MRW

Snapshots:

1. This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp, ceddit.com, archive.is*

^{I am a bot. (Info / Contact)}

One of my favorite things in the metasphere is when snally schools reddit feminists.

Buh buh buh...WIKIPEDIA!!!!!!!

Feminist uses Dictionary Definition!

It's not very effective . . .

What a terribly smug cunt. I'd call him a bastard, but I believe in gender equality.

So why'd you call the person a cunt? Checkmate misogynists.

99% of the shit feminism needed to take care, they took care of. At this point, saying you're a "feminist" will just get you a weird look in the real world.

"Are you saying you don't want me to hold the door for you or something?"

That said, I don't think it's the boogeyman snally is portraying it as (not the concept, but the stench around it). But then again, snally also was one of the people that thought SRS type social justice was why Trump won, so some people just need to interact a bit less on the internet and a bit more in the real world.

Are you under the impression all of social media is made of robots versus real people?

I'm under the impression that reddit represents a portion of views of the reddit demographic- mostly 14-22 year olds- and doesn't really represent reality very well. Social media is much of the same, as most people I know my age don't have snapchat or twitter and many have moved past even checking their facebook more than once or twice a week.

The loudest opinions are typically the most extreme. If you spend hours upon hours a day on social media/reddit and you're 21 seeing dickheads being activists all over your campus, you might think adults give a shit about all that stuff. In reality, they really don't.

The last time "social justice" came up in a real life conversation for me, it was last summer. We laughed about it and moved on. No one started ranting about SJWs nor did anyone start ranting about reactio-fascists or whatever. Normal people just chuckle and move on.

But then again, normal people aren't arguing on reddit or twitter all day, either.

You can put it simpler: the people that are arguing all day on twitter and reddit are doing it in front of a comparatively very small audience. That audience might think it's a BIG DEAL but to the rest of the world, not so much.

Don't get me wrong, I love to laugh at this shit here, but it's not at all encroaching into my real world.

SJW shit happens with people older than 22 unfortunately and I can tell you that from personal experience.

I mean I'm sure it does, but not nearly to that extent. I'm sure if you work in a troupe of actors or something they're all about it. Most white collar folk- liberal and conservative alike- couldn't give less of a fuck.

Most white collar folk- liberal and conservative alike- couldn't give less of a fuck.

They sound like fascist reactionaries to me, amirite /r/LateStageCapitalism, /r/ShitRedditSays, /r/circlebroke, r/rFULLCOMMUNISM, and increasingly /r/TrollXChromosomes?

NERD

look how many times you post per day and remind us again how u kno so much about real life

Are you bored and need to fight. Use a mirror if you are that much in need of offensive material.

just lending perspective to a serial agenda sperger

Which agenda touched you in a no no place?

if one did id be sure to post 20 times a day about. so until then

At this point, saying you're a "feminist" will just get you a weird look in the real world.

It's all about context. I moved to Portland because I found Missouri too conservative, even in St Louis. When I'm in Portland I'll identify as a feminist if I'm asked to label myself. However, if I'm Missouri I'd just say that I'm for gender equality. It's all about knowing your audience.

Keep St Louis weird.

The weirdest part of Stl is that people choose to live there.

I've never been, but their pizza looks good. I like that cracker crust shit. I had brussels sprout with cheese on them at Burnside Brewery on a business trip once. We had too many beers and drove back to the hotel with one eye open. That's my Portland experience. That and the bookstore.

Burnside Brewery is decent, and Powell's Books is definitely a cool place. You have to go during the week though, so it's not mobbed by a bunch of tourists.

I don't think Portland can be used as an example of anything widespread.

Didn't say it was, just giving a personal anecdote.

Yeah, I know. Does that even come up in conversation though? Such a weird thing to me to ask people if they are feminists.

No, it's purely a hypothetical, at least in my social circles. If I were more of an activist and went to more rallies/events it might come up.

If you were more of an activist your inevitable suicide might come up.

jk ur a cool dood

You should have seen the look I got from one girl on my recent trip to LA. I mentioned that I didn't attend the Women's March here, and when she asked why I told her that I was too hung over.

Should have told her that you were too busy bangin' whooooores.

Also was their reaction something like this?

lmao no, it was more like this.

Its not nice to make fun of people with large skin pores and Jaundice Zachums.

From what I understand, you'd catch more shit from telling someone you're not originally from Portland than identifying with any political ideology.

lol nah, no one is actually from here. It's a city of transplants. You might catch some jokes if you say you're from California, but that's really just an online meme.

but that's really just an online meme.

/u/CirqueDuFuder watch out, this guy is implying that "all of social media is made of robots versus real people that vote and talk with other people"!

ok

got it

That's refreshing to hear.

It's all about context. I moved to Portland because I found Missouri too conservative, even in St Louis.

This is code for "had too many black people"

Nah man, I'm sure the city where 80% of people voted for Hillary Clinton is actually a hotbed of conservatism.

"I moved to portland because I heard on the neutral milk hotel forums that saint louis, the city directly beneath my dad's flying mansion, is like super gross and problematic and stuff"

Yes I'm sure he meant he lived within the city limits and couldn't possibly have meant the conservative suburbs every city in the Midwest has.

If he didn't mean St. Louis he shouldn't have said St. Louis. In any case, the way the statement was phrased ("even in St. Louis") would suggest he was talking about the city proper to suggest that even places you would think are liberal are actually conservative in Missouri.

Yeah, you got it.

All that rambling and Sean Connery solved that years ago with just the back of a hand.

hmmm

He also doesn't have math or basic statistics down yet in his speeches so he does sound like a feminist.

Are you implying that when presidents say things, people don't look at them weird?

It's not a boogeyman in the sense it's harming or threatening people in their everyday lives. It's a boogeyman in the sense that if someone drops a serious reference to their feminism in an otherwise light-hearted getting-to-know-you question on a date, you get the check and part ways immediately. Just as that guy did in the OP.

not even to that degree but just that people don't want to associate themselves with it. i'm not seeing where i ever said that it was some horrible entity that people board the doors against or w/e.

I think the not-the-concept-but-the-stench-around-it covered that.

snally also was one of the people that thought SRS type social justice was why Trump won

That's completely mischaracterizing what I said and you know it

Maybe policy and law wise. You really think women are treated in a completely egalitarian manner by our culture and society?

Of course not, they're actually treated better.

So given the choice you'd rather be a woman? You don't think anyone would ever belittle you or treat you like 'just a girl'?

Given the boost to career choices and the complete lack of accountability, it's a pretty cherry gig.

You forgot the qualifier pretty. What about fat, ugly women? Where's their benefit to womanhood?

Making the pretty ones look better?

See there's a general benefit to being attractive but men benefit from that too.

Of course. But--an attractive woman who thinks ahead will never have to work a day in her life if she doesn't want to. That's not the case for an attractive man.

I'm not sure that's really so great as you're making it out to be though. That's not a life outcome we tend to praise or hold in high regard. Women that do that are called things like gold diggers or trophy wives or what have you. Obviously we view it negatively. People that don't have their own goals in life they can strive to fulfill don't tend to be very happy. And I think our metric should be how easily can women lead fulfilling lives and achieve their goals. Most humans, female or otherwise, don't want to be a trophy wife and don't want to sit around all day.

During my time getting a le STEM degree guys would trip over each other to help a girl with any work, and girls were always the first to be approached for any extracurricular activities, and had probably double the scholarship opportunities. Other than one girl who gets treated kinda like shit (because she's got a str8 outta india post doc), every other one gets pushed to move up in their respective engineering/industry jobs.

To be clear, I'm not whining. Most of them got exceptional grades (how the fuck does someone get a 92% average in engineering???). My particular discipline was somehow 50/50 gender split where other disciplines were 90/10, so honestly by the end most of my "in school" friends were girls.

If anything most of them have told me they are worried that they are doing so well because they are women, due to the current women in STEM initiatives.

99% of the shit feminism needed to take care, they took care of asked a bunch of men to do it for them. The men thought about it, figured "man they'll never shut up unless we do this", and the men got the job done.

Fixed that for you.

99% of the shit feminism needed to take care, they took care of.

I wouldn't say that, their new goal is to get rid of gender roles, and gender essentialism. Things like saying that boys shouldn't cry, that boys who like pink are weird, or that girls should be shamed for being sluts. It's something I agree with and we/they do have a long way to go. But I've seen feminists who haven't quite gotten that memo yet, or make fun of men for "male tears" without a trace of irony.

I think there are a couple reasons bringing up feminism will get "boogeyman" type reactions.

1) Normal people, including feminists, do not just say "I am a feminist" out of the blue. It's just not a central pillar in who they are. So if you hear that on a first date without context or see it on someone's profile or whatever it's a sign that it is a critical part of them. And as the subject of this thread is demonstrating, that's usually bad. Barack Obama is a feminist, but I guarantee you he didn't say that on his first date with Michelle.

2) Even if there is a normal reason to bring it up, people are always going to wonder "are you that kind of feminist". On the internet we'd call them SJWs, but they exist in real life too. Maybe I'm overly sensitive to this risk coming from a liberal university. TBH I have the same "are you that kind of..." skepticism on discovering someone is a Trump supporter or vegan or listens to vinyl. They're...orange flags.

Like half my family is feminazi man hating SJWS, i've met multiple feminist throughout my school years and deep down they were all man haters

Fuck you I've been trolling nonstop for hours, give me an award instead of some unironic idiot.

Keep a post going for 48 hours in an unironic way and I will, you fucking bastard.

You gotta build up more stamina.

tankie trolling

You are better than this.

They aren't tho, they use BlackPersonTwitter

Snally has to be my favorite person on this website

Already claimed /u/snallygaster as my waifu

imagined and bi-curious

I love when she rips retarded people apart with their own logic.

u/snallygaster sounds like a weird euphemism.

I wish people on the internet understood that logical fallacies are not trap cards that automatically banish the one making them to the shadow realm

Ad hominem

I always use 'appeal to dick length epeen' to win an argument.

1 cm=1,000 Reddit Karma

me irl

your falacy is strawman fallacy lol i win i'm the winner of this argument

tfw youre trying to argue with someone but forgot to bring your dice

/u/AbsentGlare I am a huge believer in equality. That is why I hate feminism.

Redefining or stripping connotation away from a commonly understood term is bullshit no matter how it's done, but the most annoying manifestation is this one:

Being a feminist just means you support gender equality, so how can you be against that? Seriously, it's just about believing in equal rights for men and women, no other implications or associations at all. There's no hivemind here at all on subjects like abortion and identity politics. I mean, only some kind of sexist would be against gender equality. You're not a sexist are you?

u/AbsentGlare, every time you reduce feminism to nothing more than "gender equality," you're being a disingenuous piece of shit. When someone mentions feminism on the internet, I assure you, universal suffrage isn't on their mind.

Anyone who spends ten minutes on XOJane, Jezebel or The Mary Sue can see that third-wave feminism involves more fucking litmus tests than any other modern political movement.

This is ironic. First, you're moving the goalposts from feminism to third-wave feminism. The two are more ideologically alike then you realize. If you had a faint familiarity with the underlying philosophical ideas, you would not make this ridiculous mistake. Feminism is, more generally, about the idea that even if logic is superior to emotion, and men are more logical than women, women should still be treated equally by society. It's against bigotry, in general, and embraces the notion of equality.

The irony is that you seem to claim that i can't even cite the longstanding definition feminism, but somehow magically XOJane, Jezebel, or The Mary Sue have the ability to RE-define feminism to perfectly match their personal ideologies (even if that definition is incomprehensible or in opposition to actual feminism).

I honestly feel sorry for triggered snowflakes like you who refuse to accept reality.

triggered snowflakes

Hey look, another catch phrase you recently learned and are using out of context!

The evidence clearly points to you being a snowflake and triggered. You've responded to literally every single comment in the threads calling you out as a neckbeard.

You are the very definition of triggered. The sad thing is your not emotionally fit enough to have the self-awareness to realize that you're a triggered snowflake.

I believe that third-wave is the mainstream of feminism these days so it's exactly as u/pm_me_pics_of_ur_nan said, that's the stuff people think when they think of feminism. It doesn't make much sense to bring feminism of past to this.

Also, feminism is a wide group of movements, some of which have conflicting views. I believe that an overwhelming majority of people can find some feminist ideas that they support, and also some feminist ideas that they disagree with.

That's fairly reasonable, though i disagree with the idea that past definitions of feminism are irrelevant. If we are to understand feminism, we should look at what it is in historical context.

There are many radicals who pervert the "feminist" label by erroneously using it to describe female domination. There are many people who respond to these radicals by denouncing feminism. I think they're both wrong and they should leave the label "feminism" out of it.

Feminism and Masculinism can both die in a ditch.

Egalitarianism is literally the proper term for Gender Equality.

I don't give a fuck what you define it as. Feminist's are not for Gender Equality, they are for Women's Rights. It is a strictly female oriented ideology disguising itself as Gender Equal in order to pretend it's not misandrist when it is.

You dumb fucks get a pass now because we never challenged your dumb BS in the 70's and now we have to deal with you now.

And yeah. Second Wave Feminism was BS.

70's Feminists rode the hippie bandwagon but weren't shy in their blatant homophobia and violent tactics. The whole ideology has been tainted for decades and you fucks are a byproduct of it.

Egalitarianism and feminism have considerable overlap. Your anger and your confusion are your problem, not mine.

The same can be said for Masculinism.

Both overlap with Egalitarianism because it covers both territories you God-damned walnut.

You could make that argument as it applies to cultures where men are marginalized with respect to women. My opinion is that it generally does not apply within western culture.

Men are a lot more fucked over in America than you would probably ever admit.

You're confusing the individual with the group. Individuals are fucked over all sorts of ways. The group of men, as a group, is in the position of greater social power for the overwhelming majority of western civilization.

And you're conflating the "people with social power, who happen to be mostly men" with "men as a group". The overlap of that Venn diagram is so tiny you need a microscope to find it.

The defining characteristic of "people with social power" is not their gender, it's their socioeconomic class. Because of history, this group happens to be mostly male, but they don't exactly go out of their way to uplift males-as-a-group at the expense of females-as-a-group.

Third wave feminism IS feminism.

Few serious interests in the US don't believe in equality, voting rights or a litany of other basic equity.

You'd have to go outside the country to find somewhere where those concepts are in contention.

The two are not equivalent.

And you're right, feminism, the ideology, was so overwhelmingly successful that it has been taken for granted, that it is "in the water, so to speak."

So why do people still try to bludgeon others over the head with the label?

My point is that when someone uses the term "feminism" outside of an academic or feminist setting, they're almost always referring to third-wave feminism, in particular the outrage-based feminism concentrated online and on college campuses.

In other words, "feminism" without any modifiers has become colloquial shorthand for the type of feminism you would encounter on Jezebel, and to try to use the classical definition among people who don't readily identify as feminists is being willfully obtuse.

Your "almost always" assumption is garbage. I am telling you what i mean when i say feminism and nothing you can say actually changes that.

Be that as it may, you're incorrect. I mean you can't even use "pollution" and "contamination" in the correct context. What makes anything think you can use a complex to idea like "feminism" in the correct context?

I hate analogies, but here we go.

Imagine I said to you, "You look like a faggot."

You could respond, "Wow! That's homophobic."

Most people would agree that saying someone looks like a faggot is at least somewhat homophobic.

"But wait!" I'd quickly interject. "I'm not using the operative definition of 'faggot' the average person would use. No, no, no, I'm using the classical definition and I just meant that you resembled a bundle of sticks. I wasn't using a gay slur at all. When I call people 'faggots,' I'm merely comparing them to kindling."

This is how you're coming across.

Not really, you just see it that way because you're stuck in your delusion.

Dude, God bless you, but you're dumb as shit. And likely you're just a teen who doesn't know any better, but if you're an adult, find a caretaker. You're embarrassing yourself over and over.

Lol, the irony of this post cannot be overstated.

I use the original definition of feminism, but this seems to scare you because you're conditioned to be antagonized by feminism, via cherry picking and your susceptibility to manipulation. Sorry if you have to change your underwear, snowflake, but i wouldn't change reality to accommodate your triggered stupidity even if i could.

You lonely, lonely boy. Best of luck.

hey /u/AbsentGlare , would you like a wet wipe to get the sand out of your strap on vagina?

How old are you

hey /u/AbsentGlare , would you like a wet wipe to get the sand out of your strap on vagina?

When did you quit beating your wife?

hey /u/AbsentGlare , would you like a wet wipe to get the sand out of your strap on vagina?

... when I say ...

Do you think we can hear you? 👯

Feminism is, more generally, about the idea that even if logic is superior to emotion, and men are more logical than women, women should still be treated equally by society.

lol.

You couldn't legimately describe yourself as a feminist if yiou believed that historically, men have been opressed by women. The contrary view - that historically, women have been opressed by men, is a cornerstone of feminist belief.

Ditto gender role theory. It's the norm for feminists to believe that gender roles are primarily learned through culture, rather than innate in biology.

I didn't claim that men have been oppressed.

Gender is a social manifestation of the biological construct of sex. It is formed by society and culture by definition.

[removed]

Society, culture, and biology.

I didn't claim that men have been oppressed.

I think you're misunderstanding me, that was my fault for not explaining very clearly. I'm saying that you cannot correctly say that feminism is simply a belief in gender equality, because it is certainly more than that. Feminists invariably believe that women are opressed or disadvantaged as a group, that is a core feminist belief.

Gender is a social manifestation of the biological construct of sex. It is formed by society and culture by definition.

You've moved the goalposts there. I was talking about gender roles, not simply "gender".

Anyway, the point is that it's contradictory to call oneself that a feminist and believe that gender roles are "natural" and defined by biology. It's another feminist 'core belief' that gender roles are primarily cultural.

That's another reason why it's incorrect to say that feminism is simply a belief in gender equality, and that if you believe in gender equality you are effectively a feminist. There is undoubtedly more to it than that.

That's two no true scotsman fallacies. Feminism is a broad ideology. What it has in common is gender equality, not necessarily some specific belief about how much inequality there is in society, nor that gender roles have no footing in biology (which is patently absurd).

You can be a feminist within a society that has gender equality. It's not like an entire society stops being capable of having any feminists once the goal of gender equality has been achieved in that society.

You could argue that feminism emphasizes female empowerment with the implicit assumption that females are the disadvantaged gender. That's compatible with my view that feminism, the framework behind the ideology, is based on the goal of gender equality. This distinction is important to me because those who go beyond female equality, toward female domination, are no longer adhering to feminism in my view, they are going beyond it.

Still at it with the fantasies? LOL!!!

That's two no true scotsman fallacies.

Wat? Is it chuff!

What it has in common is gender equality, not necessarily some specific belief about how much inequality there is in society

All feminists agree that women are disadvantaged in one way or another. You could not describe yourself as a feminist yet claim that historially, women have opressed men! These views would simply not be compatible!!

Patriarchy is the term used to describe the society in which we live today, characterised by current and historic unequal power relations between women and men whereby women are systematically disadvantaged and oppressed. This takes place across almost every sphere of life but is particularly noticeable in women’s under-representation in key state institutions, in decision-making positions and in employment and industry. Male violence against women is also a key feature of patriarchy. Women in minority groups face multiple oppressions in this society, as race, class and sexuality intersect with sexism for example.

http://londonfeministnetwork.org.uk/home/patriarchy

nor that gender roles have no footing in biology (which is patently absurd)

That is in fact exactly what many of them have often claimed.

Masculinity and femininity are thought to be products of nurture or how individuals are brought up. They are causally constructed... social forces either have a causal role in bringing gendered individuals into existence or (to some substantial sense) shape the way we are qua women and men. And the mechanism of construction is social learning. For instance, Kate Millett takes gender differences to have “essentially cultural, rather than biological bases” that result from differential treatment... For her, gender is “the sum total of the parents', the peers', and the culture's notions of what is appropriate to each gender by way of temperament, character, interests, status, worth, gesture, and expression”

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender/#GenSocCon

Tell me, how is 'pink for girls, blue for boys' based in biology? http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-start-wearing-pink-1370097/

This distinction is important to me because those who go beyond female equality, toward female domination, are no longer adhering to feminism in my view, they are going beyond it.

lol, that is a No True Scotsman fallacy.

LOL your citations are irrelevant. We were not discussing the london feminist network. Furthermore, the excerpt from Stanford is wholly compatible with my statements here. Gender is essentially a social and cultural construct.

Anyway here are some RELEVANT citations:

Definition of feminism:

"The advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes."

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/feminism

Definition of gender:

"Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/gender

And i never claimed that "pink is for girls, blue is for boys" is from biology. Your emotional response to being unequivocally proven wrong is getting in the way of actual reasoning. I claimed that gender is primarily the social and cultural construct that is related to biological sex.

Lastly, my example is not a no true scotsman fallacy. I provided a definition of feminism, THAT is what limits feminism, not some logical contortionism. I realize that your logical contortionism would make a pretzel blush but i can assure you that i'm actually grounded in facts about reality here.

This is ironic. First, you're moving the goalposts from feminism to third-wave feminism.

I don't want to speak for anybody else, but perhaps he's doing that because we are living in 2017, not 1967, and feminism has actually changed over those fifty years so that defining it by what it used to be instead of what it is now is both dishonest and delusional.

You're confusing what feminism is with what a bunch of whiney, dishonest cherry pickers characterized it to be.

Still trying to turn your make-believe world into a reality, huh bud?

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE FEMINISTS GET OUT!!!!!!!

-dramanauts, apparently

>this much virtue signalling

> Being this triggered by feminism.

kek, you should read the linked exchange then

It's just an endless circle of:

"Gawd, I fucking hate hip hop"

"But, you listen to Snoop Dogg all the time!"

"Yeah, but obviously he isn't really hip hop, he's old school!"

"No, but that's clearly still hip hop!"

"Look, nobody like hip hop anymore. All the good hip hop was in the 90s, and everyone hates it now. Just admit that hip hop is terrible."

"But lots of people listen to all kinds of hip hop!"

"I told you, that's not hip hop!"

"Okay fine, I like hip hop"

"That means you'll accept all five hundred individual points on my identity politics manifesto! Black lives matter!"

"Uh, no."

"You don't really like hip hop at all, do you!"

They can stay, they're hilarious.

Do u really want feminists here to be represented by that guy, though? He can't talk his way out of a paper bag.

#notallfeminists

maybe we just need a better calibre of cutting, bitchy feminists.

That would be a good addition to the sub imo

Unfortunately most feminists only seem to be good at being cutting and bitchy in spaces where anyone who's cutting and bitchy in response gets banned.

/u/HarrietPotter ?

#notallfeminists

#butenoughfeminists

Says the ETS user, unironically

This dude legit represents what I hate about modern political discourse these days:

1. Start with a simple, easy-to-understand, agreeable concept that the vast majority of normal ass people would agree with - "gender equality", "accepting all races", "supporting your country".
2. Normal-ass person agrees, hey that sounds good to me! Gender equality! Sign me up!
3. Awesome! Now that you support gender equality, you will support literally everything else we support, hate literally everything else we hate, and most importantly never stray from or question the narrative we're trying to enforce.
4. Woah woah woah... some of your points make sense but others I don't agree with. I mean, I'm a proud gun owner and fully support the right of Americans to own and operate...
5. Oh I get it, it's making sense to me now. You don't support gender equality. I'm over here simply trying to make things fair and balanced but you'd prefer to live in a world where men can just walk around raping and beating women all day. I can't believe I ever considered letting a sexist pig like you who opposes gender equality into our club.

Is there even a term for this shit? It's like a strawman, except instead of misrepresenting your opponent's argument you misrepresent your own. Surely someone on the internet has defined this given as to how fucking prevalent it is.

Is there even a term for this shit?

You getting really upset about an idiot you weren't even arguing with?

Shut up, bitch.

bit late; tad irate

I believe that falls under the umbrella of hyper-partisanship.

Bait-and-switch? I know it generally refers to commerce, but in this case you're selling someone on an idea and then replacing it once they agree.

It's called a motte and bailey argument.

Fucking nailed it. Motte and Bailey describes it 100%. Way to be on point with your logical fallacies.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey

It's less of a logical fallacy and more of a discourse strategy, or as Nicholas Shackel puts it, a doctrine.

Person A asserts [Controversial Interpretation of Viewpoint X].

Person B critiques [Controversial Interpretation of Viewpoint X].

Person A asserts that they were actually defending [Common-Sense Interpretation of Viewpoint X].

Person B no longer has grounds to critique Person A; Person B leaves the discussion.

Person A claims victory and reverts to suporting [Controversial Interpretation of Viewpoint X].

It's a super irritating tactic. I see it more from the far-left, but other people do it, too. IIRC, it was originally coined to describe arguments from postmodern philosophers.

I see it more from the far-left

I don't think feminism is far-left per se. far-left is pretty much communism.

Well, maybe not far left, but "authoritarian/identitarian left"

Authoritarian left is what communism is. I think what you mean is social liberalism.

Are we going to play this game? I think you know pretty well the group of people involved here. If you dislike 'authoritarian left', let's say "individuals who've been socialized into victimhood culture". I'm not ready to surrender the label of 'social liberalism' to those twits.

Motte and bailey is pervasive in social liberalism due to it being prone to form coherent movements with clear labels.

This doesn't mean any words. Are you high?

You're barely literate.

Licktaint bareback

I'm not ready to surrender the label of 'social liberalism' to those twits

And here you lost the argument.

Social liberalism would be to support individualist civil liberties, such as those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The people in question are usually explicitly against those.

You know absolutely nothing about liberalism as always.

woohoohoo oh man

I fucking hate Post-Modernism.

Literally all of the radical leftist crap and SJWs owe their ideology to a rise in PM thinking.

It's retarded.

Tried reading foucault back in college. What a bunch of fucking mess. Just parsing that shit out took me hours. The french are a mistake.

I wonder if people like him ever see stuff like this and have a moment of realization. Like, my shitty argument that I thought was so genius is actually contrived to the point where they have a name for it. Maybe I'm not as smart as I think I am.

That fallacy sounds stupid and obviously wrong when you put it like that, but any fallacy does.

and have a moment of realization. Like, my shitty argument that I thought was so genius is actually contrived to the point where they have a name for it.

Nah. When you're on the other side of it, it just feels like a silencing tactic.

It's like, I think that there is a difference between dismissals of the form "you argument lacks internal consistency or insufficiently addresses the topic at hand" and "your points are so old and stale that I'm not going to bother addressing them." But I would think that, wouldn't I? Because I've "JAQed off" or "sealioned" once or twice in my day.

hey /u/AbsentGlare , would you like a wet wipe to get the sand out of your strap on vagina?

For some reason I find it hard to believe her friend told her to just say she's a girly girl and to never bring up feminism in front of a guy. For some weird reason I don't believe that.