Hey, hostile visitors! Do you have an opinion about, for example, Mary Koss’ rape research? Do you want to discuss it even though the topic has not actually come up by itself in any of the threads and none of my recent posts really have much to do with the specifics of anyone’s rape research? Well, from now on you can discuss it here with anyone who wishes to follow you to this thread.
Added bonus: If you continue to try to discuss it in other threads you’ll be banned!
This also applies to future derailers riding hobbyhorses of their own having nothing to do with Koss.
Happy discussing!
Note: If you wish to discuss the topics at hand, you know, topics directly related to my posts and/or to what other people are discussing and that aren’t, you know, personal hobbyhorses of yours that involve long screeds and various things that you’ve probably already cut and pasted into the comments sections of various other websites until you were banned from them for endless derailing and general asswipery, feel free to remain in the original threads.
Hyperbole is not an argument. Unless you want to stop burning dinosaurs before the planet turns into venus.
Why won’t anyone respond to my clearly hyperbolic argument?!?!
@pecunium
That’s me not being confrontational. JJ reminds me a bit of Daryll_X, in that he is someone who has the unfortunate tendency to let his anger get the best of him. I really didn’t want to provoke him in the same way that I provoked Daryll_X (yes, I was the one responsible for him going into his infamous deeply misogynistic rant). Which is why I also removed the “it’s never a good idea to dehumanize the other side because you might end up dehumanizing yourself” line I had initially written in the comment.
As I mentioned previously, I am having serious doubts about continuing to support AVfM with articles and comments, due to the Pattek Fiasco and my experience here (which was painful, but not hateful). So if a Manboobz article or comment actually exists anywhere that pisses all over Silverman’s death I am really willing to read it.
@argenti
Hyperbole isn’t an argument. It’s a tactic. It forces you to deconstruct the strawfeminist that what ever post I’m being hyperbolic about is supporting. Once people like you and every other feminist out there stops supporting the strawfeminists then we can have a real conversation. Until that time word games are the order of the day, and I say Game On.
lensman — being a regular arround these parts, and his death being fairly recent, I can assure you that no such thing exists. Hell, iirc Thomas Ball was called troubled and he called for terrorism. So no, no one here is going to piss on a suicide victim even when they’re calling for terrorism.
Pissing on AVfM for continuing to host his terrorist manifesto? Oh fuck yes. But that’s not relevant in Silverman’s case.
And you’re right about not dehumanizing other people (take note of my wording Joe, I did not say that white cis men are not people, and not worthy of compassion, I said fixing the problems of the privileged is their own damned problem)
err.. wait…
Straw-feminists aren’t feminists. Straw-feminists are easy targets that are obviously wrong that people use to try to discount actual feminism. But it fails. Because straw-feminists are not feminists. They are imaginary.
Your hyperbole is intentionally setting up a fake feminist so that we knock it down and deconstruct something we never believed in the first place.
…
What exactly do you hope to accomplish by this?
Wow genderneutrallanguage you fail at language. By very definition a straw anything is not a real thing that can be denounced.
Burning dinosaurs and the risk to the planet very much is though.
Come on, somebody ask!
Ninja’ed!
At least he knows that hyperbole can be used to demonstrate the absurdity of a point of view by taking it to extremes.
Oh wait, fuck, that’s satire. Hyperbole is an extreme statement used as a rhetorical device to evoke strong emotion.
Dammit GNL, can’t you get something right?
@kirbywarp
Showing you your own internal cognitive dissonance. Basically you can only really attack most things that are “anti-feminist” by saying things that you really don’t believe and can’t support. If I just point out this irrational thinking directly, you will just attack me. If I keep setting it up for you to attack your own flawed thinking, I’m hoping that it will sink in. You will attack regardless of what I say at this point, I may as well sic you on something useful.
[Obfuscates back in]
You sure you want to play word games?
You absolutely, completely and utterly believe you want to start playing games of words and their meanings?
I’m telling you this, not because I am trying to impress you, but because I hope to impress upon you the magnitude of that statement – you will lose.
So I ask again.
Do you *really* want to spend time playing word games?
@GNL:
Alright, I admit defeat. You’ve completely lost me. Why would I, as a feminist, support something that is “anti-feminist?” Are those scare quotes, implying that the thing is really feminist, but for some reason I don’t want to admit that I support it?
I’m sorry dude, I’m trying my best, but the only irrational thinking I see here is yours.
(And how exactly is clarifying the definition of “straw-feminist” an example of internal cognitive dissonance?)
Hmm, the leading cause of death in Victorian men is cardiovascular disease. So, if you were talking about distribution of funding burden purely based on causes of death between the genders, you’d be better off putting money into education campaigns about smoking, diet and exercise for men, which they do.
dead on the money, internal cognitive dissonance.
I didn’t hold up a strawman for you to attack on the definition of “straw-feminist”.
You are not stupid. You are just very wrong on a few key points, you even know your wrong, hence the dissonance.
I mean preventable illness and death, of course.
Fibinachi — I think this one also requires auspex, assuming this even makes sense inside genderneutrallanguage’s own head.
Sentence by sentence in hopes I can sort something out of this illogical mess.
“Showing you your own internal cognitive dissonance.”
Well ok, as a goal that makes sense. Shall we then move on to your method? (Note, most people just point out how two views differ and why one cannot hold them both to be true…that’s what cognitive dissonance is)
“Basically you can only really attack most things that are “anti-feminist” by saying things that you really don’t believe and can’t support.”
Scare quotes? Ah, I get it. You’re trying to say that we attack MRAs by saying things we neither believe nor can support.
Except we do, and can, and have. Repeatedly, in this thread.
“If I just point out this irrational thinking directly, you will just attack me.”
But let me point it out directly so I can say I was right! Either you attack me, and prove me right, or you agree with me, and prove me right.
Dude, we are experts at seeing through that shit, you can’t even compete with the likes of NWO (kafka trapping!!)
‘If I keep setting it up for you to attack your own flawed thinking, I’m hoping that it will sink in.”
But um, that isn’t what you’re doing. You’re pulling bullshit form thin air and then claiming that we can’t disprove something that no one here said we believe.
You are a salmon. (That’s directed at Fibinachi, not you, unless you have a mob boss around so I can tell him he’s a bear)
“You will attack regardless of what I say at this point, I may as well sic you on something useful.”
Well if you tried making valid, logic, points instead of setting up straw feminists…
Let’s assume that you meant for those quotes to be scare-quotes. In which case, a clearer sentence might be:
“Basically, you can only attack things you don’t believe or support by calling them anti-feminist.”
Which is a false statement. I could provide evidence! I could defer to more informed thinkers! I could attempt to find a flaw with the thing itself! But feminism and anti-feminism have relatively defined roles; if I called something anti-feminist, it’d be with good reason. Namely, the thing is contrary to the goals of feminism.
But I’m getting the feeling that you are trying to make a different point entirely. Perhaps you are trying to say that I and others here are using the No True Scotsman arguement, labeling anything distasteful as not-feminist. In which case you have not provided a problematic view that feminism holds. (And yes, there are extremists (TERFs, for instance), but if you want to ignore extremists in the MRM, you’re going to have to grant feminists the same courtesy.)
Instead you’ve (rather clumsily) fumbled around with straw-feminist positions, calling them feminist when they rather clearly are not (and then pretending that presenting fake positions was your plan all along). Feminists don’t have to own bad views that others attribute to them.
If you truly can’t tell the difference between denying a straw-feminist and the no-true-scotsman fallacy, then honestly you aren’t worth debating.
You do know that feminism is not a monolith and just because some feminists belie a thing does not mean that all do?
Like, I’m sure not all MRAs want to remove the voice boxes of baby girls. Amazingly, none of you seem to refute that one of you said that, and it was fucked up.
Oh and don’t bother saying that it was fucked up. As I said, we’re experts in this shit. Of course you’ll say that now that I’ve specifically prodded you to do so.
This is quickly becoming one of the strangest arguments I’ve seen in a while. Strawmanception
I’m gradually losing my enthusiasm for the idea that they have the capability to amass a huge directory of services, re: intercommunication (if they haven’t already- what the hell do I know?)
@GNL:
Thanks for the complement, though it shouldn’t take a genius to parse your bad writing. But now that we’re here, why don’t you actually lay out those key points where I (or feminists in general) are “very wrong,” and in fact where we know we’re wrong.
These points must fill two criteria:
1) They must be points that feminists actually support, and that are considered to be feminist positions.
2) They must be wrong.
Think you could cut the bullshit straw-feminist troll-bating and give a straight answer for once?
LOL Joe, you are clueless.
I responded to this comment, this general, sweeping comment of yours: “Manboobzers are very fond of criticising men for talking about the problems men face, but according to manboobz, doing nothing to fix them.”
I said nothing whatsoever about men’s shelters (of course there should be more, you dumbshite) or men suffering violence (which mostly comes from other men … hmmm) or suicide which can be tragic*, just like anyone else’s. I was talking about your cretinous opening line, and my criticism stands: you’re a fuckwitted misogynist along with your MRA brethren, regardless of sex. Thank the gods your kind are not representative of men in general.
* I say “can be” only because I do not think people being able to choose their own times to go, with help, when facing something like Alzheimer’s or motorneurone disease, is tragic at all, but rather a right.
A little late for the party, and this has been addressed before, but this is just a pet peeve of mine.
@Pro-Equality MRA: ”This is why I keep saying feminists and MRAs should meet halfway- in good faith.”
See, you’re doing this thing where you’re setting up a false dichotomy, that feminists and MRAs are somehow two sides of the same coin. They’re not. As has been pointed out many times on this very blog, sometimes, the truth does not lie somewhere halfway, sometimes the other faction is simply wrong.
If person A has a worldview based on meticulous research, carefully measured and analyzed statistics, and decades and decades of academic work, and person B believes that the moon is made of Caciocavallo Podolico and inhabited by biker mice and feminists love cats (see? It all adds up!) because with their help, they can conquer the moon and make a fortune off the expensive cheese and use it to – you guessed it – take over the world, should we assume the truth is somewhere ”halfway” between these two?
Spot That Fallacy!! Bonus Round: misuse of fallacies!
No true Scotsman – when a generalization is made true only when a counterexample is ruled out on shaky grounds.
Straw man – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position
@Argenti:
What’s it called when you purposefully use a straw man fallacy in order to trick your oppoents into deconstructing their own position?
Because I’m currently thinking “logically impossible…”
While we’re playing Spot That Fallacy…
Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean) – assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct.
Umm…I’d say Malkavian but he’s utterly failing at the brilliance of the white one and the dark one. Or even the talking stop sign for that matter.
He’s trying for a Malkavian sort of argument — but that’s almost an argument ad absurdum when done well. He’s failing at even a RP construct of an argumention style.