Men and feminism

No, I explicitly stated those were Arthur Chu's traits and IF you opposed them you should also find Chu toxic UNLESS you were choosing to give him a free pass because he claimed the mantle of Feminist. The kafkaesque absurdity of you trying to say not only do you know what I wrote better than I do but that I don't know what I myself was saying should speak for itself.

Also while I'm perfectly open to the idea that people can take offense at things I say or do without me ever knowing, but being autistic does not mean I am a gullible moron or incapable of keeping track of basic temporal causality. Like I've said already: I've been gaslit here before, it's not going to work again now that I've had both external and empirical verification that it's just an abusive tactic to attempt to shift this into being about me personally and brute force capitulation through emotional manipulation.

Funny how those "repeated requests to chill & back off" always come only when I respond to someone else. It's almost as if it's nothing more than an excuse for people to repeatedly get away with doing whatever they want and then tell me to shut up when I try to respond.

See what I mean? When other people post something it's fine, when I respond suddenly it's "chill" "slow down" "back off" "we need a break from your yowls". Why don't you direct your righteous indignation at the people who start these arguments? Why is it only when I respond to (often multiple people or repeated) jabs is it suddenly "not about winning" and time for only me to "chill" and "back off" and any other creative ways you can find to say "we get to say whatever we want but you're not allowed to respond".

Oh and the "angry male" straw man is so old, so overused, and so predictable it's literally been color coded:

 

This post isn't contributing to the topic of the thread, and I apologize for that. As counter to the point made that the people were afraid to post here, I'd just like to point out that I haven't found a point in commenting in any of the threads in this topic in quite a while. Every discussion in this general subject area gets flooded with Shadowex3's hostility, and other people's responses to his hyperbole, to the point where there is no rational discourse. I saw the post with the link to that article, and bookmarked it to read after work. I read it and had commentary that I was going to post. By the time I came to do that this shit spiral had already resumed. I share MMs disappointment that this is still going on. This reinforces why I've become mostly inactive here, which is unfortunate, because I used to find interesting discourse here.

 

So what you're saying Spiritsoar is that you find the presence of someone who disagrees with feminism in more than token ways and doesn't silently endure barefaced abuse or tolerate blatant sexism so intolerable that you can no longer bring yourself to even post in the forums at all? Strange Famous didn't get this much abuse, and I watched as mod staff told people off for far less than what I've put up with for daring to dissent from the holy church of feminism.

The simple truth is feminism is the one off-limits topic of TFP. You're not allowed to disagree with it in any meaningful or substantive way and if you do it's open season on you, and in true form they'll say "you hit my fist with your face, you bully!" while pummeling you.

You do whatever you think you need to rogue, I'm as sick of the constant jabs followed by disingenuous demands I not respond as you apparently are of me having the audacity to respond. It's just a shame you've decided to focus your indignation on me for responding instead of the people I'm responding to.

 

See? Perfect example. I said nothing of the sort. I said I find your hostility and hyperbole distasteful. I think you overreact to things you disagree with and drag any useful discussion into a black hole of your persecution complex. I think you barrage people with sources that support your bias instead of having a discussion and are at least as guilty of personal attacks as anyone you accuse. And I think I've said this all before.

In fairness, I suppose part of the fault lies with those who allow themselves to be drawn into the nonsense, myself included as demonstrated by this post. I honestly don't know that I really expected that my post would change, as evidenced by so many others having said all this in different ways before with no evidence of any change.

 

If I use one or two sources it's not enough and I'm wrong. If I have a lot of sources then it's "barraging people" and I'm still wrong. If I use sources that disagree with me and obviously I'm wrong. Use sources that support my position and I'm still wrong.

I'm torn between pointing out this is an example of "disagreeing with me proves me right", which is an obvious catch-22, and just saying "So only Bodkin gets to do that, gotcha". Por que no los dos?

 

I've said it before, I will say it again, there is something to be discussed here. Sadly you are not interested in having a discussion. Not even in the slightest.

Why not just post in your blog? It's a better place for your style of diatribe. You clearly don't know how to behave in mixed company and aren't interested in hearing opposing points of view.

I firmly believe you love the rebel martyr role you seem so bent on filling. It fits a world view where you are still that little kid getting picked on in the cafeteria. If you push everyone hard enough you won't have to take a chance that they won't like you. You can blame the fact that people react poorly to you on the fact that they are too entrenched in their ideologies to see what a superhero you are.

The truly sad thing is it didn't have to be this way. I believed once that you could be a force for good on TFP (heck, I even suggested you as a potential Mod in the last round of recruiting).

Condemnation of your posting style is nearly universal (others are being more polite about it but we both know you will eventually push them too far too... It's your modus).

Since you won't take a hint, perhaps you need to get a clue.

 

This ^.

Shadowex3, why do you have such a difficult time understanding that not all issues have a "right" and "wrong" side? Feminism versus male rights is a hot topic, and solid arguments can be made for both sides. Presenting, and even defending, your position is fine, but not to the point of being totally obstinate. Nobody is asking you to "surrender." All we are asking is that you be civil and recognize that views & opinions that differ from yours are legitimate, just the same as yours are legitimate.

Quit trying to be a victim. You are bringing this on yourself. How you are doing so, and have done so, has been explained to you many times by many people, and most people have been civil in their posts. How do expect people to react to you when you tell them ad nauseum, "I am absolutely right and you are completely, totally, and thoroughly wrong."?

In brief, pull your head out of your ass. When you leave it there you're only talking to yourself.

 

There is no extreme on the other side here. You have other people truly confused about your level of hysteria and unable to relate to what you're talking about. That's what makes your posts seem so totally fucking nuts. I wish I could fucking talk to you, but it's like trying to talk to someone in a state of panic all the time. It's exhausting and not worth the effort in the end because anything someone like me says is going to be turned into a 'screed.' I lived with someone who turned innocuous statements into attacks. That's exactly what it's like reading your replies to people here. You're always twisting words and finding hidden meanings so that you can turn it up another level. You're an adrenaline junkie. And I don't think you give two fucks whether anyone understands you or even agrees with you. It's beside the point.
--- merged: Jan 13, 2015 at 7:55 AM ---
And, yes, as long as I am back here, I will say what I think. We used to have long, hard arguments here in the old days about whether TFP had gotten too "nice." And, you know what? I was considered to be on the bullshit nice side. But, like me, it was a different place then. I don't see any sense in trying to reason with someone who doesn't want reason. The only response that really makes sense here is the one asking us to leave it alone. Which is what I will try to do now. Even though the damage has been done and it's probably too late to stop the tsunami of outrage sure to be coming down the pike.

 

Administrator and moderators,

You are aware of this thread.
You can see that the problem isn't the topic, it's the posts from one TFP member.

 

I wrote this earlier, but I really am grateful for the reference to Slate Star Codex, a fascinating and insightful blog, which I might not have discovered but for the pointer from @Shadowex3. My wife and I have both been enjoying it a lot.

I certainly acknowledge the essential validity of the comments about @Shadowex3 that have been posted in the last couple pages.

I think @Shadowex3 has concluded that feminism, as such, is something inherently evil. Hence, he has no patience for even the mildest expression of support for feminism, use of feminist language or concepts, recognition of any positive accomplishment associated with feminism, and so on.

Most of us, on the other hand, grew up with feminism and take it for granted, so his point of view seems bizarre to us, notwithstanding the evidence that @Shadowex3 can marshal to support it.

From our standpoint, it is as if a fellow American or Canadian were to make similar points about some widely accepted concept like representative democracy (an example that comes readily to the mind of a politician like myself).

It would be very easy to come up with thousands of examples, both general and specific, of the evils that representative democracy has brought into the world. And let's say that every single one of those examples is perfectly valid, and every claimed horror is genuine.

Even so, it's very unlikely that any of the participants in the conversation is likely to seriously reconsider their deep investment in the ideas of representative democracy, let alone openly advocate for ending it.

If the critic of representative democracy were more subtle, he might win many of his points. For example, we might manage to come to an agreement that electing judges is a bad thing (that's already my opinion). Or he could advocate various limitations which could certainly each be arguable.

But I don't think @Shadowex3 is interested in nibbling around the edges of what might be considered feminism, without quickly escalating to the demand that feminism be rejected outright, and the contention that anyone who fails to do so is automatically complicit in every feminist crime.

Or turn this around. Since Godwin has already been invoked, I can offer the example of a dinner party in Nazi Germany, where Adolf Hitler is the topic of conversation. Or perhaps a discussion of slavery at an afternoon soiree in the American Deep South of the 1840s.

Our hero is in attendance and wants to advocate the modern, moral point of view on these things. You can imagine his impatience with just nibbling the edges of a monstrous evil.

If one is utterly fearless (I am pretty sure this describes @Shadowex3), one's constant tendency will be to quickly escalate from, say, criticism of der Führer's taste in suits, to open advocacy for his assassination. And of course the result would be shocked rejection from everyone else present.

So even as I reject his absolutist critique of feminism, and I am very weary of the angry disputes, I admit to some sympathy for his pluck.

 

Here's how I know what you wrote: I read it. Right where you fucking wrote it. And do you know how I know what you said? I read it. Right where you fucking wrote it. Now, it may be that you were trying to say something else. But you didn't. And frankly, the distinction you're making in your first sentence doesn't make any sense. The absurdity here is you complete and total inability to demonstrate any sort of humility or even acknowledge the fact that you have made even one misstep in this conversation. You are not being oppressed here.

I read this an it makes it seem like you're saying that I'm gaslighting you, I'm engaging in abusive tactics by reading what you wrote back to you?
--- merged: Jan 13, 2015 at 9:25 AM ---
Street Pattern, I think a different way to look at it is that Shadowex doesn't expect or want to convince anyone here of anything about feminism. He just wants to give everyone here the middle finger, then try to jam it in our eyes because we don't agree with him about feminism. It's less "moral stance against Hitler" and more "Fine! Fuck you motherfuckers!"

 

I don't think that's consistent with his behavior. After all, he's still here. And he relates positively with other TFPers on unrelated subjects.

The problem is that he's not interested in promoting a more nuanced view of gender relations -- the kind of thing that could reasonably be discussed. Only a categorical rejection of feminism is acceptable.

 

I will agree to disagree with you about his intentions. He clearly doesn't see his efforts here as potentially bearing fruit. I mean, we're all fucking mindless feminists to him. Why spend time arguing with people who you don't think will ever agree with you, who you maybe don't think are even capable of independent, logical thought? Because fuck them, that's why. He's acting like someone who is in it for the emotional gratification of rhetorical dominance, and I get that, I've been there, but it's still just a fancy middle finger pointed in all directions outward.

 

Mitt Romney and his fellow missionaries went to Paris in 1966 to evangelize for the Latter-Day Saints. No doubt he saw the locals as fucking mindless French Catholics. But still, he went door to door, trying to convince them that the Book of Mormon is the revealed word of God.

Okay, yeah, he did it because that's what he was expected and required to do as a good young Mormon. But at some level, he must have thought it was important work.

 

Even I wouldn't insult Shadowex by comparing him to Mitt Romney . I think that one key difference is that Romney had to at least act like he was trying to convert those people.

 

Sreet Pattern, I agree with much of what you're saying about Shadowex3, but he is being totally obstinate when it comes views & opinions that differ from his regarding feminism. Otherwise he a solid FTPer who contributes much to this forum.

The main problem I see is he's putting the Admin & Mods in a tough position. They shouldn't have to monitor threads because he goes off the deep end, and locking a good thread just because of his diatribes isn't the answer. Giving him the boot isn't the answer because he is otherwise a good member.

I support what others have already suggested--Let Shadowex3 find some forums dedicated to feminism and mens rights (if he hasn't already done so) and take his arguments to those forums. He can slug it out with those folks as much as he wants. He could also still be a solid TFPer.

Now chances are good he will see this as an effort to shut him down. That is true in a sense....but....since he has many, MANY times displayed the inability to listen to others and play nice, it's something that he brought on himself. Most TFPers can engage in discussions, even heated ones, and remain open to dissenting views while being civil. Shadowex3 obviously can't when it comes to feminism and mens rights.

------------------------------------------------------

SP, you're a public official, and you have to be careful about who you hire to be part of your staff. If you knew that a Person A had a habit of engaging others in arguments, and then alienating them by absolutely refusing to listen to them, and attacking them repeatedly to defend their position, would you hire Person A to be a member of your staff?

 

It's interesting to see how many other people generally have a similar point of view on what is happening here.

I predict this will fall on deaf ears.

Trollsgotta troll.

 

I will reiterate that I have been gone for a year and am back to find the state of these interactions to be in the same exact place. It's a very high level of agitation to maintain over an extended amount of time and coming back into it, for me, there is a sense of unreality. This isn't about discussion. We have had passionate but fairly measured arguments about everything here from guns, to war, to welfare and everything in between. Why is the subject of feminism and its consequences (one that I personally care about and could probably still string together words to talk about) meted out and dominated by one person? And not only that, a person fundamentally unable to talk about it in any fashion that doesn't completely de-legitimize it.

Oh, but wait, yeah. It all makes sense now.