Politics On gender politics

Oh, and I read the one "paper" on how feminists are covering up violence against men.
He admitted that he only knew of one case but "thought" there were others were studies had been discouraged or defeated because they wanted to study both sides.

He talked about how the numbers were based on a series of unsubstantiated studies which I was starting to find interesting than he did nothing with it.
There are police reports and consolidated data he could have drawn on to prove his point,
That is if he was actually going to write a real paper.
Instead it degenerates into a screed about how he was picked on and called names.

If you want to write an essay that's fine.
A paper has a entirely different standard.
He didn't prove his point or do anything more than preach to the choir.

 

And now we're to the point where you're literally claiming you never did something you just did not two posts ago and are doing in the very same post. We're hitting critical mass for most people's ability to tolerate cognitive dissonance. Is it painful at all for you or are you so ideologically dedicated that you don't even feel it anymore?

 

Watch the first cartoon about men's rights activists

 

Accusation: Gaslighting
Tangibility: None in this case. Accuser offers no solid explanation which he can be pinned down with, the accusation stands by itself as acontentless argument bomb
Falsifiability: None. It is impossible to disprove this accusation. Any attempt could simply have the goalposts moved or a kafkatrap fallacy applied.
Inflammatory: Yes, accusations of gaslighting are a pariah tactic along with accusations of misogyny and the spectrum of common feminist shaming tactics.
Conclusion: Much like accusing the other person of being a witch or communist this form of personal attack relies on someone firing first with an inflammatory accusation that can not be disproven.

Interestingly enough accusing someone of gaslighting can, itself, be gaslighting.

Hey Baraka, you keep talking about straw men and how good feminists are. Why not prove it. Find some feminist criticism of this. Not only is it blatantly hypocritical of the core claims of feminism it's also blatantly sexist and relies on flat out lies like claiming R/Redpill is in any way part of the MRM.

Surely if feminism is so honest and good there must be a feminist somewhere who criticises these kinds of dishonest, sexist, hypocritical hit pieces. They've had an entire year. Surely if feminism as a whole does not condone this kind of blatant lying and misandry there should be, SOMEWHERE, a meaningful and public feminist rebuke of this?

Oh, wait, this is part of the exact opposite, a feminist rejection of the very idea that misandry even exists so widespread and massive that "misandry don't real" became a meme in its own right.

 

Lighten up, dude.

It is a political cartoon. You can find someone who objects to every political cartoon. Generally, a humorless, thin-skinned ideologue when it hits too close to home.

 

You want me to prove to you that your own posts in this thread exist? Not bothering to read my posts to the point you guys couldn't even keep track of who said what was one thing, but it's an entirely new level of absurdity to demand I prove to you your own posts exist.

Nice subtle shift from No True Scotsman to NAFALT you made there. The way this works is simple: RedPill/PUA is simply not a part of the MRM, it's a completely and utterly different thing which holds beliefs that are utterly contradictory to the very core tenets of the MRM. Trying to claim that RedPill/PUA has any connection to the MRM whatsoever is like trying to claim that an increase in the per capita consumption of cheese is responsible for the number of people who die by getting tangled in their bedsheets.

There is simply no possible way to conflate the two in good faith. It's tactic used by people who know they can't smear the MRM by linking to actual MRAs so instead they choose some other random group of pariahs and say "These are MRA's, look, see?!".

So what you're saying is either I stay silent and allow people to spread blatant falsehoods as truth, or I say they're blatant falsehoods in which case you condemn me for it and assume that's proof they're true.

Convenient how either way that works out well for your side. If I float, I'm a witch. If I drown, I'm a witch. It's almost amusing how astoundingly common that kind of "if you disagree with what I say it proves me right" tactic is among feminists, but then again that effect was a part of the original observation:

 

Ah yes kafkatrapping, the idea that anyone who might suggest that you examine your actions in any light but the one that shines out of your genius is trying to get the upper hand.

 

So you go from "it's not a legitimate argument to say the act of disagreeing with you proves you're right" to "anyone who doesn't agree with me is trying to get the upper hand" even though I've not only clearly demonstrated what kafkatrapping is and how it works but why and how it applies wherever I've referenced it.

It's almost as if you're thinking in black and white, binary, absolutes. As if anyone who wasn't with you was against you, as if... feminism had a monopoly on morality and therefore anyone who disagrees with or criticises feminism or a feminist must be a boogeyman.

 

Can I say that I consider myself to be a relatively intelligent person who can usually at least get the gist of what someone is trying to say but you completely baffled me there.

I reread it like three or four times too.

I said before that one of the important things was for people to recognize their faults.
I even listed some from my own team for you.
The thing about kafkatrapping, is it's a cute way to avoid that kind of introspection.
What better way to get out of having to admit white privilege than telling anyone who brings it up that it's just a trap?
Ayn Rand would be proud.
I think Kafka would be really pissed

He was a good Jew who wrote amazing love letters, and said "Love is a drama of contradictions."
He also said, "In mans struggle against the world, bet on the world. " but what can you say the man was a genius.
Having his name appropriated for this drek would have to be really annoying.

 

Suddenly white privilege is a part of this? And "introspection"? And you guys accuse me of being off topic or making things up.

If you ever actually bothered to read anything I said longer than it takes to latch on to some arbitrary piece and lash out at it regardless of context or even comprehensibility you would know that KafkaTrapping comes directly from Kafka's short "The Trial" in which a character is subjected to exactly what the fallacy describes.

He wouldn't be pissed at having his name "appropriated for this drek" because he literally wrote an entire story about how horrifying it is to be subjected to that kind of circular logic in a trial.


But maybe there's a chance you're not deliberately and dishonestly refusing to read anything I say, maybe you just have shitty eyesight. Since saying it in almost every post I've made so far isn't enough let me make it easier to read for you:

IT IS NOT A VALID ARGUMENT TO SAY THE ACT OF DISAGREEING WITH YOU PROVES YOU ARE RIGHT.


Now, are you going to continue to flat out lie and pretend that I'm "refusing to be introspective" when in reality all I'm doing is calling people out on that cheap trick?

You want to talk about refusing to be introspective? You've made a catch-22. According to you either I admit that you're right and I'm wrong, or if I disagree you claim that's still proof I'm wrong and on top of it I'm a dirty racist "refusing to be introspective" about his white privilege.

No matter which option I choose you claim you're right and I'm wrong. Either because i say you're right, or because I disagree and you claim that's proof you're right.





Oh and p.s. I'm a non-white minority and I've been a victim of racial violence severe enough I was literally assigned a bodyguard after multiple attempted murders and an attempted rape. Right now I'm getting threats of violence over my race. Don't ever pull that despicable bullshit about white privilege or "good jews" with me again.

 

I didn't accuse you of being white and I'm perfectly aware of where they got the damned idea for the word from.
I read the essay that it supposedly invented in, that was a joy I can tell you.
It was pretty clear that he hadn't read any of Kafka's other work because just using The Trial to slap the mans name on a rather childess term isn't very literate.
It would be like naming a form of bug control after him.

 

I am reminded of a tfp classic (maybe classic in my head only) thread where a former member filled pages and pages of the thread with the bold, impervious claim that a law which would let only American citizens work in the US didn't constitute market intervention.

When there is fundamental disagreement about what constitutes logic and evidence, then there can be no actual discussion. But perhaps it ain't discussion that folks are interested in?

 

Only if you feel that there is an ethereal and omnipotent evil force that has plunged you into a nightmare beyond your control.
I give @Shadowex3 props but probably wouldn't go that far.

 

Have we considered that this is some elaborate Turing Test?