Here's your original post: [quote]"The most straw-manned group in modern politics"[/quote] Now considering you go out of your way to contradict that statement in this post I'm replying to, I really should just call it a day right here, but i'll bite just a bit. [quote]Feminism does not have a central body, it cannot "officially" do anything. The definition of feminism arises on the basis of past movements and events, such as bringing the right to vote to women. My counterpoint is a rebuttal to your simultaneous assertion that feminism has "extremists" (which implies that there is a moderate stance) while somehow magically having a central authority and can be thus considered as one group. [/quote]First contradiction. [quote]It wasn't a strawman, it was a quote.[/quote]You claimed i admitted that you were right, I made no such admission. [quote]You're contradicting yourself.[/quote]Pointing out the problems with feminism's lax approach to it's members is not contradictory in anyway [quote]Nice red herring. You challenged my initial post about feminism being the most strawmanned political group in society. Again, feminism is not a singular group, it is not "poorly" organized because there is no organization to begin with. There is no collectivist feminist hivemind. [/quote]Second contradiction. Also apparently having a central body, more importantly, having standards and requirements, makes a group a hivemind, ok then. [quote]For the "nth" time, feminism isn't a group, think tank, or political party. It is a movement. You cannot hold them responsible for the actions of extremists. [/quote]Third contradiction. And once again, due to feminism's inaction against extremists they are tacitly supporting them and allowing them to represent feminism. [quote]See, if you actually read my post, I did in fact state that I am not going to do this. However, there is a certain extent where you can say that a person is not, strictly speaking, sticking to the definition of feminism, which is more equality. That is what the majority of large scale feminist movements have centered around in the past. What tumblr girls think is irrelevant. [/quote]And again that's made irrelevant due to feminism's inactions, lack of standards, yadda yadda yadda. Also I'd like to note that the only person to mention tumblr is you - hmm, misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack and dismiss it, why does that sound familiar? hmm... [quote]Please continue to display the inability to read and the amazing ability to ignore what I write. [/quote]Actually sorry about that, by putting that in a quote box the first time, i simply assumed you were quoting me and skipped over it - I mean, why would I assume you're quoting yourself? [quote]Strawmanning is misinterpreting the opponent's argument. I have not, in any way, misinterpreted you, or you have not made it claim what I have misintepreted you on.[/quote] Please continue to display the inability to read and the amazing ability to ignore what I write. [quote]You simply deflected my accusation on strawmanning, sent it back and failed to give a real example of how I made a logical fallacy.[/quote]Pot kettle black [quote]You have, on multiple occasions, implied that A. Extremist feminists, such as those on Tumblr are bad. Meanwhile, disagreeing with my initial claim that they are the most strawmanned group in politics. That's contradictory. If extremists are different to moderates (hence the term), there is no way in hell that you can justify putting them under one label as broad as feminism and calling it a day.[/quote]The ride never ends Feminism does not deign to differentiate between it's extremists and it's moderates, it treats every apple as an apple - and so will I. This is not a contradiction, this is playing by feminism's own rules. [quote]You used terms such as "they" and " all of them" to refer to feminism in general. That's exactly what I was saying; you are strawmanning the moderate feminists by using the ideas of the extremists and blindly applying them across the whole group. This is exactly what I was talking about.[/quote] Because, as I've said before, if feminism allows radicals and extremists to represent the movement -[b] radicals and extremists represent the damn movement[/b] And, considering extremist feminism has the power to write laws, you can't simply dismiss it as "tumblr being tumblr" - though feminism is in no rush to ostracize tumblr anyway. [quote] You have consistently ignored evidence about the different feminist groups, the different waves of feminism in history, all the while holding down the position that feminists should somehow be held responsible or have some form of weird obligation to shut down extremists, despite the fact that this is no different to someone targeting a racial minority because of extremist attacks and expecting them to apologize.[/quote] Hey, ctrl+f search for wave; guess what, you've never mentioned the different waves at all! In addition, you're back to saying that feminism is a group, so while that doesn't contradict your original post, it contradicts this one! And yes, a political group is responsible for it's member's actions. And the difference being that racial minorities do not support their extremists, while feminism ranges from not caring (tacitly endorsing) to outright supporting. ----------- I should be studying for my exams~

[quote]Now considering you go out of your way to contradict that statement in this post I'm replying to, I really should just call it a day right here, but i'll bite just a bit.[/quote] That's not a contradiction. It is amazing how you continually dodge any accusations and try to add your own. My argument still stands, they are heavily strawmanned, even if they are extremists within the movement. [quote]You claimed i admitted that you were right, I made no such admission.[/quote] And... here we go with the whole reading comprehension thing. You said that A. Extremists exist within their ranks B. You referred to them as a collective group That proved what I was trying to say all along by example. You strawmanned feminists, to be more specific, moderate feminists. [quote]Second contradiction. Also apparently having a central body, more importantly, having standards and requirements, makes a group a hivemind, ok then.[/quote] So now you're rebutting hyperbole? You were basically implying (in a contradictory way) that they are both disorganized and should at the same time be considered a group responsible for what their members say. Twist it anyway you want, that is two contradictory statements. [quote]And again that's made irrelevant due to feminism's inactions, lack of standards, yadda yadda yadda. [/quote] Again, feminism isn't a single group! You did it again, you used a generalized term. You haven't picked up a thing. [quote] Also I'd like to note that the only person to mention tumblr is you - hmm, misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack and dismiss it, why does that sound familiar? hmm...[/quote] Nope, other people mentioned it in this thread. Read it again. [quote] Feminism does not deign to differentiate between it's extremists and it's moderates, it treats every apple as an apple - and so will I. This is not a contradiction, this is playing by feminism's own rules.[/quote] You see why I brought up the hivemind example? Your wording continually refers to feminists [b]as one. [/b] That's not correct for aforementioned reasons. [quote]Actually sorry about that, by putting that in a quote box the first time, i simply assumed you were quoting me and skipped over it - I mean, why would I assume you're quoting yourself?[/quote] You are neither witty, nor intelligent. Seriously, this is Camnator level of idiocy, repelling any form of criticism onto the opponent in the same vein as a five year old going "I know you are but what I am". [quote] Because, as I've said before, if feminism allows radicals and extremists to represent the movement -[b] radicals and extremists represent the damn movement[/b] And, considering extremist feminism has the power to write laws, you can't simply dismiss it as "tumblr being tumblr" - though feminism is in no rush to ostracize tumblr anyway.[/quote] -Feminism doesn't allow anything. It isn't a group, organization, hivemind, political party, etc. I have said this maybe around 5 separate times and you have given no real answer to it aside from asinine comments about extremists and the lack of action. Feminists have simply ignored the extremists. I suggest you do the same and stop trying to pull the discussion away from the actual problems that moderate feminists are bringing up. Failure to do so only further inhibits real equality (which hopefully you should be supporting)! [quote]Hey, ctrl+f search for wave; guess what, you've never mentioned the different waves at all! [/quote] I mentioned wikipedia articles, remember? They referred to the waves. [quote] In addition, you're back to saying that feminism is a group, so while that doesn't contradict your original post, it contradicts this one! [/quote] It isn't a group! The point of the analogy was to draw a distinction between regular followers of X religion and the extremists. Similarly, self proclaimed feminists, by your own admission, and highly disorganized and have varying messages. They aren't a singular group and should not be treated as such. You continually refer to them as one, while I have pointed on a number of occasions that feminism is split across political lines, ideals and movements. It is not a specific group, but a broad term that relates to woman campaigning for more rights. Edit: I have exams as well -_-

[quote]That's not a contradiction.[/quote]Now just stop right there and hear me out. All of my posts have been in response to your original claim that feminists are: [quote]"The most straw-manned group in modern politics"[/quote]But now you're claiming that feminism isn't a group - this is not only a contradiction, but it's a completely different argument. You're not simply moving the goalposts, you're changing the game itself. So you either claim that they are a group, [b](like in your original post that i've been responding to this entire time)[/b] In which case I'm technically still waiting for your reply to my post with an on-topic answer. Or, you're claiming they're not, in which case I don't care because that's not what I'm talking about and we're done here. Also: [quote]You are neither witty, nor intelligent. [/quote]Because that wasn't me trying to be witty or intelligent, I was simply stating a fact - You don't notice your clothes so much when you wear them, they're subconsciously ignored; and I don't notice quoteboxes in replies to my posts because I assume it's quoting me and so I don't need to re-read my own post, they're subconsciously ignored. Also also: [quote]I mentioned wikipedia articles, remember? They referred to the waves. [/quote][url=http://permutationofninjas.org/post/39800212440/why-we-cant-judge-feminism-by-its-radicals-or-can]I mentioned a well written article on the subject we were originally talking about, remember?[/url]

[quote]But now you're claiming that feminism isn't a group - this is not only a contradiction, but it's a completely different argument. You're not simply moving the goalposts, you're changing the game itself. So you either claim that they are a group, [b](like in your original post that i've been responding to this entire time)[/b] In which case I'm technically still waiting for your reply to my post with an on-topic answer. Or, you're claiming they're not, in which case I don't care because that's not what I'm talking about and we're done here.[/quote] Alright, I'd concede the fact that I shouldn't have used the word "group." It's meaningless to argue over it (a group has subsections) and it should be noted that your first reply was not an attack [b]on the word group at all,[/b] you attacked my central point. You can change the goalposts and take a small victory here but ultimately the main issue has not been addressed in your argument. Whether or not I used the word group has no real weight in this discussion. It's semantics, nothing more. That's not what you started this discussion over, otherwise you would have mentioned it. Your article is only tangentially related to the original post as well. Ignoring the semantics, the actual point of my post was to say that moderate feminists are strawmanned. You gave a very good example of a strawman. Since you have not quoted and have decided to ignore the other parts of my post that relate to the central point of the strawmanning and the misrepresentation, I'll just rebut your article instead. [quote]The problem with so-called “radical” feminists is that they’re not relegated to the fringes of feminism: they have a great deal of influence in the actions of the movement. Because they exercise considerable control over advocacy, theory and the academic avenues of feminism, we can’t simply ignore them.[/quote] -Citation need on "considerable control." [quote]Regardless, the reason to discount feminism is not the mere existence of radicals: it’s the overall actions of the movement. The radicals are just a particularly useful object lesson because they demonstrate some of the things that have been sheltered within feminism. The Baptist sect of Christianity did not shelter the WBC: they kicked them out. Christianity in general has not sheltered the KKK: many Christian leaders have strongly spoken out against them. Major feminist outlets, however, have not spoken out against radical feminists even as these radical feminists have been allowed to dictate movement policy.[/quote] This is basically the same thing you were saying. I have already replied to this argument and you have not responded in your last post. TLDR: Feminism= Broad term for various groups and movements. [quote]The common response at this point, is “but wouldn’t you complain if we judged all men based on the actions of only some of them? Isn’t that a big part of what you ‘men’s rights’ types complain about in the first place?” The problem is that this really misses a vital difference between the two cases. Men do not choose whether they are men or not. They can’t just “stop being men”. (Transgender individuals are complex, but most do not consider their gender to be a choice, nor do they consider changes in pronouns/gender/gender expression/genital reassignment surgery to be “changing” gender but rather bringing other aspects of their life into harmony with their correct gender.) Feminists, on the other hand, can choose whether to be feminists or not.[/quote] -This is absolutely retarded, to the point where I actually started laughing. It first uses "men" as the term for men's rights activists, but then applies feminists (instead of woman) as its supposed opposite? Give me a break. [quote] If a feminist decides they’re fed up with being associated with the radicals, they can do all the same things they’re doing already, drop the “feminist” label, and nothing will change. [/quote] As I said before, they have no obligation to do anything, nor do they need to prove that they are different from extremists. It's quite clear they are different, the author implies this himself, but still manages to justify his central point that they should be blamed despite the fact that he knows they are different. This was similar to what you wrote and it is a major contradiction. [quote] Heck, the entire movement could do that and leave the radicals behind! Men cannot do the same to other men, not easily anyways. Basically, it’s possible to revoke someone’s “feminist card”, but you can’t really revoke someone’s gender. [/quote] Again, the men vs feminists as opposed to MRA vs Feminist. There's a big difference. Also, changing the name of feminism is not going to leave the radicals behind. They'll just follow. This is similar to economic policy, for some dumb -blam!-ing reason, the word socialist is basically synonymous with the devil despite the fact that 40 years ago both parties in most Western countries were more socialist than they are today. The word socialist is rarely used by the major leftist parties now (at least in some Western countries) because of the potential bad press it may get. Playing around with definitions accomplishes nothing. [quote]Another common counterargument to this is that if we get to judge feminism by it’s radicals, then feminists get to judge the MRM by it’s radicals. The MRM is already stereotyped by its radicals because feminists specifically spotlight them to discredit the movement. However, unlike feminism, the radicals of the MRM are not like a magnifying glass to the rest of the movement, because their bigotry is formed either from misogyny or conservatism, things that don’t underly the rest of the movement like patriarchy theory and other similar things do feminism.[/quote] Is this guy -blam!-ing serious? Even if we accept his [b]assertion [/b](ergo not necessarily the truth), how the hell can he justify MRA's to not be part of this category with a single sentence and attribute it to "misogyny" or conservatism. That's a bloody hand wave. I also don't understand his point about the patriarchy, he hasn't made it very clear. [quote]Unlike feminism, those radicals are not so prominent or accepted within the movement. Unlike feminism, these radicals are not allowed to represent the movement. Most importantly though, nobody in the MRM has ever been handed millions of dollars of government funding. Feminism (and by extension its radicals) is given much more support and funding than the MRM. This means that no matter how virulent the radicals of the MRM may be, they’re virtually harmless compared to the radicals of feminism.[/quote] Hahahaha! Wait, this is even funnier. Radicals have not been represented in MRA's? Should I bring up like a million examples from the internet in a similar vein to how people bring up feminists? See, this is where I will put my foot down. Men's Right Activists aren't revolutionaries, they are [b]reactionaries[/b]. They arose in the 1970's as opposition to feminism. While they have their own separate ideas, they ultimately fail to miss the point. Feminists aren't just for woman's rights. One of the biggest problems with "male rights" is that it concentrates on aspects of law that actually have good reason behind them, e.g. some aspects of family law, instead of targeting the real problem. The real problem is especially apparent in male -blam!- cases; or the failure to report them. Due to social prejudice, males feel pressured not to report -blam!-, or to reveal their feelings, which is hugely damaging, especially for children. It arose from a society that typically attributed strength to males, and emotion to females. This is something that feminists are fighting for a long time. Feminists despise gender roles, it is one of their biggest complaints. Also, note that feminism has far more pressing issues, and is far more established than MRM. The author said the latter part of the previous sentence himself. That's why they get more funding. [quote][In addition, the MRM is still in its infancy. When feminism was where the MRM is today, they were using bombs to try to get their point across. (Frankly, if feminism had started today, it would have been considered a terrorist group.) When we compare the MRM today to feminism at its origin, the MRM is less radical by far. It’s not unfair to predict that the radicals will die out over time or at the very least be overpowered to the point of near irrelevancy, and this will happen long before the MRM starts getting wide support and government funding. [/quote] This is an absolutely pathetic paragraph. The author started slow and wanted to reason with his audience, but here he reveals his true colors. MRM's radicals aren't going away. If we are going to use anecdotal evidence in this debate (the author has provided no citations at all!), then my experience of MRM's has purely been of the anti-feminist, bullshit complaints type. They have some legitimate ideas in the gender roles category, but honestly I have actually tried searching for a MRM who doesn't spend his time taking a pick at feminists. For citations on this lengthy part. Maddison, Sarah (1999). "Private Men, Public Anger: The Men's Rights Movement in Australia". Journal of Interdisciplinary Gender Studies 4 (2): 39–52. Doyle, Ciara (2004). "The Fathers' Rights Movement: Extending Patriarchal Control Beyond the Marital Family" Character limit for citations and writing.

[quote]and it should be noted that your first reply was not an attack on the word group at all, you attacked my central point.[/quote]Yes, I attacked youre point that they're the most strawmanned [b]Group[/b] in politics. [quote]You can change the goalposts and take a small victory here but ultimately the main issue has not been addressed in your argument.[/quote]Pot Kettle Black and I've addressed the issue in every post i've made - Feminists represent feminism, it's that simple. [quote]Whether or not I used the word group has no real weight in this discussion. It's semantics, nothing more.[/quote]As I said in my last post, it completely changes the point of contention, So yeah, it's pretty important. [quote]That's not what you started this discussion over, otherwise you would have mentioned it.[/quote]You couldn't be more wrong, you're statement about them being a misrepresented group was the only reason I bothered to reply. [quote] Your article is only tangentially related to the original post as well. [/quote]Again, your original post was that feminism is strawmanned, [b]it is not strawmanning to attack feminism as it is[/b], and feminism as it currently stands it full of/supportive of extremists and bigots. [quote]Ignoring the semantics, the actual point of my post was to say that moderate feminists are strawmanned. You gave a very good example of a strawman.[/quote]Maybe you just don't understand the concepts of connotations, baggage, and public appearance. By identify as a feminist one adopts all the baggage attached to the word unless stated otherwise (because "no political position" IS a political position) - so in relation to your argument, addressing feminism as it is, is not strawmanning it at all - Feminists represent feminism - we've been over this. [quote]Since you have not quoted and have decided to ignore the other parts of my post that relate to the central point of the strawmanning and the misrepresentation[/quote]Only because you've consistently ignored my posts to the point of derailing the discussion. --------------- [quote]I'll just rebut your article instead. [/quote]I asked the person who wrote that to reply to your reply, but if they don't within a day or two i'll come back and have a go myself, though i didn't write it so I can't vouch for everything in it, just the general idea of it.

[quote]Yes, I attacked youre point that they're the most strawmanned [b]Group[/b] in politics.[/quote] Which... was not an attack on the choice of word but the central point. Try again. Let's go further down to see how badly you screw up your first point. [b]Don't even pretend for a single second that it was about the word group. Otherwise you wouldn't have linked the post that denounced feminism in general, and you wouldn't have been replying with similar articles to other people in this thread. You were here to challenge the central point that feminists deserve their reputation. Hell, you say this yourself below with the admission of connotations, implications, and the same "extremists are accepted" argument. [/b] You aren't going to gain any internet points from attempting to bypass the central point. I'm not stupid, neither are you, I can see when someone spends a lot of effort arguing with multiple people in a controversial subject, he almost certainly has his own biases and prejudices as well as his [b]centralized opinion on the issue itself.[/b] (Includes me, but I have been arguing over the central point.) [quote]Pot Kettle Black and I've addressed the issue in every post i've made - Feminists represent feminism, it's that simple.[/quote] I don't think so. You quote a measly 3rd of my replies in basically every point. [quote]Again, your original post was that feminism is strawmanned, [b]it is not strawmanning to attack feminism as it is[/b], and feminism as it currently stands it full of/supportive of extremists and bigots.[/quote] Boom! There we go again. How on Earth can you claim with any level of academic decency that you have been replying properly despite the fact that I have told you on 6 occasions that feminism isn't a single group. You do realize this relates to my central point right? The fact that they are considered one is in fact a strawman. You have been consistently arguing that 1. I shouldn't have used the word group. while 2. Referring to them as one group. and 3. Recognizing a difference between the radicals and the moderates. These. Are. Contradictory. Points. [quote]Maybe you just don't understand the concepts of connotations, baggage, and public appearance. By identify as a feminist one adopts all the baggage attached to the word unless stated otherwise (because "no political position" IS a political position) - so in relation to your argument, addressing feminism as it is, is not strawmanning it at all - Feminists represent feminism - we've been over this.[/quote] -That's the -blam!-ing point. It shouldn't be this way and to think it is actually deserved is to celebrate the ignorance of society. Half of the bad label has come from misogynists who greatly overstate the number of radicals in comparison to the rest. [quote]Only because you've consistently ignored my posts to the point of derailing the discussion.[/quote] Seriously, are you incapable of reading? I answer all of your posts in full. [b]You reply to no more than half of mine (quoted or not), and it is not including my previous post, but all my posts.[/b] Again, grow up, this isn't a playground, dodging criticism with "I know you are but what am I" is cognitive dissonance.

[quote]Which... was not an attack on the choice of word but the central point. Try again. Let's go further down to see how badly you screw up your first point. [/quote]Again, your statement about them being a misrepresented group was the only reason I bothered to reply - it is the basis of all my arguments,[b] and it was the reason I didn't reply to half of your other post because you decided to change that word and the entire discussion by extension[/b] [quote]Don't even pretend for a single second that it was about the word group. Otherwise you wouldn't have linked the post that denounced feminism in general, and you wouldn't have been replying with similar articles to other people in this thread. You were here to challenge the central point that feminists deserve their reputation. Hell, you say this yourself below with the admission of connotations, implications, and the same "extremists are accepted" argument. [/quote]Again, It was only about the word group, which is pretty central to all the points i'm making and the points the article was making. And the " admission of connotations, implications, and the same "extremists are accepted" argument." all relate to my argument so i'm not sure why you're trying to spin this against me. [quote]You aren't going to gain any internet points from attempting to bypass the central point. I'm not stupid, neither are you, I can see when someone spends a lot of effort arguing with multiple people in a controversial subject, he almost certainly has his own biases and prejudices as well as his centralized opinion on the issue itself. (Includes me, but I have been arguing over the central point.)[/quote]I ran into this same issue with burritosenior a few days back where we both kept accusing eachother of doing what the other did and got nowhere at all. And since I haven't come up with a way to break that cycle, Pot Kettle Black. [quote]I don't think so. You quote a measly 3rd of my replies in basically every point.[/quote]Again, the only times i haven't replied was when you changed the topic, and when I honestly mistook your reply for a quote of my reply. As for the article, If they don't reply themselves then I'll probably give it a shot, but since It's not my words I can't guarantee anything. [quote]Boom! There we go again. How on Earth can you claim with any level of academic decency that you have been replying properly despite the fact that I have told you on 6 occasions that feminism isn't a single group.[/quote]Again, this entire time I've been replying to your first post about them being one group and strawmanned at that - I'm not sure how it's indecent to reply on-topic. [quote]You do realize this relates to my central point right? The fact that they are considered one is in fact a strawman. [/quote][spoiler]So you're saying you strawmanned them with your original post?[/spoiler] [quote]You have been consistently arguing that 1. I shouldn't have used the word group. while 2. Referring to them as one group. and 3. Recognizing a different between the radicals and the moderates. These. Are. Contradictory. Points.[/quote]Again, you are the one who tried to claim they aren't a group - i've been referring to them as one because it's what you did in your original post that i've been replying to, there is no contradiction on my part but several on yours - deja vu. [quote]-That's the -blam!-ing point. It shouldn't be this way and to think it is actually deserved is to celebrate the ignorance of society. Half of the bad label has come from misogynists who greatly overstate the number of radicals in comparison to the rest. [/quote]Again, Feminism is represented by Feminists - they could make it so that Feminism is only represented by decent people and not by extremists, but you and them are against that notion for some inconceivable reason. Oh, and it's not misogynist to attack Feminism as it is. [quote]Seriously, are you incapable of reading? I answer all of your posts in full. You reply to no more than half of mine (quoted or not), and it is not including my previous post, but all my posts.[/quote]Let's jump back up a post and look at what i've already said, again: [quote]But now you're claiming that feminism isn't a group - this is not only a contradiction, but it's a completely different argument. You're not simply moving the goalposts, you're changing the game itself. So you either claim that they are a group, (like in your original post that i've been responding to this entire time) In which case I'm technically still waiting for your reply to my post with an on-topic answer. Or, you're claiming they're not, in which case I don't care because that's not what I'm talking about and we're done here.[/quote] So again, technically still waiting for an on-topic reply to my post, but if you're so insistent on discussing something else then we're done here. [quote]Again, grow up, this isn't a playground, dodging criticism with "I know you are but what am I" is cognitive dissonance.[/quote]You grow up by learning and rhetoric is a pretty good learning experience. And my cognitive dissonance isn't in my posts, it's in how I'm enjoying this discussion (and every other one like it) and absolutely hating it at the same time.