[jakell]

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

This sort of suggests that the original feminism was pretty lightweight. Probably more respectful to posit that feminism was hijacked/infiltrated by something more substantial, and that melodrama is one of the symptoms.

I dare not say what though in case my internet connection is being monitored, I've already said too much.

[Pants-of-dog]

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

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

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

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

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.

I think your entire argument about how feminists are stupid people who have hijacked the atheist camapign is oncorrect. I believe this because you were unable to support your claim.

Have a good one!

[Perkwunos]

I think your entire argument about how feminists are stupid people who have hijacked the atheist camapign is oncorrect. I believe this because you were unable to support your claim.

Well of course Elevatorgate isn't a thing.

But more importantly you are continuing to dodge your burden of proof to provide ebuhdins for the "first-year students" claim. I thought you were a big stickler for ebuhdins. Where is the ebuhdins?

[Pants-of-dog]

And I asked you at the beginning of this discussion about what Rebecca Watson did that was so wrong.

Perhaps you would like to answer the question now?

[Perkwunos]

And I asked you at the beginning of this discussion about what Rebecca Watson did that was so wrong.

Perhaps you would like to answer the question now?

I answered that pages ago:

viewtopic.php?f=72&t=161326&start=200#p14794164

Now where is your ebuhdins for the first-year student claim?

[Pants-of-dog]

I answered that pages ago:

viewtopic.php?f=72&t=161326&start=200#p14794164

Okay. If we follow the link, you said:

For me the most heinous thing that these people did was divert the (albeit even then limited) focus of the skeptic and atheist movements away from the goal of rational thought as such to a bunch of stupid pet ideological issues about which they became utterly dogmatic.

It's one of a number of things that eventually caused me to abandon the idea of secular humanism.

...to which I replied:

This is not a bad thing in any objective sense. It is only a bad thing for those who have personal feeling about how awesome and important atheism is and how stupid and useless feminism is.

Please note that your criticism also does not answer my question as to what Ms. Watson did that was so wrong.

I highly doubt she singlehandedly distracted most of the atheist community away from rational thought by getting them interested in feminism (which is also not actually separate from being rational, despite your weird paradigm of seeing them as mutually exclusive).

[Perkwunos]

I highly doubt she singlehandedly distracted most of the atheist community away from rational thought by getting them interested in feminism

"Interested" is the wrong word for many.

Of course it wasn't all her; she was however very instrumental in this change.

(which is also not actually separate from being rational, despite your weird paradigm of seeing them as mutually exclusive).

Not if it centers around rabid groupthink, cults of personality and torrid appeals to pathos. (And it does.)

Also, where is duh ebuhdins for your first-year student claim? I'm going to keep asking this again and again by the way until you give an answer.

[Pants-of-dog]

"Interested" is the wrong word for many.

Of course it wasn't all her; she was however very instrumental in this change.

My point was that it is very doubtful that the majority of the atheist community suddenly embarked on a crusade of dogmatic feminism because of one person.

I do not believe this actually happened.

Not if it centers around rabid groupthink, cults of personality and torrid appeals to pathos. (And it does.)

This mythical atheist feminism movement? It is also simultaneously invisible and pink?

Also, where is duh ebuhdins for your first-year student claim? I'm going to keep asking this again and again by the way until you give an answer.

Okay.

You originally asked for this evidence in reply to my statement that you cannot judge all feminists according to first year university students.

Please note that the point is that such a generalisation would be illogical because you are assuming that all feminists, regardless of level of education or intelligence, are going to be bad at critical thinking.

Now, let us say that by incredible coincidence, all the feminists who happen to be bad at critical thinking right now are second year students and in their last year of high school. This would mean that my flippant statement equating people who are bad at critical thinking and people who are in their first year of university is incorrect.

Woe is me.

Fortunately, it still does not contradict or affect my point about making an incorrect generalisation about feminism.

So, I will concede that I have no evidence and my statement is probably wrong to some degree (as many people lack critical thinking skills, not just freshies). No doubt you will ignore my point about how your generalisation is illogical and incorrect.

[Perkwunos]

My point was that it is very doubtful that the majority of the atheist community suddenly embarked on a crusade of dogmatic feminism because of one person.

No but the remainder had a lot of their time wasted by said crusade.

This mythical atheist feminism movement? It is also simultaneously invisible and pink?

Well I guess you never heard of anything about (for example) the (fortunately now long since defunct) movement "Atheism+".

"Mythical" my ass...

Now, let us say that by incredible coincidence, all the feminists who happen to be bad at critical thinking right now are second year students and in their last year of high school.

But where is duh ebuhdins?

No doubt you will ignore my point about how your generalisation is illogical and incorrect.

When talking about the current crop of third-wave feminists, it's not.

[Pants-of-dog]

No but the remainder had a lot of their time wasted by said crusade.

I doubt it.

Well I guess you never heard of anything about (for example) the (fortunately now long since defunct) movement "Atheism+".

"Mythical" my ass...

According to this link, this term is "deployed as a snarl word by Reddit anti-feminists, Gamergate, the Slymepit, fans of Thunderf00t and other assholes who are active in atheist circles".

So, some movement that never really took off is your example of how the majority of atheists were taken in and duped by Ms. Watson?

But where is duh ebuhdins?

Please see above.

When talking about the current crop of third-wave feminists, it's not.

I doubt it.

[Perkwunos]

I doubt it.

It was a big timesuck away from issues that actually matter and I was around for the whole fiasco.

So, some movement that never really took off is your example of how the majority of atheists were taken in and duped by Ms. Watson?

Where did I say this?

I doubt it.

What about third-wave feminism suggests the term "reason" to you?

[Pants-of-dog]

It was a big timesuck away from issues that actually matter and I was around for the whole fiasco.

Since this is your personal opinion based on your subjective interpretation of events, I hope you understand why I do not see it as objective or rational evidence.

Where did I say this?

Then what did Ms. Watson do that was so wrong?

What about third-wave feminism suggests the term "reason" to you?

Other than the integrative complexity of the arguments of some of them?

Or the critical analysis of history and politics along feminist lines?

Am I supposed to assume that all feminists (or all third wave feminsts, as you are now claiming) are stupid just because you are unable to see anything reasonable about them?

[Perkwunos]

Since this is your personal opinion based on your subjective interpretation of events, I hope you understand why I do not see it as objective or rational evidence.

No shit it's my opinion.

Don't pass yours off as Objective™ Rational™ True™ Ebuhdins™.

Then what did Ms. Watson do that was so wrong?

Waste others' time with her stupid personal drama.

Other than the integrative complexity of the arguments of some of them?

You haven't demonstrated ebuhdins for this. You've come up with a grand total of two articles that you think demonstrate this trait, one from the early 70s, without scoring them. This is not ebuhdins. This is your subjective personal opinion. Please come up with objective and rational ebuhdins.

Or the critical analysis of history and politics along feminist lines?

cf. "Newton's rape manual"

Or Words of Power by Andrea Nye. Man that one was a doozy. (Summary: let's abolish logic because (possibly genocidal) cishet dudebros created it.)

[Pants-of-dog]

No shit it's my opinion.

Don't pass yours off as Objective™ Rational™ True™ Ebuhdins™.

I did not mention my opinion. Nor did I claim that my opinion is anything more than that. You, on the other hand, seem to think that your opinion is some sort of objective truth about feminism.

Waste others' time with her stupid personal drama.

Okay, but she has not done anything objectively wrong. Your feelings may have been hurt by her, but that is not relevant to our discussion.

You haven't demonstrated ebuhdins for this. You've come up with a grand total of two articles that you think demonstrate this trait, one from the early 70s, without scoring them. This is not ebuhdins. This is your subjective personal opinion. Please come up with objective and rational ebuhdins.

cf. " rape manual"

Or Words of Power by Andrea Nye. Man that one was a doozy. (Summary: let's abolish logic because (possibly genocidal) cishet dudebros created it.)

Yes, and I only needed one example to disprove the claim that all feminist arguments are simplistic. Now we can discuss the number of feminist arguments that are complex, but you mentioning one or two is not going to be evidence for the claim that most feminist arguments are simplistic, even if you somehow show that they are simplistic.

[Perkwunos]

I did not mention my opinion. Nor did I claim that my opinion is anything more than that. You, on the other hand, seem to think that your opinion is some sort of objective truth about feminism.

I would consider the claim that many feminists today implicitly or explicitly are friendly towards an epistemology which is fundamentally anti-empirical and anti-logical to be an objective one.

Okay, but she has not done anything objectively wrong.

I wonder what counts for Objectively™ Wrong™.

Yes, and I only needed one example to disprove the claim that all feminist arguments are simplistic.

Too bad I never put such a claim forward.

Now we can discuss the number of feminist arguments that are complex, but you mentioning one or two is not going to be evidence for the claim that most feminist arguments are simplistic, even if you somehow show that they are simplistic.

Does it mean anything to you that Sandra "Newton's rape manual" Harding is considered a very prestigious and influential scholar in her field? It should.

[Pants-of-dog]

I would consider the claim that many feminists today implicitly or explicitly are friendly towards an epistemology which is fundamentally anti-empirical and anti-logical to be an objective one.

I wouldn't. It seems to be based entirely on your feelings.

I wonder what counts for Objectively™ Wrong™.

Something other than your opinion?

Too bad I never put such a claim forward.

Good. Then what exactly is your claim?

Does it mean anything to you that Sandra "Newton's rape manual" Harding is considered a very prestigious and influential scholar in her field? It should.

It could mean a lot of things. One of the things it could mean is that she is intelligent and often correct.

This whole thing started when I asked what Ms. Watson did that was so wrong. Other than not shut up when a man tried to explain feminism to her, I do not see whatnshe did that was so upsetting.

[Perkwunos]

I wouldn't. It seems to be based entirely on your feelings.

Are the explicit theses of scholars such as Sandra Harding and Andrea Nye just "my feelings"?

Something other than your opinion?

Not an answer. What is Objectively™ Wrong™? I will press you on this issue as much as I need to until I get a straight answer.

Good. Then what exactly is your claim?

Most feminist arguments today are pants-on-head retarded. That's not a universal generalization.

It could mean a lot of things. One of the things it could mean is that she is intelligent and often correct.

Even about the claim that Principia Mathematica is (her words, verbatim) a "rape manual"?

My Latin is very meager so I want to narrow my search. Where do I find how to commit rape in the Principia?

This whole thing started when I asked what Ms. Watson did that was so wrong.

Try to make the skeptic movement about her Almost Raped™ incident?

Too bad that 15 minutes of fame didn't last.

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/skepchick.org

[Pants-of-dog]

Are the explicit theses of scholars such as Sandra Harding and Andrea Nye just "my feelings"?

Well, considering how you have yet to explain how their theses are anti-logic or anti-evidence, and you seem to have an emotional reaction to feminism....

Not an answer. What is Objectively™ Wrong™? I will press you on this issue as much as I need to until I get a straight answer.

If you do not know what "objective" means, then you are probably not qualified to judge feminist arguments.

Most feminist arguments today are pants-on-head retarded. That's not a universal generalization.

No, it is an unsupported claim that is based mostly on an insulting dismissal of feminism.

Even about the claim that Principia Mathematica is (her words, verbatim) a "rape manual"?

My Latin is very meager so I want to narrow my search. Where do I find how to commit rape in the Principia?

I highly doubt she says that.

Try to make the skeptic movement about her Almost Raped™ incident?

First of all, I doubt she did that.

Secondly, what is bad about bringing more awareness about sexual assault and more acts to prevent sexual assault?

Too bad that 15 minutes of fame didn't last.

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/skepchick.org

As an atheist, do you reject the religious based sexism that many religions use to target women?

[Perkwunos]

Well, considering how you have yet to explain how their theses are anti-logic or anti-evidence

For example, Nye advocates the abolishment of logic in favor of some ill-defined thing she calls "reading".

This is not explicit enough for you?

If you do not know what "objective" means, then you are probably not qualified to judge feminist arguments.

I know what "objective" means.

I want you to define in your own words what Objectively™ Wrong™ is because there is no clear consensus about this in philosophy.

No, it is an unsupported claim

There's support for it just about every time I look at Raw Story or the like.

I highly doubt she says that.

"I highly doubt", "I highly doubt"

Are you beginning to understand why I think your skepticism is phony?

First of all, I doubt she did that.

I don't know whether Rebecca Watson explicitly said this but the overall tenor of Elevatorgate—including her input—at least strongly suggests this.

What we do have explicit evidence of is her supporters in this issue, such as Phil Plait and Jen McCreight, freely invoking rape rape rape rape at the drop of a hat, which isn't surprising given the context offered by of a lot of current feminist scholarship (see above).

Secondly, what is bad about bringing more awareness about sexual assault and more acts to prevent sexual assault?

Per se, nothing, I won't get in your way. But I do mind that you waste the time of what might have almost been an interesting movement blabbering about sexual assault and rape when neither of these things actually happened to you.

As an atheist, do you reject the religious based sexism that many religions use to target women?

I reject religions because they are (most likely) false. What is happening to women, or humanity in general, I could not care any less about than I do now, except in their capacity as "specimens", as I like to call them.

[Pants-of-dog]

For example, Nye advocates the abolishment of logic in favor of some ill-defined thing she calls "reading".

This is not explicit enough for you?

Can you please quote her exact words where she argues that, or minimally provide a link? Thank you.

I know what "objective" means.

I want you to define in your own words what Objectively™ Wrong™ is because there is no clear consensus about this in philosophy.

If someone is objectively wrong, then it can be empirically shown that their argument is inconsistent with observable reality.

There's support for it just about every time I look at Raw Story or the like.

Then it should be easy for you to provide examples. Excellent.

So, she does not say that the Principia is a rape manual. She, instead, argues that metaphors about nature as a woman who welcomes rape were perhaps as fundamental as the metaphors of nature as machinery in terms of popular acceptance of scientific thought during Newton's time.

"I highly doubt", "I highly doubt"

Are you beginning to understand why I think your skepticism is phony?

Yes. But a lot of people think that, and it does not affect the truth of my statements. Even if I were a troll, my argument would still be just as correct or incorrect.

I don't know whether Rebecca Watson explicitly said this but the overall tenor of Elevatorgate—including her input—at least strongly suggests this.

What we do have explicit evidence of is her supporters in this issue, such as Phil Plait and Jen McCreight, freely invoking rape rape rape rape at the drop of a hat, which isn't surprising given the context offered by of a lot of current feminist scholarship (see above).

So, you are offended that discussions about rape took place between atheists after a woman described her discomfort in an elevator? This is fine, but you may wish to focus less on talking about your feelings if you are wishing to have a rational discussion about feminism in the atheist movement.

Per se, nothing, I won't get in your way. But I do mind that you waste the time of what might have almost been an interesting movement blabbering about sexual assault and rape when neither of these things actually happened to you.

In terms of how much it actually benefits society, discussions about sexual assault and how to minimise it are far nore important than discussing arguments about the existence of god.

So, I have no problem wasting the time of those who think otherwise.

I reject religions because they are (most likely) false.

So you have no opinion on the social or political impact of religion?