm. Wow. Anyone else want to touch this?
“Throughout history, most men have not oppressed most women. People who are oppressed have no incentive to contribute to the well-being of a society in which they reside. However, women have, generally, contributed to the societies in which they lived, therefore, women haven’t been oppressed. It’s really that simple. The idea that a peasant farmer’s wife was “oppressed” becpeople with the formal titles involved with establishing societal rules were men is inane.”
If you can’t vote, are restricted from making a living, forced to have children you don’t want or maybe you find yourself subjected to an angry mob who wants to murder or throw acid in your face because you don’t want to marry some guy — things are fucked.
re:asher
In other news, what do you mean, words have meanings?
See, I just got here so I didn’t see asher earlier, but is it just me or is he trying to redefine words to fit his point. Because, Asher, sweetheart, you can define words all you want but it won’t change their meaning or history.
“Argument and demonstration. What the “citations please” crowd does is leave out the argument part.”
“Cite examples”
No comment.
Um, yeah, that was a crystal clear reference to citing examples that don’t include academic research involving massive capital requirements. For example, cite something I’ve said that substantiates your claims. What the “citations neeeded” crowd does is arbitrarily restrict the concept of evidence to things that appear in peer reviewed journals and this makes those socially-approved outlets the absolute aribters of what is known.
Peer-review is broken. Broken beyond repair and now it’s just another racket involved in the application of political power.
When I say “cite examples” it is an open-ended invitation to produce evidence in a myriad of possible ways. When the commenters, here, say “cite examples” it’s a demand for a link to a peer-reviewed article. The first invites argument and discussion while the second shuts it down, willfully. When you say “cite examples” what you really mean is “shut up and accept what the elite ruling class tells you is correct”.
Argenti: Sorry. Misremembered the word.
Krypteia, from the Greek Kryptos (i.e. secret, hidden). A Spartan thing. The young men of the agoge (barracks/military academy; to which boys went at eight, IIRC, and lived in until they married (not earlier than 25, and at which they were required to stay a certain number of nights a month), who were the most stealthy, were sent out to kill Helots; either those who were suspected of being seditious, or were too strong/fit/intelligent,and so might become a threat to Spartan dominion over them
Officially the Spartans were at war with the Helots, and so there was no impiety in slaying them (because the Gods frowned on outright murder, even of a slave and no one wanted Nemesis to be after you, esp. if it was the polity, not the individuals, at whom she was pissed).
Asher: The problem with lots of modern science is that it is not interested in truth but, merely, in verifiable laboratory experiments.
What is truth?
I’m serious, what is Truth, and how do you find it? Once found how do you prove it?
Law of gender parity
WTF? I got nothin’. I admit it, you gobsmacked me. I didn’t realise *you* were the Neo-Dada Surrealist in our midst.
Color me saskatoon.
Notice how much of what the people who are arguing with me say involves speculation on me, personally, or predictions of what I’m about to do? I, on the other hand, strictly stick to what they are say\ing.
Unless you are saying they don’t understand something as well as you do.. because.
Or are speculating on their personal philosophy (e.g. nihilism), or their hatred of humanity.
Or just lying about what they said.
Asher has got to be Petey.
“Peer-review is broken. Broken beyond repair and now it’s just another racket involved in the application of political power.”
Ugh, Petey. The next thing we know you’ll be telling us rape is justified as a biological necessity because women are the “gatekeepers of sex” but “don’t enjoy sex”. Then you’ll probably go on to say that the line between rape and consensual sex is blurry and always will be.
Could you at least get a new shtick. This one is old.
wait, wait, wait – hold on here guys – Asher seems to be criticizing Jared Diamond – this could get exciting.
Diamond’s an interesting fella in many ways, but he does perpetuate some serious colonialism-denying, / racially whacked ideas about how white people have disproportionate power – claiming that global inequality is the natural result of environment and geography and that other races didn’t live in the correct climate to develop capitalism, and so on.
If anyone felt up to a good bit of wrangling they could probably get him chasing his own tail into a vortex of recursive evo-psych.
also dworkin what
what
This thread exploded. Do we have a sock?
I also feel that as we’ve gone from loathing of the scientific method to loathing of empiricism to loathing of peer review, we are talking to somebody who didn’t even make it to Reviewer 1, and we will shortly be entering the land of “I Hate How Modern Science Unjustly Compels You To Write Things Down In A Sort of Manuscript So Others Can Read It And Comment Upon It: This Has Killed Science, For Lo, I Hate Writing.”
Aw hell – I can’t even be mad.
More lack of intellectual honesty; esp. as the relevant analogy (not a direct comparison) was 1: qualified, and 2: requoted to you.
For an analogy to be intellectually honest there has to be a large body of similarities between the respective things being analogized. To use both the Klan and male geeks in the same analogy implies that there is a large body of similarities.
I already explained that and no one even acknowledged it. In fact, the original poster was dishonestly trying to use the dishonest rhetorical tactic of sneaking in equivalencies via a bad analogy.
It was an analogy. We agree on that. But it was a bad and dishonest analogy because it attempted to equate two hings that are manifestly different. See analogies cut both ways. If an analogy is generally accepted as true then the premises under which it was offered then become accepted as true, as well. For David’s original analogy to be accepted as valid means to accept that there is a large body of functional similarities between male geeks and the Klan.
For an analogy to be intellectually honest in application it cannot just be well-argued but the premises under which it operates also have to be true. Consider the following analogy: wheels are to cars as legs are to horses. This analogy works and is intellectually honest because both cars and horses are things that people have frequently utilized for transportation so there is not a false equivalency between cars and horses.
In any non-formal application of “A is to C as B is to D” A and B require a large body of similar function to be an intellectually honest one. Otherwise, the analogy works backwards and the result is a false equivalency between A and B.
I love peer reviewed studies. They always come in handy when some numbskull somewhere makes a claim like — if a woman is raped, her body will shut down the pregnancy.
Too bad peer review gets in the way of being a big ol’ bootstrapping iconoclast like Pete… uh, Asher.
Asher: What’s telling is that modern psychology *does* do this and when I point it out
Where have you done this? I’ve seen you assert it, but not one shred of supporting evidence have you provided; not even coherent argument of your own; just, “This is how it is. Agree with me or I will taunt you a seckon’ tahm!
You are insinuating that I am engaging in thoughtcrime.
Not me. I’m saying you’re a dishonest, intellectually dificient, ignoramous who can’t argue his way out of a paper back with a machete and a fire hose, thinks logical fallcies make fine arguments, keeps double-standards, lies to himself; and others, and generally bores those around him from his lack of self-awareness and his unwarranted arrogance of opinion.
If you’d like I can share my thoughts on your character and personality, instead of those comments on the nature of your observable behavior.
I suspect Sock. I was thinking so earlier (the use of, “it’s been proven” feels familiar)
Wow. Asher is really boring.
Asher: Compare that to the US taking an individual who masterminded the killing of tens of thousands of unarmed civilians and held his head underwater for several seconds in order to get information.
Now, you can use the term “torture” to describe both scenarios but they are so dissimilar that you render the term “torture” meaningless. The term is now so meaningless that when someone uses the term “torture” I just assume they are babbling because that term no longer has any coherent or unified meaning.
Add torture (and interrogation) to the things you don’t understand.
Acquiring knowledge is inherently competitive.
It is? With whom am I competing?
cloudiah — smells like one
pecunium — I, for one, got the gist from the krypto part, but the full explanation certainly does make it more apt.
troll — we’d also accept well respected citations, of which the daily fail is one. Logic, not ASSFAX, you can manage that right?
Oh right, you think empathy is strictly limited to people you know personally. Now, granted, I have an easier time connecting with pecunium’s side of it, but I don’t need to know the people we torture to have at least sympathy for them and be repelled by the idea that you could find this an acceptable thing to do to a fellow human, no matter what sort of criminal they may be. (As you will surely find out soon enough, when he gets to that load of shit, he was an interrogator, and torture DECREASES the amount of useful information obtained, while debasing the torturer, the military, and the country as a whole)
So, clearly you mistook this thread for a grocery store floor.
Seriously? That’s it? *whines* pecunium, come on…school him! I got to your rules for debate last night, and you’re violating them — you won’t convince him he’s wrong, but that’s the dead cat right there, and seeing how plenty of people disagree with us on that one…explain for the audience. And because it’ll make me happy(er)
Hint, it wasn’t, as it was limited to that subset of geeks who are being assholishly exclusionary,
I already addressed this. The act of establishing identity is an inherently exclusionary one because it excludes the things that are different.
Hint, it wasn’t, as it was limited to that subset of geeks who are being assholishly exclusionary, some of whom engage in campaigns of harassement and terrorisation.
If you look at David’s original analogy in the context of current, practical experience of the average person his analogy can cut another way. Most people have encountered a fair number of male geeks in their lives and probably no Klan members. Further, those geeks they have encountered don’t manifest terroristic activities. It is far more logical to conclude that Klan members are are benignly odd as the average male geek, thus, minimizing the malevolence of the Klan. See, that reasoning can cut both ways..
What you are doing is relying on the current general social sentiments involving Klan members in order to make a specious equivalence between the Klan and male geeks. As experience of the Klan fades into history don’t count on a continuing generality of that sentiment.
If people keep equating harmless oddballs as the equivalent of the Klan then over time people are going to eventually conclude that the Klan wasn’t all that bad. That’s going to be the most likely result. Frankly, I have the same level of intellectual disdain for regular commenters on blogs like this as I do for Klan members.
No, that’s not an analogy or some assertion of equivalence, it’s that I take most commenters, here, with the same intellectual serious as I would a Klan member.
Speaking of “it has been proven”, and similar…Spot! That! Fallacy!!
Thought-terminating cliché – a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance, conceal lack of thought-entertainment, move onto other topics etc. but in any case, end the debate with a cliche—not a point.
The use of anonymous abuse, and fora like Reddit to make it seem that this,
There’s this moronic sentiment out there that women regularly and systemically receive abuse on the internet just because they’re women. Um, no. That’s pretty much standard operating procedure for the average male when arguing and it’s one that I frequently see aimed at myself.
Yes, people tend to dislike, often with much vitriol, you when you go into their clubhouse and disagree with them; that’s just sort of how most human beings are.
Number of fucks given = 0. And that’s the truth.
…
FUCK THIS IS LIKE LOGIC BUT IT’S STUPID
Yes, when I say I am white that means there are other identities that are the same.
But when I start auditing other people’s skin colors, that’s when I become an agent of exclusion.
And you know that.
DISHONEST
Can we just ignore this guy till he goes away? The whole theories for dummies thing is getting old.
follows up with accusations of intellectually dishonesty whenever someone tells him he’s wrong or uniformed.
Unlike every other commenter, here, I specify the exact reasons for using the label of intellectually dishonest. If you use intellectually dishonest rhetorical tactics then I will label you as intellectually dishonest and give specific argumentation supporting my utilizing the label.
I argue for my positions and most others, here, do not. Willingness to argue for one’s position without resorting to the various dishonest rhetorical tactics is the hallmark of intellectual honesty.
Asher, if we’re so intellectually beneath you, feel free to fuck right off at any time. You won’t be missed.
Yeah I am sick to fucking death that my gender somehow affects people who are not me. Or, more to the point this time, that identifying as one thing, and thus not as others, is some sort of exclusionary tactic.
pecunium — sorry dude, but I’m going to have to exclude you as you’re all cis like and shit and I’m not. It’s nothing personal you see, it’s just the natural consequence of us identifying differently!
*cracks up* The African violet cuttings still look good, I’ll have to get a better look at the sundew cutting when I do today’s water change on the 30g. Since you have a functional memory and I don’t, remind me later?
“There’s this moronic sentiment out there that women regularly and systemically receive abuse on the internet just because they’re women.”
But trolling a site that has a shitload of women posters has no emotional incentive for you? Liar.
But when I start auditing other people’s skin colors, that’s when I become an agent of exclusion.
The term “leftist” is exclusionary because it excludes non-leftists. All identities are exclusionary, every single last one of them. What you are doing is relying on current, general sentiments to to establish a notion that some identities are “bad”, in an Absolute sense, but that others are okay. But since your notions of “bad” are simply rooted in current, general sentiments that means that they are subject to change and not some timeless, universal Absolute.
@cassandra says
Sure, I’m fine with ignoring him. He was entertaining maybe the first few posts I saw but after more than three he’s really, really boring.
But trolling a site that has a shitload of women posters has no emotional incentive for you?
No, it does not. And, unlike you, I don’t speculate on other’s emotional states – another intellectually dishonest rhetorical tactic.
Liar, liar, pants on fire. You get a payoff from being here, Asher, or you would fuck off already.
No one has speculated as to your emotional state, you dishonest fuckwit.