Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.
07:18
7830 9d63 500

prcximity:

siryouarebeingmocked:

prcximity:

theeldritchdreamer:
prcximity:
mr-cappadocia:
That’s right… even black mailing and threatening to destroy women that disagree with feminist ideology is perfectly acceptable.
Militant feminism isn’t actually feminism. We don’t believe in blackmail and coercion. I’m sorry that a few bad eggs have given you a misguided view of us.
Firstly, the “few bad eggs” constitute a disturbingly large portion of your movement.
Secondly, the “few bad eggs” constitute I would say nearly the entirety of the portion of your movement that actually does stuff. The “bad eggs” are the ones passing the laws and pushing policy on everyone. People like you just sit around doing nothing and wondering why the anti-feminists are so angry.
(Hint: they’re angry because the active feminists are discriminatory scumbags that none of you actually bother to openly condemn as a bad section of your movement or whose actions none of you bother to reverse in any way).
And furthermore, you don’t get to decide what “isn’t actually feminism”. We define things based on their actions, not random shit pulled out of the asses of people with absolutely no awareness of the world around them. And the reason militant feminism is feminism, is because a large part of feminism, and nearly the whole of the active part of feminism is militant. Go put your No True Scotsman Fallacy away.
Disturbing large. Can you back that up?
And they’re the only active feminists? Can you back that up either? Do you really think only feminazis go out and do something? I would hope you know better than that.
Furthermore, we do get to decide what fits the bill. Definitions exists for a reason, and they allow us to determine who is really on our side. If we don’t claim the bad sheep, they are not ours.
And similarly, you can call your fallacies when you’re having a formal debate with someone. This is not a debate. This is a somewhat educated discussion. You’re trying to bully your way through it, but I can somewhat understand why.
Your condescension grows boring.

mr-cappadocia:

[snip]
Your willful stupidity even more so. Whether there are forty million “good” feminists or five… the “bad” feminists managed to shut down a debate at one of the world’s most prestigious universities for no reason other than the gender of those engaged in the debate.
And the eighteen billion “good feminists” didn’t stop them.
Whether it’s one “supervillain” feminist doing it or not is irrelevant because all the rest are either unwilling or incapable of stopping them.
We tire of paying the price of your weakness. Of your inadequacy.


>Do you really think only feminazis go out and do something? I would hope you know better than that.

I’m noting a complete lack of any evidence of your claim, here.

> Furthermore, we do get to decide what fits the bill. Definitions exists for a reason, and they allow us to determine who is really on our side. If we don’t claim the bad sheep, they are not ours.

What if I told you there was a feminist that said a man protecting himself non-lethally from a woman trying to kill him was “domestic violence”?

What if I told you that feminist’s name was Anita Sarkeesian?

What if I pointed out that you’re saying the “bad sheep” don’t count before you even know who Capp is talking about?

What if I had a collection of definitions of feminism that state it’s abot women?

image

What if I said that you haven’t actually described how “real” feminism is actively opposing the problematic feminists, only described the movement looking the other way?

What if I pointed out that by your own description, you’re not actually fixing the problem, just like Capp said?

> And similarly, you can call your fallacies when you’re having a formal debate with someone. This is not a debate. This is a somewhat educated discussion. You’re trying to bully your way through it, but I can somewhat understand why.

Nope. Fallacies aren’t limited to formal debate, and claiming such actually demonstrates your own ignorance of them. They’re a convenient shorthand for logical errors.

It’s quite telling that most feminists I’ve seen disavowing these extremist members is done to the people complaining about those folks rather than to the bad feminists themselves.

I love how you don’t actually say it’s not a fallacy, just that Capp shouldn’t use it.

> Your condescension grows boring.

Said the hypocritical feminist, immediately after condescending to someone.

I said their condescension was boring not that I’m against condescension. Do you… Do you need help in trying to shame me or nah?

Just once I would love to meet someone who can actually take a shot at me and do damage. It’s not too much to ask. Come on now.

We’re not trying to damage you, you fucking idiot, we’re trying to wake you up even if we have to shake the ever living shit out of you to do it.

I mean christ, nobody here has threatened you… or tried to intimidate you… or called your sister the daughter of a motherless goat…

I accuse you of being willfully stupid because you are. That’s not done to hurt your feelings, I don’t know you enough to care about you or your feelings. What I care about is the spread of ignorance, propaganda, and pseudoscience.

And you’re the hard working father of all three.

So the desire isn’t to break you, or injure you or even wreck your day… it’s to illustrate that you’re on the side of the bad guys and you don’t know it because these bad guys are very good at being the bad guys.

Reposted frommr-cappadocia mr-cappadocia

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl