I pointed this out before. By your reasoning, we can claim "No True Scotsman" when presented with any operational definition.

You can disagree with the definition, but that's insufficient to dismiss its use under "No True Scotsman" banner.

Consider this terrible example. I have a club for fishermen. We have 1800 members and we're growing rapidly. None of the members have ever gone fishing. You come along and say "You can't possibly be fishermen. To be a fisherman requires that you go fishing."

Are you guilty of committing the "No True Scotsman" fallacy? Of course not. You and I simply disagree over the definition of fishermen. Consequently, we categorize members of my club differently. If I were to say that your assertion is false as we are fishermen and we never fish, you could respond in one of two ways: You could reassert your objection e.g. "nonsense, if you don't fish, you aren't fishermen" or modify your definition to account for my counterexample e.g. "Well, you're not true fishermen as all true fishermen go fishing."

The fallacy is committed in the ad-hoc modification of some assertion, not in the assertion itself. Otherwise, it would apply to any and all definitions or other categorical criteria.

It's an error in reasoning that lets one hold some belief in face of evidence to the contrary. That's the entire point of the thing.

In this specific case, we have the implication that feminists and egalitarians don't overlap. We then have the claim that, by definition, feminists are egalitarians. You can disagree with that definition, but until the claimant modifies that definition to account for some counterexample, you cannot say that he has committed that fallacy. All he's done is offer a definition.

What are the hard-hitting questions? The crazy nonsense from paranoid conspiracy websites?

I suppose you'd say the same thing if you suspected that questions to Buzz Aldren about sound stages and photographs without stars were going to be ignored, yes?

As you assert that Slashdot is now an echo chamber on grounds of some future prediction, are you also claiming that you're psychic or just that you have supernatural perception?

I disagree. No True Scotsman suggests an ad-hoc modification to support a previously inadequate assertion. If we accept your, and (presumably) the previous posters understanding, we'd be able to dismiss, for example, countless syllogisms on the same grounds. Worse, we could reject any operational definition!

In your example, there's merely a simple disagreement with the definition which serves as the premise: all Scotsmen live in Scotland. You're miss the essential bits: First: the claim that there exists at least one Scotsman who does not live in Scotland. Second: the ad-hoc modification that no true Scotsman lives anywhere but Scotland.

In this particular case, we have a nice syllogism. By definition: all feminist believe in equality, Anyone who believes in equality is egalitarian, :. Feminists are egalitarian.

To get to No True Scotsman, we'd need a bit more. You'd need to disagree with the first premise on some ground and then see that premise modified to account for your objection.

What's it like to be transphobic?

I take it you haven't read the comments? It's very much the opposite of that.

Did Glenn Beck rape and kill a girl in 1990? Why doesn't he acknowledge and deny these rumors?

No, it is not.

It's a conspiracy!

It must be the lizard women in the hollow earth, who control the shadow government, keeping them from facing prosecution for the egregious crimes through an advanced and comprehensive cover-up by the Builderbergs and the Freemasons.

Who's taking about harassment? I'm clearly talking exclusively about the wacky claim made by the AC inexplicably modded +5, which seems to only be supported by a few crazy fringe sites.

By analogy, the AC is claiming we faked the moon landings, and you're talking about monuments on Mars.

Speaking of strawmen...

Because a single person can't focus on every possible social problem at once.

Do you also believe they faked the moon landing? There's some really compelling evidence on several other paranoid conspiracy websites.

Remember, folks, if someone speaks out against any abuse, they're nothing more than attention-seekers playing the victim card.

At this point, any woman would garner an adverse reaction as strong as the one we're seeing here.

Still, Slashdot editors know that even mentioning women brings out the bottom 10% in full force. I have little doubt they were the first to initiate contact, knowing it would drive up traffic.

I'm deeply skeptical of that claim. The discussion here should explain why.

Again, we're not discussing religion.

You really should learn at least a little bit about science. Clearly, Wikipedia and skeptic forums have not served you well.

Not that it matters. We're clearly not having the same conversation here.