Trolling on the internet

[Chaldanya]

"Laws" like these make feminism look bad.

According to people like you everything makes feminism look bad. So I'm not worried, tbh.

N

[MinDonner]

"Laws" like these make feminism look bad.

How?

Now, I'm going to give you the un-earned benefit of the doubt and assume that you don't know this meaning of "law" - ie., in the vein of the Law of Thermodynamics, they describe how things are rather than dictate how things should be. Given this fact, could you explain how making an observation on typical internet behaviour, somehow makes feminism look bad?

[Chaldanya]

How?

Now, I'm going to give you the un-earned benefit of the doubt and assume that you don't know this meaning of "law" - ie., in the vein of the Law of Thermodynamics, they describe how things are rather than dictate how things should be. Given this fact, could you explain how making an observation on typical internet behaviour, somehow makes feminism look bad?

Now, that's not fair MinD. You're making him bust out his logic certificate...

N

[Seli]

"Laws" like these make feminism look bad.

Laws like that, just as is the tradition in physics, are descriptive not predictive. They don't make judgement, they are just simple rules that describe clear correlations that are out there for anyone to see.

If anything the existence of those laws makes our societies look bad.

eta: basically "what Min said"

[Biglose]

@Salome Sand Witch

True, I should have written any comment, every was not the right wording. The point is, it does not matter it stays circular logic.

Why? Because the point which is to prove is put into the assumption, thats circular logic. There is no way to get the other result.

No matter what kind of comments would be made, it would still be a justification of feminism.

It is the same kind of circular logic used by creationists. "Every find only proves creation."

The question was why there are clashes with the atheist community and I gave the reason. Some feminists are bound to use the same kind of reasoning creationist are using. Yeah, for different stuff, but if you got any self respect you do not agree to one and combat the other.

Here, let me help you with that.

I corrected myself, I haven't seen it for about 14 years. I was not saying it did not exist but apparently you do not get into contact all the time.

And please if feminist would never have issued death threats to people they disagree with, I could make some argument but thats not the case. Or even if death threats were new, but the ain't. Honestly, people actually shot even white male presidents in the theater.

What you are doing is the old thing of we against them and we are justified so our actions have not to live up to the standarts we demand other people to hold.

I look at it the other way: If you want to set up standarts you have to comply to them a 110%.

You ask yourself why this kind of backslash every time? THATS THE REASON.

If you look only at gender you only see half of the picture. Often it is also about dislike between professions.

For example if a PR manager publicly shames an software engineer because he got some "techspeak" wrong, and the engineer gets fired, gender does not matter. All the geeks go after the PR guy. The point is, that most non-feminists won't do that, because they are most of the time aware that the propability for misinterpretation is quite high and the benifits do not outweight the risks. But it only takes a cause for good people to do stupid or horrible things. But if I start fucking up peoples life over things I only half understood, I am not to wonder about backslash.

And if we're discussing dickwolves, here's a timeline with detailed information.

So yeah, if somebody would ask me how it feel to encourage rape culture, I would go for the same answer.

(Again: Why holding back if the other side ain't)

Honestly the comic was not even a rape joke, it was a comic with the word of rape in it. The joke was about the build up of quests and how they sometimes force the "hero" to ignore horrible injustice because well they only get to save 5.

All I am saying that you can't complain of other peoble beeing bricks if you yourself are acting like one. Yes, some people tend to use this as an excuse to cross every line, and thats not OK. But thats more of a general problem. I mean we live in a world were soccer-players are getting threats of "ball removal" because they play the game.

The most ridiculous point about the whole thing is that in the end most people were like no it was not about the comic, it was about the reaction. After trolling months to get a reaction. Honestly, how is this something other than silly in any kind of world?

And then to go out of any kind of reason to accuse somebody for actions of individuals over whom he has no control over just tops it off. (At the same time if other people would employ the same tactic of guilt by association thats of course bad)

Why the backslash? Why the ignorance? Because most feminists talking points manage to come over as vicious and unjustified because of the need to stand behind every single last of them. Thats just a bad tactic, unless you want to escalate the situation. But why should I then shed tears for you?

Yeah, you are done in the eyes of most natural scientists after claiming that Newtons work is a rape manual. Can you blame them for that?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Biglose,

Then perhaps the rule needs to be refined. It clearly implies that the negative ("go make me a sandwich") and threating comments in discussions of feminism show the need for such discussions. However, if you want to play at literalism it could be changed to say, "the nasty comments that show up in almost every discussion of feminism show the need for feminism".

Does that address your concerns?

The most ridiculous point about the whole thing is that in the end most people were like no it was not about the comic, it was about the reaction. After trolling months to get a reaction. Honestly, how is this something other than silly in any kind of world?

Who designed and then marketed the "Team Dickwolves" line of merchanise which was then used as a rallying cry by a group operating under the twitter hashtag "teamrape"? The guys from Penny Arcade. Do they have no responsiblity for their actions and the atmosphere their actions created?

[Biglose]

Laws like that, just as is the tradition in physics, are descriptive not predictive.

THATS exactly what the laws of physics do, they MAKE predictions. THATS what makes them different from religious believes which only describe and can not be questioned.

For example: Newton

An object in motion stays in motion as long as no outside force interacts with it. (Prediction)

And that some feminists are exactly going down that roade makes them natural antagonistic to rationalists like Dawkins. If you tell Dawkins to his face that evolution is the same as creationism, well he won't agree.

@Ser Scot A Ellison

Yes, it does. Thank you.

[MinDonner]

I hate saying this, but I almost miss Kolantero. At least he could string a sentence together in English.

[Pero the first of His name]

I know what laws are, tyvm.

I also know you can not simply extract something out of your anus and call it a law and everyone must bow to it.

I know that these two laws are not true at times, endangering their "law status".

But you seem to like them so i will write some more laws like those for you to enjoy:

1. Thou shall not question anything any feminist says or does about feminism for they can not be wrong about feminism since they call themselves feminists

2. Breaking the law above immediatelly makes you a sexist

I very much appreciate there are people fighting for gender equality but i allow myself to criticise them in events when they are wrong, lacking perspective or ridiculous, as i would anything else.

Feminism being such a broad term is good but it can be bad at times.

Anyone can go extreme or say some random BS under the cover of feminism.

[Seli]

Well, you do not have to be nice and you do not have to respect the feelings of the other side. That is in no way required, true so far. The point is you still have to base your arguments on facts and not on emotions. My feelings got hurt is not a rational argument.

You are aware of the fact, that it is a logical fallacy, to be more precise it is circular logic. So it is wrong, always.

You are funny. Talking about what is rational and in the same post claim a logical fallacy to be true. That just the most irrational thing somebody could do.

I would say when interacting with humans paying attention to feelings is the rational thing to do. They are such a big part of who we are. When someone tells you something hurts them ignoring it is never rational. Ignoring feelings is a recipe for disaster, as much as paying attention only to them.

The line I responded to is not an example of circular reasoning, perhaps the thought behind that line is a bit obscured by the superfluous "The" but even including that the sentence still covers the intended meaning.

As a general note looking at your interspersed remarks on atheism and rationality as contrasting to feminism I get the impression your understanding of all these concepts has been formed by a very one-sided exposure to the raging discussions. It might be an idea to try and read a bit wider.

[Pero the first of His name]

Lewis' law could be true only if taken in a broader sense.

Eg. - this feminist article is bad so by criticising it i am contributing to distance it from all the good of feminism, justifying feminism

[Seli]

THATS exactly what the laws of physics do, they MAKE predictions.

...

1) Min was to first to react saying exactly the same using different words, it is generally more polite to answer (or at least acknowledge) the first person in these multi-person discussions.

2) Yes, and these laws do exactly the same. They predict that whenever subject is treated in an article comments on that article show that subject needs to be talked about (because so many people don't understand subject, and/or act with an irrational hatred against it or the people talking about it).

3) ah shoot I see now, I should have used prescriptive there. this is only leading to a further derailment. apologies.

[Pero the first of His name]

I guess feminist magazine people are allowed to write anything.

http://antimisandry.com/feminist-misandry/feminist-quotes-20106.html

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Pero,

Who here is defending the comments of radical feminists such as those quoted in your link?

[Biglose]

@Seli

1) No, she did not say the same thing. She basically ask a question.

2) So you agree that these laws are wrong, since the number of articles gone by without sexist comments is probably greater than 0.

I would say when interacting with humans paying attention to feelings is the rational thing to do. They are such a big part of who we are. When someone tells you something hurts them ignoring it is never rational. Ignoring feelings is a recipe for disaster, as much as paying attention only to them.

And again no.

Example:

You have to acknowledge the feelings of for example the saudi arabien government concerning sharia law and critism of it, because well we want oil. But this does not make sharia law good, just beacause some people feel their religious feelings getting hurt if you criticize it.

Or take the feelings about abortion of the evangelical right. So we should outlaw abortion because it hurts their feelings?

The point is: In any rational discurs emotion are not an argument. That does not mean you have to ignore emotions on a personal level, but it means that just because somebodys feeling get hurt it is not wrong. Why? Because outrage is cheap.

[all swedes are racist]

I guess feminist magazine people are allowed to write anything.

http://antimisandry.com/feminist-misandry/feminist-quotes-20106.html

Baaahahaha! Oh that's rich. Guy, the site is called ANTIMISANDRY.com.

[Pero the first of His name]

Baaahahaha! Oh that's rich. Guy, the site is called ANTIMISANDRY.com.

I was talking about some quotes in it. The fact that they serve a bad cause does not matter to me in this point.

@Scot

In another thread i was told that there is no extreme or bad feminism. So i am just taking the first step into convincing people anyone who is a feminist may not always be correct.

[Biglose]

@Ser Scot A Ellison

I guess the point he is trying to raise is, that if you want everybody to apologize for anything somebody hardly connected to them says, you could start with everything written there.

[Chaldanya]

In another thread i was told that there is no extreme or bad feminism.

link please

N

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Biglose,

Who created the "Team Dickwolves" line of merchandise?

Pero,

I've never said anything a feminist says must be correct. Nor has anyone else. The point of the "law" discussed above is not that feminism is always right but that the violent invective hurled at feminists, when feminism is discussed, justifies further discussion and advocacy of feminist issues.