Spin-off thread about feminism

You never know. There's certainly room for doubt as to how many people would actually follow through with voting for cancer if such a scenario were actually plausible, but I can see the choice being driven by the same kind of hate-the-sin-love-the-sinner logic that allows for gay conversion therapy or anti-vaccination groups or honour killings.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Agreed.

I dont think this reaction is as much a support for Leftism or Feminism as it is a reaction to the hateful start. I never did get an answer to my question though. hmph

That grouping of issues doesn't seem deliberate at all. Bait thrown.

__________________
Letterboxd

I think it goes pretty well beyond "room for doubt." This is a Twitter poll, for crying out loud. There are zero stakes, it's virtually anonymous, and the people voting know the results will be publicized, and they know what result the author is trying to solicit to make their point, so there's a huge selection bias problem, too. It's quite possibly the least scientific kind of poll you could devise.

The Internet is full of activists of all kinds that love to use ridiculous overstatement to make a point. That should be everyone's null hypothesis, in the absence of compelling evidence otherwise.

I generally find him reasonable, but that leads me to the opposite conclusion entirely: that he should spend more time engaging with better arguments and less time shooting down the bad ones.

Also, a reminder to please refrain from personal insults.

I'm just quoting you for accusing me of cherry picking one sentence when you and others keep doing the very same thing, I think we have established that Milo Yiannopoulos compares feminsm to cancer he say's things like that to piss off liberal ****tards and I'm glad it is working but if you hear him speak at length, he does have a heart and speaks with more eloquence that anything I have read here and is tireless bro

I have my own eyes and my own mind and I see no inequality of the sexes, do you? it just so happens I see a lot of my views the same as Milo and nobody has done so much as him in the fight, I think he is great.

Can people stop hijacking the left hand discussion thread?

McCarthy would have had a field day on here

then youre blinde.
But aside from that,and lets pretend there were no inequialities of the sexes,do you think thats a bad thing? because if not and you think equality of the sexes is a good thing,you do realise that you are a feminist?. Also if it was,true-how do you think it came to be that way?

__________________

Apparently your anti-feminism message is not working. Yours & Milo's message is so filled with hate and harsh rhetoric, that it falls on deaf ears and has the opposite effect. You've pretty much made feminism look all the better by your post.

I've heard this sentiment a lot, and I think there are some obvious problems with it.

For one, it doesn't define "equality." It could mean "equality under the law," which almost nobody will disagree with. Or it could mean that the sexes should be thought of as the same, which very many people will disagree with. It could also mean that the government should forcibly mandate equality with things like quotas, subsidies, or regulations about wages.

And whichever definition you choose, the mere act of describing one's self this way carries the added connotation that we've failed to meet it. I've never heard someone say "I'm a feminist because I think men and women should be equal...and they are! Yay." The existence of a grievance is implied, otherwise there would be no need for the term.

he obviously claimed they are equal and if he thinks thats a good thing,then yes he is feminist.

I know exactly what your saying but I avoided getting into it to face more backlash, it's just a shortcut to get my meaning across.

I see it as equality to achieve, equality afforded by the government in our rights, not socially or in any other way

A path to equality - A few hours of mountain climbing turns a rascal and a saint into two pretty similar creatures. Fatigue is the shortest way to equality and fraternity-- and in the end liberty will surrender to sleep

~ Nietzsche

I just listed three different things people might mean when they say "equal," so I have no idea what this is meant to be a response to.

why do you think thats a bad thing though?

While I think the twitter poll thing is a bit of a mixed bag (part of the point of what Milo does is that he can hide behind a satire/jest/"provocateur" label whenever it suits him, even if he's being serious, to dangerous effect), I just want to make sure that people unfamiliar with him don't get the impression he made one comparison between feminism and cancer and that's been the one thing haunting him.

I also don't want people getting the idea that what he does is special. He provokes for a living, and you can see his personal brand envelop his identity if you compare early his early discussions to those now (he was never very convincing, but at least he used to have to do more than just spew madlibs of cards against humanity phrases to get attention).

It still says a lot that I'm more concerned about not taking something seriously enough than I am about taking it too seriously. In light of recent events, underestimating people's capacity for such thinking feels more and more like a luxury that can't be afforded so easily.

If you were that concerned with his more eloquent rhetoric being heard and understood, then why would you also be glad that he's "pissing off liberal ****tards" with his more obviously divisive comments? It's not like said comments exist separately from his core beliefs and principles - they serve as extensions of the same. His ideals don't automatically become more agreeable just because he expresses them at length in a calm debate setting instead of through vitriolic Twitter one-liners. If a man has no problem publicly comparing feminism to cancer even as a joke/trolling attempt, then how does that give anyone the impression that he's actually got something reasonable and worthwhile to say?

In fairness, I know that it's easy to keep returning to the exact same cancer line again and again, but the guy has said a lot of messed-up stuff that would make me question anyone who thought that taking his side on anything was a good idea. Thinking of this as a fight certainly doesn't help matters.

Yeah, he's consistently horrible. An important distinction, because I really hate using the word thing someone's ever said to encapsulate them as people. But that's definitely not the case with this guy.

To me, the relevant part is "provokes for a living." I don't take what he or the people voting in that poll are taking seriously, though for entirely different reasons: I don't take the vote seriously for the reasons I listed earlier. I don't take him seriously because I think, like anyone whose livelihood depends on stirring the pot, he's simply uninterested in truth. I don't think he means it, but I also don't think he's pretending to mean it, either. I think he doesn't even think in those terms any more.

I think, respectfully, you're learning exactly the wrong lesson from "recent events." In light of recent events, I think misunderstanding such thinking is clearly the greater problem. We can see what the response has been to sheer disdain, to assuming the worst, to shaming people into into acquiescence. It's not working. And it doesn't work because it fundamentally misunderstands what's actually going on.

Most of these people do not literally believe feminism is worse than cancer. They believe certain types of feminism are very bad, and in typical Internet fashion, they say the most extreme things in order to make that notion heard. They say the trolliest thing they can to provoke a response. They use overstatement to rise above the din.

This kind of thing is, I think, really obvious in most other contexts. It's only when it strikes some nerve, on some issue people really care about, that they're tempted to think the other people are really just that bad.