Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re:Headline is Bad (Score 1) 1037

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) 1037

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) 1037

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) 1037

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) 1037

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.

"Life begins when you can spend your spare time programming instead of watching television." -- Cal Keegan