[Pants-of-dog]

"The few".

This is not a rebuttal.

Irrelevant. I want evidence or I want the person to shut the hell up.

This is not a rebuttal either.

Still haven't defined "logic".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική, logikḗ[1]), originally meaning "the word" or "what is spoken" (but coming to mean "thought" or "reason"), is generally held to consist of the systematic study of the form of arguments. A valid argument is one where there is a specific relation of logical support between the assumptions of the argument and its conclusion. (In ordinary discourse, the conclusion of such an argument may be signified by words like therefore, hence, ergo and so on.)

There is no universal agreement as to the exact scope and subject matter of logic (see § Rival conceptions, below), but it has traditionally included the classification of arguments, the systematic exposition of the 'logical form' common to all valid arguments, the study of inference, including fallacies, and the study of semantics, including paradoxes. Historically, logic has been studied in philosophy (since ancient times) and mathematics (since the mid-1800s), and recently logic has been studied in computer science, linguistics, psychology, and other fields.

Also, you have not rebutted my statement about dogmatic adherence to a legalistic ideal.

It's not prejudice. Feminists and SocJus in general, and indeed the left more generally, are full of groupthink. Human society is full of groupthink.

If you are dismissing it as irrelevant or non-critical without actually analysing it, then you are judging it before even exposing yourself to the required informattion. You are prejudging. Prejudice.

In practice "mansplaining" is "a man saying something I don't like".

Not in my experience.

They're not. The world is full of people who are filled near to bursting with shit and just don't know or care. What I'm saying is that feminists and other elements of SocJus think they're light-years ahead of knuckle-draggers who get all their news from Fox and WND and Newsbusters and they're not. They're all about equally benighted, and they're going to stay that way until they adopt an unadulterated, rigorously empirical way of thinking about the world.

Again, and this really bears repeating: there is absolutely no evidence that left-wing ideologues are any better at forecasting and understanding facts about the world we live in than their right-wing counterparts. The only way to get yourself off the hook for this charge is not to piss and moan about how mean and unjust it is to see things empirically but instead just to suck it up and start doing it. Or continue to live in this bubble where you choose your beliefs according to what you think is moral. But don't expect me not to point it out.

Repeating your claims in a long winded way and with some spicy swearing thrown is probably cathartic.

It is not an argument.

You seem to have no evidence or logic to support your disdian of feminists. Form this, I will conclude that your argument is without merit. Have a good one.

[Perkwunos]

This is not a rebuttal.

What would qualify as a rebuttal?

This is not a rebuttal either.

What would qualify as a rebuttal?

Also, you have not rebutted my statement about dogmatic adherence to a legalistic ideal.

Philosophic burden of proof is not a "legalistic ideal". It's not a legal concept at all.

If you are dismissing it as irrelevant or non-critical without actually analysing it, then you are judging it before even exposing yourself to the required informattion. You are prejudging. Prejudice.

My opinion of feminists and SocJus comes from reading and hearing what they have to say.

Not in my experience.

I'll bet my experience counts for nothing though.

You seem to have no evidence or logic to support your disdian of feminists.

The definition of logic you gave would presumably include modus tollens.

How's this for logic?

1. If feminists and SocJus in general understood the world better than the right wing, they would be better forecasters of world events.
2. Feminists and SocJus in general are not better forecasters of world events.

Therefore, feminists and SocJus do not understand the world better than the right wing.

That's logic, and the only way it can be wrong is if you disagree with either of the two premises. If you do, don't mumble incoherently about "no logic or evidence, man" but actually explain why.

[Godstud]

This not a thread to post your hatred for women.

Maybe make up an "I hate feminism!" Thread?

[Perkwunos]

This not a thread to post your hatred for women.

Notice how this digression started.

protip: it didn't start with "I hate women" but with "I hate people not committed to rational thought"

[Godstud]

NO, your first response was to take a tangent off on a hatred of feminism rant.

[Pants-of-dog]

What would qualify as a rebuttal?

What would qualify as a rebuttal?

Philosophic burden of proof is not a "legalistic ideal". It's not a legal concept at all.

My opinion of feminists and SocJus comes from reading and hearing what they have to say.

I'll bet my experience counts for nothing though.

Let me knwo when you have evidence to support ypur notions, or a clear and logical rebuttal to anything I have said.

The definition of logic you gave would presumably include modus tollens.

How's this for logic?

1. If feminists and SocJus in general understood the world better than the right wing, they would be better forecasters of world events.
2. Feminists and SocJus in general are not better forecasters of world events.

Therefore, feminists and SocJus do not understand the world better than the right wing.

That's logic, and the only way it can be wrong is if you disagree with either of the two premises. If you do, don't mumble incoherently about "no logic or evidence, man" but actually explain why.

I disagree with the second premise.

Please present a link to evidence that supports the second premise. Thank you.

[Perkwunos]

Let me knwo when you have evidence to support ypur notions, or a clear and logical rebuttal to anything I have said.

Way not to answer anything you quoted.

Have you ever actually studied logic or is it just a kind of buzzword that you like using? If you have, from what texts?

I disagree with the second premise.

Please present a link to evidence that supports the second premise. Thank you.

The following passage comes from Thinking and Deciding, 4th Edition by Jonathan Baron. It describes the trait of integrative complexity, used in research in judgment and decision-making as a measure of the complexity and overall quality of an individual's thinking about an issue:

"Another application of this is the measure of 'integrative complexity' (Schroder, Driver, and Streufert, 1967; Suedfeld and Rank, 1976; Suedfeld and Tetlock, 1977). Using this method, Tetlock measured the complexity of speeches by U.S. senators (1983a) and personal interviews given by members of the British House of Commons (1984). Integrative complexity is scored on a scale of one to seven. The scoring takes two dimensions into account, 'differentiation' and 'integration,' although only the latter dimension is reflected in the name 'integrative.' In Tetlock’s examples (1983a, p. 121), a score of one is given to a statement that expresses only a one-sided view, neglecting obvious arguments on the other side, thus failing to 'differentiate' the two sides. For example,

Abortion is a basic right that should be available to all women. To limit a woman’s access to an abortion is an intolerable infringement on her civil liberties. Such an infringement must not be tolerated. To do so would be to threaten the separation of Church and State so fundamental to the American way of life.

A score of three is given when the statement is differentiated — that is, when it includes arguments (evidence or goals) for both sides:

Many see abortion as a basic civil liberty that should be available to any woman who chooses to exercise this right. Others, however, see abortion as infanticide.

A score of five or higher is given when the person making the argument succeeds in 'integrating' opposing arguments, presenting a reflective statement about the criteria by which arguments should be evaluated:

Some view abortion as a civil liberties issue — that of the woman's right to choose; others view abortion as no more justifiable than murder. Which perspective one takes depends on when one views the organism developing within the mother as a human being.[40]

Tetlock found that moderate leftists got the highest scores, and he interpreted this in terms of the fact that this group was constantly facing issues that put their values in conflict, such as the goals of equality and economic efficiency, which conflict in such questions as whether the rich should be taxed to help the poor (thus reducing economic incentive but increasing equality)."

Now, let's ask ourselves the following questions: does feminist / SocJus discussion of such issues as abortion show much in the way of integrative complexity as described here? Do concepts such as "mansplaining" permit much in the way of integrative complexity at all? Are SocJus-affiliated individuals "moderate leftists"? Do the media outlets that these people get all their news from exemplify this ideal?

Does this example suggest a reflective, integratively complex cognitive style?

[youtube]Y69tkCbeC5o[/youtube]

How about this one?

[youtube]cdnGrJQnRac[/youtube]

And how about saying that science "must fall" because it's colonialist?

[youtube]koC6dxkwdms[/youtube]

Finally, what exactly did you know about the psychology of judgment and decision-making before this discussion?

[Pants-of-dog]

Way not to answer anything you quoted.

Have you ever actually studied logic or is it just a kind of buzzword that you like using? If you have, from what texts?

You have not provided any counter argument.

Instead, you seem to want to discuss my personal experience. You seem to be implying that my argument is wrong if I have not completed x amount of studies.

This is illogical, a type of ad hominem fallacy. Even if I were completely uneducated, my arguments would still be just as correct.

The following passage comes from Thinking and Deciding, 4th Edition by Jonathan Baron. It describes the trait of integrative complexity, used in research in judgment and decision-making as a measure of the complexity and overall quality of an individual's thinking about an issue:

"Another application of this is the measure of 'integrative complexity' (Schroder, Driver, and Streufert, 1967; Suedfeld and Rank, 1976; Suedfeld and Tetlock, 1977). Using this method, Tetlock measured the complexity of speeches by U.S. senators (1983a) and personal interviews given by members of the British House of Commons (1984). Integrative complexity is scored on a scale of one to seven. The scoring takes two dimensions into account, 'differentiation' and 'integration,' although only the latter dimension is reflected in the name 'integrative.' In Tetlock’s examples (1983a, p. 121), a score of one is given to a statement that expresses only a one-sided view, neglecting obvious arguments on the other side, thus failing to 'differentiate' the two sides. For example,

Abortion is a basic right that should be available to all women. To limit a woman’s access to an abortion is an intolerable infringement on her civil liberties. Such an infringement must not be tolerated. To do so would be to threaten the separation of Church and State so fundamental to the American way of life.

A score of three is given when the statement is differentiated — that is, when it includes arguments (evidence or goals) for both sides:

Many see abortion as a basic civil liberty that should be available to any woman who chooses to exercise this right. Others, however, see abortion as infanticide.

A score of five or higher is given when the person making the argument succeeds in 'integrating' opposing arguments, presenting a reflective statement about the criteria by which arguments should be evaluated:

Some view abortion as a civil liberties issue — that of the woman's right to choose; others view abortion as no more justifiable than murder. Which perspective one takes depends on when one views the organism developing within the mother as a human being.[40]

Tetlock found that moderate leftists got the highest scores, and he interpreted this in terms of the fact that this group was constantly facing issues that put their values in conflict, such as the goals of equality and economic efficiency, which conflict in such questions as whether the rich should be taxed to help the poor (thus reducing economic incentive but increasing equality)."

Now, let's ask ourselves the following questions: does feminist / SocJus discussion of such issues as abortion show much in the way of integrative complexity as described here? Do concepts such as "mansplaining" permit much in the way of integrative complexity at all? Are SocJus-affiliated individuals "moderate leftists"? Do the media outlets that these people get all their news from exemplify this ideal?

I have found that feminist discussions of abortion are far more compex than the examples you have given. Even the most complex example of yours is still far simpler than the discourse I habitually hear from feminists concerning abortion.

So, yes, there is integrative complexity, as you put it.

Does this example suggest a reflective, integratively complex cognitive style?

[youtube]Y69tkCbeC5o[/youtube]

How about this one?

[youtube]cdnGrJQnRac[/youtube]

And how about saying that science "must fall" because it's colonialist?

[youtube]koC6dxkwdms[/youtube]

I find youtube videos to be the crappiest sources out there.

Finally, what exactly did you know about the psychology of judgment and decision-making before this discussion?

Please see above for a discussion on why my credentials are irrelevant.

[Perkwunos]

You have not provided any counter argument.

I asked you what would count for a counterargument twice and you didn't deign to answer. Pretty intellectually dishonest.

Instead, you seem to want to discuss my personal experience.

Why not? You keep bringing it up.

You seem to be implying that my argument is wrong if I have not completed x amount of studies.

I'm saying your argument is wrong because you don't have the requisite knowledge to make a good one.

This is illogical, a type of ad hominem fallacy.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html

"A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate."

Keyword here is "irrelevant". These are some legitimate instances of the ad hominem fallacy:

• You're wrong because you're a drug addict.
• You're wrong because you kick puppies.
• You're wrong because you cheated on your taxes.

On the other hand, your knowledge of and competence in logic is directly relevant to claims about whether you know what you're talking about or are just pulling things out of your ass.

Even if I were completely uneducated, my arguments would still be just as correct.

And how would you know that? You've obviously not studied logic at all beyond glib, superficial "knowledge" of some fallacies. That's dime-a-dozen pseudointellectual shtick.

I have found that feminist discussions of abortion are far more compex than the examples you have given. Even the most complex example of yours is still far simpler than the discourse I habitually hear from feminists concerning abortion.

Linky-poo.

So, yes, there is integrative complexity, as you put it.

I'd like to score those examples you have.

I find youtube videos to be the crappiest sources out there.

So, are you saying that, for example, SocJus Mizzou professor Melissa Click didn't shout "I need some muscle over here!" to try to get rid of a dissenter, all because the evidence is on YouTube?

What fallacy did I just commit, Professor?

Please see above for a discussion on why my credentials are irrelevant.

"I don't need to know what I'm talking about."

[Pants-of-dog]

I asked you what would count for a counterargument twice and you didn't deign to answer. Pretty intellectually dishonest.

Pretty much anything involving actual evidence will do. Like a link to a credible source that supports your claims. Or an argument that uses logic instead of fallacies or prejudices.

This is pretty standard fare for a debate forum. With your talk of rationality, I assumed you would be familiar with this.

Why not? You keep bringing it up.

No, I am (at most) trying to point out that your generalisations about feminists are contradicted by my own experience. My arguments, however, are not based on my own experience.

I'm saying your argument is wrong because you don't have the requisite knowledge to make a good one.

Then prove it. Provide knowledge that supports your points. Thanks!

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html

"A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate."

Keyword here is "irrelevant". These are some legitimate instances of the ad hominem fallacy:

• You're wrong because you're a drug addict.
• You're wrong because you kick puppies.
• You're wrong because you cheated on your taxes.

On the other hand, your knowledge of and competence in logic is directly relevant to claims about whether you know what you're talking about or are just pulling things out of your ass.

Feel free to show how I am wrong, then. Or you can continue musing about how I am stupid instead of supporting your points.

And how would you know that? You've obviously not studied logic at all beyond glib, superficial "knowledge" of some fallacies. That's dime-a-dozen pseudointellectual shtick.

Sure. As long as we agree that the veracity of my satements is not affected by my alleged ignorance.

Linky-poo.

I'd like to score those examples you have.

Sure, as they are easy to find:
http://faculty.tru.ca/jmclaughlin/stude ... erwin3.htm

Or....

http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil ... homson.htm

So, are you saying that, for example, SocJus Mizzou professor Melissa Click didn't shout "I need some muscle over here!" to try to get rid of a dissenter, all because the evidence is on YouTube?

Do you think is isolated example from a short film clip is somehow indicative of something larger? If so, why?

[Perkwunos]

Pretty much anything involving actual evidence will do. Like a link to a credible source that supports your claims. Or an argument that uses logic instead of fallacies or prejudices.

You have yet to demonstrate that you actually know anything about logic. Why should I provide things you can't even recognize properly?

And if you want to demonstrate you are any good at logic, try your hand at puzzles like these:

http://purely-puzzles.blogspot.com/

Just smugly using "logic" as a buzzword doesn't demonstrate any real talent for that subject matter.

This is pretty standard fare for a debate forum. With your talk of rationality, I assumed you would be familiar with this.

What do you know about the concept of rationality either?

No, I am (at most) trying to point out that your generalisations about feminists are contradicted by my own experience. My arguments, however, are not based on my own experience.

Then what are they based on?

Then prove it.

Wasn't your misuse of the term ad hominem and unwillingness to indicate where you learned logic from quite enough?

continue musing about how I am stupid

If you want me to stop doing that, don't give me any fodder.

Sure. As long as we agree that the veracity of my satements is not affected by my alleged ignorance.

It absolutely is.

Sure, as they are easy to find:
http://faculty.tru.ca/jmclaughlin/stude ... erwin3.htm

Or....

http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil ... homson.htm

So, a grand total of two sources that you probably had no awareness of before you hastily Googled them up, one from 1971. How do these reflect on the current climate of SocJus activism in general?

Do you think is isolated example from a short film clip is somehow indicative of something larger? If so, why?

Gee, I don't know. Not like I can't find scads and scads of news articles that touch on theme of college censorship by SocJus or anything:

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl= ... .0...1ac.1.

Granted, a lot of the most recent ones are from sources I don't really trust, like WingNutDaily, but middle-of-the-road and even somewhat left-leaning journalism has been covering this issue for some time as well, as here:

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/06/03/coll ... 63536.html

and here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... eb87bd7ba0

and here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/a ... ar/486338/

and here:

https://psmag.com/trigger-warnings-on-c ... 1cf8de272e

and here:

https://psmag.com/trigger-warnings-on-c ... 1cf8de272e

and here:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... llege.html

Even The Huffington Post has covered this issue:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-luki ... 85376.html

And on and on and on it goes.

There's the evidence you wanted, and it's difficult to explain if this notion I have that there is an entire movement of shrill social justice warriors that has its breeding grounds on our postsecondary campuses who want to stick their fingers in their ears and scream oppression the moment they see or hear something they don't like is purely a figment of my imagination. And now I'm just trying to figure out whether you're only feigning ignorance of things like this or are really as clueless as you let on.

[Pants-of-dog]

You have yet to demonstrate that you actually know anything about logic. Why should I provide things you can't even recognize properly?

And if you want to demonstrate you are any good at logic, try your hand at puzzles like these:

http://purely-puzzles.blogspot.com/

Just smugly using "logic" as a buzzword doesn't demonstrate any real talent for that subject matter.

What do you know about the concept of rationality either?

Then what are they based on?

Wasn't your misuse of the term ad hominem and unwillingness to indicate where you learned logic from quite enough?

If you want to stop doing that, don't give me any fodder.

It absolutely is.

I am no longer going to address your irrelevant accusations about me.

So, a grand total of two sources that you probably had no awareness of before you hastily Googled them up, one from 1971. How do these reflect on the current climate of SocJus activism in general?

As I mentioned earlier, they show more "integrative complexity" than your examples.

For example, the second one discusses how defining a fetus as a human has no bearing on the issue of bodily autonomy.

Please note that you are making a generalisation about feminists (i.e. that they all make simple arguments) and all I need to do is provide a few examples to disprove generalisations. Like disproving the claim that all swans are white by providing a single example of a black swan.

Gee, I don't know. Not like I can't find scads and scads of news articles that touch on theme of college censorship by SocJus or anything:

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl= ... .0...1ac.1.

Granted, a lot of the most recent ones are from sources I don't really trust, like WingNutDaily, but middle-of-the-road and even somewhat left-leaning journalism has been covering this issue for some time as well, as here:

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/06/03/coll ... 63536.html

and here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... eb87bd7ba0

and here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/a ... ar/486338/

and here:

https://psmag.com/trigger-warnings-on-c ... 1cf8de272e

and here:

https://psmag.com/trigger-warnings-on-c ... 1cf8de272e

and here:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... llege.html

Even The Huffington Post has covered this issue:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-luki ... 85376.html

And on and on and on it goes.

There's the evidence you wanted, and it's difficult to explain if this notion I have that there is an entire movement of shrill social justice warriors that has its breeding grounds on our postsecondary campuses who want to stick their fingers in their ears and scream oppression the moment they see or hear something they don't like is purely a figment of my imagination. And now I'm just trying to figure out whether you're only feigning ignorance of things like this or are really as clueless as you let on.

Please quote the texts that support your claims. Thank you.

Edit: to be clear, I want you to quote the text that supports your claims about feminists.

[Perkwunos]

For example, the second one discusses how defining a fetus as a human has no bearing on the issue of bodily autonomy.

That's not what integrative complexity means.

Please note that you are making a generalisation about feminists (i.e. that they all make simple arguments) and all I need to do is provide a few examples to disprove generalisations. Like disproving the claim that all swans are white by providing a single example of a black swan.

Did you see a Ɐ anywhere in my post?

Incidentally, are most swans alive today white?

Please quote the texts that support your claims. Thank you.

Why should I? After all: you didn't have to. The links should be good enough for you on their own.

[Pants-of-dog]

That's not what integrative complexity means.

From your examples, it seemed to mean that arguments that included more viewpoints and facets of the argument had more "integrative complexity", so I provided an example of a feminist argument that had more viewpoints and facets given in your examples about abortion.

Did you see a Ɐ anywhere in my post?

Incidentally, are most swans alive today white?

If you are now saying that feminists make a range of arguments, from the very complex and intelligent all the way to the simplistic, then we agree.

Why should I? After all: you didn't have to. The links should be good enough for you on their own.

Okay. As far as I can tell, they seem to be about college students and not feminists, therefore I will ignore them.

[Perkwunos]

From your examples, it seemed to mean that arguments that included more viewpoints and facets of the argument had more "integrative complexity", so I provided an example of a feminist argument that had more viewpoints and facets given in your examples about abortion.

This is not typical of modern SocJus rhetoric.

If you are now saying that feminists make a range of arguments, from the very complex and intelligent all the way to the simplistic, then we agree.

Yes but the keyword here is "most".

Okay. As far as I can tell, they seem to be about college students and not feminists, therefore I will ignore them.

My stories were about SocJus censorship in postsecondary institutions (where they learn this shit) in general. The Newsweek one explicitly mentions feminists doing this shit. If you want even more examples of specifically feminist college censorship it will not be difficult to find those at all, because there have been so many.

And that you are apparently unaware that feminism is an integral component of the SocJus cult is another one of those instances where I have to wonder whether you are merely feigning ignorance.

[Pants-of-dog]

This is not typical of modern SocJus rhetoric.

Yes but the keyword here is "most".

If you think that most feminist arguments are exceedingly simplistic, please post a link to evidence that supports your claims.

My stories were about SocJus censorship in postsecondary institutions (where they learn this shit) in general. The Newsweek one explicitly mentions feminists doing this shit. If you want even more examples of specifically feminist college censorship it will not be difficult to find those at all, because there have been so many.

I was never discussing SJWs. I was discussing feminists because that is what you began the conversation with. If you now wish to discuss SJWs, we can do that. After we finish our discussion on feminism.

Please quote the Newsweek text that supports your claim about feminism.

And that you are apparently unaware that feminism is an integral component of the SocJus cult is another one of those instances where I have to wonder whether you are merely feigning ignorance.

Feel free to think I am ignorant. I do not care. Back to the topic:

We cannot judge modern feminists movements based on the behaviour of first year college students who are just beginning to learn about social justice. The fact that feminism is one of the movements they just learnt about does not make them typical of most feminist movements.

[Perkwunos]

If you think that most feminist arguments are exceedingly simplistic, please post a link to evidence that supports your claims.

It's what I have experienced and, more importantly, it's also what countless news items about feminists and other SocJus turds attest to. Of course here comes the part where you demand a Pew survey or something similar, expecting an unreasonable level of rigor when you have even less evidence for your own position.

It's the tired, stale shell game that I've seen pseudointellectual fake skeptics play time and again and I'm not going to indulge it.

I was never discussing SJWs.

I don't care; I was:

"Stupid pet ideological issues" (not limited to feminist ones) mentioned here:

viewtopic.php?p=14794164#p14794164

Pejorative SocJus first mentioned here:

viewtopic.php?p=14794696#p14794696

This has been part of the topic more or less from the beginning of this digression.

Please quote the Newsweek text that supports your claim about feminism.

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/06/03/coll ... 63536.html

"Feminists deserve some of the blame for normalizing the aggrieved fragility of students. Rape and sexual harassment are real problems on campus, as they are in the rest of the world. But just as there is a “rape culture,” there is also a campus rape victim culture that tends to treat all young women as “survivors.” Accusers who say they have endured any sort of unpleasant incident with a male—from having to turn down a date request to deciding, the morning after getting naked and in bed with a man, that they wished they had not—are deemed as deeply damaged as child pedophile victims, battered women and rape survivors.

Colleges and universities, and their fraternities and athletic departments, need to do a better job of monitoring and weeding out the men who are rapists or potential rapists. Instead of focusing on that, colleges and universities—encouraged by feminists and women's studies departments, and in many cases ordered to do so by various Department of Education edicts—have inserted themselves as referees into the messiest and most emotionally complicated and intimate entanglements human beings are capable of creating. Their rulebook is called Title IX, the federal law requiring that colleges ensure women get an equal education. It was originally applied to sports teams and funding but has been expanded to cover how universities handle claims of sexual assault and harassment. Acting in loco parentis and under orders from the federal government, administrators form de facto star chambers that act as judge, jury and executioner, without adhering to legal rules of evidence or due process.

The rape victim services on many campuses, intended to protect young victims from further emotional and psychological damage, have evolved into cults of coddling in which no one dares question a 'survivor's' account. Good intentions have gone so awry that young men are routinely labeled rapists without due process.

The presumption of female victimhood inherent in many campus sexual harassment codes prompted Northwestern University feminist film and culture professor Laura Kipnis to pen an essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education headlined 'Sexual Paranoia Strikes Academe.' She ridiculed campus sexual harassment guidelines as 'feminism hijacked by melodrama' and identified an 'obsession with helpless victims and powerful predators' behind the new policy. 'Students were being encouraged to regard themselves as such exquisitely sensitive creatures that an errant classroom remark could impede their education, as such hothouse flowers that an unfunny joke was likely to impede their education.'

Kipnis was skeptical about whether a fellow professor accused of assault by a student could have been guilty, given that the girl admitted she initiated their date and both agreed that although they had slept together, they were fully clothed, and there had been no sex. Because Kipnis dared question the strength of the evidence in that case, a group of students filed a federal Title IX complaint against her, charging that her article had a 'chilling effect' on students who might want to report sexual assault. Northwestern started an investigation. Kipnis was cleared, but the episode made her a pariah on campus. Student activists 'have certain hatred of me,' she told The Chronicle of Higher Education.

When Northwestern investigated Kipnis for writing satirically about sexual harassment policies, it was abiding by Department of Education guidelines instructing administrators to expand their definition of sexual harassment to include 'verbal conduct.' The DOE last month reiterated that colleges are responsible for investigating all speech of a sexual nature that someone subjectively finds unwelcome, even if that speech is protected by the First Amendment or an institution’s promises of free speech.

The notion of speech as verbal conduct goes back to the work of feminist legal scholar Catharine MacKinnon. In the 1980s, MacKinnon—who also invented the legal construct of sexual harassment—theorized that pornography is a civil rights violation. Colleges now routinely refer to forbidden speech as 'verbal conduct.' It is a formulation that takes MacKinnon’s work and runs with it so far that it dispenses entirely with the old nursery rhyme about sticks and stones, words and broken bones."

Feel free to think I am ignorant.

That'll happen when you don't know how to use Ctrl-F.

We cannot judge modern feminists movements based on the behaviour of first year college students who are just beginning to learn about social justice.

Ooh, but where is the evidence that these are all freshmen? Quote the article that supports your claim. Where is the evidence?

[jakell]

All this talk of 'feminism' and no-one has yet nuanced it by focusing on Third-Wave Feminism. If anything it is that generalisation that keeps the arguments simplistic, even (some) rabid right wingers seem to have realised this.

[Pants-of-dog]

It's what I have experienced and, more importantly, it's also what countless news items about feminists and other SocJus turds attest to. Of course here comes the part where you demand a Pew survey or something similar, expecting an unreasonable level of rigor when you have even less evidence for your own position.

It's the tired, stale shell game that I've seen pseudointellectual fake skeptics play time and again and I'm not going to indulge it.

Okay, then I will simply note that your entire argument about feminists rests solely on your personal subjective experience.

I don't care; I was:

"Stupid pet ideological issues" (not limited to feminist ones) mentioned here:

viewtopic.php?p=14794164#p14794164

Pejorative SocJus first mentioned here:

viewtopic.php?p=14794696#p14794696

This has been part of the topic more or less from the beginning of this digression.

Yes, I realise you have been conflating the two issues for a while now.

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/06/03/coll ... 63536.html

"Feminists deserve some of the blame for normalizing the aggrieved fragility of students. Rape and sexual harassment are real problems on campus, as they are in the rest of the world. But just as there is a “rape culture,” there is also a campus rape victim culture that tends to treat all young women as “survivors.” Accusers who say they have endured any sort of unpleasant incident with a male—from having to turn down a date request to deciding, the morning after getting naked and in bed with a man, that they wished they had not—are deemed as deeply damaged as child pedophile victims, battered women and rape survivors.

Colleges and universities, and their fraternities and athletic departments, need to do a better job of monitoring and weeding out the men who are rapists or potential rapists. Instead of focusing on that, colleges and universities—encouraged by feminists and women's studies departments, and in many cases ordered to do so by various Department of Education edicts—have inserted themselves as referees into the messiest and most emotionally complicated and intimate entanglements human beings are capable of creating. Their rulebook is called Title IX, the federal law requiring that colleges ensure women get an equal education. It was originally applied to sports teams and funding but has been expanded to cover how universities handle claims of sexual assault and harassment. Acting in loco parentis and under orders from the federal government, administrators form de facto star chambers that act as judge, jury and executioner, without adhering to legal rules of evidence or due process.

The rape victim services on many campuses, intended to protect young victims from further emotional and psychological damage, have evolved into cults of coddling in which no one dares question a 'survivor's' account. Good intentions have gone so awry that young men are routinely labeled rapists without due process.

The presumption of female victimhood inherent in many campus sexual harassment codes prompted Northwestern University feminist film and culture professor Laura Kipnis to pen an essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education headlined 'Sexual Paranoia Strikes Academe.' She ridiculed campus sexual harassment guidelines as 'feminism hijacked by melodrama' and identified an 'obsession with helpless victims and powerful predators' behind the new policy. 'Students were being encouraged to regard themselves as such exquisitely sensitive creatures that an errant classroom remark could impede their education, as such hothouse flowers that an unfunny joke was likely to impede their education.'

Kipnis was skeptical about whether a fellow professor accused of assault by a student could have been guilty, given that the girl admitted she initiated their date and both agreed that although they had slept together, they were fully clothed, and there had been no sex. Because Kipnis dared question the strength of the evidence in that case, a group of students filed a federal Title IX complaint against her, charging that her article had a 'chilling effect' on students who might want to report sexual assault. Northwestern started an investigation. Kipnis was cleared, but the episode made her a pariah on campus. Student activists 'have certain hatred of me,' she told The Chronicle of Higher Education.

When Northwestern investigated Kipnis for writing satirically about sexual harassment policies, it was abiding by Department of Education guidelines instructing administrators to expand their definition of sexual harassment to include 'verbal conduct.' The DOE last month reiterated that colleges are responsible for investigating all speech of a sexual nature that someone subjectively finds unwelcome, even if that speech is protected by the First Amendment or an institution’s promises of free speech.

The notion of speech as verbal conduct goes back to the work of feminist legal scholar Catharine MacKinnon. In the 1980s, MacKinnon—who also invented the legal construct of sexual harassment—theorized that pornography is a civil rights violation. Colleges now routinely refer to forbidden speech as 'verbal conduct.' It is a formulation that takes MacKinnon’s work and runs with it so far that it dispenses entirely with the old nursery rhyme about sticks and stones, words and broken bones."

So you agree with the statement that feminism has been hijacked by melodrama?

Also, this reads a lot like an opinion oiece rather than a news article.

Ooh, but where is the evidence that these are all freshmen? Quote the article that supports your claim. Where is the evidence?

You can tell they are beginners because of the lack of integrative complexity.

[Perkwunos]

Okay, then I will simply note that your entire argument about feminists rests solely on your personal subjective experience.

What is your Twue™ Owbjective™ Ebuhdins™ that things are the way you think they are?

Yes, I realise you have been conflating the two issues for a while now.

Recognizing that feminism is an important part of the broader SocJus platform isn't "conflating" anything.

So you agree with the statement that feminism has been hijacked by melodrama?

I agree with the statement that feminism today is largely melodramatic.

Also, this reads a lot like an opinion oiece rather than a news article.

Keep shifting the goalpost if you think it will help you save face.

You can tell they are beginners because of the lack of integrative complexity.

Ooh, but dat's not ebuhdins! Quote the article that supports your contention that these people—including the faculty, who are often the ones rabidly pushing this stuff in the first place—are all freshmen (or freshwomyn or whatever). I'm sick of you playing this little double standards game.