I hate feminazis

Post Reply New Topic

That's anecdotal. I was under the impression that most people don't consider anecdotes to be legitimate evidence for or against an argument.

True, you got me. It is indeed anecdotal. Also the examples aren't that comparable, the petition had a bit more information at least.

However it was bad that those student were just signing the form. Some of them didn't even know what it is they were signing, not even the first clue. They could have been singing literally anything.

See you critisied me and I admitted my fault. This is a good thing. If you hadn't of it could have gone unchallenged.

I however think people can be convinced to sign something on the basis that is the best thing when isn't. It is up to me and others to persuade them otherwise. That is what I will try to do.

I'm big on the politics of persuasion.

I think just labeling people TERFs or whatever that is the crap you get in mainstream politics adoped by the identity politics crowd. Also why with all the labels seriously? Those too lazy to make the case can use other technique such as repeated soundbites, vagueness, alienation ("with us or against us"), negative campaigning, fear mongering, etc.

Something is not a discussion unless the views are open to criticism. That is something that third wave feminism is struggling with at the moment.

True, you got me. It is indeed anecdotal. Also the examples aren't that comparable, the petition had a bit more information at least.

However it was bad that those student were just signing the form. Some of them didn't even know what it is they were signing, not even the first clue. They could have been singing literally anything.

See you critisied me and I admitted my fault. This is a good thing. If you hadn't of it could have gone unchallenged.

I however think people can be convinced to sign something on the basis that is the best thing when isn't. It is up to me and others to persuade them otherwise. That is what I will try to do.

I'm big on the politics of persuasion.

I think just labeling people TERFs or whatever that is the crap you get in mainstream politics adoped by the identity politics crowd. Also why with all the labels seriously? Those too lazy to make the case can use other technique such as repeated soundbites, vagueness, alienation ("with us or against us"), negative campaigning, fear mongering, etc.

Something is not a discussion unless the views are open to criticism. That is something that third wave feminism is struggling with at the moment.

Why are you defending a REAL feminazi like Germaine Greer? The fact that she's been excommunicated from the feminist movement is a step in the right direction. I doubt you'd be putting up a fight if muslim students petitioned to have a radical Islamic speaker on campus preaching the glory of Jihad and promoting terrorist violence. The feminist movement needs to excise the lunatic fringe elements and put this kind of extremely toxic, hateful strain of extremist feminism in the dustbin of the movements history.

I didn't criticise you. I criticised your argument as being anecdotal.

How are we to assess what causes someone to commit suicide? Other than those who actually tell people to commit suicide. There was trial recently where a woman repeatedly pestered her boyfriend to commit suicide, and goaded him for being too cowardly to go through with it. She gave him a lot of instruction, it was clear he was unsure about it and in need of real help. That is causing someone to commit suicide, if anything is.

Are you suggesting she be put on trial? What is the burden of proof in that case?

There are are many things that cause someone who is experiencing depressive episodes to commit suicide. I have talked people out of it, becuase I recognized they were in that microcosm. However literally anything could have triggered it. However you cannot attribute cause simply becuase someone said something unpleasant.

Greer never advocated for discrimination against trans people, she was talking about whether she considered them female. She even said out of courtesy she used the desired pronouns.

It is kind of absurd given women can be infertile or have hysterectomies, gender has a spectrum from intersex to trans. However she has a sort of has point that they don't fit the absolute idea of female, however like I said that absolute breaks down when you consider hormonal and genetic conditions.

The most absurd thing about is was calling it misogynist, which I criticised heavily, especially her views on Caitlyn Jenner.

Btw those transitioning still need to go through a process to make sure that is what they really want to do. It is down to the individual not all go through with it. I will use the desired pronouns whether they choose to operate or not. I will make an educated guess if I don't know.

To me identity is entirely personal. However the pronoun thing can go too far sometimes. Personally I use whatever pronoun they like, however it is understandable that people are sometimes confused.

I was surprised when biologist and feminist friend used he/she when I told her someone who she had once known as a man was now identifying as a woman (and I was using "she"). However I don't think she meant anything bad by it. She is not anti-trans by any stretch.

Trans people are not universally praising third wave feminism either. Some are critical of it, especially its hypocrisy.

Yes trans people are more likely to commit suicide, men are also more likely to commit suicide than women. However each person is different. Hurtful people are always going to be there, so it is important that there is support network to help them deal with it. Rather than to coddling them, so they never become resilient.

This is more to do with general attitudes not one person. You don't solve these issue by censoring people, you do it by proving people wrong as when they experience it more they realise it is not a threat or something to worry about.

Sure that is what I meant, that is generally what is meant when people say that.

I know you are not attacking me personally, I don't take it personally.

No it isn't. Third wave feminism is not giving a voice to a divisive separatist with extreme views that overtly and actively unjust. They are cutting these people out of the movement and it's folks like Greer that inspired Rush Limbaugh to coin the term "feminazi". What makes you so sure these students weren't informed about Greer and what she says when there's google at their fingertips? Greer has supported Islamic genital mutilation because criticism of it is "western cultural imperialism".

I was one of the first to critisise her hypocritical views after that incident on WP. I said she was misogynist and misandrist by her own standards. It didn't help that I typo'd her name (damn executive dysfunction), however it is the thought that counts.

You think allowing her to be criticised in that setting is the same as supporting her. Sorry I don't agree. I don't agree with no platforming. It is weak.

Also you are wrong if you think that crazy element of fem are fringe at the moment. I used to think that too, boy was I wrong. The crazy crowd are in the universities right now, and they are dominating the conversation and actively preventing others from joining in. They may have rejected Greer (I'm not sure all have), but they have also rejected other reasonable feminists.

You are implying that talking about the glory Jihad is somehow comparable to Greer's rhetoric, sorry that is nonsense. It make me think that people didn't actually bother to find out what she said. Yes she was deliberately provocative, but even so.

However if you really want that answer that I would say it depends. For one the definition of Jihad varies among Muslims and when it is legitimate. It is true that is it not just about fighting. I'm extremely critical of the whole idea of Jihad however.

Like I just said the that in Parliament, they have been critical of the governments own "Prevent" program and precisely the point that not allowing these debates to take place was backfiring, as they weren't getting the scrutiny they needed in the right settings.

If the speaker has a history of incitement, of course I would not be in favour of them speaking. However when it comes to views on identity people can hold whatever view they like whether I agree with it or not. So long as it is open for debate.

If that's what you meant (that it wasn't personal) then that's what you should have said. Something about autistic people and literal mindedness...

Well actually it is conventional phrase. When someone says they are being critical of someone, it doesn't have to imply one way or another anything about their character. It is pretty much a given it is about something they have said or done.

I am the holder of the views after all, and I said them. You are critising me, for what I said. Nothing wrong with that. It might say something of my character, it might not.

Splitting hairs really.

Anyone who can remain civil and not resort to discriminatory or hateful rhetoric is welcome to contribute to the feminist dialogue. Those who can't aren't welcome. Why is this so hard for you to understand as a good thing? Unlimited free speech is not feasible in any society that purports to value all it's members equally, which means protecting people from hateful rhetoric that dehumanises and devalues them.

As I've said, I live in a country that values all it's citizens equally and therefore has laws preventing hate speech and the incitement of violence. To the large majority of Canadians, the idea of unlimited free speech is untenable and not representative of our culture--because it means the right of some to express whatever harmful s**t they want is valued over the right of all citizens to be safe from dehumanisation and discrimination.

Actually, as was explained to me recently by a mod in another thread, it is not splitting hairs and is very important to make the distinction between criticising the person and criticising the argument. So you really should make an effort to be more precise, if you didn't mean to imply that I was criticising you personally rather than your anecdotal argument.

I'm sorry this not what has actually been happening or not the whole truth.

Just watch some of the videos on people's experiences of gender studies classes, there are clear examples of actively discouraging criticism of ideas. There are also clear examples of ideology which support this.



Your country doesn't hold your standard or hate speech and neither does mine or people like Greer would be procecuted. Thankfully we are not that extreme yet.

Laws simply cannot be that subjective or else you or me could be prosecuted.

Why are you defending a REAL feminazi like Germaine Greer?

He's not defending her, he's defending her right to speak, and he's doing it because he has consistent principles. I'll admit, it's amusing when people get hoist on their own petards, something that happens quite often in SJ circles due to the constantly shifting values and demands of instant compliance with orthodoxy, but censorship shouldn't be encouraged, even of things we personally find distasteful. Powerful people may someday find our views distasteful, and it's better if they don't have the precedent to silence us, an idea that evidently hasn't filtered up to Toronto yet.