Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

jackofalltrades

KomradeBishop wrote: »

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."

Now I'm quote mining you???

I asked a really simple, straight forward question.
With a few to providing a source on the topic, I asked the question to clarify what you said.
That's all.

You're overreacting and fallaciously using my post as an excuse to show off your knowledge of logical fallacies.

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

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?

People don't merely highlight the bullshít of extremists, they use the extremists to build a platform for attacking the wider group as a whole.

They don't care that they straw-man a whole swathe of people, which is why most debates about feminism turn into a variation of: *endlessly repeat negative generalizations about feminists, without ever stopping when the fallacy behind this is pointed out, and overhype insignificant events where radfems do silly things, to make excuses for this*.

The purpose is soapboxing - that kind of agenda pushing is dangerous, as it is being used as an attack on feminism as a whole.

That's where I focus my criticism, as there is actually a lot of money being put into that, by conservative think tanks.

Deleted User wrote: »

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

What exact radfem policies are you citing here?

KomradeBishop

jackofalltrades wrote: »

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

You said I was doing something, that I said in my post I explicitly was not doing - and most of your post is based on that misrepresentation.

KomradeBishop

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Now I'm quote mining you???

I asked a really simple, straight forward question.
With a few to providing a source on the topic, I asked the question to clarify what you said.
That's all.

You're overreacting and fallaciously using my post as an excuse to show off your knowledge of logical fallacies.

I said:
"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."

You quote-mined me as saying:
"I've seen the wage gap brought up in a different debate recently - and I failed to see any proof given,"

You then asked:
"Proof as to it's existence or lack of existence?"


You deliberately misquoted me to make it look like I was talking about proof of the existence or non-existence of the wage gap - when my original quote was about the lack of proof for generalizing wage gap views to most feminists.

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

People don't merely highlight the bullshít of extremists, they use the extremists to build a platform for attacking the wider group as a whole.

Which is quite a simple logical fallacy to defend against, and so I have no idea why you're so concerned by it.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

They don't care that they straw-man a whole swathe of people, which is why most debates about feminism turn into a variation of: *endlessly repeat negative generalizations about feminists, without ever stopping when the fallacy behind this is pointed out, and overhype insignificant events where radfems do silly things, to make excuses for this*.

Who are they? I am here talking to you, in this thread, where you belittled the idea of caring about what the radicals were doing. What you are now complaining about is simply condensed to 'people being wrong'.

Amazingly, people are wrong all the time. Don't let it get to you.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The purpose is soapboxing - that kind of agenda pushing is dangerous, as it is being used as an attack on feminism as a whole.

Only if you consider the radicals under the overall umbrella of feminism, which I'd imagine most moderates would not. Again, consider the 'naming' issue and the analogy I've given you earlier.

Please do explain the danger behind pointing out bull**** when it is in front of us.

Nothing is free from, nor should be afraid of criticism. If a world renowned genius spouts absolute nonsense, they don't get a pass for it. If a genuine and worthy cause manages to sprout a branch that spreads absolute garbage and nonsense, that branch doesn't get a pass because the overall movement is 'a good thing'.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

That's where I focus my criticism, as there is actually a lot of money being put into that, by conservative think tanks.

I don't work for one. I'm not sure anyone else here does. We saw some bull**** hypocrisy and an affront to free speech and called a spade a spade. You appear to have told us not to do this.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

What exact radfem policies are you citing here?

None. I wasn't asked to.

You said;

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.

Certainly worth considering that if they're being listened to by the UN, that there are 'lesser' entities that would extend more than that courtesy to them

Also, a great video here from thunderf00t,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGTmwyKpz0o

I think Saarkesian's quote begins at 15:08 in the video. Certainly worth listening to what she says.

KomradeBishop

Nobody has told you to or not to talk about anything - but people who create a fuss over insignificant events, open themselves up to criticism for making up issues out of nothing - especially when they do it all the time, exclusively to attack feminism, and especially when this is a known tactic pushed by conservative think tanks for attacking feminism.

Criticizing peoples tactics that get used for pushing an agenda, is fair game - you don't have to focus solely on a micro-level, on individual fallacies in their arguments - you can do both. It's pointing out a whole different and more malicious kind of bullshít - it's pointing out the tactics and agenda behind the fallacies.

Another common tactic from types that attack feminists: 'Argument by YouTube video'. No, I'm not going to watch a 21 minute YouTube video, especially from a crackpot like thunderf00t.

If the people in the article you linked regarding the UN, are not pushing radfem policies, then why are you linking that as an example of radfem influence on policymaking?

Again. You deem them insignificant. I do not.

Watch the from 19:20 onwards from that video for some excellent reasons why it is not insignificant.

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

Again. You deem them insignificant. I do not.

Watch the from 19:20 onwards from that video for some excellent reasons why it is not insignificant.

Here we have "Argument by YouTube" again. If the arguments are so excellent, perhaps put them in your own words - I'm not sifting through that YouTube video, especially from someone with as bad a reputation as thunderf00t.

I don't care if you deem e.g. attention seeking radfem's, smearing fake blood on themselves and shouting at some random/relatively unknown US college - like posted earlier - as 'significant'.

I've got a solid observational argument, noting how really small-scale events like that - which probably even the student newspaper of the college wouldn't care about - always seem to be given massive online attention, as a reason for bashing on feminists overall.

It's fair to say, that probably most people would view that event as insignificant - I welcome you trying to argue otherwise, as that should be entertaining - and that things like that get blown way out of proportion, and given pretty undue attention, usually to attack feminists overall.

It's highlighting exactly that some people find such events so significant, that they seem worth plastering all of the Internet, and that the common denominator here is that it's usually done to attack feminists overall - that the 'significance' of these minor events to some people, correlates pretty highly with their usefulness for painting feminists with a broad brush.

I asked you to listen to a single quote from Anita Saarkesian, and then referenced 2 minutes of a youtube clip given that I've already given you reasons why it is significant and worthwhile to debate and show up the bull**** for the nonsense it is, and you've ignored them, and repeated your previous assertion that it is not.

Also, I have to say I am frustrated by your repeated attempts to conflate an argument against radical feminists with an argument against feminism as a whole.

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

I asked you to listen to a single quote from Anita Saarkesian, and then referenced 2 minutes of a youtube clip given that I've already given you reasons why it is significant, and you've ignored them, and repeated your previous assertion that it is not.

I've told you I'm not watching a YouTube video - this is why people use "Argument by YouTube", because it allows them to avoid putting arguments in their own words, then they can just say "why don't you watch the YouTube video? It has all the answers" to just permanently stonewall.

You have not given any reasons why your UN link carried any significance.
What's so difficult about putting the arguments in your own words?

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

Also, I have to say I am frustrated by your repeated attempts to conflate an argument against radical feminists with an argument against feminism as a whole.

You've directly said that the UN link wasn't referencing radfem policies...why are you linking it then, as a reference to radfem influence on policymaking? (which is what it was in reply to...)

Anita Saarkesian

I'll type the quote then.

Anita Saarkesian wrote:

Feminist Frequency videos have been used in middle school, high school and university classrooms. They've been integrated into the curriculum of media studies, gender studies and Law school programs.

Anita Saarkesian

I'll type the quote then.

Anita Saarkesian wrote:

Feminist Frequency videos have been used in middle school, high school and university classrooms. They've been integrated into the curriculum of media studies, gender studies and Law school programs.

I am not 'people'. Again, debate what I am saying. Not what you think people would say.

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll type the quote then.

Anita Saarkesian wrote:

Feminist Frequency videos have been used in middle school, high school and university classrooms. They've been integrated into the curriculum of media studies, gender studies and Law school programs.

And? What does that quote do to help your argument?

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You've directly said that the UN link wasn't referencing radfem policies...why are you linking it then, as a reference to radfem influence on policymaking? (which is what it was in reply to...)

you said they had no influence.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

And? What does that quote do to help your argument?

I've posted a link to them addressing the UN. And now a direct quote from Anita Saarkesian saying that her videos make up parts of education.

Do you have any examples of any other extreme elements of society that would be afforded the same opportunities?

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

you said they had no influence.

I've posted a link to them addressing the UN. And now a direct quote from Anita Saarkesian saying that her videos make up parts of education.

Do you have any examples of any other extreme elements of society that would be afforded the same opportunities?

You said the UN link wasn't referencing radfem policies, now you're saying it is.

You're labelling Quinn and Saarkesian as radfem then, yes? Any backing for that?

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You said the UN link wasn't referencing radfem policies, now you're saying it is.

No I didn't? You told us that radical feminists had no lobbying power. I found that interesting given that the presence of Saarkesian at the UN.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're labelling Quinn and Saarkesian as radfem then, yes? Any backing for that?

I know nothing of Quinn.

KomradeBishop

So the link to Radfem in the UN article, is Sarkeesian - how is she a radfem? Everything I can find on her initially, doesn't show anything that stands out as radfem:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian

She certainly seems to be a massive hate figure among anti-feminists though - she faced an unreal amount of harassment and death threats etc..

jackofalltrades

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You said I was doing something, that I said in my post I explicitly was not doing - and most of your post is based on that misrepresentation.

It's not a misinterpretation.
Responding to a post by a poster with "who gives a toss" is being dismissive.
And that's on that same pages as you dismissed most controversy about feminism as "mostly all bollocks".

KomradeBishop wrote: »

So the link to Radfem in the UN article, is Sarkeesian - how is she a radfem?

http://i.imgur.com/iApi3bB.png

She claims there's no such thing as sexism against men, that would make her an extremist in my book.

KomradeBishop

She appears to use a rather specific definition of sexism there, in a way I don't agree with, and which is rather stupid due to how self-defeating it is:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Prejudice_plus_power

She acknowledges that men can be discriminated against based on their gender - as she linked in an article describing her specific use of the word sexism:
https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Afemfreq%20since%3A2014-11-13%20until%3A2014-11-16&src=typd&lang=all

So - going by the dictionary definition of sexism, of people being discriminated against by their gender - yes she'd support the view that men can be affected by that; when it comes to the more restrictive definition she used there (which is really stupid - a whole new word should be coined for that term, not instead using it to hijack the term 'sexism'), it doesn't fit.

When you take what she said there in its proper context, it's stupid and self-defeating - especially in its hijacking of terminology - but it's not as extreme as it looks when taken out of context (she does acknowledge gender-based discrimination against men) - it'd make her argument there stupid, not extremist.

silverharp

KomradeBishop wrote: »

So the link to Radfem in the UN article, is Sarkeesian - how is she a radfem? Everything I can find on her initially, doesn't show anything that stands out as radfem:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian

She certainly seems to be a massive hate figure among anti-feminists though - she faced an unreal amount of harassment and death threats etc..

Im assuming she is just a normal feminist, "everything is sexist, everything is racist and you have to point it all out" . she is part of Twitter's new ministry of truth, so no doubt Twitter will become a safe space and kill the reasoning for the platform in the first place.
why dont you just accept that most people think looking at everything though some neo Marxist lens is not appealing because its nonsense

jackofalltrades

Arbitrarily trying to re-define a word that describes discrimination is very dangerous.
Especially when used by someone who would have some influence.
She's trying to remove men's ability to fight against discrimination by removing the words that they can use.
This is a direct attack on men, it only serves to undermine them.
It's an attempt to dismiss the discrimination that they experience.
She's going beyond looking for equality into the realm of attacking men.
Which puts her firmly in the extremist category.

And I know she qualifies what she says in the rest of the tweet.
But that qualification tends to get dropped quick enough, I've seen it done on this very site.

KomradeBishop

Now you're straw manning her, and trying to take her specific stupid/strict use of the word 'sexism' all out of proportion - and applying it in ways she did not.

Her restricted use of the term is stupid/self-defeating, yet she acknowledges gender discrimination against men, so it's not extreme as it was painted to be - and you are directly wrong in saying it's an attempt to dismiss discrimination against men, when what she is citing to define the 'prejudice plus power' definition, explicitly acknowledges gender discrimination against men.

I've looked around, and I can't see any other clear instances of her talking about the definition of the word, or about 'prejudice plus power' form of sexism - so I doubt you can back the claim/allusion in the last sentence.

orubiru

Deleted User wrote: »

Again. You deem them insignificant. I do not.

Watch the from 19:20 onwards from that video for some excellent reasons why it is not insignificant.

I reckon Thunderf00t (and Internet Aristocrat etc) are overstating how much impact people like Sarkeesian have on society. These Youtubers are often guilty of making mountains out of molehills. It can be entertaining and all but how much is all this stuff really affecting society?

What demonstrable harm have people like Sarkeesian and their supporters actually done? I'm not talking about isolated cases here. What long term impact are they having? Is that impact even harmful? If so, how harmful is it?

It's been almost 20 years since I entered university and even then they still had Feminist groups and various other groups pushing their own agendas or trying to have their voices heard. Sure, some of them take things too far, or are just totally delusional, but they are entitled to put their opinions out there.

Most students will end up going out there and making a living. They'll meet someone and decide to raise kids and then they'll put most of this "radical" opinion behind them. The more extreme ideas in Feminism would be rejected by most women not long after they enter the workforce or start aiming for tangible goals in life.

Sure, you get the odd one or two people who go on to become career feminists and they will make money from promoting these extreme or radical views. Some of them are exceptionally good at marketing their brand, usually by playing the victim. They are just trolls that have managed to convince people that they aren't trolling. Most people in the world just ignore them. Actually, most people in the world don't even know they exist.

A Feminist Frequency video, a Buzzfeed video, a Ted X talk are to Feminism as Ken Ham, Kent Hovind etc are to Creationism. It's just "low hanging fruit" for people who want to debunk their ideas. They are full of nonsense opinions and stupid, poorly made, points. If it wasn't Thunderf00t etc responding to them then it would be someone else. It'll never go away.

Even if they were able to somehow silence men it's only a matter of time before people within their own fanbase start to say "I'm sorry, but the latest Feminist Frequency video is a load of crap, and here's why".

These things like Gamergate, Elevatorgate etc are big deals on the internet but in real life, is there any impact at all?

The truth is that a lot of men out there working an earning a living are doing that to support wives and daughters so the idea that feminism will end up creating a society that is openly, dangerously, hostile to men is just not realistic. There's no evidence to suggest that it's a realistic prospect.

Even if we say that Feminist Frequency videos are being used in schools and are brainwashing young kids, what is the impact of that? People start demanding video games with particular content and video game developers make that content so that they can make some cash?

McDonalds scrapped their "super size" options under very similar pressures I think, right? There was no massive impact on society though. You can just buy to medium fries if you want a massive serving of fries so badly.

Even if Twitter bans certain users or certain content, people will just go elsewhere to get the content they want.

Donald Trump certainly has some eyebrow raising views and yet the guy is a potential President of the USA! If you look at it that way, the "SJWs" are doing a terrible job of shutting people down.

If all these Youtube channels and Twitter accounts start going down because they have opinions that are no longer approved then I would definitely sit up and take notice.

Otherwise, it seems like these Internet Dramas are pretty insignificant really.

Did you miss them addressing the UN?

orubiru

Deleted User wrote: »

No I didn't? You told us that radical feminists had no lobbying power. I found that interesting given that the presence of Saarkesian at the UN.

You have to remember also that she was at the UN to talk about online abuse or harassment, not Feminism or video games etc.

Her presence is justified because she genuinely was/is a victim of this kind of abuse.

Maybe her proposed solutions are questionable but if you are looking to talk about online abuse then her specific case is probably one of the most prominent examples.

JPNelsforearm

How much impact are rabid feminists having in society..

Well....

Not much....

http://www.quotaproject.org/aboutQuotas.cfm

This website reveals that the use of electoral quotas for women is much more widespread than is commonly held. An increasing number of countries are currently introducing various types of gender quotas for public elections: In fact, half of the countries of the world today use some type of electoral quota for their parliament.

Its not going to stop with politics, business, education quotas etc.. until we are all "equal". Just look at the US military, they are lowering standard to meet "gender equality", that is literally putting mens lives at risk to meet some bull**** criteria.



Who needs things like evidence, innocent until proven guilty, a court of law etc..

http://endrapeoncampus.org/title-ix/

More articles, books etc than I could hope to link on the many many miscarriages of justice and lynch mobs that have sprung up as a result of this legislation.

Consent re-definition, rape shield laws, elimination of requirement for corroborating evidence in rape cases.. etc etc

Rabid Feminists want to redefine legal principles to suit their agenda, fairness be damned.

Small examples probably posted in this thread of people losing jobs for stepping outside the PC boundary, that scientist, Hunt? Its not widescale as most employers have backbone, but if being "sexist" or "un-PC" becomes a fireable offense, then we will have a serious problem, all brought about by rabid feminists.


That would be the serious stuff that will have wide ranging consequences for society. There are loads of other example, not as dangerous as the examples above. Calling for the banning certain books and films, speakers, magazines etc. IF they actually succeed in their campaigns it would be dangerous, as it is its just a loud minority shouting.

They should be challenged, if no one puts up opposition, their warped view will be given serious consideration.

jackofalltrades

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Now you're straw manning her, and trying to take her specific stupid/strict use of the word 'sexism' all out of proportion - and applying it in ways she did not.

Her restricted use of the term is stupid/self-defeating, yet she acknowledges gender discrimination against men, so it's not extreme as it was painted to be - and you are directly wrong in saying it's an attempt to dismiss discrimination against men, when what she is citing to define the 'prejudice plus power' definition, explicitly acknowledges gender discrimination against men.

LOL now I'm straw manning and being "directly wrong".
You're argument seems to be that because she's acknowledged gender discrimination against men(which I'd like to see proof of) that she can't in anyway be trying to attack men.
It's seems like the equivalent of taking a neo-nazi at their word, because they say they're not a racist.
Do you honestly believe that re-defining a word so that a group can't use it helps that group?
It's the exact same thing as referring to discrimination based on race against white people as "reverse racism".
It's taking powerful well defined words away from a group.
She attempt to weaken their defence and make discrimination against them easier.

I've looked around, and I can't see any other clear instances of her talking about the definition of the word, or about 'prejudice plus power' form of sexism - so I doubt you can back the claim/allusion in the last sentence.

To clarify, in the last sentence I was talking about other people using the same re-definition.
Given how I was using the example of posters on boards.ie, and she doesn't have an official account or is identifiable on this site.

And another thing, the title of the thread is "Fully Baked Left Wing Cookies".
It a thread to list all the crazy stuff left wing people are doing.
Care to provide an example?

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

Did you miss them addressing the UN?

You haven't even established her as particularly 'radical'/extremist, so when you refer to 'them' you're not referring to radfems, just feminists in general.