So did Atheism + bite the dust?

[TheMessiah]

From the website you quoted

...You are omitting the specific part of the paragraph. Allow me to clearly point it out:

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

Several quotes are made up, but many are not; this is why I linked to the website. I have given you a pro-Feminist website which outright acknowledges that infamous radical Feminist quotes are accurate. The link then goes on to focus on those that are not accurate; but the acknowledgement is a testament to the fact that radical Feminism has been associated with the hatred it is infamous for.

Curiously conservatives have proof for everything, including that god exists, that gays are evil and immigrants are invaders.

It is clear that you have an ideological hatred of Conservatives. There is no way that your dislike for Conservatism is not influencing your responses.

Conservatives in my country actually legalized gay marriage within 1-2 years in power, something which the Left wing, under 10 years of power failed to do. Also illegal immigration is certainly a problem.

You are making stark generalizations about Conservatives yet stays quiet when it comes to Liberals...

[Dystopia]

Who told you I'm a liberal?

Curiously this is an institution that works in America so it's irrelevant what conservatives in your country have done. I showed you facts and linked websites that show controverse or irrational positions from the American Enterprise Institute that makes them a non reliable source much like AnswersInGenesis; I also pointed out that some of the quotes are made up and that most of them are from Andrea something (a woman that is not regarded as the best feminist of all time by other feminists) - So is that the best you can do?

My dislike for Conservatism is not the main influence - I provided links that show studies directly contradicting what some conservatives try to claim (such as that rape numbers are a scam by women) and I provided links that debunk MRA's. In this case, the AEI could be liberal, communist, capitalist, whatever - I would still not find it a credible source

[Thumpalumpacus]

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?

I'd just like to point out that, once again, instead of answering the criticism, you're attacking the source.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I don't care what they say about anything else, in the context of this thread. I care about what they say on this subject, and if you think they're wrong, I want to know why you think they're wrong, not why they're unworthy of credibility. The first task you need to accomplish yourself; the second task, I will do on my own.

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.

Simply because they're conservative, does that mean that they must share that position? I will dig through that link, but honestly, you appear to have some baggage attached to "conservative" that isn't necessarily pertinent. There are plenty of conservatives who consider rape a crime heinous enough to merit the death penalty. There are plenty of liberals who think that rapists shouldn't be serving long terms. Introducing those terms of ideology which you yourself have in this thread denounced is disingenuous. If it's not about ideology, quit using ideology as a reason to dismiss countervailing views, and answer the criticism directly.

Otherwise, you look like you're trying to eat your cake and have it, too.

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.

Which is exactly why I'm skeptical of that link. Something so extreme, so rare, should obviously bear a larger chance of being a plant.

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

They clearly haven't.

- If MRA's are helping men, something I disagree with

They have some valid points, and some bullshit to go along with them.

- 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.

My particular critique was addressing your propensity for saying that "that source is conservative, stop using it". I'm not saying that is the only thing you've written. I'm saying that that practice you've shown is fallacious -- to wit, it's an ad homeneim.

Some of your replies have indeed been pretty substantial, and I'm enjoying reading this back-and-forth between you two. It's making me think, and that is a gift.

- 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.

Yeah, I figured that out for myself, thanks.

- 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.

As I've posted upthread already, I think that perjorative is useless, and obstructs communication.

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.

Of course, no one can force you to listen to anyone you don't want to hear.

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.

"If" your standards are "reasonable".

I think there's plenty of irrationailty on both sides of this discussion, myself.

[Dystopia]

I'd just like to point out that, once again, instead of answering the criticism, you're attacking the source.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I don't care what they say about anything else, in the context of this thread. I care about what they say on this subject, and if you think they're wrong, I want to know why you think they're wrong, not why they're unworthy of credibility. The first task you need to accomplish yourself; the second task, I will do on my own.

I've already told you why I consider the institution unworthy of credibility and I've pointed out links that disprove some of their claims. Additionally, I've made a constructive (non-hateful) criticism of gaming and gender representation and recommnedated a book by a 2nd wave feminist that corroborates my view (it's basically about how the media affects our perceptions in real life) - By showing that what we seen in forms of media (including games) affects the stereotypes we attach to people in real life. My opponent posted a LOT of videos, many by people who are notoriously against social justice activism or feminism, so in my opinion it's not a reliable source - I could go into youtube and find basically any video about any topic and use it as proof. Another problem with the AEI is that showing the video isn't enough - I need the study/survey itself and the variables, methods, and target population used to see if it's reliable. Many times, and this is valid for all ideologies, people omit variables in studies to make their points seem right and when it comes to youtube videos there's a lot of things left aside.

Simply because they're conservative, does that mean that they must share that position? I will dig through that link, but honestly, you appear to have some baggage attached to "conservative" that isn't necessarily pertinent. There are plenty of conservatives who consider rape a crime heinous enough to merit the death penalty. There are plenty of liberals who think that rapists shouldn't be serving long terms. Introducing those terms of ideology which you yourself have in this thread denounced is disingenuous. If it's not about ideology, quit using ideology as a reason to dismiss countervailing views, and answer the criticism directly.

No baggage, I'll say right away that I've gotten into pretty of serious debates with liberals, but conservatives are generally the ones who make dubious quotes about rape (Republicans in America in particular) - In my country, conservatives are actually fair minded and more moderate.

I am not using ideology as a reason, but attacking the source is not that invalid if I have reasons for it. Is it too much to ask for the study with all the data? And is it fair to keep receiving youtube videos as a reply? Isn't it more constructive for people to quote other more objective sources?

They have some valid points, and some bullshit to go along with them.

You see, when MRA's claim that men get less custody of kids it's a valid point, so is domestic violence against men, etc. The problem is that MRA's were born as a response in the 70's against feminism and instead of focusing specifically on the problem and why it's bad they focus on "why women are hurting men" or they highlight a man problem that is undoubtedly important but the only purpose of it is to discredit the women's side of the problem. I won't stop anyone from being MRA but I prefer egalitarian people or feminists to fight for my cause since movements like those have benefited my male status. I also linked several articles that debunk MRA and it's problems - If MRA's were an alliance with feminism to fight together issues, I would support them.

My particular critique was addressing your propensity for saying that "that source is conservative, stop using it". I'm not saying that is the only thing you've written. I'm saying that that practice you've shown is fallacious -- to wit, it's an ad homeneim.

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)

Some of your replies have indeed been pretty substantial, and I'm enjoying reading this back-and-forth between you two. It's making me think, and that is a gift.

I just want people to have a constructive stance without leaning too much on the extremes. Maybe it's true like TheMessiah said that there are bad people on the feminist side of GamerGate - Honestly I'm not aware of the situation; but regardless what I've read was that someone lied by saying that a female reviewer was sleeping with men to gain more favourable reviews. I honestly don't care and probably we won't know the story but it isn't an excuse to quit talking about gaming stereotypes and -isms.

"If" your standards are "reasonable".

I think there's plenty of irrationailty on both sides of this discussion, myself.

I wouldn't require impossible, magical standards of evidence, I'm no fool. But requiring a pdf study seems reasonable to me. Quoting youtube videos and websites like MRA's or others that are usually more aggressive towards feminism or women is obviously going to result in the absolute worst of one side. I think instead we should abstain from leaking videos and take a constructive criticism without being excessively convinced that one side is right. That's what I do - I never claimed that videogames were all sexist pieces of shit, I just showed some examples of how male representation is generally better and more appealing for male gamers and I linked one of the most reliable surveys that shows a growth in the female population of gamers (the study doesn't tell us who plays only smartphones and who plays console + PC, but still, the numbers are growing every year, and old people as well) -> Conclusion, following the principles of capitalism, game developers should care about female demographics. Putting women in games as sexy babes without relevant content is saying "Hey women gamers, you don't matter as a player and this game is not for you" (again there are inclusive games, I'm talking about some common trends) -> I don't think that (1) More female playable characters (2) More realistic standards of beauty (not every girl needs to look a playboy bunny) (3) more important roles for women in plots (4) More female characters in general (5) Less sexist tropes like putting all women as strippers, hookers, gold diggers or whores -- Is going to hurt gaming. In my opinion, this will in fact raise sales + It will increase fanbase for games. There is no proof that sexy people sell in games. Skyrim is an example of how an inclusive game can sell (+20Million copies)

[Whateverist]

Re: the OP. I sure hope they have bit the dust. It would be one small step toward regaining my respect for mankind.

[Pyrrho]

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.

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.

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.
...

Do you regard all words in like manner? For example, do you call bad black people "niggers" and distinguish them thusly from good black people? Is that, too, a useful tool? Or do you think some words are problematic and should generally be avoided?

[dyresand]

It seems so --- unless I'm mistaken, a lot of Feminazi Social Justice Warriors tried to hijack the Atheist community and it got ugly; but it seems that it's gone now and things reverted to the way they were.

Is it?

No just because the feminist took control over a label doesn't mean its dead. Atheism is still here and its still strong.
To begin with i joined Atheism + to point out the truth and why they really shouldn't be defending feminists and their agenda.
You know what i got for telling the truth i got banned and good riddance to Atheism + all the main site owner was a ass kisser
who defended feminism and their slanted world view because he is getting laid from one of the feminist members.

[TheMessiah]

Curiously this is an institution that works in America so it's irrelevant what conservatives in your country have done. I showed you facts and linked websites that show controverse or irrational positions from the American Enterprise Institute that makes them a non reliable source much like AnswersInGenesis;

No, you did not show facts; you have shown a blatant bias when forming argument. The fact that you referred to the stereotype of ''Conservatives hate gays and love traditional gender roles!'' is evidence of this. You are using outdated information to attempt to undermine the validity of a source whose ideology does not match your own. This is an extremely bias way of thinking and arguing.

Using that stereotype of Conservatives to fit your narrative is an argument from fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

I also showed you irrational positions from Anita Sarkeesian; flat out proving that she was a liar, yet you neglect to acknowledge such. TheAmericanEnterpriseInstitutue cannot be compared to a Creationist website because the Creationist website has no formal grounding in reality.

I also pointed out that some of the quotes are made up and that most of them are from Andrea something (a woman that is not regarded as the best feminist of all time by other feminists) -

...Did you read my post? I know some of them are made up. Hence why I pointed out a specific portion of the anti-Misogyny website which said ''many of them are indeed accurate'' --- that website debunked the false ones yet acknowledge many are true.

My dislike for Conservatism is not the main influence

Stereotyping to bad mouth the philosophy behind it indicates otherwise...

- I provided links that show studies directly contradicting what some conservatives try to claim (such as that rape numbers are a scam by women) and I provided links that debunk MRA's.

Yes, but again, read my posts. You are making an argument from fallacy. Because the MRA's have said one thing wrong, then their entire argument is therefore false. This is untrue; it's akin to saying because Richard Dawkins made one mistake, his entire argument is incorrect. This makes no logical sense. My point was that the MRA's tackle the gender issues when it comes to women abusing their power to win the house/kids, etc.

[Dystopia]

MRA's don't tackle issues effectively and I've linked you about 5 websites that show examples of how they attempt to demonize and discriminate women by making them look like whores and gold diggers and how they're illiterate when addressing men's issues (in fact, conquests in men's issues and higher men's rights have been made by feminists and I've linked you that as well). Do you have any relevant credible source for your points? If not, either refute or GTFO

Fallacies? You've been committing the so called confirmation bias over and over and over again - You quote sources that support your views and ignore those that don't. Educate yourself.

I don't see how Sarkeesian is relevant, I never said I support her, I just said getting threats is wrong. I can discuss gaming with my own brain without need a person telling me how to think. I can discuss -isms in gaming with my observations solely - I don't need to quote sources because some assertions require simply a little of logical reasoning

[TheMessiah]

MRA's don't tackle issues effectively and I've linked you about 5 websites that show examples of how they attempt to demonize and discriminate women by making them look like whores and gold diggers and how they're illiterate when addressing men's issues (in fact, conquests in men's issues and higher men's rights have been made by feminists and I've linked you that as well). Do you have any relevant credible source for your points? If not, either refute or GTFO

Fallacies? You've been committing the so called confirmation bias over and over and over again - You quote sources that support your views and ignore those that don't. Educate yourself.

I don't see how Sarkeesian is relevant, I never said I support her, I just said getting threats is wrong. I can discuss gaming with my own brain without need a person telling me how to think. I can discuss -isms in gaming with my observations solely - I don't need to quote sources because some assertions require simply a little of logical reasoning

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.

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

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.