Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Headline is Bad (Score 1) 1034

It's incredible how you've managed to take a mere handful of sentences and somehow STILL twist and dissemble to such a degree that you can continue doing the thing I explicitly called out.

The point of the Charge of Irascibility is that someone's legitimate arguments are responded to with "you're angry at women"

It's like some kind of kafkaesque performance art. The whole point is that claiming someone is angry at or bitter over women is in and of itself the fallacious attack. It's like the bastard child of straw man and ad hominem. You're avoiding dealing with someone's points by trying to turn public opinion against someone using people's natural prejudices towards women and against men... which ironically wouldn't work in the first place if society was actually as anti-woman as your ideology claims it to be.

Comment Re:39% without secondary false-positives. (Score 1) 254

It's a structural issue inherent in what a cynic could call the publication/tenure industrial complex. Our education and tenure systems demand ever increasing and ever more impressive publications and publication rates, and our journal systems are obsessed with the "story" of the prescient scientist who confirmed a theory conceived in a vacuum. This kind of fuckery is the natural end result.

Comment Re:Lovely summary. (Score 1) 1034

Is it still a straw man if you're so divorced from reality as to be simply making things up from whole cloth?

My post contradicted your party line. It offended your religion in the same way evolution offends righty wingnuts. You're dismissing it because it allows you to lie more with less words and to avoid how I trapped you with your own logic and feminism's real world actions.

Comment Re:Headline is Bad (Score 1) 1034

You're misrepresenting things as usual. The point of the Charge of Irascibility is that someone's legitimate arguments are responded to with "you're angry at women", and the response is to both address that as a disingenuous argument and point out that anger in general can be legitimate.

The problem here is that as usual you're mirror imaging. You're projecting your own internal processes and beliefs onto others. You think because you hate men that means people must hate women in return.

Comment Re:Headline is Bad (Score 1) 1034

That's stunning! So, some women are oppressing you, and it's OK to be angry at all women. Why no corresponding anger to all men? Some men support those female oppressors. It is mind-bottlingly stupid to be angry at all women because some are doing things you don't like especially as you are not angry at all men even though some are doing things you don't like. Talk about double standards.

See here's where you do that projecting thing again, where you think you're making a point about me but all you're really doing is revealing your own inner prejudice.

Comment Re:Lovely summary. (Score 1) 1034

Aaaah you have now moved into the "blatantly making stuff up fantasy land" part of your argument. This is something you reliably resort to when you're out of arguments with a shred of sense.

This is the first time this thread you've mentioned "outright violent" behaviour of a group of feminists. Why bring it up now? It has no relevance to my argument that to almost everyone, MRAs/RedPillers/MGTOWs/PUSa are basically the same.

If by "making stuff up fantasy land" you mean "referring to things recorded live on video" then sure.

And I brought it up because you literally just accused me of exactly what you, animojo, and virtually every feminist out there does when people point out feminism's nowadays routinely outright violent and criminal attacks on anyone dissenting from the feminist party line.

You said it right here: "ah I see you're playing the game where you claim to identify with a movement but claim that every thing in that movement you don't like doesn't apply."

That's EXACTLY what you, animojo, and other feminists do. It's Schrodinger's Feminism... someone is a feminist until they're criticized, then suddenly they're "no true feminist", and then when it's your turn to respond suddenly they ARE a feminist again and that person is a misogynist woman hater for opposing them.

So you mean the some people backed Benjanun Sriduangkaew because they (in my mind inexplicably) liked her writing, but when they found out she was the alter ego of the awful person RH, they stopped? Isn't that exactly what's supposed to happen?

People backed the awful person because that's how the oppression olympics worked. The only reason they stopped backing her was because she doesn't have enough star power or usefulness to be worth fighting for. People who have enough star power or usefulness are still supported by SJWs even when they're literally rapists, just look at Amy Schumer. Or for other awful people still backed by SJWs look at Sulkowicz, Lindy West, Jessica Valenti, Mary Koss... the list goes on.

Comment Re:Lovely summary. (Score 1) 1034

No but rabidly screeching insults is.

Saying it doesn't make it so. Pointing out something is provably a lie is not "rabidly screeching insults", it's not even an insult. If you want to see what "rabidly screeching insults" looks like again all you need to do is look at feminists continually inventing more and more slurs because ordinary profanity just isn't hateful enough for them. Hell just look at Animojo comically calling everything in the world "MRA", it's like how the smurfs use the word "smurf" for everything.

lolwut? MRA was a term invented MRAs to describ themselves. Neckbeard was always made by nerds for nerds. The other three insults Iv'e only ever heard from you as examples of what other people say. At this point, I'm not sure if you're genuinely delusional or trolling very ineffectively.

And used by feminists and SJWs like Animojo for example as a slur against everything in the world they dislike. Also neckbeard is not "made by nerds for nerds", it is or rather was the feminist slur for non-conforming men until they came up with pissbaby and later fuckboy... because again the previous slurs just weren't hateful enough so new ones had to be created.

THAT is "rabidly screeching insults".

No, they've reached some different conclusions, but they all stem from the same ideology. Most of what all the groups preach/bang on about is essentially mysoginistic women hating about how men are really the oppressed majority and the world owes them something (i.e. sex) and how basically it's all the fault of women or men who are like women which makes them worse than scum. They all seem to loooove absurdly simplistic evopsych "explanations" as to why this is so.

That's what I care about. The fact that the redpillers hate the PUAs because the PUAs want to leverage it to get more sex and the PUAs despise the MGTOWs because they thing they're idiots for not using their new-found knowledge to get more sex is of no iterest to me.

See what you don't realise is that this right here basically proves my point for me. You're projecting your own sexism, prejudice, and hatred onto another group. You utterly dehumanize and objectify MRAs as walking penises with no thought or emotion beyond a mindless insatiable hunger for sex because that's how you see them, and men in general.

You're like a white supremacist raving about how jews and blacks are sub-human and evil. You're not proving how evil and bad MRAs are, you're proving how hateful and prejudiced YOU are.

MRAs want feminists to stop erasing 50% of rape and abuse victims for their own profit and self-aggrandizement. They want feminists to stop bankrupting and stonewalling men's shelters and research into men's problems. They want feminists to stop committing felonies to shut down (or try to shut down) every attempt at dealing with or talking about men's problems. They want feminists to stop acting like men have no emotions, no thoughts, no feelings, no humanity beyond a mindless insatiable sex drive... particularly since feminists have recently escalated that rhetoric to the point of playing off of centuries old racialized prejudices against black men.

And yeah they want feminists to stop conflating them with PUAs/Redpillers as a deliberate lie to plaster over all of that and perpetuate witchhunts.

You can believe that if it makes you happy. Meanwhile one bunch of MRA neckbeard fuckboy pissbsby shitlords [sic] ranting about how bad women are are pretty much indistinguishable from the next bunch as far as anyone outside cares. Basically they all get lumped into the "women hating losers with massive entitlement complexes" category. Why would I or anyone else bother sorting them more finely than that? Not worth my time.

Your analogy is all fine and good except you're ignoring that the MRAs are not in fact advocating for men's rights (like e.g. Fathers 4 Justice which seems fine to me). Out of interest have you ever looked through "a voice for men". If that's the voice, then as a man, I sure as hell don't want it!

Like I just said all you're doing is proving the depth of your own prejudice here. You're repeating this mantra of hate as if saying it enough times will somehow make it true.

Feminists use that stereotype against MRAs and any men they decide they hate because of how terribly effective it is, which ironically makes their own claims of societal misogyny self-disproving. If society were really as misogynist as they claim then their slurs and attacks wouldn't be so effective and MRAs wouldn't be so marginalized that feminists can routinely get away with committing outright crimes against them just to silence them.

MRAs are advocating for men's rights. They're trying to stem the catastrophic rate of suicide, they're trying to get envelopment recognized as rape instead of hidden as "other" or left uncounted, they're trying to get male victims of female abusers (50% of all victims) recognized under the law, they're trying to get them shelters and aid, they're trying to open shelters and rape crisis centers, they're trying to get men the right to equal custody, they're trying to get alimony reform, they're trying to get men's reproductive rights recognized under the law, they're trying to get men the right to genital integrity, they're trying to deal with how astounding prejudiced our entire education system is from kindergarten through grad school...

But every time they try to so much as talk about these issues feminists call in bomb and death threats, show up in massive numbers to block the doors and attack anyone trying to attend, and even resort to committing crimes to shut down the entire thing. People can't even disagree with feminists online anymore without getting mailed knives, syringes, and dead animals or having their paycheck and utilities disrupted by fraud and hacking.

There's a word for this kind of behavior, for people who use threats of violence and at times actual violence to gain political power. It's called terrorism.

Comment Re:Headline is Bad (Score 1) 1034

Yes, literally. You're literally stooping to the level of attempting to make an ad hominem out of straw manning my emotional state. That's exactly the same thing as the age old "hysterical emotionally distraught wimminz" argument, just retooled to be used against men according to modern day stereotypes and prejudices. It's so old and overused it's been color coded and filed with the others.

The most difficult thing in the world is to know how to do a thing and to watch someone else doing it wrong, without commenting. -- T.H. White