Trolling on the internet

[MinDonner]

No, MinDonner's Law already states that Everyone Else Is Wrong.

[Gillio]

Oh, and we just proved it!!! :cheers:

[Salome the Persian Witch]

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

Criticizing - no. Critique and honest intellectual discussion is important. Hordes of bullies threatening rape to shut up that exploration illustrates the point exactly. And to argue otherwise is intellectually dishonest, and extraordinarily irrational.

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.

What is this crap about feelings being hurt? When "team rape" and others create a group with a purpose to have hundreds of thousands of people threaten you with sexualized violence, it is not your feelings that are being hurt - you are blatantly in danger for your (and your family's) physical well being.

And note that in this specific case, Penny Arcade people knew this was happening for months, and spurred it on by creating merchandise that others blatantly interpreted as supporting rape and rape threats, (Team rape and Dick Wolvington, etc. stated publicly they interpreted the merchandise as tacit approval of their beliefs and methodology.) It is interesting to note that it was only months later when only 1 threat was made (not against Mike but against his wife and child) it made him so afraid it prompted him to speak out against the online attacks. 6 months of hundreds of thousands of attacks against someone else (that he blatantly facilitated) didn't phase him until 1 response was turned on him.

To blatantly ignore observable evidence, and willfully distort logic to fit your own inadequate thesis, tells me you are responding emotionally rather than rationally.

[TerraPrime]

I guess feminist magazine people are allowed to write anything.

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

As opposed to non-feminist magazine people being not allowed to write anything?

[Sci-2]

eta: I should say great post overall SSW.

And note that in this specific case, Penny Arcade people knew this was happening for months, and spurred it on by creating merchandise that others blatantly interpreted as supporting rape and rape threats, (Team rape and Dick Wolvington, etc. stated publicly they interpreted the merchandise as tacit approval of their beliefs and methodology.)

Exactly why Mike and Gabe taking responsibility is totally different from saying all Muslims have to apologize for 9/11.

To blatantly ignore observable evidence, and willfully distort logic to fit your own inadequate thesis, tells me you are responding emotionally rather than rationally.

I think BigLose genuinely believes what he's saying. It's just that he's wrong when he tries to pinpoint which side is being irrational.

[Robin Of House Hill]

I guess feminist magazine people are allowed to write anything.

http://antimisandry....otes-20106.html

And those quotes are as representative of feminism as the Westboro Baptist church is of Christianity. But, you knew that, right? Trolling = raising stupidity to an artform.

[Biglose]

@Sci-2

THEME #3: YOU’RE CRAZY

So Bill Maher is a sexist and everybody else who would call Sarah Palin or Michael Backman crazy.

That exactly what I was pointing out. A lot of feminists are so conserned about shielding even the most silly stuff that they go down to you can't contradict a women or call her ideas crazy.

Of course thats of the table as soon as the other women uses antifeminist ideas.

Which then leads to the situation, that sexism is just a matter of definition. So whatever the most powerful party likes to make of it. Thats not something I call going in the right direction.

Exactly why Mike and Gabe taking responsibility is totally different from saying all Muslims have to apologize for 9/11.

Do you really want to go down that road? Honestly, think about it for one moment. You are just saying that everybody supporting any goal of any organisation or who does anything which could be seen as encouraging by this organisation should take responsability? Thats the end of free speech. Actually you go even further and extend this claim to individuals.

My point is not that your arguments are so far off considering women rights espacially sexism. There it is not that important. But womens rights are not the only issue on this planet.

@Seli

Sigh, no. If you think people mean simply outraged comments you might be a tad sheltered. It is the harassment that actually proves the points of these laws. The outrage is just the cherry on top.

And the exact line of reasoning can be used by racists national socialists and every singe sorry excuse of a human beeing.

Honestly, I can't see how hard it can be to get that. Even people trying to dispute it end up admiting it by accident.

http://afternoonsnoo...y-article-about

The auther made it quite obvious, his or her starting point is, that feminism is necessary and it ends with exactly the same assumption.

Just because you can reformulate something and write it in a line, does not prevent you from falling for circular logic.

Thats why circular logic is so easy to fall into, because in order to prevent it you have to keep track of all your assumptions (written or only thought). (Thats not as easy as it sounds, it is on the other hand quite hard with more complex problems) Why? Because in logic common sense has no place. For example you think rape is a bad thing, to have it in your logical prove you need it as an assumption or a more basic assumption which would lead up to it.

Thats something a lot of people do not tend to get. They just take their assumptions along the way in any argument. That makes a constructiv argument nearly impossible, because you can only agree or disagree with a statement. Thats no better than name calling.

@Ser Scot A Ellision

What I am trying to achiev is, that maybe someone has any incentiv to learn how logic actually works in a political discussion.

The point is, that most people tend to get it if you let them do it with symbols but as soon as you apply it....

The point is a specific one that if a feminist says those in favor of patriarchy will use threats of physical violance to oppose gender equality that point is shown to be true when someone makes threats of physical violence against the feminist who makes the former point.

And that point falls apart. Just because people overreact, it does not mean that I have a point in general.

For example Esther Margareta Katzen had to leave germany in fear of her live because she got death threats and was actually attacked from (mostly) feminists, resulting in police protection. Does this now means, that what she argued for needed support? That the other side was wrong in general?

For me it just means that it was a very sad thing for debate culture in germany.

The point is, the other side can be load of assholes and you still can be wrong. If you start granting other people the same protection(for their arguments) as you want for feminist arguments, it does not really work out in your favor. So it burns down to nothing but a double standard, which starts to be obvious in several debates. The dickwolves issue is just one of many. If people act the same way towards feminists (and even some people here said they should then be insulted or "called out") they will be treated in a way which is exactly the basis for this law.

Which means the only way to argue like that is if you assume that feminist arguments are true a priori. Which is exactly the problem the evolutionists have with the creationists.

Those guys claim that their "opinion" is true a priori.

And thats the reason the atheist community is often seen to be acting against feminists. They can't grant somebody an a priori truth. And this is exactly what the loudest feminists demand. It came out in elevatorgate or in dawkins making fun of feminist authors.

@Salome Sand Witch

And again thanks for taking something which was a response to something completly different...

Honestly, there are three things I am discussing right now.

1. PA

2. Why is there controversy between for example dawkins and feminists.

3. Logic

The quote you are using belongs to point 2. Honestly, thats not that hard to follow.

Now should I now answer that Dawkins never made any rape threats? Or never gave out dickwolves shirts?

Well, I guess thats the adequate answer anyway.

And another fine example for taking something out of context to create outrage.

Oh he is deminishing rape by calling it "just hurting your feelings"...

No, he is not. His answer belonged to a totally different line of questions.

And honestly you wonder about backslash?

Now dickwolves for you:

Diffamation, blackmail, personal attacks is what mike had comming his way. He never used such tactics but still he is to blame if other people used "threats" against the people attacking him.

So he has to act like the reincarnation of jesus but everybody else gets a free pass?

What it burns down to is, if anybody who claims to be a feminist accuses you of something you are not allowed to contradict and you have to beg down. (because you could encourage trolls)

I mean their first reaction was to make a comic to make totally clear that they did not mean to support rape. What else should they have done?

[Sci-2]

@Sci-2

So Bill Maher is a sexist and everybody else who would call Sarah Palin or Michael Backman crazy.

Seems to me that you can't use isolated cases to contradict points made about the sample of responses taken as a whole. I feel that you're guilty of bad logic and bag statistics here.

But yes, even if a lot of women's arguments are dismissed by accusing the women of being "crazy", that does not mean all accusations of women being "crazy" are unfounded.

Thankfully no one here is pushing the idea that women are automatically immune from criticism.

That exactly what I was pointing out. A lot of feminists are so conserned about shielding even the most silly stuff that they go down to you can't contradict a women or call her ideas crazy.

There's a difference between calling a particular woman crazy and using the idea that women are irrational to dismiss their points. Did you read the Sady Doyle piece?

Of course thats of the table as soon as the other women uses antifeminist ideas.

Criticizing arguments was never off the table. But saying "That's crazy" is not a real argument anyway.

Which then leads to the situation, that sexism is just a matter of definition. So whatever the most powerful party likes to make of it. Thats not something I call going in the right direction.

How did we go from "Accusations of mental instability are often used to dismiss women's arguments" to "Sexism is relative and depends on the group that can control the definition?

Seems like slippery slope fallacy.

Do you really want to go down that road? Honestly, think about it for one moment. You are just saying that everybody supporting any goal of any organisation or who does anything which could be seen as encouraging by this organisation should take responsability? Thats the end of free speech. Actually you go even further and extend this claim to individuals.

Free speech is not under threat. That would require alterations to the code of law. If I trivialize rape, and my fans put out rape threats, I should take moral responsibility. Note that isn't legal responsibility so again free speech is not threatened.

My point is not that your arguments are so far off considering women rights espacially sexism. There it is not that important. But womens rights are not the only issue on this planet.

I don't even know what you're talking about here. Which of my arguments are so far off?

[Apologies, misread your statement.]