@SambaLele said:
Ok, I'll take the time and actually answer you.
@hailtothequeen said:
First of all, its only a strawman if it isn't actually TRUE. Show me where you actually applied your arguments to the anti-feminists on this forum. Show me one post where you argue with them for doing the things you claim feminists are doing (1). Saying that they are guilty to me and saying it to THEM are two different things. Your problem, from what I have seen, mainly seems to be with feminists. Oh, I'm sorry.... "Non-Equality" feminists, even though there is no such thing (3). I think you need to buy yourself a dictionary and actually look up the definition of the word.
"I see the level of discussion you want this to be."
Oh no, I just adapt to the level of discussion that already existed on here. The thread starts out bashing feminists so what would you expect in this discussion(2)?
"Read the posts you talk about, where I insult and bash feminists. They simply do not exist. I do not engage in such things, and I'd never insult anyone or any group for any matter. Don't take criticism for insults, don't confuse things that aren't alike in the slighest."
I never said insult, I said bash, which can include quite a few different things. I will get to that below.
"only that there's a clear majority of 3rd wave radicals participating, and they are applying smearing, swearing and gratuitious slander based on stereotypes, which is hate-speech, at the same level or worse then their radical oppositors."
Third-wave feminists ARE equality (no such thing as inequality feminist) feminists so stop with the sweeping generalizations just because there may be a tiny number of people claiming to be feminists, who have other motives. I get so tired of this nonsense. If you think the majority of current feminists believe what you claim, then I will tell you the same thing I say to MRAs... PROVE IT. Show us that a large percentage of them actually believe what you claim or have the intellectual honesty to admit that your view is just a baseless generalization. (3)
"Yes, I've tried many times to sit and discuss with people from opposing parties. I've managed to make people change some their political beliefs through reason, and I've changed mine before and will again in the future when showed a better argument, a logical proof, or a material proof, through open debate. This is how you manage to gain a common ground with others. That's how you arrive to an understanding. Not by giving back what others give you, like you said you do."
No, I have tried that many times and you can't reason with people who use phrases like "they're a bunch of feminazis!" People with that mentality simply can't be reasoned with... (4)
"And no, you weren't right all along. A large proportion of gamers are normal people, like you and me, that plays games for fun, to enjoy a good story and which absolutely do not find pleasure in hating minorities through gaming."
Of course some are like that but I am right when I say that a large number of gamers are also neckbearded morons. If you don't think that many gamers are like this, then pick any random FPS game and spend a few hours listening to them on voice chat. Or look at the posts on forums. (5)
"Like even your fellow debater below admitted, only a fraction, a small portion of gamers are like you're saying. I'm done discussing with you."
Well, I disagree with her or him on that point. I think its funny how you always think you can prove a point by quoting someone who happens to be a feminist or shares some feminist views. That doesn't prove that your argument is true. LOL (6)
"It's clear by how easily you employ insults in your posts, that you're more interested in the conflict then in the solution. Thanks for the conversation."
There is no solution as long as one side is being completely irrational and refuses to acknowledge that certain problems exist even if they personally don't experience them. As I pointed out, reasoning with them doesn't work. Its like going to Iraq and trying to reason with ISIS. Let me know how that works out. LOL (7)
Since you asked for previous quotes in which you bash feminists: (End - all in one)
"Funny. A respected feminist intellectual has manifested that she's against the 3rd wave of feminism that's becoming the voice of feminism in games. She's an equality feminist, and she's claiming that the new wave is more concerned with hate towards men than actually solving gender equality problems. She's been twitting on the #gamergate issue, denouncing how wrong she deems it."
Clearly you must condone making sweeping generalizations about feminists based on ZERO actual evidence. And yet, no generalizations about anti-feminists or MRAs. Hmmm...
"I don't think they are evil. They are just accepting radicalization by following the wrong leaders, that are almost derailing the movement into misandry. They should re-evaluate the movement, so that they can truly sit together with other groups and talk issues through, instead of trying to impose unilaterally and/or surreptitiously their valid points."
More nonsense where you make a blanket statement without actual evidence. And again, you don't seem to say anything about extremists in the MRA movement.
And then you make comments like the one below, in which you basically shred your OWN arguments.
"Sorry to jump into your discussion. But are those threatning her really representative of the whole "gamer" demographic though? Are we all like that? Are feminists that bullies people online or that base their arguments on ad hominem and straw men representative of feminists?"
According to some of your posts, yes, they do apparently represent all "third-wave" feminists. Explain how gamers who harass people don't represent all gamers but if a feminist harasses someone they represent an entire group of feminists. I'd love to hear how you come to this conclusion. ;O)
1. Your allegation, not mine. Your burden of proof. I defended myself, even though you didn't provide proof in the first place. You still don't. Funny, throwing ad hominem and asking for the person suffering the ad hominem to prove it's false is the same thing actual feminists are used to calling "blaming the victim".
2. You mean you entitle yourself to treat me like you would the topic creator, throwed an ad hominem against me for a post and a thread title I didn't make? Talk about generalization...
3. Of course there is. You think the concept defines the reality of a movement? There are many political parties in my country that label themselves pro-labor, pro-workers, yet many of those only actually represent either their own interests or their lobbyists'. Discourse is one thing... especially when it gets so distant to what's actually put into practice. I already linked to some very heavy bullying (fat shaming, nerd shaming, gender+color shaming - 'white men', generalizations, slandering and gratuitious insults) happening online by those you name feminists. This is derailing a movement. Most youtube videos on the issue have very heated discussions with radicals from both sides throwing insults freely, yet the few trying to argue about the ethics in journalism issue are treated just like mras, or just dismissed (read, isolated) if they're lucky. I just don't see that as putting equality discourse into practice. Actions and the way you treat others, at least to me, is more important than what you preach as your official guidelines and motives. History is full of dictatorships made "for the good of people", my country just got out of one in the late 80s, and for the bulk of it, it even had popular support. When it ended we discovered the many horrors they did "for us". Yet, it's actually a dark age for us. If a person treats people on the basis of unequal grounds from start, if that person discusses with people on the grounds that he/she has the moral high ground to begin with, that others have to agree with you or else... face shaming, isolation, etc... then that person is not that which he/she calls him/herself after.
4. Yes, it's possible to reason with anyone. It may take more time, it may not render any result at the course of the discussion, not even after it. But I do believe that even after the discussion has ended, the strongest of our points linger in the mind of others, and they may think again. It may be rare still, but it happens. It seems this is not an argument, but a belief. Being so... the discussion over this point can't really go farther than us expressing how we view this. But I do believe even radical people can think again about an issue.
5. Do you consider the age of the people you're gaming with? Do you take into account that the way they behave when gaming may not be the same way they behave in real life? The same goes for forum users like we have here in GS - there are many that vent out aggressiveness online, yet are perfectly leveled people outside. In these places, we are not assuming our own identities like most do on Twitter or Facebook. Many use the pseudonyms to be able to act differently then they actually would if their actual identity was known. Funny though, adding to your anecdotal argument, that I don't face that many aweful gamers like you do when playing online. Plus... I don't really get how using words like "neckbeard" or "morons" add maturity or logical strenght to your point. For me it works the opposite way.
6. I hope it helps you looking at things from another perspective though.
7. Who are you talking to them? The ones you say you can't reason with? I see no consistency here. Was this a hole in your argument... or you argue with them, even knowing there's no getting through, because you enjoy the fight? My point stands.
End - on the old posts of mine you brought. Thanks for illustrating it better for me and everyone else. Those posts, and I can't answer this without avoiding false humility, are respectful while also addressing the intended issues.
"She's an equality feminist, and she's claiming that the new wave is more concerned with" - I'm citing Sommers. She's a logical evidence of argument of authority I validly applied. Until now, I gave you evidence of the bullying, evidence by itself - how a respected old time intellectual feminist perceives the 3rd wave majority as harmful to the movement. In a more recent tweet, she points out how dissenting feminists are voicing their opinions in defense of the gamergate. Dissenting... interesting word she used.
"I don't think they are evil." - Sorry, but you just took yourself an arrow to the knee here. You just quoted me saying that feminists are not evil. I defended the movement from another poster, and you quote that as bashing (which is the complete opposite)? And even try to twist and pull a strawman all over again?
"Are feminists that bullies people online or that base their arguments on ad hominem and straw men representative of feminists?" - I'm obviously limiting the behavior to a faction, implying it doesn't represent the entirety of it. Are the ones that bully representative of feminists? I don't think so. Never did, still don't.
1. My allegation that you haven't said used the same arguments against anti-feminists in these threads? Well yeah, I can prove that easily. I read through your recent posts from the past several days and didn't find a single example. If anyone doesn't believe me, check yourself.
http://www.gamespot.com/profile/SambaLele/
So my point stands. You only go after feminists with this logic from what I have seen, at least on GameSpot.
2. No, what I am saying is that if you thought you could jump into a hostile thread and suddenly expect complete civility from everyone, you should know better. I know exactly what to expect anytime I get involved in a thread like this... I know there isn't going to be much civility or rational discussion so I adapt. If you want a civil discussion then a gaming forum isn't the best place, which brings me back to my earlier point about a lot of gamers.
3. No. A friend responded to this exact argument a while ago on another site so I'll just repost her response"
---------------------------------
While members of any group will disagree about a lot of different issues, there is always at least one core belief that applies to anyone in the group. It is a requirement to be considered a member of the group in question.
If you are a Christian, you have to believe Jesus existed.
If you want to be a capitalist, you need to at least have certain basic views in support of the free-market.
If you want to be a communist, you have to believe certain basic views like manufacturing and other industries being controlled by the state.
If you want to be a Muslim, you need to believe in Muhammad.
If you want to be an Anarchist, you have to be against the idea of a "coercive" government being in control of a society.
If you want to be an LGBT Rights activist, you have support promoting the equality of LGBT people.
If you want to a civil rights activist, you have to support civil rights.
Beyond the core beliefs of an ideology we can't really say who is and is not a true member of the group without committing a No True Scotsman fallacy.
This doesn't just apply to ideologies either. If you want to be considered a gamer, you have to play some type of games. To be considered a fan of a sports team, you actually have to be a fan of the team. To be considered an athlete you actually have to play some sort of sport. There is always some specific trait associated with any label.
If you want to be a Feminist, you have to belief in promoting the idea that women are equal to men. Beyond that basic idea, anything goes but you have to believe in at least that basic concept to be called a Feminist. It is part of the very definition of the word.
---------------------------------
So if a woman (or man for that matter) calls herself a feminist but actually doesn't believe in promoting the EQUALITY of women, then she is NOT a feminist. If said person were to promote superiority of women (not equality) then she is not a Feminist. Now with that said, there can of course be some feminists who hate men but still support equality. However, as someone who reads a lot of feminist sites, blogs, twitters and YT channels, I am not seeing anything like that coming from the majority. If you are going to suggest that the majority of "third-wave" feminists believe that sort of thing then you need to actually some evidence and that is something that every single anti-feminist has failed to do so far. They never have anything more than one or two anecdotal examples.
Also, as far as your bullying is concerned, are you now suggesting that a small number of people represent most members of a group? Even after you said the opposite earlier? You have only a tiny number of examples compared to the massive number of people on the internet who most likely share feminist views or call themselves feminists. And that is assuming that most of them are even feminists. Did you forget about the Ban Fathersday hoax, where a bunch of people from a Reddit group decided to pose as feminists to try to start up this big campaign to make feminism look bad? Only this one backfired.
"If a person treats people on the basis of unequal grounds from start, if that person discusses with people on the grounds that he/she has the moral high ground to begin with, that others have to agree with you or else... face shaming, isolation, etc... then that person is not that which he/she calls him/herself after."
Wait... what? From my point of view, when it comes to equality, there actually IS a moral high ground and it belongs to the people who support equality. For example, in the civil rights debate, who do you think has the moral high ground? People who think black people deserve equal rights or those who think they do not? When a person expresses a view like that, I don't believe we should just respect the view or the person expressing it.
Also, think about what you just said for a moment. Now reverse it and apply it to feminists as well. This goes BOTH ways. When I first started debating anti-feminists, I actually did try to reason with them for a long time and never said a single thing about neck-beards or anything else, even though i knew it was a waste of time from the start.. And what did I get in return? Insults, name-calling, etc... So how was I being treated on equal ground from the start? Look at how feminists are maligned in these threads right from the beginning and tell me how they are being treated on equal ground from the start.
4. No, its not possible to reason with everyone. I'll tell you what, the next time the Westboro Baptist Church shows up for a protest, go there and try to reason with them. LOL Let me know how that works out for you. Maybe some extremists can be reasoned with but I haven't met any yet.
5. Sadly most gamers I have played with are around 15 to mid 30's and I see them acting pretty much the same. I mean at least a 15 year old has an excuse for acting like an idiot. The adult man-child type of people I see often are beyond excuses.
"here are many that vent out aggressiveness online, yet are perfectly leveled people outside. In these places, we are not assuming our own identities like most do on Twitter or Facebook. Many use the pseudonyms to be able to act differently then they actually would if their actual identity was known."
Okay, I find this puzzling and it brings us back to my earlier argument. You seem to be trying so hard to make excuses for the people on the other side of the battle but you are not applying this logic to the "feminists" that you dislike. Why is that? Why is it that the anti-feminists are just acting this way because they are young or because they act differently on the internet and are probably great people in real life. So why not apply that to the feminists you dislike? What is different about it?
"Plus... I don't really get how using words like "neckbeard" or "morons" add maturity or logical strenght to your point. For me it works the opposite way."
Yes, much like words such as "********" which I see frequently on forums. I do everything for a reason and it is usually to make a point, as I did in the other thread. ;O)
6. Can YOU look at things from another perspective?
7. Its not for their benefit. Someone has to refute their garbage so that it doesn't sway any undecided people out there.
And now you try to take your quotes out of their context to defend yourself. Come on now. You know i'm just going to repost the full context.
"She's an equality feminist, and she's claiming that the new wave is more concerned with" - I'm citing Sommers. She's a logical evidence of argument of authority I validly applied. Until now, I gave you evidence of the bullying, evidence by itself - how a respected old time intellectual feminist perceives the 3rd wave majority as harmful to the movement. In a more recent tweet, she points out how dissenting feminists are voicing their opinions in defense of the gamergate. Dissenting... interesting word she used."
No. First of all, you didn't give me proof of bullying by feminists unless you can show that they are indeed feminists. Secondly, even if they are feminists, it doesn't prove that the majority of "third-wave" feminists are like them. Neither you or Sommers has proven the claim that 3rd wave feminists all believe a certain thing or that they are actually harmful to the movement. Onew person's perception does not equal proof. Its a fallacious argument.
""I don't think they are evil." - Sorry, but you just took yourself an arrow to the knee here. You just quoted me saying that feminists are not evil. I defended the movement from another poster, and you quote that as bashing (which is the complete opposite)? And even try to twist and pull a strawman all over again?"
You forgot to post the rest of that paragraph... Specifically, where you go on to say "They are just accepting radicalization by following the wrong leaders, that are almost derailing the movement into misandry."
Like I said, show evidence that the majority of third-wave feminists are misandrists. The reality is that you can't because the evidence doesn't exist. Its a baseless generalization, which is something you get mad at other people for doing when it involves gamers. The hypocrisy is off the charts here. At least when I talk about gamers, I only said a certage percentage and I acknowledge that its based on personal experiences. You are generalizing the entire movement and passing off your opinion as a fact.
"Are feminists that bullies people online or that base their arguments on ad hominem and straw men representative of feminists?" - I'm obviously limiting the behavior to a faction, implying it doesn't represent the entirety of it. Are the ones that bully representative of feminists? I don't think so. Never did, still don't."
Wait, so you don't think they represent most third-wave feminists now?
Log in to comment