The NationStates Feminist Thread

[The Enclave-]

So we're just going to dismiss facts we don't like then?\
So then, why would all these companies suddenly pull adverts from Gawker and other journalists sites?
Why would they all suddenly posts ethics guidelines and promise to enforce them when they didn't have to before?
Your ignorance is showing.

Posting ethics guidelines doesn't mean Gamergate was the reason for it. Companies not giving ad money to Gawker doesn't mean Gamergate was the reason for it.

What other logical reason do you have then?
Or y'know, again you could acknowledge and concede there is overwhelming evidence there has been a problem in games journalism for a long time, and GG exposed it.

I love the opportunity to use these

Aren't logical fallacies fun?

[The Enclave-]

Not trying to double post, but here's an idea:
Instead off-handedly just dismissing my claims without an iota of debate or sourcing, try to actually address my points?

This is why I have a massive issue with modern feminism, and its this portion of it right here, so many feminists, knowingly or otherwise use.

Lewis' Law: "Any criticism of Feminism is itself justification for why we need feminism."

Let's break that down for those who don't understand the implications there.

First, it's fucking circular logic because it says critics are evidence why feminism is needed, even though that statement has no evidence.
but even worse, is that it suggests feminism is beyond criticism unless it comes from within its own elements which seek to further justify and reinforce feminism.
You don't see the issue here?

Sauce: https://www.google.com/search?q=lewis+l ... 8&oe=utf-8
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Lewis%27_Law
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... wis%27+law

[Tahar Joblis]

So we're just going to dismiss facts we don't like then?\
So then, why would all these companies suddenly pull adverts from Gawker and other journalists sites?
Why would they all suddenly posts ethics guidelines and promise to enforce them when they didn't have to before?
Your ignorance is showing.

Posting ethics guidelines doesn't mean Gamergate was the reason for it. Companies not giving ad money to Gawker doesn't mean Gamergate was the reason for it.

Anyway....

I'm not denying Totalbiscuit gets harassed. It's just a magnitude smaller to what his side dishes out to these women.

As with everything, victimization by gender is well within half on order of magnitude, and that is in spite of a bias against men recognizing victimization (especially in recognizing "sexual harassment"). The amount of harassment TB gets relative to his prominence is unlikely to be significantly more or less than a similarly prominent woman.

[Gauthier]

Jesus Christ, there's already a GG thread to Biblically rant about the evils of feminism on.

[Ostroeuropa]

Not really.

He calls BS on both sides, and he does jump the gun sometimes, but his followers often quickly call him out and he quickly corrects and makes edits.

But thanks for generalizing the entire movement of gamergate, because I'm sure anti-GGers are saints. Oh wait, thats why TotalBiscuit has been getting 300+ death threats, including those of people telling him that they hope his cancer kills him.

Thanks for showing your extensive research.

https://soundcloud.com/totalbiscuit/enough

Ah yes, the angels of gamergate supporting ethics in gaming journalism. Even though that was just a cover story so they could go harass notable feminists and female game developers like Zoe Quinn (who was the main target for their harassment crusade), Anita Sarkeesian, Leigh Alexander, Brianna Wu, and others. Meanwhile, ethics in gaming journalism hasn't advanced much, and it seems like they don't give a fuck beyond harassing. Just go to their main subreddit KiA and see the hateful shit.

I'm not denying Totalbiscuit gets harassed. It's just a magnitude smaller to what his side dishes out to these women.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and are just repeating the narrative you've been fed. Get some actual facts and figures then we can talk.

[Ostroeuropa]

Not a single advocate of due process rights is to testify at the senate hearing on sexual harrassment on college campuses in the USA.
Just a bunch of feminist stooges telling feminist senators what they need to hear in order to weaponize accusations of rape apology and misogyny to drive through more legislation to further violate male college students constitutional rights, despite dozens and dozens of legal experts from around the country telling them the current feminist kangaroo court system is illegal and violates the students rights.

This, again, in spite of the fact that men are a dwindling minority on college campuses.

Imagine if in the 60's, 70's and 80's and such we had these hearings and we found that white women were routinely accusing black men on campus of sexually harrassing them, and those white women lobbied for their accusations to be able to trump the due process rights of those black men, for a simultaneous acceptance of "Preponderence of evidence" and "It's very rare for someone to lie about these things" to be the norm, thus placing the burden on the accused to prove their innocence.
(While also rigging it so that in many cases, this is still insufficient. See the case where the rape victim (male) was expelled from university after his rapist (Female) used the system to get him expelled. The university accepted that he was blacked out during the encounter, but refuses to reopen the case.)

Would there be any doubt in anyones minds what the motivation for those people lobbying for that was?

It's obvious.
To chase black men out of university and make them into second class citizens. To deny them access to higher education and thus the means by which to enter the middle and upper classes and better themselves. To maintain a monopoly and a majority on that power for the white race.

But do it to all men and suddenly people will go out of their way to deny the blatant and systemic discrimination they face at the hands of feminists and their institutional power.

Whether it is malicious and with intent, born out of applying an inherently hateful worldview to reality, or just outright stupidity is no longer very relevant.
What is relevant is that it is real, and these people must be stopped.

[Ostroeuropa]

Wondering what feminists would say to this comment I found in one of the MRM threads elsewhere.

(Protect and serve then links to numerous incidents of police brutality.)

I personally feel it alludes to part of the problem, but ignores the deeper fundamental flaw with feminist ideologies and the standpoint problem. But as a start, it's a good one.
I realize it might be a repeat of what i've said ad nauseum, but I think this particular comment sums up this part of the feminist problem well.

It's clear that police have no place in our society. We should ban police and law enforcement, or at least have an alternative and competing force that's less biased against law breakers.

Would you say that the examples of police brutality and discrimination against ethnic minorities demonstrates a clear need to curtail the power of all police, or to render all police more accountable for their actions, or that police people whining "It's just a minority! Wahh!" should be sufficient answer to the problem.
Like I said.
Attacking feminism is attacking the brand, and it's power. It isn't an attempt to abolish it. Merely cripple it and render it incapable of being abused. Forcing it into it's proper role and such.
It's clear that feminists have too much unaccountable power in our society. We should curtail the power of feminism, or at least have an alternative and competing force that is on the side of men.

(You know. Like a defence attorney maybe?)

[Fartsniffage]

It's clear that police have no place in our society. We should ban police and law enforcement, or at least have an alternative and competing force that's less biased against law breakers.

Would you say that the examples of police brutality and discrimination against ethnic minorities demonstrates a clear need to curtail the power of all police, or to render all police more accountable for their actions, or that police people whining "It's just a minority! Wahh!" should be sufficient answer to the problem.
Like I said.
Attacking feminism is attacking the brand, and it's power. It isn't an attempt to abolish it. Merely cripple it and render it incapable of being abused. Forcing it into it's proper role and such.

Wouldn't a crippled movement be an oxymoron?

[Ostroeuropa]

Would you say that the examples of police brutality and discrimination against ethnic minorities demonstrates a clear need to curtail the power of all police, or to render all police more accountable for their actions, or that police people whining "It's just a minority! Wahh!" should be sufficient answer to the problem.
Like I said.
Attacking feminism is attacking the brand, and it's power. It isn't an attempt to abolish it. Merely cripple it and render it incapable of being abused. Forcing it into it's proper role and such.

Wouldn't a crippled movement be an oxymoron?

It can still hobble.

EDIT:
As has been repeatedly demonstrated over the last few years, feminism retains the cultural, social, and political power to trample peoples constitutional rights, such as due process.
That is clearly too much power for a movement to have. It must be curtailed. Or counterweighted.

[The Serbian Empire]

Not a single advocate of due process rights is to testify at the senate hearing on sexual harrassment on college campuses in the USA.
Just a bunch of feminist stooges telling feminist senators what they need to hear in order to weaponize accusations of rape apology and misogyny to drive through more legislation to further violate male college students constitutional rights, despite dozens and dozens of legal experts from around the country telling them the current feminist kangaroo court system is illegal and violates the students rights.

This, again, in spite of the fact that men are a dwindling minority on college campuses.

Imagine if in the 60's, 70's and 80's and such we had these hearings and we found that white women were routinely accusing black men on campus of sexually harrassing them, and those white women lobbied for their accusations to be able to trump the due process rights of those black men, for a simultaneous acceptance of "Preponderence of evidence" and "It's very rare for someone to lie about these things" to be the norm, thus placing the burden on the accused to prove their innocence.
(While also rigging it so that in many cases, this is still insufficient. See the case where the rape victim (male) was expelled from university after his rapist (Female) used the system to get him expelled. The university accepted that he was blacked out during the encounter, but refuses to reopen the case.)

Would there be any doubt in anyones minds what the motivation for those people lobbying for that was?

It's obvious.
To chase black men out of university and make them into second class citizens. To deny them access to higher education and thus the means by which to enter the middle and upper classes and better themselves. To maintain a monopoly and a majority on that power for the white race.

But do it to all men and suddenly people will go out of their way to deny the blatant and systemic discrimination they face at the hands of feminists and their institutional power.

Whether it is malicious and with intent, born out of applying an inherently hateful worldview to reality, or just outright stupidity is no longer very relevant.
What is relevant is that it is real, and these people must be stopped.

Racism is still alive in America. The radical feminists use it to keep the black man down.

[Ostroeuropa]

Not a single advocate of due process rights is to testify at the senate hearing on sexual harrassment on college campuses in the USA.
Just a bunch of feminist stooges telling feminist senators what they need to hear in order to weaponize accusations of rape apology and misogyny to drive through more legislation to further violate male college students constitutional rights, despite dozens and dozens of legal experts from around the country telling them the current feminist kangaroo court system is illegal and violates the students rights.

This, again, in spite of the fact that men are a dwindling minority on college campuses.

Imagine if in the 60's, 70's and 80's and such we had these hearings and we found that white women were routinely accusing black men on campus of sexually harrassing them, and those white women lobbied for their accusations to be able to trump the due process rights of those black men, for a simultaneous acceptance of "Preponderence of evidence" and "It's very rare for someone to lie about these things" to be the norm, thus placing the burden on the accused to prove their innocence.
(While also rigging it so that in many cases, this is still insufficient. See the case where the rape victim (male) was expelled from university after his rapist (Female) used the system to get him expelled. The university accepted that he was blacked out during the encounter, but refuses to reopen the case.)

Would there be any doubt in anyones minds what the motivation for those people lobbying for that was?

It's obvious.
To chase black men out of university and make them into second class citizens. To deny them access to higher education and thus the means by which to enter the middle and upper classes and better themselves. To maintain a monopoly and a majority on that power for the white race.

But do it to all men and suddenly people will go out of their way to deny the blatant and systemic discrimination they face at the hands of feminists and their institutional power.

Whether it is malicious and with intent, born out of applying an inherently hateful worldview to reality, or just outright stupidity is no longer very relevant.
What is relevant is that it is real, and these people must be stopped.

Racism is still alive in America. The radical feminists use it to keep the black man down.

Not sure if serious.

But while i'm posting, also my new favorite comparison:

"Feminists are for equality like Imperialists are for civilization."

(I.E, a very narrow and particular viewpoint of it that justifies oppressing and exploiting others, delegitimizes their view on what equality/civilization means, and happens to fuck everyone in the outgroup over. It also necessitates the constant intrusion into other peoples business and spheres. Gamergate was partially a result of recent feminist colonization attempts at that part of our culture. All done with a zealous belief that they are improving the world when they force their views and rules on other areas, and with an arrogance that belies belief.)
It is the white womans burden.

Because of the overbearing white-middleclass womanness of modern feminism, I do think that black men are probably oppressed by it more than white men. So... like i said. Not sure if serious.

This "Feminism As Imperialism" view also reveals something about why MGTOWs call male feminists house niggers. (Though they also say this about MRAs who want to "Go back to the plantation once master promises to stop being an asshole.")
I wouldn't go that far.
But they're probably comparable to middle class native officials who are obsessed with the aristocracy and their approval.
As usual, the MGTOWs have a point and then go to far with it. (In my opinion.)

Certainly, the feminist signal boosting of males as violent/sex offenders etc, (Black Sociology) doesn't help black men, who already have this shit come at them from the racism source and now deal with it from sexism too.

Really, feminism in it's modern form is only any good for white middle class women with aspirations to enter the upper class. Everyone else is fucked over by it, including most women.
(Wonderfully outlined in those "This is what a feminist looks like" t-shirts which women in a third world country made for slave wages. Yes. Yes that is what a feminist looks like. Good job.)

It's turned left wing politics into "Who can pander the best to selfish middle class women?" instead of a discussion on class, and is used to immediately derail attempts to do so with WUT ABOUT THE WIMMINZ, ignoring that most women are, in fact, working class.

This is why there is endless waffling about the glass ceiling, something that will only effect an extreme minority of women, and very little talk about the minimum wage.

It also fucks over everyone on civil rights issues when it's used as a bludgeon by the government to become invincible to criticism, for instance on porn bans or widespread internet surveillance etc.

(Outlined more here: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=342581&p=24890714&hilit=ostroeuropa+feminism+religion#p24890714 )

So... yeh.
I think black men get fucked over by feminism. Were you being serious?
(I can't tell.)

[The Serbian Empire]

Racism is still alive in America. The radical feminists use it to keep the black man down.

Not sure if serious.

But while i'm posting, also my new favorite comparison:

"Feminists are for equality like Imperialists are for civilization."

(I.E, a very narrow and particular viewpoint of it that justifies oppressing and exploiting others, delegitimizes their view on what equality/civilization means, and happens to fuck everyone in the outgroup over. It also necessitates the constant intrusion into other peoples business and spheres. Gamergate was partially a result of recent feminist colonization attempts at that part of our culture.)
It is the white womans burden.

Because of the overbearing white-middleclass womanness of modern feminism, I do think that black men are probably oppressed by it more than white men. So... like i said. Not sure if serious.

I was serious. The sex-negative feminists seem like the new era of lynch mobs just instead of hanging the man from the tallest tree; they hang a sex offender label on them and ruin their lives.

[Esternial]

Not sure if serious.

But while i'm posting, also my new favorite comparison:

"Feminists are for equality like Imperialists are for civilization."

(I.E, a very narrow and particular viewpoint of it that justifies oppressing and exploiting others, delegitimizes their view on what equality/civilization means, and happens to fuck everyone in the outgroup over. It also necessitates the constant intrusion into other peoples business and spheres. Gamergate was partially a result of recent feminist colonization attempts at that part of our culture.)
It is the white womans burden.

Because of the overbearing white-middleclass womanness of modern feminism, I do think that black men are probably oppressed by it more than white men. So... like i said. Not sure if serious.

I was serious. The sex-negative feminists seem like the new era of lynch mobs just instead of hanging the man from the tallest tree; they hang a sex offender label on them and ruin their lives.

It's sad, yes.

So much hate in the world.

We'd need an entity that poses such a great threat to the entirety of humanity that every direct their hates to that one individual or organisation, before being destroyed by the collective power of all mankind.

FIFA, step up your game, brah.

[Galloism]

I was serious. The sex-negative feminists seem like the new era of lynch mobs just instead of hanging the man from the tallest tree; they hang a sex offender label on them and ruin their lives.

It's sad, yes.

So much hate in the world.

We'd need an entity that poses such a great threat to the entirety of humanity that every direct their hates to that one individual or organisation, before being destroyed by the collective power of all mankind.

FIFA, step up your game, brah.

They're working on it. John Oliver took aim at them again on Sunday:

http://youtu.be/v6jws7mP4Wg

[Chessmistress]

Indeed. One particular example that pops right out at me is that our dear Chess has stated, on numerous occasions, that trans people don't matter because we're "only 0.4%" of the population (a statistic that she has yet to back up with a source, might I add).

I really REALLY hate to seem like I'm defending CM in any context, but tbf there is a source that does support her it seems.
Might not be a very credible one, but it is there.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why ... opulation/

"Gary Gates is an LGBT demographer at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law’s Williams Institute, which studies sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy. He is responsible for one of the most frequently cited estimates of the transgender population — 700,000, about 0.3 percent of U.S. adults. That figure is based on data from two surveys. One, conducted in Massachusetts in 2007 and 2009, found that 0.5 percent of respondents ages 18 to 64 identified as transgender. The other, done in California in 2003 to look at trends in LGBT tobacco use, found that 0.1 percent of adults in California identified as transgender. Using the surveys to get to the 0.3 percent estimate “takes a lot of statistical gymnastics,” Gates said."

To clarify, this survey is for the state of California only, and she's extrapolating that to the entire country, which is still shitty debating at best, and down right underhanded at worst.

Thank you, but there was no need.
I wrote 0.4% and I don't think that is important to go in deep details, even if it would be 0.5% or 0.6% or even 0.7%, there's no difference - it's always less than 1%, and why bother about showing surveys when...

More importantly I think, though, is that there are more trans people than surveys would indicate.

Indeed.
Showing surveys doesn't seems important to me, at least not while having an argument with you, because you "think" there are more trans people than surveys would indicate.
So, why bother about showing surveys? It's useless...

I like how Milo Yiannopoulos can leave feminists speechless. It's very entertaining.

Like, in example?
I don't remember Yiannopoulos leaving "speechless" someone.
I just remember a pair of ludicrously misogynist articles from him, and no more.

[The Enclave-]

Thank you, but there was no need.
I wrote 0.4% and I don't think that is important to go in deep details, even if it would be 0.5% or 0.6% or even 0.7%, there's no difference - it's always less than 1%, and why bother about showing surveys when...

Because y'know..sources are actually crucial to debate, if they weren't, whats to stop me from saying saaay...
All woman rape men.

Look how fast you grab a source to disprove that.

See my point?

[Chessmistress]

Thank you, but there was no need.
I wrote 0.4% and I don't think that is important to go in deep details, even if it would be 0.5% or 0.6% or even 0.7%, there's no difference - it's always less than 1%, and why bother about showing surveys when...

Because y'know..sources are actually crucial to debate, if they weren't, whats to stop me from saying saaay...
All woman rape men.

Look how fast you grab a source to disprove that.

See my point?

I see.
But my initial argument was about the fact transexuals are a very narrow minority, when instead women are 51%.
The fact transexuals are 0.4% or 0.5% or even 0.8% doesn't change the fact they're a very narrow minority, and women are majority, 51%.
That's why I don't bother about sourcing the fact transexuals are a very narrow minority: it seems very silly to me. You can take my 0.4%, or you can say "no, it's 0.8%", or you can even say "it's maybe even around 1%!" (that's likely very inflated). Still, always, a very narrow minority.

[Geilinor]

Because y'know..sources are actually crucial to debate, if they weren't, whats to stop me from saying saaay...
All woman rape men.

Look how fast you grab a source to disprove that.

See my point?

I see.
But my initial argument was about the fact transexuals are a very narrow minority, when instead women are 51%.
The fact transexuals are 0.4% or 0.5% or even 0.8% doesn't change the fact they're a very narrow minority, and women are majority, 51%.
That's why I don't bother about sourcing the fact transexuals are a very narrow minority: it seems very silly to me. You can take my 0.4%, or you can say "no, it's 0.8%", or you can even say "it's maybe even around 1%!" (that's likely very inflated). Still, always, a very narrow minority.

I don't care how small of a minority they are, nothing justifies your exclusionary feminism.

[Ostroeuropa]

Reddit SJWs make a huge list of users they hate, with links to the comments for why they hate them.
I made the list! WooHoo!!!

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/com ... osting_to/

MensRights reddit parties down showing off their misogynystic comments like:

Quoting Reddit Rules at them:

more likely rule #8
Mods reserve the right to remove content or restrict users' posting privileges as necessary if it is deemed detrimental to the subreddit or to the experience of others. All users are expected to be respectful to other users at all times. Personal attacks or comments that insult or demean a specific user or group of users will be removed and regular or egregious violations will result in bans.

Such misogyny.

[Geanna]

I see.
But my initial argument was about the fact transexuals are a very narrow minority, when instead women are 51%.
The fact transexuals are 0.4% or 0.5% or even 0.8% doesn't change the fact they're a very narrow minority, and women are majority, 51%.
That's why I don't bother about sourcing the fact transexuals are a very narrow minority: it seems very silly to me. You can take my 0.4%, or you can say "no, it's 0.8%", or you can even say "it's maybe even around 1%!" (that's likely very inflated). Still, always, a very narrow minority.

I don't care how small of a minority they are, nothing justifies your exclusionary feminism.

By her logic, she is merely 0.000000014% of the population. No need to pay attention to her.

[TERF]

Poe's Law. *nod*

Poe's law says parody parody is indistinguishable from radicalism, the accusation that Gauthier keeps making without any kind of evidence is that Chessmistress is a sockpuppet whose only objective is to make feminists look crazy. That's not Poe's Law that's a false flag operation.

No, it's a deliberate attempt to taint feminism as a psychotic ideology.

I personally would still like to hear more about this conspiracy- is it the MR-Asons the IlluMANati or does this go all the way up to the chief patriarch whose throne is a subway bench that he takes up too much room on? I'd love to see the wealth of evidence that led you to look at someone whose policies you disagreed with and decide that not only did they not believe the things they were saying they were a deep cover agent sent to disparage feminism.

Gauthier is technically right saying Chessmistress is a puppet.
Problem is that Chessmistress is a puppet of mine: that's my very first nation
Founded two days before Chessmistress.

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't care how small of a minority they are, nothing justifies your exclusionary feminism.

By her logic, she is merely 0.000000014% of the population. No need to pay attention to her.

Suddenly, nobody gave any fucks about anything other people had to say.
Society got better and worse at the same time, but mostly collapsed.

[Geilinor]

Poe's law says parody parody is indistinguishable from radicalism, the accusation that Gauthier keeps making without any kind of evidence is that Chessmistress is a sockpuppet whose only objective is to make feminists look crazy. That's not Poe's Law that's a false flag operation.



I personally would still like to hear more about this conspiracy- is it the MR-Asons the IlluMANati or does this go all the way up to the chief patriarch whose throne is a subway bench that he takes up too much room on? I'd love to see the wealth of evidence that led you to look at someone whose policies you disagreed with and decide that not only did they not believe the things they were saying they were a deep cover agent sent to disparage feminism.

Gauthier is technically right saying Chessmistress is a puppet.
Problem is that Chessmistress is a puppet of mine: that's my very first nation
Founded two days before Chessmistress.

This nation is what happens when Chessmistress is pissed off or angered

There there, Chessy. Why are you pissed off? It's okay, we aren't trying to hurt your feels.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Poe's law says parody parody is indistinguishable from radicalism, the accusation that Gauthier keeps making without any kind of evidence is that Chessmistress is a sockpuppet whose only objective is to make feminists look crazy. That's not Poe's Law that's a false flag operation.



I personally would still like to hear more about this conspiracy- is it the MR-Asons the IlluMANati or does this go all the way up to the chief patriarch whose throne is a subway bench that he takes up too much room on? I'd love to see the wealth of evidence that led you to look at someone whose policies you disagreed with and decide that not only did they not believe the things they were saying they were a deep cover agent sent to disparage feminism.

Gauthier is technically right saying Chessmistress is a puppet.
Problem is that Chessmistress is a puppet of mine: that's my very first nation
Founded two days before Chessmistress.

Chessmistress has an even less classy account. The limbo bar just went underground.

[Ostroeuropa]

Gauthier is technically right saying Chessmistress is a puppet.
Problem is that Chessmistress is a puppet of mine: that's my very first nation
Founded two days before Chessmistress.

Chessmistress has an even less classy account. The limbo bar just went underground.

Going "Under" the limbo bar is a matter of perspective, considering that "Up" doesn't really exist. WE CAN DO IT!
Just hop over.

And that is how a pedant won the international limbo championship, and subsequently broke limbo as a game.