Internet Lunatics - RadFems, PUA's, MRA's, MGTOW's, etc.

A+ For mansplaining.

Where do you come up with these? It's like you have a whole list of little phrases you can drop to avoid acknowledging the substance of an argument.

The argument that you are attempting to minimize and change the subject as a response to #YesAllWomen is bolstered when you minimize and change the subject as a response to #YesAllWomen, weird bullshit catch phrases be damned.

I came up with a list of #YesAllPeople -type hash tags for other occasions:

For Memorial Day: #YouDontHaveToServeToDie
For Veteran's Day: #WeHaveJobsToo
For Mother's Day: #WeAreAllParents
For Father's Day: #FinallyADayWhereMenGetTheirDue
--- merged: May 29, 2014 at 10:34 AM ---

Pretty sure the video does in no way constitute evidence that some of women's problems are imagined. What do you mean by overcoddle? I don't consider it 'coddling' to want to intervene on someone's behalf while they're being assaulted.

Did you get a chance to give #YesAllWomen the same chance you gave the Elle survey?

 

A good article on the history of some of the tactics and arguments used.

Not All Men Meme Rise of Defense Against Sexism Misogyny - TIME

 

Brilliant. Interesting article.

 

@charlatan I can't believe you'd just go ahead and dismiss everything bad that's ever happened to a man like that. Disgusting.

 

If it's tl;dr just scroll down to the five point list of how to pull your head out of your ass.

 

It's bigotry! It's the latest craze that's sweeping the nation.

Of course, I could be wrong. I keep getting distracted by the odd colours that make up the sky in the strange induced world inside my head right now.

 

See that's the problem, there IS NO SUBSTANCE to an unfalsifiable argument. Saying "You're guilty of X and if you disagree with me it just proves you're guilty of X" is a trap, it's a substanceless trap that there's no way to ever get out of other than not to play in the first place. Just because you're either too bigoted to care or too ignorant to understand why falsifiability is important and necessary for anything you say to be valid doesn't magically mean it stops being a fundamental part of logical validity.

Since you refuse to ever read sources I give you let me boil this down for you: If your claim can not ever be disproven, if something you say can not ever be proven wrong, it is not valid.

Now lets apply that test to your kafkatrap: "Way to show that you're not minimizing or changing the subject by minimizing and changing the subject."

Is there any way to disprove this accusation other than just giving in and agreeing with you? No? There you go. It's not valid, it has no substance, it's nothing more than a cheap fallacy to silence anybody you don't agree with.

The same goes for Baraku's sexist gender slur. "Mainsplaining" can not ever be disproven or refuted. It's simply a Thought Terminating Cliche that instantly shuts out anything anybody of the wrong gender says. Would you accept it as valid if the MRM simply silenced anything feminists ever said with "Womansplaining"? What about "Blacksplaining" why blacks commit a majority of all violent crime and murders? Where do you draw the line that seperates your prejudiced substanceless, irrefutable, undisprovable, unfalsifiable fallacies from the ones you don't accept as valid?

Since size 5 bold red text wasn't enough, allow me to make it even more visible and perhaps you'll stop blindly attacking men for something they're not even responsible for:

WOMEN. MADE. #YESALLPEOPLE
WOMEN. MADE. #YESALLPEOPLE
WOMEN. MADE. #YESALLPEOPLE


That's size 7, a different font, bolded, italicized, underlined, and in three different colors. Is that enough for you to stop trying to blame men for something they didn't do or will you continue to blindly attack them because you're simply incapable of accepting anything that contradicts your blind dogmatic bigotry? Honestly you're just embarassing yourself the more you continue to blindly push the total lie that men are doing this to speak over women when the truth is women did it in response to the prejudice and hate displayed by other women.

You mean the five point list that culminates in forcing somebody to admit that they're always sexist, always benefit from sexism no matter what, and unless they're actively working with you they'll always BE sexist and you can't even be a "decent human being" unless you join in wholeheartedly?

That list? The one that says not only are you never wrong but anybody who doesn't join you is the enemy? The one that says the mere act of not-actively-agreeing with you is "derailing"?

Remember what I said about falsifiability? About how if you rig things so you're never wrong your argument is automatically invalid? That also applies to saying if anyone disagrees with you they prove you right:


And for good measure allow me to quote a feminist on why this kind of thinking is scary and dangerous:

What makes this particularly hypocritical is how on this forum (and pretty much everywhere else) one of the most common things people say to defend feminism is literally "Not All Feminists are like that!". So apparently the rule is when you guys say "Not-All-Feminist!" it's a completely unassailable defense that just effortlessly washes everything away but when people say "Not-All-Men!" suddenly it's not only no longer valid, it's actively being a derailing misogynist.

First off nobody ever calls that "reverse sexism" except feminists claiming "reverse sexism" doesn't exist. There's no "reverse" about being a sexist because saying it's "reverse" sexism when it happens to men means that "sexism" can only exist if it's a man doing it to a woman.

Second... Thanks for just making one of my points easier to make. If feminism's main focus is on women but they really care about equality why then do they have such a hostile reaction to other people focusing on men's issues? Why are they so hostile to anything else even existing that they'll resort to violent criminal attacks just to try and stop people from helping men at all? Why do they go out of their way to seek out, attack, and silence even other women who so much as acknowledge men as anything other than perfectly privileged?

It's almost as if oh gasp they don't actually believe in "equality", only care about women, and want to continue to utter monopolize things by branding everybody else as evil.

 

That's a super convoluted way of trying to reason your way away from the reality that you were minimizing and changing the subject.

 

I'm trying to figure out if you just don't understand what I write or are obfuscating on purpose.

 

Are you not the same person who dismissed #YesAllWomen for being 'anonymous' in the same post that you credulously cited an anonymous survey of Elle readers? Who then tried to play it off like the difference was a matter of selection bias, ignoring the fact that both sources suffer from substantial selection bias?

 

Perhaps because I started out my career as a scientist, I understand just how useless survey data is, especially self selected data for making any claims whatsoever about anything. Even good survey data is pretty bad for things like behavior. My claim is that anonymous tweets with an obvious self selection bias are useless for anything other than story telling. Now such a thing could be used to decide to do a "real' study, saying "hey maybe there is an issue here", but holding it up as anything important is just grandstanding.

I never cited Elle readers.

 

Minimizing and changing the subject by talking about women's actions and why they took them? Oh, right I forgot, women that don't stick to the party line don't count.

Whatever. We'll do this your way: You are wrong and if you disagree with me that only proves even further that you are wrong. Anything else you say other than agreeing with me is derailing from the subject that you are wrong.

 

Here's what it would have taken for me to agree with you, I don't know about others.

1) acknowledge that #yesallpeople, regardless of who started it, looks and smells like the usual sort of minimizing and changing the subject that happens.
2) point out that women were the originators of the new hashtag for all the reasons you state.
3) you also need to recognize that hashtags are not a coordinated effort. There is no top down. They are messy and any one can hijack them with nonsense.
4) the fact that there is nonsense, does not diminish the original intent of any hashtag, it just creates a distraction.

From my point of view, #yesallpeople, even if it was started by women, is just another distraction that is mean to minimize the original discussion. The intent was not to discuss ALL people, it was to discuss women. I write this understanding that the intentions of the women who started #yesallpeople may have been an attempt to be rational and inclusive, all great goals, but the end result is one that still serves to minimize and distract from the original discussion.

Instead... you are like a dog with a bone. You are not even having the same discussion that most of us are having. You are like a born again Christian in a room full of atheists, trying to share the Good News!

 

So in other words for you to agree with me I merely would have had to "just" say I was absolutely wrong about everything and completely agree with you in every way.

Gee, how gracious of you.

Let's try this another way:

1) Acknowledge that #YesAllWomen was becoming primarily about attacking men and erasing male victims
2) Acknowledge that #YesAllPeople was created by women and therefore the constant attacks on men by #YesAllWomen are thus representative of a larger prejudice
3a) You need to recognize that hashtags are a coordinated effort, twitter users have many followers who retweet and favorite their posts and outside websites drive content
3b+4) Women are not exempt from personal responsibility. You can not excuse, obfuscate, or simply ignore things that are politically inconvenient to you by endlessly claiming they don't matter, they're just "nonsense", that it doesn't "diminish the original intent". If men had been hijacked by misogynists you know damn well you and everyone else would be holding them responsible for it.

Not being allowed to attack others is not an attack on you. Nobody has a right to erase and silence others. If someone's "discussion" is an attack, an attempt to silence and erase others, then those others have a right to respond and stand up for themselves. For the people doing the silencing and erasing to claim that suddenly they're the victim, they're being "hijacked", "minimized", and "derailed" is absurd on its face.

This from the guy that was so disconnected from reality that he couldn't even attack me for what I'd actually said, instead of mixing up completely different paragraphs? This from the guy who was so disconnected from the thread that he couldn't even tell who said what, and attacked me claiming nobody had said anything about something despite the fact I was responding directly to someone else's post? This from the guy that literally just said "To get me to agree with you all you need to do is completely agree with me"? Who has never changed his mind about a single thing no matter how much evidence or how many citations he's given, instead simply saying "If it doesn't agree with me it's wrong by default"?

Once again I say That's rich. And particularly ironic given that the definition of a religious faith is believing in something despite contradicting evidence, and just how much your actions parallel organized religion. Like the puritans claiming they're being "persecuted" because they weren't allowed to completely silence everyone else and force their way on them all. Like the catholic church insisting that the protestant reformation is heresy, that protestants must be in league with the devil, their way is the only way.

It's funny how much you describe yourself when you try to insult me.

 

Is that why you tried to make claims using self-selected survey data (your MSNBC.com/Elle link)? I can see why you're no longer a scientist if you think that survey data can't be used to make claims about things. As someone who is currently working in science, I know that survey data can be used to make any number of scientifically justifiable claims.

I kind of agree with your conclusion, but the premise is shaky. For one thing, you keep claiming that Twitter is anonymous. For some people it is. But there are a lot of people who aren't anonymous at all on Twitter. If you're going to dismiss Twitter's value with respect to its ability to facilitate the sharing of human experience, then you should at least be able to demonstrate an understanding of the platform.

And there are some areas where anonymous survey data are much better than nonanonymous survey data. This is because people who are truly anonymous don't have to worry about dealing with the consequences of having deviant perspectives or admitting to deviant behaviors and so will be more honest. If women are made targets by testifying to the perils of womanhood (as they demonstrably are, see: The Internet) then one might expect anonymity to result in less biased results than nonanonymity.

For selection bias to be a problem here, you would have to assume that women who use Twitter are more likely to lie than women in the general population and/or have experiences that aren't representative of the general experiences of women. You are free to make these assumptions, but they reflect more upon you then reality. Or, if you were worried about anonymous people, you could only look at people who use their real names.

But no one here is asking anyone to treat #YesAllWomen as though it were an article in NEJM, so it seems odd that you would respond as though anyone was offering up #YesAllWomen as though it were.

You linked to this: Survey: Most of us think we're hotter than average - Health - Skin and beauty | NBC News

a survey whose participants were Elle readers. How is that not citing Elle readers? You referred to it as "the scientific truth..."
--- merged: May 29, 2014 at 7:34 PM ---

Ummmno.

Not really.

If someone says "This how I feel." and you respond with "But it's all in your head and anyways other people also suffer too." then you are minimizing and derailing. How is this hard to see?
--- merged: May 29, 2014 at 7:36 PM ---
Was #bostonstrong about invalidating the experiences of all other terrorism survivors?

 

I can't thank you enough for looking those up @Baraka_Guru
That had to be the Human Centipede of posts @Shadowex3

 

If people feel like crime is worse than ever when it's a matter of empirical fact that crime rates have never been lower then it is not minimizing and derailing to point out the truth. If someone doesn't just say "This is how I feel" but also insists "And only I can ever feel this way so stop helping other people who say they feel this way" it's not minimizing and derailing to tell them "Knock that shit off, you're entitled to your feelings but you are NOT entitled to say nobody else has any feelings".

How is this hard for YOU to see?

Did so many people in #bostonstrong insist that 9/11 never happened, nobody dies in the middle east due to terrorism, and the sandyhook kids must have wanted it that their own fellow boston bombing victims came up with a different hashtag to get away from that kind of repugnant talk?

I can post a random list of fallacies too, doesn't mean they actually apply. Logic is not a magic incantation, you don't simply conjure away someone's argument by invoking the name of a logical fallacy. Especially when the entire premise upon which you base your attack on their post is fundamentally and inherently logically invalid. You can't use a logically invalid premise to invalidate a logically valid one, I can't insist that all flowers bloom at night because I'm convinced the moon and sun are backwards and then insist all arguments against me are fallacies. Similarly I can't simply accuse Bodkin of a red herring a few paragraphs above here because it's not a red herring, it's on topic. Of course that hasn't stopped him doing it to me, but nothing's perfect.