(December 3, 2015 at 11:32 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: HeHawwwww - that is by far the most[...]

And I should give a flying f*** about what you think, because... ???

Oh, that's right - I shouldn't and I don't.

Oh my god, he is still talking.

(December 4, 2015 at 12:16 am)DespondentFishdeathMasochismo Wrote:

(December 4, 2015 at 12:05 am)Losty Wrote: You said you would punch me in the face. Then when confronted about it you said it wasn't even that bad. And you didn't even say anything wrong. Now you're calling other people bullies.

Yes I did, damn proud of it too. Why should't I be? So you can keep dehumanizing me? Trying to make me feel guilty for the past. Fuck off. Look at the all the comments directed at me. You act like I have mental issues. Does it get more degrading? Why don't you try to amend, if it's so fucking important?

Probably because I haven't done anything to you. My disagreeing with you isn't grounds for you to hate me. My being honest with you about how you've treated people vs how you should treat people isn't grounds for you to want to hurt me.

I have nothing to amend. I still don't hate you. I still don't wish you any harm. I would never threaten you and if by some off chance you came to me needing help I would do everything in my power to help you. Because that's what kind of person I am. I don't understand why it makes you so angry that I disagree with you.

I have had disagreements and highly heated debates with other people on this forum and we have remained friends. I understand that in a debate or heated discussion, people get their emotions involved and things are said that aren't necessarily meant. That's life. I try not to let that kind of stuff get to me. But what you said about how you would hit me, that crossed the line for me. The more I think about it the more it hurts me. I don't understand why you would wish me harm, but I do not wish the same for you. I only wish that you would post less aggressively and lighten up a bit so that people could get to know you and the animosity could die down a little on all sides.

I do feel that you owe me an apology for what you said, but I won't hate you for not being sorry. It just makes it difficult to form a relationship with you. Every time you make a post it comes off as aggressive and mean. Have you considered posting in some lighter threads?

(December 4, 2015 at 12:16 am)DespondentFishdeathMasochismo Wrote:

(December 4, 2015 at 12:05 am)Losty Wrote: You said you would punch me in the face. Then when confronted about it you said it wasn't even that bad. And you didn't even say anything wrong. Now you're calling other people bullies.

Yes I did, damn proud of it too. Why should't I be? So you can keep dehumanizing me? Trying to make me feel guilty for the past. Fuck off. Look at the all the comments directed at me. You act like I have mental issues. Does it get more degrading? Why don't you try to amend, if it's so fucking important?

My bolding.

You. Are. A. Fucking. Cunt.

If I wasn't a mod I'd be putting you on ignore now.

Actions speak louder than words, but nothing speaks louder than a feminist.


I'm aware that many (I'll even hazard most) feminists like to bandy about definitions like the one on the OP, insisting that anything falling beyond that isn't "true feminism" and that anyone willing to admit they support gender equality is a feminist whether they want the label or not.


There are two problems I have with that. First, that is the definition of gender egalitarianism. Feminism is about women's rights/issues. The etymology indicates it, and the history supports it. Why we're trying to de-feminize the word "feminism" is beyond me.


Second, that whole line of reasoning barrels right into "No True Scotsman" territory without looking back or feeling ashamed. What makes somebody a "True Feminist"? What makes somebody a false feminist? If somebody self-identifies as a feminist for reasons you don't agree with, who's right? Who's wrong?


In general, I find that YouTube atheists tend to be harsh toward feminism because they (the atheists) are usually skeptics, and they tend to be addressing legitimate connotations and stereotypes associated with the movement and the word (entitlement, misandry, lack of personal responsibility in regards to female sexuality, rampant demonization of dissenting views, poor support of claims in lieu of sensationalist tactics, etc.).

Redbeard The Pink Wrote:I'm aware that many (I'll even hazard most) feminists like to bandy about definitions like the one on the OP, insisting that anything falling beyond that isn't "true feminism" and that anyone willing to admit they support gender equality is a feminist whether they want the label or not.

Feminism is pro women's rights... anything beyond that indeed isn't true feminism. Is this the NTS fallacy? No. Just as Atheism is not believing in gods, anything beyond that isn't true atheism. The NTS fallacy isn't simply "No true X is Y".

0 multiplied by anything is 0. Anything beyond that isn't true mathematics. That is NOT the NTS fallacy, of course. It's a tautology. And tautology, while redunant is absolutely true. By definition. Which is what a tautology is, tautologically so, by definition. It explains nothing, it's redundant, but it certainly can't be false once we agree on the definitions.

The NTS fallacy would be

"4+5=10... that's maths."

"No it isn't... it's 9, not 10".

"Okay well them, 4+5=10... that's TRUE maths. Which is beyond mere "maths"".

That's the NTS fallacy applied to maths as much as as I can explain it in an analogous way.

Quote:There are two problems I have with that. First, that is the definition of gender egalitarianism. Feminism is about women's rights/issues. The etymology indicates it, and the history supports it. Why we're trying to de-feminize the word "feminism" is beyond me.

It doesn't need to be de-feminized. Point is being pro-women's rights doesn't mean anti-men's rights. And any feminist groups who are by definition pro-women's rights but also happen to be anti-men's rights may be indeed true feminists but they don't represent what "feminism" is. They represent "feminism" PLUS stupid anti-men bigoted bullshit. Nor do they represent all feminists but only the ones who are bigoted. And most feminists aren't bigoted against men because that would imply that most people who are pro-women's rights are against men, and that simply isn't true. Not all feminists are egalitarians but all egalitarians are feminists - because within the definition of "equal rights for all" includes equal rights for women.

Quote:Second, that whole line of reasoning barrels right into "No True Scotsman" territory without looking back or feeling ashamed. What makes somebody a "True Feminist"? What makes somebody a false feminist? If somebody self-identifies as a feminist for reasons you don't agree with, who's right? Who's wrong

I've spoke of this before. The NTS fallacy is actually one of the most commonly misunderstood and misdefined fallacies of all. If one is to say "No true X are Y" that is not the fallacy. If I am to say "No true atheists believe in God" that is not a fallacy, that is simply true. The fallacy is only committed if there is an ad hoc redefinition of the original definition by the addition of the word "true" (or synonyms such as "real") as a way to try and dodge rebutting the argument made.

So if I say "No true definition of feminism includes being anti-men" that is not a fallacy. If I was to say "no true feminists are anti-men" that is not a fallacy either, that is merely false. Because many of them are, but the point is that the "anti-men" part has nothing to do with their feminism.

It is merely false by the way, rather than being the NTS fallacy, because there is no ad hoc attempt to avoid rebutting the argument by adding "no true feminists are anti-men" after previously trying to argue "no feminists are anti-men".

Check the Wikipedia article for the true definition and description of the NTS fallacy. There is a lot more to it than "No true X are Y" . That in and of itself is not a fallacy at all.

It's okay though, I used to misunderstand the NTS fallacy too, it's very commonly misunderstood. And actually, I've already spoke about it once on this thread to Thumpy!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

TL;DR brief preface to the article with my bolding and underlining for emphasis:

Wikpedia Wrote:No true Scotsman is an Ad Hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing").

@redbeard no one is making the argument that those people aren't true feminists. We are only making the argument that just because some feminists suck doesn't mean we all do. Feminism is a women's rights movement but it's supposed to be about gaining equal rights for women not gaining more rights than men.

Some feminists drive me nuts too. You're not the only one. But then, there are all different types of people who drive me nuts.

I'm absolutely not going to get into whether "being pro-gender-equality" is an adequate definition of the word or the movement of feminism. Feminism, like it or not, is a broadly interpreted word both within and without the movement itself, so yes, insisting on "your" definition as the "true" one is a "No True Scotsman" fallacy because that's what that fallacy literally is. It's taking a broadly interpreted thing and insisting on one's own narrow definition of it.


Suffice it to say that, in general, when YouTube atheists label themselves as anti-feminist, they're generally referring to the stereotype of boy-haired, safe-space mongering man-haters who want trigger-warnings on everything, refer to the Earnings Gap as a Pay Gap, and insist America is permeated by rape culture. That's been my observation, anyway.


Another thing I've observed is that feminism as a whole is pretty bad at denouncing/distancing itself from the extreme and detrimental branches of its adherents. Christians and Muslims are probably doing a better job at this, honestly. This is probably the main reason why many talking heads don't feel the need to say "radical" or "extreme" when addressing these elements of feminist culture.

"Another thing I've observed is that feminism as a whole is pretty bad at denouncing/distancing itself from the extreme and detrimental branches of its adherents."

Why should they? Do I need to denounce radical anti-theism everyday?

(December 4, 2015 at 2:30 am)Pizza Wrote: "Another thing I've observed is that feminism as a whole is pretty bad at denouncing/distancing itself from the extreme and detrimental branches of its adherents."

Why should they? Do I need to denounce radical anti-theism everyday?

No, but if pop culture was in the process of erasing the distinction between your atheism and radical anti-theism and you didn't want that distinction to vanish, then yes, you would need to denounce it at least often enough to create a conceptual distance between yourself and whatever crazies you happened to be worried about, and so would the rest of your movement if they didn't want to get sucked up into "militant atheism" as far as the public is concerned.