Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

pH

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Just googled elevatorghazi(-gate is so passé ;-)), seems like a load of ****e, lad asks some chick up to his room for "coffee", chick makes a big whine out of it, cop on. She seems like a bit of a nutter, reminds me of this case.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12146351/No-one-is-safe-from-prosecutors-terrifying-incompetence-on-sex-crimes.html

Obviously not everyone "politely" disagrees with feminists, Milo, however, does, and they still lose their ****, he should convert to Islam and he'd get a pass.

Elevatorgate was a lot more than that, it would take an essay to do it justice, but suffice to say the whole elevator thing was just the final straw, and even then it wasn't so much Watson's "guys don't do that" video, it was what followed.

So background:

The atheist convention gravytrain was running full speed, a whole lot of people attended these conventions to see "superstar" speakers and mingle with fellow non-theists, and there was a fair bit of crossover with the Skeptic scene. There had been rumblings about "men behaving badly", and a group of women were passing round names of men who they shouldn't be left alone with, and there were grumbling that there weren't enough women involved and speaking.

So at the Dublin event there was even a "women in secularism" panel, on which Paula Kirby spoke, the next day Watson used her time on a "communicating atheism" panel to be quite rude and condescending to Paula Kirby - that night as if by magic Watson was propositioned in a lift (which proved her point!)

So then came the "guys don't do that video" which didn't cause any real problems, a few forum posts but nothing spectacular, but 2 women, Rose St Clair and Stef McGrath wrote a blog post and made a video saying that they didn't really see what the guy did wrong. Watson then used time when she was speaking at a university about the "religious right" to call out McGrath by name (she was in the audience) and belittled and chastised her from the podium.

This did cause an outcry, and lines were drawn, with many FTB blogs written in support of Watson abusing McGrath, on one of these "always name names" by PZ Myers, Dawkins "dear muslima" comment appeared, which then resulted in calls for a boycott of Dawkins.

As to the "slymepit", another woman Abbie Smith (at that time she was doing a PhD in virology) had a blog called ERV on scienceblogs that allowed comments on the whole "elevatorgate" issue, which so annoyed some men (yes PZ Myers is involved again) that they tried to have the blog removed from scienceblogs, and also contacted her college and tried to have her removed from her study program.

People like Myers used the term "slimepit" when speaking about the comment section (which is hilarious as his blog had at the time one of the most nasty and toxic comment sections I have ever read), and the name stuck when she moved it off scienceblogs onto a standalone site so she could get on with her life and not be harassed by people like Myers.

KomradeBishop

It's weird the way so many of the issues relating to complaints about feminism that you read online, sound like individual misconstrued events (from a tiny college or seminar or something), that have been blown way out of proportion and are really insignificant, and then get picked up and intentionally amplified all over the Internet, in the most bizarre ways - bizarre in a "why the fúck would anyone care about that?" fashion.

I think the vast majority of the controversy about feminism is just intentionally whipped-up like that - out of non-events - and is mostly all bollocks. Usually whenever you start Googling the latest link to "crazy feminists doing crazy things link no. 92934718243", it almost always turns up with almost no results on Google - I often wonder where the hell people even find out about some of this stuff.

silverharp

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's weird the way so many of the issues relating to complaints about feminism that you read online, sound like individual misconstrued events (from a tiny college or seminar or something), that have been blown way out of proportion and are really insignificant, and then get picked up and intentionally amplified all over the Internet, in the most bizarre ways - bizarre in a "why the fúck would anyone care about that?" fashion.

I think the vast majority of the controversy about feminism is just intentionally whipped-up like that - out of non-events - and is mostly all bollocks. Usually whenever you start Googling the latest link to "crazy feminists doing crazy things link no. 92934718243", it almost always turns up with almost no results on Google - I often wonder where the hell people even find out about some of this stuff.

I don't buy the nothing to see here move along. There has clearly been an explosion of hysterical feminism in the last few years and its causing problems for people . its worth being sceptical against.

JPNelsforearm

Thanks for the summary @pH, Im afraid I still dont get it lol, obviously you had to follow it at the time, I dont get the context, it just seems all very weird.

Christy42

silverharp wrote: »

I don't buy the nothing to see here move along. There has clearly been an explosion of hysterical feminism in the last few years and its causing problems for people . its worth being sceptical against.

It is worth being skeptical against but a lot of what has been reported is entirely overblown or a few crazies. I am friends with a good few feminists and despite this the only time I see crazy stuff being done by feminists is when it is reported here on boards or someone else complaining about feminists. I have never known someone that has done anything worth complaining about it the name of feminism. It is just how things get reported, what a sensible person does is pretty boring while the views of a extreme person a way more entertaining and so they get shared around a lot more.

It is seen in anything political - "See what stupid person of opposite political opinion did now!"

silverharp

Christy42 wrote: »

It is worth being skeptical against but a lot of what has been reported is entirely overblown or a few crazies. I am friends with a good few feminists and despite this the only time I see crazy stuff being done by feminists is when it is reported here on boards or someone else complaining about feminists. I have never known someone that has done anything worth complaining about it the name of feminism. It is just how things get reported, what a sensible person does is pretty boring while the views of a extreme person a way more entertaining and so they get shared around a lot more.

It is seen in anything political - "See what stupid person of opposite political opinion did now!"

I'd imagine its a bit more extreme in the US Canada and the UK. But its not just who you meet. Its articles in major newspapers, the attitude of the media when a feminist issue pops up , very little to no critical analysis.

JPNelsforearm

silverharp wrote: »

I'd imagine its a bit more extreme in the US Canada and the UK. But its not just who you meet. Its articles in major newspapers, the attitude of the media when a feminist issue pops up , very little to no critical analysis.

Exactly, I only know about three or four chicks who are full on modern feminists, "muh wage gap", "rape culture", "sexism" etc etc, even at that they arent what I would class as "rabid" feminists, more just brainwashed in uni. Its the media and certain sectors of supposed academia, the likes of social, gender studies etc who promote the rabid headcase stuff.

robindch

KomradeBishop wrote: »

[...] mostly all bollocks [...]

A poor choice of words in the context...

More seriously, the whole mess painted - at least for some time - the idea that "atheism" was not only a group of individuals, but a group of frequently sex-obsessed, occasionally violent, and certainly deeply misogynist men. No evidence was produced to substantiate this claim, but it gained currency amongst a media on the look out for a scandal to ogle at, and on account of that, was quite damaging.

It's mostly blown over now and the people who started it are still complaining, but this time, doing so mostly on their own and with little media attention.

robindch

pH wrote: »

[...] So at the Dublin event there was even a "women in secularism" panel, on which Paula Kirby spoke, the next day Watson used her time on a "communicating atheism" panel to be quite rude and condescending to Paula Kirby - that night as if by magic Watson was propositioned in a lift (which proved her point!)

Back in 2012, Paula wrote a prescient text named "The Sisterhood of the Oppressed" which discussed the elevatorgate incident and its aftermath:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B02RDDb71N8Xc2EwYmw5T2Z4eDg/edit?pli=1

Paula Kirby wrote:

On the contrary, the wails and witch-hunts emanating from certain self-labelled freethinking quarters have become more hysterical, more exaggerated, more self-pitying, more vicious and more disgraceful as time has gone by. And in the meantime, their bullying has led to many who disagree with them simply not having the stomach for the viciousness that awaits them should they decide to speak up, with the result that there is a risk of the views of the loudest shriekers becoming wrongly seen as mainstream. I do not believe they are mainstream. Many many good people in our movement, men and women, are sick and tired of all this nonsense, and are as disgusted by it as I am. Many of them are deeply disillusioned with the movement for succumbing to paranoia and ideological demagoguery and for demonstrating the kind of hysterical irrationality we normally only expect to find among the very worst of the religious and the woo-mongers.

She was excoriated for saying this and some time afterwards, abandoned skepticism + atheism and retired to Scotland, there to live out a peaceful life and - at the moment - post the odd article in favour of Britain staying in the EU.

jackofalltrades

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I think the vast majority of the controversy about feminism is just intentionally whipped-up like that - out of non-events - and is mostly all bollocks.

There's plenty of examples on this thread and other threads on this site of feminists doing daft things.
Feel free to argue these points, rather than just lazily dismissing it as "mostly all bollocks".

Christy42 wrote: »

I have never known someone that has done anything worth complaining about it the name of feminism.

So you have to know the person before it becomes a real problem?

It is just how things get reported, what a sensible person does is pretty boring while the views of a extreme person a way more entertaining and so they get shared around a lot more.

Yes but the so called extremists are the ones having an impact.
They are the ones shutting down discussions, stopping rights groups from forming and defending thuggish behaviour.

pH

silverharp wrote: »

I don't buy the nothing to see here move along. There has clearly been an explosion of hysterical feminism in the last few years and its causing problems for people . its worth being sceptical against.

Yep even in the last few days this happened at another US college, because some people wanted to listen to the words of a gay english catholic conservative.

http://www.breitbart.com/education/2016/02/10/fake-blood-and-war-chants-milo-yiannopoulos-event-at-rutgers-disrupted-by-feminists-black-lives-matter-activists/

KomradeBishop

silverharp wrote: »

I don't buy the nothing to see here move along. There has clearly been an explosion of hysterical feminism in the last few years and its causing problems for people . its worth being sceptical against.

What examples have you got that aren't just isolated events, that typically only a college student newspaper would be worried about, if it weren't getting massively overblown attention on the Internet?

What I'm tackling is precisely something that isn't skepticism - it's 'skepticism' in the way that climate change 'skeptics' are skeptical.

I'd be of the opinion that the vast majority of online material about 'an explosion of hysterical feminism' is simply bullshít that's been given undue overblown attention, for the purpose of propaganda.
If there are worthwhile counterexamples to this, I'd be interested in seeing them.

Same logic suggests ignoring creationist bull****.

(small 'extreme' subsection of an overall group)

Yet the Atheism & Agnosticism forum doesn't look kindly on creationism (nor that larger group!)

Anti-Bull**** forum doesn't exist, but cynics/skeptics seem to cross paths with Atheist/Agnostics quite a lot!

KomradeBishop

pH wrote: »

Yep even in the last few days this happened at another US college, because some people wanted to listen to the words of a gay english catholic conservative.

http://www.breitbart.com/education/2016/02/10/fake-blood-and-war-chants-milo-yiannopoulos-event-at-rutgers-disrupted-by-feminists-black-lives-matter-activists/

See this is exactly what I mean - who gives a toss about such an insignificant event like this, other than students at that college?

How does this merit national and even international attention?

I point this out, not to deter/dismiss discussion of that event here - but to use it as an example of how hysteria about feminists is manufactured out of pretty much nothing.

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

Same logic suggests ignoring creationist bull****.

(small 'extreme' subsection of an overall group)

Yet the Atheism & Agnosticism forum doesn't look kindly on creationism (nor that larger group!)

Anti-Bull**** forum doesn't exist, but cynics/skeptics seem to cross paths with Atheist/Agnostics quite a lot!

An Anti-Bullshít forum would be an interesting/fun thing to see The thing about creationists though, is they are anything but small as a group, and they are very well defined in their views.

You don't also have people fighting creationist views, then going on to tar the whole religious group they are a part of - which is almost exclusively what happens, when people start posting articles about a handful of dumb feminist college students, doing something stupid/attention-seeking - trying to tar a whole group with them as an example.

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

An Anti-Bullshít forum would be an interesting/fun thing to see The thing about creationists though, is they are anything but small as a group, and they are very well defined in their views.

They were a very small group in living memory weren't they? Perhaps it might have been more prudent to educate & debate them long before they managed to perpetuate the nonsense, and demand that their edge beliefs were taught in schools?

Can't you see the similarities?

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You don't also have people fighting creationist views, then going on to tar the whole religious group they are a part of - which is almost exclusively what happens, when people start posting articles about a handful of dumb feminist college students, doing something stupid/attention-seeking - trying to tar a whole group with them as an example.

See this is just an issue with names. we have "Creationists" a subset of "christians" a subset of "religious people". We can not tar all religious people with the same brush because we have defined subsets.

Is there an easy title to use for the 'extremist feminists' so as to clearly define the point of derision at the extremes and not the entire system?

PopePalpatine

Deleted User wrote: »

They were a very small group in living memory weren't they?



See this is just an issue with names. we have "Creationists" a subset of "christians" a subset of "religious people". We can not tar all religious people with the same brush because we have defined subsets.

Is there an easy title to use for the 'extremist feminists' so as to clearly define the point of derision at the extremes and not the entire system?

That's where the term "radfem" comes in handy.

silverharp

KomradeBishop wrote: »

What examples have you got that aren't just isolated events, that typically only a college student newspaper would be worried about, if it weren't getting massively overblown attention on the Internet?

What I'm tackling is precisely something that isn't skepticism - it's 'skepticism' in the way that climate change 'skeptics' are skeptical.

I'd be of the opinion that the vast majority of online material about 'an explosion of hysterical feminism' is simply bullshít that's been given undue overblown attention, for the purpose of propaganda.
If there are worthwhile counterexamples to this, I'd be interested in seeing them.

Some of them were mentioned above , rape culture, the alleged wage gap which worse still tends to be said in a way to assume women get paid significantly less for the same work. Do you remember the abbey theatre protests last year or even the unsubtle dealing of an issue like gender imbalances in Hollywood and the like.
There are topics to be analysed just not through problematic glasses or the more recent intersectional victim complex nonsense.

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

They were a very small group in living memory weren't they? Perhaps it might have been more prudent to educate & debate them long before they managed to perpetuate the nonsense, and demand that their edge beliefs were taught in schools?

Can't you see the similarities?



See this is just an issue with names. we have "Creationists" a subset of "christians" a subset of "religious people". We can not tar all religious people with the same brush because we have defined subsets.

Is there an easy title to use for the 'extremist feminists' so as to clearly define the point of derision at the extremes and not the entire system?

Do these 'radfems' (useful term) have a gigantic/massive funding in the form of a huge conservative think-tank, like the Discovery Institute?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute#Funding

Not that I can see.

This kind of crazy doesn't become mainstream all by its own - it needs tons of money - like the tons of money the American Enterprise Institute puts into anti-feminist propaganda.

KomradeBishop

silverharp wrote: »

Some of them were mentioned above , rape culture, the alleged wage gap which worse still tends to be said in a way to assume women get paid significantly less for the same work. Do you remember the abbey theatre protests last year or even the unsubtle dealing of an issue like gender imbalances in Hollywood and the like.
There are topics to be analysed just not through problematic glasses or the more recent intersectional victim complex nonsense.

Why would anyone remember the Abby theatre protests? Sounds exactly like the kind of insignificant/non-notable kind of event, that is analogous in insignificance, to a few people disrupting a college debate.

I've seen the wage gap brought up in a different debate recently - and I failed to see any proof given, that it's something that can be generalized as being a view held by most feminists - i.e. I've seen a lot of straw-men applied to feminists overall, sure.

Any citable articles or anything, representing issues with the wider movement, which aren't just individual insignificant events, and which aren't straw-manning/generalizing about feminists?

Most of it appears to be a manufactured controversy. Usually the only people anyone can cite to back such arguments, have an immediate connection to conservative think-tanks of some form or another, where those think-tanks have a track record of putting out provable lies/propaganda.

silverharp

PopePalpatine wrote: »

That's where the term "radfem" comes in handy.

I've only heard that used for the Julie bindel types, and even there its mostly because of their views of trans people.
The other angle is what is being taught on colleges. It seems like a lot of feminist " theory" is just taught in a way that it is assumed to be true. Anyone ever suggested there be a feminist forum on boards? It would be a hoot!

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Do these 'radfems' (useful term) have a gigantic/massive funding in the form of a huge conservative think-tank, like the Discovery Institute?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute#Funding

Not that I can see.

Less well funded. Ok.

Does that change any of what's written?

Both are fringe elements of an enormous group present dangerous ideals which are bull****.

Creationists started small and have genuinely become a problem in America when it comes to education.

'RadFems' started small and are following a similar path (albeit with less money).

People who spend time debating bull**** have focussed attention at both groups (thunderf00t an example).

KomradeBishop wrote: »

This kind of crazy doesn't become mainstream all by its own - it needs tons of money - like the tons of money the American Enterprise Institute puts into anti-feminist propaganda.

That's a fiercely confident assertion.

jackofalltrades

KomradeBishop wrote: »

See this is exactly what I mean - who gives a toss about such an insignificant event like this, other than students at that college?

How does this merit national and even international attention?

I'm guessing the poster who originally posted it and possibly other people on this thread find it interesting.
I find it very worrying that people are increasingly shutting down discussion rather than engaging with those whose opinions they disagree with.
So that post is of interest to me.
That and what happens in the US tends to catch on over here and the youth of today are tomorrows leaders.

I don't get the level of interest in this forum with regards to US politics.
That said I don't go into certain threads and say "who gives a toss" every time something that I don't consider terribly important is brought up.

I point this out, not to deter/dismiss discussion of that event here - but to use it as an example of how hysteria about feminists is manufactured out of pretty much nothing.

Yeah I find that hard to believe.
I think your upset that feminism is coming under criticism and you'd rather we didn't talk about it.

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

Less well funded. Ok.

Does that change any of what's written?

Both are fringe elements of an enormous group present dangerous ideals which are bull****.

Creationists started small and have genuinely become a problem in America when it comes to education.

'RadFems' started small and are following a similar path (albeit with less money).

People who spend time debating bull**** have focussed attention at both groups (thunderf00t an example).




That's a fiercely confident assertion.

Who cares what some idiots with no influence and no money to buy influence say?

Funny thing is, they have more influence than they otherwise would have, because of how much overblown attention they are given online, by people who try to use the 'radfems' to straw-man the wider feminist movement.

All people are able to cite as well, are usually just some dumb college kids who are just doing attention-seeking stunts - 'dangerous' for sure... - I doubt they could get many of their college friends to take their nonsense seriously, nevermind anyone involved in policymaking - especially if they have no real money for lobbying.

jackofalltrades

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I've seen the wage gap brought up in a different debate recently - and I failed to see any proof given,

Proof as to it's existence or lack of existence?

KomradeBishop

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I'm guessing the poster who originally posted it and possibly other people on this thread find it interesting.
I find it very worrying that people are increasingly shutting down discussion rather than engaging with those whose opinions they disagree with.
So that post is of interest to me.
That and what happens in the US tends to catch on over here and the youth of today are tomorrows leaders.

I don't get the level of interest in this forum with regards to US politics.
That said I don't go into certain threads and say "who gives a toss" every time something that I don't consider terribly important is brought up.


Yeah I find that hard to believe.
I think your upset that feminism is coming under criticism and you'd rather we didn't talk about it.

You deliberately ignored this part of my post, in order to write the first half of your post:
"I point this out, not to deter/dismiss discussion of that event here - but to use it as an example of how hysteria about feminists is manufactured out of pretty much nothing."

Then you tried to justify that by saying you found the above 'hard to believe'. That is deliberately misrepresenting what I said, in order to try and make it look like I tried to shut down discussion - when, as I explained clearly, I was criticizing the overblown obsession people have with insignificant events, involving virtually any random crazy radfem that ends up in an online article/video.

KomradeBishop

jackofalltrades wrote: »

KomradeBishop wrote:

I've seen the wage gap brought up in a different debate recently - and I failed to see any proof given,

Proof as to it's existence or lack of existence?

You're quote-mining me - i.e. cutting up sentences that I've said, to misrepresent what I've said.

If you're going to quote me, quote full sentences, thanks...
"I've seen the wage gap brought up in a different debate recently - and I failed to see any proof given, that it's something that can be generalized as being a view held by most feminists - i.e. I've seen a lot of straw-men applied to feminists overall, sure."

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Who cares what some idiots with no influence and no money to buy influence say?

Me, and others discussing them. And probably they themselves. And probably educators in the UK and Ireland who are seeing these views come across in the identity politics debate. And lots of other people.

Do you often tell people to be less interested in things? Seems a very odd thing to do.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Funny thing is, they have more influence than they otherwise would have, because of how much overblown attention they are given online, by people who try to use the 'radfems' to straw-man the wider feminist movement.

What does this mean? Are you suggesting that there is something wrong with highlighting the bull**** of the extremists?
It is trivial to point out a straw man. It is trivial to point out an ad-hominem attack 'the arguer is a feminist, there are rad-fems, the arguer must be wrong' etc.
Why 'fear'/worry/concern yourself with people using terrible logic?

KomradeBishop wrote: »

All people are able to cite as well, are usually just some dumb college kids who are just doing attention-seeking stunts - 'dangerous' for sure... - I doubt they could get many of their college friends to take their nonsense seriously, nevermind anyone involved in policymaking - especially if they have no real money for lobbying.

That's interesting.
http://www.polygon.com/2015/9/25/9399169/united-nations-women-cyber-violence-anita-sarkeesian-zoe-quinn

jackofalltrades

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You deliberately ignored this part of my post, in order to write the first half of your post:
"I point this out, not to deter/dismiss discussion of that event here - but to use it as an example of how hysteria about feminists is manufactured out of pretty much nothing."

Then you tried to justify that by saying you found the above 'hard to believe'. That is deliberately misrepresenting what I said, in order to try and make it look like I tried to shut down discussion - when, as I explained clearly, I was criticizing the overblown obsession people have with insignificant events, involving virtually any random crazy radfem that ends up in an online article/video.

I structured that post so as to make it easier to read.
I'm not ignoring or deliberately misrepresenting what you said.

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You deliberately ignored this part of my post, in order to write the first half of your post:
"I point this out, not to deter/dismiss discussion of that event here - but to use it as an example of how hysteria about feminists is manufactured out of pretty much nothing."

hyperbole surely? Given that it's a discussion forum, with a thread regarding 'odd things that the left do' and people are discussing an odd thing that 'the left' has done.

There's a similar thread concerned with similar nonsense that right-wing nutjobs get up to. Is that also whipping up a wave of hysteria? Or merely a place to laugh and discuss the illogicality of their mishaps and viewpoints?

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Then you tried to justify that by saying you found the above 'hard to believe'. That is deliberately misrepresenting what I said, in order to try and make it look like I tried to shut down discussion - when, as I explained clearly, I was criticizing the overblown obsession people have with insignificant events, involving virtually any random crazy radfem that ends up in an online article/video.

subjective of course.

I'd have said it was a relevant and significant enough event (in the context of the thread we're in), and quite a concerning event, concerning on several levels.

• The refusal to engage and attempt to defeat ideas that one doesn't subscribe to
• The obvious polarisation of the society/groupings involved
• The fact that this occurred on a college campus, a centre for learning for the next generations.
• The unfortunately growing trend of these incidents.

If you're not interested in it, that's absolutely fine. I rarely frequent the Photography forum for example. But it would be strange of me to go in and suggest that they'd be better off not discussing Holga cameras.