Carbon Fiber Masculinity WTH is this?

Post Reply New Topic

Ok so you have some awareness of what I'm concerned about. I personally think we are loosing ground to them.

I also mention this university becuase of Bahar Mustafa. I think she fits into that category. Also some tried to petition to get her removed, but they could get enough signatures. It is ironic because of the effort SJW have made to get people fired, simply for having a difference of views.

I think whilst Bahar is responsible for her views, the influence of academics on students within the same university should be considered, as well as modus operandi of activists within the SJW movement.

In the case University of Missouri of where communications professor Melissa Click attempted to strong-arm university journalists out of a public place (and other protesters were very combatant against them taking pictures before this), there is a direct correlation between some of her ideas and the protesters who were advocating ideas tantamount to segregation.

The protesters had some genuine grievances, but I don't agree they picked the right target to protest against and I definitely think their solutions are very misguided and draconian especially the broad and unrealistic use of "safe space". Also I said it was clearly a hostile space for some.

Ultimately they wanted a solution that would have been impossible to implement anyway. So really it is just a sounding board for anger.

Then there are other cases of university students complaining about Mexican and other ethic food being served at events being "cultural appropriation". Clearly, not understanding how culture works and evolves.

The funnest complaint I heard of was of Vietnamese food Bánh mì, which is a Vietnamese sandwich made with a baguette. The fact that the Vietnamese didn't have a problem with what is clearly fusion food with their former colonial masters seems to have gone over the SJWs heads.

I am actually very concerned about this case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guthrie_vs._Elliott
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comme ... ree-speech

Not becuase the people involved are saints but becuase there is hypocrisy involved regarding the "victims" and that it should not be in the courts in the first place.

I've wandered into a thread about Hickey-Moody?
Wait, no. I haven't. Hicky-Moody has not come up at all, except when you threw down the name in an attempt to pretend that you have some sort of understanding of what feminism is.


Translation: ' I can't counter the point, so I'll ignore it while pretending that the example was actually the main point.'

Arguing against radfems is arguing against such a tiny subset of the movement that you might as well be arguing with a fantasy, as I clearly explained. The fact that you're so goddamn set on pretending that the radfems are representative of the movement as a whole tells me that you have no actual points to make against mainstream feminism.

'Feminism' as a whole is pretty nebulous, yes. There are a lot of people out there with different ideas even within mainstream feminism. That said, mainstream feminists these days tend to be intersectional feminists to greater or lesser degrees; there are still some 3rd wave feminists hanging around; and there are even a few second wave feminists.

Honey, go back and look at the thread. I defended another poster as not being 'exclusionary,' and suddenly you lost your ever-loving mind.
I don't give a flying f**k what you're "interested in," but I'm going to defend my positions when they're attacked with baseless tone-troll type drivel.

See above.

LOL honey I don't know you. I had no idea of who you were or what your positions were until you lost your s**t when I defended someone. My entire opinion of you is based on this thread... and it isn't good. But that's hardly 'baseless, sans evidence.'

, and you prefer to argue against "statistical" representations of an undefined nature, rather than individual perspectives. I prefer to argue with opponents who exist in the physical sense over wasting time on strawmen.


*shaking head*
No, I get it just fine. I stand by my comment.


I'm aware of the figure of speech. However, "...cease barking..." still means 'shut up,' and "...find another tree," still means 'go away.' The figure of speech just adds an insult to my intelligence in addition to the demand that I shut up and go away. Not quite Shakespearian, but I suppose it's at least a better insult than 'poo-poo head.'

On a more serious note, do you have any actual points to make, or just more critique of my style? Because I really am here to actually argue, and it's beginning to look more than a little like you're trying to avoid making any actual arguments.

Intersectionalism doesn't denote how they approach equality, simply how they see their role in the civil right movements.

So you can be choice based internationalist or identity based internationalism.

My impression is identity based is more common, and I'm from the choice based social libertarian stance.

I do think, actually, that 'safe spaces' have a place - but that place is NOT the classroom or the academic commons. The academy is a place where ideas go to cage fight and eat the losers, not a place for ideas to be safe. If students feel physically unsafe, to the degree that they feel that they're risking their lives going to class (as some black students at a local university recently claimed), that's another thing altogether; the person should be safe, but the ideas should absolutely not be.

I don't know much about the case you cite. I do know that twitter harassment can be a serious problem for some prominent feminists, and that women often don't respond to legitimate threats the way that men think that they should; the lack of an 'appearance of fear' doesn't necessarily mean that the woman in question wasn't legitimately afraid. Especially in feminist circles, there is a subset of women who 'refuse to give in to the informal curfew,' by which they mean they'll walk alone at night if they goddamn well want to, thank you very much, even though they know that they face some real danger of attack and of a, 'Well, what were you doing out there alone?' from the cops if they are attacked.
So I don't know.
I do think that speech on Twitter isn't really that different from speech any other place; if the guy was making illegal threats, it doesn't really matter that he made them on Twitter; if he wasn't, and this woman attacked him back anyway, then he should be able to countersue for lawyer's fees + lost time + 'pain and suffering,' or whatever the legal equivalent is for defamation.

The twitter case is a case of hypocrisy. I'm not endorsing abusing people on twitter.

The guy didn't attempt to contact the "victims" after they fell out. They actually organized and discussed tactic such as implicating him as a pedophile. Which is itself harassment.

In other words the two had heated ideological disagreement. They felt aggrieved and therefore feel justified in playing the harassment card, when they were no more victims of harassment than perpetrators of it.

Even if you take the prosecution's case at face value, which you should then it still has profound implications for freedom of speech.

This case doesn't belong in a court room. It is nothing more than a slagging match. How the hell are they meant make a determination on that?

These tactic is nothing new just look at the attempt to get Phil Mason fired from his job multiple time.

All becuase they can't understand the differnce between an intellectual discussion of ethical theory/moral relativism and being a Nazi.

Some people just take criticism, really, really badly. So they see their critics as needing to be removed, rather than countering their views.

Hickey-Moody authored the paper that inspired this entire thread. As for understanding "feminism", the meaning of "feminism" ideologically is as varied as the number of people who identify as "feminists". We already established that you don't have a pope, remember? Sans context, feminism is most often nothing but a buzzword meaning "I consider myself to be superior to you".



Aside from the one I responded to, there was no point made - unless you also meant to imply that "feminism is like science, because reasons".



Now you claim that I'm:
1: arguing with radfems who are
2: imaginary

What you "explained" was summarily rejected, and with good cause.



Name a radical feminist that I have stated is representative of the movement in this thread. Just one. With quotes. Apparently "arguing with a fantasy" was nothing more than projection on your part.

I challenge you to re-read the thread, sans the tinted glasses. Whenever I say "feminists" I am not saying "all feminists, without exception", nor am I saying "the majority of feminists". Further, I am absolutely not saying "feminism". Indeed, the first post I made mentioning feminists went as follows:

"Which feminists? The overwhelming majority of feminists I encounter would be best described as creating polarisation, not struggling against it. The remainder are lukewarm feminists at worst, who dismiss most of the ideological fluff and would be better described as egalitarians.

So I repeat: Which feminists? It'd be genuinely heart-warming to see a group of them who celebrated the incredible achievements of our species rather than focusing on the negatives and blaming them exclusively on the menfolk."

Whereas your opening gambit was to pretend that any argument which criticises "feminists" is an argument against "straw-feminism". You took a shot in the dark, hit your own toe and continued to limp along as if nothing had happened.



Just as "feminism" is a nebulous term, so too is "mainstream feminism".



Interesting characterisation. Perhaps if you devoted some effort to understanding that others think differently to yourself, you'd be less inclined to respond ad hominem.

Now, take your own advice and re-read the thread. The post that you refer to with "defended another poster" contained a twisted straw effigy of my position.



Makes accusation of "baseless" tone-trolling.
Provides no examples of tone-trolling.

To me, it seems abundantly clear that what you don't give a flying expletive about is honest debate.



And thus my point is upheld.



That was rather my point, dear.



Continues to ad hominem based on falsely perceived "loss of s**t".
Claims opponent is a tone troll.





Your entire opinion of me is based on your manufactured parody of my actual position, inspired by my opposition to some people who share an ideological title with you - though not necessarily an ideology. As for what you deem "good", I can assure you I am as desirous of your approval as I am of being repeatedly stabbed in the torso with a rusty nail file.



You stand by the fact that you believe your inference is evidence of my implication. Or put another way:

"How Strawmen are Typically Formed" - by LKL



You claim to be aware of the metaphor, yet go on to claim I was creating an entirely different metaphor because it suits your purpose to pretend I was telling you to "shut up". Carry on clutching, LKL. If I wanted you to be silent, you can be certain that I wouldn't be wasting my time with responses.



Critique of your style? Au contraire! This is just the place for a Snark!

If you've been paying attention, you'll be aware that my sole criticism is regarding your lack of substance.

Now if you'd like to try again, perhaps addressing some of the earlier points from the thread rather than making broad assertions based on nebulous ideological concepts or attacking parodical misrepresentations of my position, there might be grounds for some useful debate. On the other hand, if your only goal is - as I suspect it is - to sprinkle excrement with gleeful abandon, we're probably just about done here.

None of the feminists I have met in person or talked to or read their writings of online think that women are superior to men, or that they themselves particularly are better than men. This is an example of what LKL was talking about with "straw feminists". You seem to think the majority of feminists think women are superior. This is just not the case, at least it is not the experience of myself or any of the feminists here or anyone else I have spoken to who knows feminists. The guiding philosophy of feminism is equality, not superiority. It's not a grand anti-man conspiracy, and presenting feminism like it is all about establishing some kind of "gynocracy" makes people not take your claim seriously because it is obvious hyperbole.

Well, The_Walrus told me that universities are bastions of "critical thinking", so I wouldn't dare question this, looool



To be more specific, she was charged for tweeting #killallwhitemen

Given that Adifferentname still hasn't offered anything substantial to the discussion, I'm not going to fisk his most recent post. His entire purpose seems to be to waste my time.

@Wilberforce: thank you for stating what should be obvious to anyone familiar with actual mainstream feminism.

@Rollo: universities as bastions of critical thinking doesn't prevent stupidity from occurring there, but it should mean that stupid ideas have a short half-life because they get eaten by better ideas. The paper in the OP was dated a year ago; I suspect that it will not gain a great deal of traction, and will fall into the dust-bin of theses that were curious-but-not-really-interesting-or-relevant, along with about 98% of what philosophizers come up with.

I have a simple test for determining what feminist beliefs are; things said and done by feminists. Unfortunately, many of those things are really sh***y, hence my generally low opinion of feminists.

Just like police abuse, it gets harder and harder to buy the 'isolated example' excuse the less isolated the example becomes. Broad censorship? Mainstream feminist position. Erosion of the presumption of innocence? Feminists again. Ends justify the means approach to problems? Well, I imagine the point is pretty clear by now.

Have you ever volunteered at a women's shelter or any sort of place where you might actually meet some feminists in real life and get a chance to get to know some personally? I think if you did it might help change your opinion about what the majority of everyday feminists are out there trying to accomplish and what they believe in. What is being described here as feminazi behaviour is just not within my realm of experience of dealing with feminists in the trenches in the day-to-day stuff like clothing drives for shelters and survivor therapy groups. Maybe if you expanded your experience with feminists you might find your mind opening up a little, and feel less resentment about feminists in general. (This applies to everyone in this thread, not just the guys.) We're not some evil cabal trying to take everything away from men and rule the world. Most of us just want to find a way to do our part to make the world a little better for everyone, because doing things like deconstructing toxic culturally-enforced gender roles and addressing domestic violence help both men and women, and children too.

Why are you injecting sex into it? We're discussing an ideology and its adherents, how said adherents often point at their ideology as some sort of proof of moral superiority.



Hardly. Indeed, you are the one constructing men of straw.



Actually, I'm of the opinion that a great number of feminists don't think highly of women at all. One of the multiple reasons for this opinion is the manner in which feminists will oft conflate "feminism" with "feminist/s" and further conflate both terms with "women", before attempting to weaponise the conflation in a bid to demonstrate hatred of the latter. You know, like you're doing here.



Now you're arguing against your own strawman with a position based solely on your own personal experiences. If you're going to misrepresent my position, at least put some effort into the rebuttal.



Which branch of feminism? Again, the term is being used nebulously. You may as well be saying "the guiding philosophy of Christianity is love".



And yet the only person presenting feminism in this way is you. If only you'd let me know not to take your post seriously at the beginning I could have avoided wasting time with my response.

Ironically, you've responded to criticism of how the word feminism is used by misusing the word feminism and implying that my objection is based on sex rather than actions. Thanks for demonstrating my point perfectly.

Tired of having all your bad faith arguments pointed out? We both know there's a better solution than turning tail. But whatever floats your boat and all that jazz.

I don't see any of the most prominent mainstream feminists advocating this. Amanda Marcotte, Rebecca Watson, etc.
feminists, in general, DO want there there to be social consequences for being an ass, but I don't see most of them advocating speech being banned. I do see more of it on the fringes than the 'man hating' shibboleth that so often comes up from the opposition.

I don think that's the case either. When was the last time you hard a mugging victim referred to in popular media as an 'alleged mugging victim'? It happens all the time to rape victims. Feminists want equal treatment.

Well due to the presumption of innocence a crime is alleged to have taken place until it is proven. That is just the way it has to work. Otherwise we might as well resort to trial by media, which we sort of have to an extent.

Rape and sexual abuse cases in some countries like the UK have a very special situation where the victim is entitled to anonymity and the accused isn't. This is maintained even after acquittal.

Everyone understands why that is the case, becuase many rapes don't go to court an fall apart in the investigation stage. Or they don't come forward in the first place.

Of course I am very sympathetic to rape victims. However there are sound reasons why this idea is not really compatible with due process. I know people feel very strongly about it but we need justice for all not justice for some.

Somebody who is found innocent, their reputation is ruined anyway.

Other crimes that are very serious indeed don't have this option.

We also can't have a situation where we are having secret trials either. Otherwise that is a police state.

Not all ideas are good ideas however well meaning.

Due process is something I feel very strongly about. I'm against thing like plea bargaining or the type of fast track trial the Rudy Guede was able to secure so he was never cross examined. Anything that doesn't further the interests of justice.