Quote:1. Again, read my posts. I do not care about whether they make fallacies, I am arguing that they identify gender related bias towards men; they needn't necessarily effectively act upon them. Your argument is that from fallacy --- because they have failed to address men's issues, then this means their entire organization is not legitimate. This is not only a dangerous argument but one which lacks decent sense.

It means that
1 - They are useless
2 - worse than that, they are harmful to women

Quote:2. No, I did not. I quoted a pro-Feminist website to back up my view; this is not ''quoting bias sources''

I don't think being pro-feminism means what you think it means. If you quoted a pro-feminism website you would have gotten answers that contradict your point of view. The channel you quoted makes claims feminists disagree with strongly, I don't care if the lady is a 2nd wave feminist, that's irrelevant to me. Your problem is that you google your point of view and only quote sources that support you instead of using your critical thinking to help the cause. Simply showing videos is 1 - Boring and annoying 2 - It shows that you are too lazy to argue yourself

Quote:3. If we go back in pages, we see that you attempted to defend her critique of gaming, despite the fact that she contradicted her own argument and destroyed it? Yes, getting threats is wrong. Quoting supports helps logical reasoning because evidence > opinion.

Wrong buddy, I made my own critique of gaming and Sarkeesian could never have existed - I would still make my critique of gaming and -isms. I'm a gamer and I want the industry to sell more. My argument wasn't based on Anita's points, it was based 1 - On my gaming experiences and games I've played 2 - On my observations of how people and groups are depicted in gaming 3 - On my knowledge on how media affects our perceptions

---

Actually I don't need anyone to back up my claims, I can make my own critique because I have brains and I can think for myself.

(February 8, 2015 at 8:58 am)Nell Wrote: Femenazi. Yes, because women wanting equality is equivalent to genocide.

No, feminazi because from the things I've seen reported from atheism + they looked a lot more like misandrists than feminists. I think it's funny how someone we aren't fond of says something and everyone is ready to pounce on him. Everything I've read from atheism + was bullshit 'feminazi' (for lack if a better term) garbage. Could be I just got a biased person quoting to me, but from what I read if they did bite the dust it's no one's loss.

---

(February 8, 2015 at 10:20 am)Dystopia Wrote: I don't like the use of the word nazi in any circumstance because it equates insignificant behaviour with Aryan white supremacy - It can be used if it is a reference to actual nazis. Much like I don't like the word fascist being thrown around just for the sake of, for example - Calling someone a bigot.

I don't have knowledge of anyone hijacking the atheist community like that, but could you explain more?

I get your point and I almost agree with you. The problem is...language doesn't care what you or I think. It will continue to grow and change as people use it differently and words will lose their meaning a gain new meaning. Like it or not, it is a fact of life. Take a look at the word bimbo originally meant small child, was used in the 1920's to describe a ladies man, and now it means superficially gorgeous but brain dead woman who sleeps around.

(February 8, 2015 at 9:15 am)TheMessiah Wrote:

(February 8, 2015 at 8:58 am)Nell Wrote: Femenazi. Yes, because women wanting equality is equivalent to genocide.

A Feminist is someone who wants equality. A Social Justice Warrior Feminist has been dubbed a 'Feminazi' and they are often loud, rue and man-haters.

Oh, but they were rude and kinda militant in a poorly defined way, so it's the same thing! Or something!

As a general rule, you should avoid saying anything that might make people mistake you for Rush Limbaugh.

Maybe the term is relevant here: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/02/...51442.html

Edit: If it's true, which I'm not really sure about that.

(February 10, 2015 at 6:27 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: Maybe the term is relevant here: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/02/...51442.html

Edit: If it's true, which I'm not really sure about that.

The correct response is (from your link):

• Jenni @lifeofjennibeck
  
  Misandry means hatred of men. Feminism means equality of genders. "Feminist Has Abortion Because Child Was a Boy" NO. She is a misandrist

The two ideas of feminism and misandry are separate and distinct, as well as being independent of each other (i.e., neither entails the other, nor does either entail the negation of the other). The same is true of "atheist" and "misandrist," "white" and "misandrist," "tall" and "misandrist," and etc. In all of these cases, it would be a mistake to try to put them together as if they were somehow connected. And that is what is wrong with the term "feminazi," as it attempts to put together two unrelated things as if they were connected.

People should expand their vocabulary, so that they can use the correct word, rather than use a word that stupidly associates feminism with nazis.

(February 10, 2015 at 7:00 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(February 10, 2015 at 6:27 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: Maybe the term is relevant here: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/02/...51442.html

Edit: If it's true, which I'm not really sure about that.

The correct response is (from your link):

• Jenni @lifeofjennibeck
  
  Misandry means hatred of men. Feminism means equality of genders. "Feminist Has Abortion Because Child Was a Boy" NO. She is a misandrist

The two ideas of feminism and misandry are separate and distinct, as well as being independent of each other (i.e., neither entails the other, nor does either entail the negation of the other). The same is true of "atheist" and "misandrist," "white" and "misandrist," "tall" and "misandrist," and etc. In all of these cases, it would be a mistake to try to put them together as if they were somehow connected. And that is what is wrong with the term "feminazi," as it attempts to put together two unrelated things as if they were connected.

People should expand their vocabulary, so that they can use the correct word, rather than use a word that stupidly associates feminism with nazis.

I'm not really sure I see how you can be a feminist and a misandrist.

(February 9, 2015 at 8:48 pm)Dystopia Wrote: Ah no... Ad Hominem would be for me to attack the source just to discredit - But attacking the source with truthful facts is not an ad hominem, it's legitimate - If my opponent is a well known liar, I can point it out if I have proof that he is so, it's only an ad hominem. Also, it would be an ad hominem if I attacked TheMessiah, which I didn't (ok I told him to fuck himself but sometimes I lose patience - That was not to be taken seriously)

Perhaps then you should answer the point be bruited. The fact is, you have indeed waved away some points simply by asserting that the source was conservative. Well, I don't give two shits rubbed together what their political leaning is. I want to know the facts of the assertion.

You have at times addressed actualy points, but pretending that you yourself don't have an ideologial base in this conversation is not doing you any favors.

As I said earlier, there is enough irrationality in the conversation to go around.

Jenni Wrote:Misandry means hatred of men. Feminism means equality of genders. "Feminist Has Abortion Because Child Was a Boy" NO. She is a misandrist

Feminism is specifically the advocacy of womens' rights... certainly, you can be a feminist and also an masculinist... but by the time you manage that, you're practically a social egalitarian already (unless you happen to for some reason recognize particular difference between races, etc...?).

Mistaking feminism for egalitarianism is much more of a leap than is feminism to misandry. An egalitarian person is by definition one who is concerned for the rights of all peoples... a feminist is only guaranteed by definition to be concerned with the rights of women (specifically). Egalitarianism leaves no room for misandry... with feminism: there is no conflict within the definitions (support women; hate/degrade men).

Feminism had its use; it brought women and men closer to each other in status than ever before.... but it's really past time to stop focusing on one to any exclusion of the other (intentional or otherwise), we're not so far apart these days. Feminism is, in its latest incarnations, NOT a vehicle that can accomplish this adequately... and it allows for far too much piggybacking to agendas that do not support equal status between genders/sexes/whatevers.

Rebrand, and discard the toxic waste.

Alice I disagree wholey. Your opinion only makes sense if you narrow your thoughts to the US and few (but not all) other first world nations. Feminism still very much has a place in this world. It could do a lot better if a strong independent woman could give an awakening slap to the face of every tumblr person. (Tumblrian? Tumblrite? Idk)

Alice, without specialization results are miserable. A single group claiming to be pro-equality for everyone will not accomplish much without sub-groups that deal with people's issues specifically. The way I see it, feminism is a sub-sect of Egalitarianism, so is LGBT's rights, black activism, etc, but it's positive for groups to exist that focus on specific groups. I think men's rights groups could be useful if they focused on working with feminists to erase gender roles. (I don't see a reason why someone who is a feminist shouldn't be an egalitarian - It makes sense because feminism is usually anti-racist, anti-homophobia, anti-transphobia and pro-multiculturalism - Which are reasonable ideas for an egalitarian society)

---

(February 10, 2015 at 8:39 pm)Losty Wrote: Alice I disagree wholey. Your opinion only makes sense if you narrow your thoughts to the US and few (but not all) other first world nations. Feminism still very much has a place in this world. It could do a lot better if a strong independent woman could give an awakening slap to the face of every tumblr person. (Tumblrian? Tumblrite? Idk)

The way I see it feminism doesn't even mean activism. It can mean simply that you support certain branches of the movement or a specific feminist celebrity. You can be a feminist and not engage in activism. I like having my feminine traits as a man (I have my masculine as well) and because of that I'll only benefit from feminist activism (Now I can cry at peace and appreciate works of art without being called a pussy)

Small edit - Losty, I know you don't like gender roles as criteria to define genders - In my opinion, until a single role persists a movement like feminism will not hurt anyone. I don't want people to stop being masculine or feminine, but I want people to be able to choose and not get characteristics lumped into their gender. This is actually important to you since you have a sexuality view that is considered by society as slutty and "impure", so you get what I'm saying