(February 9, 2015 at 1:44 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(February 8, 2015 at 2:14 pm)whateverist Wrote: That has got to be satire.

Clearly Poeish.

I think it might be legitimate. Once I found a post on a website from an atheist arguing that we should literally execute 6 billion of theists but before we should send them to concentration camps as punishment for past oppression. I'm not kidding, it was legitimate and the guy was arguing for his position incessantly and aggressively - Logically, everyone condemned it, it was an idiotic and inhumane measure.

(February 9, 2015 at 9:09 am)TheMessiah Wrote: ...

The term Feminazi, while not a literal analogy is one of the greatest terms to use. It can successful separate the Feminists who campaign for greater rights (such as tackling issues such as FGM and gender discrimination laws) from the radical Feminists who seek to impose female superiority.

The first problem with that idea is that the term itself associates feminism with nazis. I could just stop there, as that is enough reason to avoid the term. The second problem is that people who use that term commonly use it for all feminists. (E.g., Rush Limbaugh, etc.)

It is one of the worst terms to use, because it is childish name-calling, an attempt at poisoning the well, rather than actually addressing any issues.

If you want people to think you have the intellect of a not-too-bright elementary school child who engages in name-calling rather than serious discussion, then it is an excellent term to use. But if you want someone of sense to take you seriously, it is a terrible term to use.

(February 9, 2015 at 9:09 am)TheMessiah Wrote: Such as seen in this link: http://www.dottal.org/feminazi_quotes.htm

Dottal. org is a website for crazy. Like anti-vaccine drivel:

http://www.dottal.org/DIE%20DIE/six_reas...ccinat.htm

The layout of the site screams "crazy" as well, which suits its content. Really, no one of sense is going to take anything they say seriously. They cannot be trusted for accuracy or coherence.

(February 9, 2015 at 9:09 am)TheMessiah Wrote: http://www.experienceproject.com/stories...ty/1269918

...

This list starts with poisoning the well by claiming that the writers of the quotes are "Clinically Insane People." Aside from being unfounded, it is almost certainly false that all of the people who are quoted are insane. Additionally, it is full of irrelevant quotes intended to prejudice people against them. Such as:

• "In my own life, I don't have intercourse. That is my choice." -- Andrea Dworkin

What is the point in quoting that? Does the compiler of the list believe that women should not have the right to not have intercourse, that they should all be raped? Again, what is the point in quoting that in the list?

It is also unclear who compiled the list. What are they hiding?


If you wish to say, some people say crazy things, and some of the crazy is anti-man, fine. There are all kinds of crazy people. But linking to disreputable web sites is not going to help your position.

(February 9, 2015 at 1:48 pm)Dystopia Wrote: I think it might be legitimate. Once I found a post on a website from an atheist arguing that we should literally execute 6 billion of theists but before we should send them to concentration camps as punishment for past oppression. I'm not kidding, it was legitimate and the guy was arguing for his position incessantly and aggressively - Logically, everyone condemned it, it was an idiotic and inhumane measure.

Well, obviously, there are nutcases out there in the wide, wide world of sports. But I'd have to see more from that writer, and perhaps interact with her, before I took such a dim view as "she really means it".

I could be wrong.

Also, simply because something is sourced or supported with a link to a conservative website, that doesn't mean that the support is faulty. Although you deny that your discussion was ideological in nature, you yourself have relied upon ideological standing in listening to or rejecting what he has posted.

I'm saying that as a disinterested party. I think some feminists are whack-jobs, and some are very sensible; some men bear illegitimate butthurt, and others have every right to complain about gender-based treatment. Truth rarely lives on the fringes, and I think radical feminists should be viewed with that aphorism in mind.

(February 9, 2015 at 2:36 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: The first problem with that idea is that the term itself associates feminism with nazis. I could just stop there

Again, the term is not literal. There is also a term called the PC thought-police; a reference to politically correct loonies who seek to censor free speech and anything they dislike, they are not literally the police but it is clearly figuratively speaking.

Quote:as that is enough reason to avoid the term.

If it is used in figurative terms, which was the intent when created, then I disagree.

Quote:The second problem is that people who use that term commonly use it for all feminists. (E.g., Rush Limbaugh, etc.)

I did actually agree that it can be be used to conflate all of Feminism, but it can also be used to separate and disassociate the bigoted radicals from the reformers. In that regard, it is a beneficial tool so I am afraid it works both ways.

Quote:It is one of the worst terms to use, because it is childish name-calling, an attempt at rather than actually addressing any issues.

Not really. If radical Feminazi bitches come out with silly nonsense, to the point of extremism, they get called Feminazi's. Here is an example.

http://thelibertydoll.com/2014/08/22/mee...for-peace/

^ This bigot was deemed a Feminist; yet her ideals are clearly extreme (wanting to reduce the male population by 90%) yet she was still deemed a Feminist. She is quite clearly a Feminazi.

In regards to 'actual issues' --- I have not seen the Feminists who tackle the issues of FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) or female rights abuses in the Islamic world ever called 'Feminazi' because they are respected for their fair stance.

Quote:If you want people to think you have the intellect of a not-too-bright elementary school child who engages in name-calling rather than serious discussion, then it is an excellent term to use. But if you want someone of sense to take you seriously, it is a terrible term to use.

Again; if a radical Feminist comes out with extreme statements, they will get insulting names attached to them. Anjem Choudary is a radical Islamic preacher in Britain; he has been met with ''name calling'' because he is a spreader of hate.

To be honest, those who are deemed Feminazi's are not taken seriously in the first place because of the nonsense they spout.

Quote:Dottal. org is a website for crazy. Like anti-vaccine drivel:

Anti-Vaccine is drivel but I must ask, what is the relevance of this?

My link was a complimaion of quotes from radical Feminists. Not from the website itself....

Quote:The layout of the site screams "crazy" as well, which suits its content. Really, no one of sense is going to take anything they say seriously. They cannot be trusted for accuracy or coherence.

Excuse me, but I do not undesrstand this. The site was not taking a slant against Feminism, it was a complimation of quotes from radical Feminists; hence why I posted another link to verify the legitimacy of the quotes. They're not made up. The content is radical Feminist content.

Quote:This list starts with by claiming that the writers of the quotes are "Clinically Insane People."

Yes, a figurative term which is naturally associated with loonie-bin statements.

I'm not sure why the legitimacy of the websites are in question when all they're doing is quoting someone else. Doesn't take a top quality website to do that.............

http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2011/02/15...feminists/

http://www.womenagainstmen.com/media/fem...group.html

(February 9, 2015 at 3:20 pm)TheMessiah Wrote:

(February 9, 2015 at 2:36 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: The first problem with that idea is that the term itself associates feminism with nazis. I could just stop there

Again, the term is not literal. There is also a term called the PC thought-police; a reference to politically correct loonies who seek to censor free speech and anything they dislike, they are not literally the police but it is clearly figuratively speaking.

I think both terms trade in hyperbole, and as such they cloud communications by introducing associations that are emotional, rather than content-laden.

Quote:Also, simply because something is sourced or supported with a link to a conservative website, that doesn't mean that the support is faulty. Although you deny that your discussion was ideological in nature, you yourself have relied upon ideological standing in listening to or rejecting what he has posted.

No I rely on where the evidence points to. The American Enterprise Institute is neo-conservative leaning so obviously they are not a credible source, particularly because they deny everything that don't fits their ideology. Some of their positions like climate change skepticism, their position on neo-liberalism and deregulated market and so on make them a source with little credibility, particularly because evidence in economics points to an overly deregulated market being a synonym with poverty, inequalities and misery. So yeah Parkers, why the hell should I trust that source? Also, institutions like the AEI question the frequency of rape and lean on the side that says "women are crying" rape, which includes minimizing, focusing on false accusations and claiming that rape frequency is not that big even when evidence points out. this link shows how conservatives in particular (includes position of the AEI) try to twist rape victims and the dangers of sex assault by minimizing and doing some questionable studies.

Quote:I'm saying that as a disinterested party. I think some feminists are whack-jobs, and some are very sensible; some men bear illegitimate butthurt, and others have every right to complain about gender-based treatment. Truth rarely lives on the fringes, and I think radical feminists should be viewed with that aphorism in mind.

Correct, I think some rad-fems bring terrible claims and I disapprove it, but thinking it is common in feminism to think men should be castrated is not a wise decision.

On the other hand what we are discussing right now is not radical feminism only but:
- If this movement the OP talks about known as atheism+ really highjacked the rest of the community (atheist), something I find unreasonable to think
- If MRA's are helping men, something I disagree with
- By the way, I didn't just deny the source, I did a constructive reply to the video about gaming and sexism where I pointed out how to take a critical sociological approach to media that helps us see how it affects our perceptions. I also said the book from 2nd wave feminist Betty Friedan named The Feminine Mystique is very good at demonstrating how the media affects our perception of everything and, in particular, shapes how women are viewed and treated in society.
- TheMessiah has been continuously posting links - He started to the OP and then he got offended that someone refuses throwing the word feminazi commonly without much purpose and started constantly providing links, videos and websites to prove his claims.
- By the way, my problem with the word feminazi is that while it may be ok to use as an accusation, it gets thrown excessively to silence women who complain about legitimate problems - When a man calls her a feminazi people will automatically think less of her, and when women protest for important issues they are seen as in need to be put in their place.


Parkers - I'll tell you something, I actually have the right to deny sources if I don't find them credible, as long as I state what I deem as acceptable evidence. If my standards are reasonable, I don't see the problem - I asked for an impartial source, and obviously quoting conservative institutions affiliated with Bush administration; quoting Men's rights activists and quoting the first websites that show up if you type "Feminazi quotes" are not acceptable evidence - it's confirmation bias.

Quote:No I rely on where the evidence points to. The American Enterprise Institute is neo-conservative leaning so obviously they are not a credible source,

Can't tell if serious......

Being Neo-Conservative does NOT make you less valid.

This is really just a silly point to make alltogether. You are asserting as if it is fact that Conservatism cannot be trusted; this would be no more valid than a Conservative slamming Liberals.

I should point again, that the Feminist in the video is a registered Democrat.

Quote:Particularly because they deny everything that don't fits their ideology.

Liberals deny everything that doesn't fit their ideology, because I said so...

Hey dude this link http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2011/02/15...feminists/

You posted is actually Denying, debunking and proving wrong the problem with radical feminism quotes so it's actually a website arguing against your point of view. Dude, do you even read what you post? You just screw yourself - Thanks! This website is literally debunking the myths you were promoting before! Good job at fucking yourself up! Ohhhh and by the way, the second link is a feminist hating website that proclaims feminism is a movement that hates men. Good luck with that. The owner of the blog you posted (link above) is anti-misogyny and it says so in the website, it's a website contradicting your point of view. you posted a pro-feminism blog arguing for your side that contradicts all you've been posting about quotes form feminism and proves some of them aren't really that reliable. Do you want me to take you seriously? I can't, sorry - I've been dealing with people like you since forever and it ends up pretty badly.

Also this is not about conservatism only - I'm making the case for the AEI because they (1) Are skeptic of the climate changes (2) Have controversial positions on the american healthcare system (3) Make claims about rape frequency that are proven wrong by pretty much other non-conservative studies (4) Have a twisted view on economics that relies on no evidence.

--> Therefore, your source cannot be trusted.

(February 9, 2015 at 4:47 pm)Dystopia Wrote: Hey dude this link http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2011/02/15...feminists/

You posted is actually Denying, debunking and proving wrong the problem with radical feminism quotes so it's actually a website arguing against your point of view. Dude, do you even read what you post? You just screw yourself - Thanks! This website is literally debunking the myths you were promoting before! Good job at fucking yourself up! Ohhhh and by the way, the second link is a feminist hating website that proclaims feminism is a movement that hates men. Good luck with that. The owner of the blog you posted (link above) is anti-misogyny and it says so in the website, it's a website contradicting your point of view. you posted a pro-feminism blog arguing for your side that contradicts all you've been posting about quotes form feminism and proves some of them aren't really that reliable. Do you want me to take you seriously? I can't, sorry - I've been dealing with people like you since forever and it ends up pretty badly.

No. You need to read the detail in my posts. The link I posted is criticizing the quotes from radical Feminists. Operative word: radical. This is why I used the term Feminazi; to clear up confusion and disassociate the Feminists from the radicals. The first link surprisingly finds that many of these radical quotes are indeed authentic; if you read through the website as a whole, it is completely targeted against radical Feminists, aka Feminaz's. This is why it can be considered anti-Misogyny, because anti-Feminazi's can be anti-Misogynists.

Your assertion is ridiculous. You literally just said ''This channel is Neo-Conservative. Therefore it is unreliable'' --- for a few pages, you have thrown the term Conservative as if it is an insult.

From the website you quoted

Quote:I decided to give this list a fairly thorough fact-checking. And the results were, well, more or less what I expected, which is to say that the list was a sloppy mixture of truth, half-truth and outright falsehood.

The story, in brief: Some of the quotes I checked were indeed accurate — or mostly accurate. But several quotes were simply imaginary, or uttered by fictional characters; one was a complete misrepresentation of what the author was saying; two were paraphrased, which is to say, words put in the mouths of feminist authors by feminist critics; some were from obscure or anonymous sources, and in a few cases it wasn’t clear if those quoted were feminists at all; several were improperly sourced. There were a number of quotes that didn’t specify where they were from, and which turned out to be impossible to check. And then there were a couple of quotes which were not actually hateful at all.

No, I said why it's unreliable, because their modus operandi doesn't rely on empirical proof, it relies on objectionable studies that corroborate their agenda - Curiously conservatives have proof for everything, including that god exists, that gays are evil and immigrants are invaders.

You are still hitting? Damnnn you are persistent - Reminds me of Christians quoting answers in genesis