You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 09, 2016, 05:48:27 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Against that slur 'feminazi'.  (Read 1694 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Drake Valentine

  • Architect of Worlds
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Location: In the Deepest Depthes of Your Twisted Mind
  • Gender: Male
  • Making Your Darkest of Fantasies a Reality
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Against that slur 'feminazi'.
« Reply #25 on: September 22, 2015, 07:11:18 AM »
Feminazi?

That is a new one to me.

What is next, mascunazi? :o 

Online Vergil Tanner

Re: Against that slur 'feminazi'.
« Reply #26 on: September 22, 2015, 08:32:15 AM »

Offline Drake Valentine

  • Architect of Worlds
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Location: In the Deepest Depthes of Your Twisted Mind
  • Gender: Male
  • Making Your Darkest of Fantasies a Reality
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Against that slur 'feminazi'.
« Reply #27 on: September 22, 2015, 09:18:13 AM »

Online Vergil Tanner

Re: Against that slur 'feminazi'.
« Reply #28 on: September 22, 2015, 09:20:42 AM »
-laughs-
Well, Urban Dictionary isn't the best place for definitions, but I found it vaguely amusing that the word DOES actually exist, if in a limited form. XD

Offline Garuss Vakarian

Re: Against that slur 'feminazi'.
« Reply #29 on: September 29, 2015, 06:51:44 AM »
-laughs-
Well, Urban Dictionary isn't the best place for definitions, but I found it vaguely amusing that the word DOES actually exist, if in a limited form. XD

Lol, Ya, id agree there. :P

Hey, just chipping in on something here.



Well, some feminists are basically nazi's in ideology. Prominent Journalist and feminist Judy Bendel, is one such feminist. Why? She has OPENLY been recorded, that men should be put in concentration camps for their own good. (Because they are by nature violent and dangerous... A massive over reach in and of it'self, with no bassis in fact. Men are not inherantly evil, society makes them so when they ignorantly do not notice when they need help. Same for evil women, which there are many of, as much as men. We just like to not pay attention to that as much in the media, for it does not fit the narrative of progressive culture.) As well as advocating we abolish Hetero sexuality.... Well, let's dig into this interview then shall we!!!


In an interview from a group called Rad fem collective:  (Quoting this golden statement verbatim.)
"I mean, I would actually put them all in some kind of camp where they can all drive around on quad bikes, or bicycles,  or white vans. I would give them a choice of vehicles to drive around with, give them no porn, they wouldn't be able to fight- We would set up wardens of coarse."

Ok, already this is a shady as fuck principle. All men put into a camp? With warden watchdogs making sure they 'stand in line' so to speak. Taking away civil liberties, such as the right to relieve ones own sexual frustrations peacefully and without the harm of any individual. (Based on the idea that it is wrong to do so, or watch porn.) Wow, that sounds like a concentration camp!

"Women who want to see their sons or loved ones would be able to go and visit, or TAKE THEM OUT LIKE A LIBRARY BOOK, and then bring them back." Oh, we cant have porn because that OBJECTIFIES WOMEN, but no one bats an eyelash towards men being thrown about with their muscles on billboards or game characters with massive abs. Or bat an eye, when a critically renowned journalist for the Guardian, one of the most respected and well renowned papers in britian. States in an interview for herself, openly mind you. THAT MEN CAN BE TAKEN OUT OF THESE CAMPS OCCASIONALLY, LIKE A FUCKING, LIBRARY, BOOK. It's wrong to look at a women naked when she openly displays herself for the camera and willfully lets them distribute it, but it is ok to LITERALLY COMPARE A MAN TO AN OBJECT. Further, saying women could check them out like library books devalues them as something you just rent, or take out for a while. (Which knowing some one like her, it is a compliment to be compared to an OBJECT of learning, she coulda done worse, compare us to a toilet or something.) It's your pet man John-  Oh I mean your son john. Whom you can take out every now and again, show a bit of civil living and happiness he is not all to familiar with, then send back to the concentration camp ran by thought police with only "Blame the patriarchy son" as your excuse. Wow, what a fucked up concept. But! Of coarse feminism is not about man hating!

Just go and read the context of the article. Shes not even joking! The feminazi, Oh dam straight I said it! This feminazi, is dead, fucking, serious.


"I hope heterosexuality doesnt survive, actually. I would like to see a truce on sexuality.”
 Hold the phone... Ha... Ha ha ha ha ha rofl. Wait one second. You hope the very biological process of events that constitutes the the creation of life- Wait, wont be so broad since that includes men, which she clearly hates. That creates, women, doesn't survive this ideal world of yours. And she calls herself a feminist.

 What she is saying is simply made more sickening, by the perspective of which, she is supposed to fight for equality. Not totalitarianism, authoritarianism or a matriarchy. But equality.

Let me reiterate a fact I previously stated. Let me make this perfectly clear to any one reading. This is not some confused teenager with a tumbler blog, not some internet troll that needs to grow up, not some over reaching white knight, not some random sociopath yelling at men randomly on the street, not some indoctrinated college yahoo shouting out over dramatic dogma her teachers literally shoved down her throat... This is a women, who writes for the Guardian. One of the BIGGEST, most well renowned papers in the united kingdom. A hundred and sixty articles alone are hers, each and every one accessible to the entire internet. This is some one that appears on national television, on a regular basis no less.

And the rest of the interview, is her detailing what laws need to pass, and how to make them pass, in order to achieve what she is calling for. These kinds of people are friggin dangerous, dont matter if your a boy or a girl. A MRA or a feminist. People that think like this are truly the ones that are inherently TOXIC to the world, not all men, but people like her. Be they man or women.

Imagine if you will if a prominent male journalist called for all women to be put in camps, with few civil liberties, to be taken out one or twice a month because they want the company of women they care about.  IMAGINE, the backlash that would follow.  But know what, let me get this straight. A man is publicly shamed and his life's magnum opus/crowning achievement ruined over his shirt. But this prominent feminist women gets away with not even people batting an eye at literally saying men should be put in camps and segregated? Judging by that comparison, the 'patriarchy' (Doesnt exist.) must be doing a reeeeelly crappy job. I seriously imagine her defending herself on this.Possibly with something like, "We wouldn't do what nazi's did with the Jews." As if that makes it any better when your still putting men in camps! It was wrong when the nazi's did it to the jews, it was wrong when the us Americans did it to the Japanese. Because it is wrong. The very idea, of segregating literally half of the world's population based on what dangles in their britches. Is INHUMAN. INHUMANE. AND STRAIGHT NAZIISM.

"I would love to see a womens liberation that results in women turning away from men and saying, "When you come back as human beings, then we MIGHT look again." Yes, men in general without her even knowing them all personally, the things they have done, the good or evil in their hearts, or their intentions, are NOT propper human beings. But women in general are. No Bindel, your wrong. your in fact, quite insane and need to see a doctor for your mental well being. Well, unfortunately for her it is this kind of bat shit crazy, fascist, Authoritarian rhetoric that has prompted a vast majority of women to turn away from radical feminism. (Specifically, Radical Feminism. Feminists like for example, and I know your all gonna flip your shit because apparently actually wanting equality doesnt make her a real feminist- Christina Hof Summers. Are REAL feminist's, and egalitarian. Equality is the goal, not #Killall men. Or segregation.) Radical Feminism, or Feminazi is this kind of mindset that calls for male specific curfews in college, segregated public transport services, and the treatment of all men as 'would-be-rapists's and or highly potential public risk's. Even as far as their own masculinity being inherently TOXIC, as if being masculine is wrong and femininity is all that is right in the world. Let me tell ya, femininity is not all perfect, it in fact is just one side to the coin that makes humans, human. And like all humans, feminine is flawed as much as masculine.

I will even quote a youtuber here because he puts this part quite well,
"Hell, she even goes as far as to complain that radical feminists like her are, quote, no platform.  Because apparently having national news coverage and having hundreds of your articles published is an example of having no platform. But the fact is she should be no platformed. Should major publications give platforms to some one who say's Black people should go to concentration camps, or neo nazi's who call for interning jews? No. Yet this women has the temerity to whine that the patriarchy is no platforming her, when she has already been afforded an open ended platform in which to spread her vile hatred and misandry." Across the world, for any one to see, I may add.
 
So feminazi exists for a reason, people like her.  And in the end of the day, it is meant to silence her. Just as much as feminists use misogynist, cis pig, neckbeared and over privileged white male to silence others. It is meant to belittle them rad fem's, it is meant to hurt their feelers, it is meant to SHAME THEM. Just like feminists shame others in straw men arguments, threat's of public ridicule, and name calling, to silence another's arguments. Feminists shame others all the time, so I am certain the prospect of shame tactics seems quite familiar to them. None the less, as long as there is people, there will be hatred, violence, ignorance and name calling. Knowing people like miss bindel, she would tell me right now to check my privilege. Because apparently we should replace people, to as long as there is white men. Even though, women are just as capable of evil. And even though race should have nothing to do with it. But that is waht is wrong with progressive culture. It is no different from the nazi's. because they are doing to men what nazi's did to jews. Their devaluing them. Slowly, they use rhetoric, and ideas, to point the finger and say "Look, here is your public enemy! The Jew" But instead, feminists say, "The white male!" And because they do so, the more and more they say it, the more and more they get people to believe it. The more and more they devalue men. Just like Nazi's devalued the jews. Because lets not get it twisted, thats what happened. The Nazi's used rhetoric, ideas, and manipulation to convince a widespread hatred among it's people towards the Jews. Wow, doesn't THAT, sound familiar? No, men are not in camps. But I believe she means what she is saying. And that is scary as fuck. And the more people whom say #kill all men, #Masculinityis fragile, #Swimming in male tears, and suggest things like camps or castration policies. The bigger this snow ball gets. And the easier it becomes, to make man hating, commonplace.

Let me leave this off with a little trick of mine. Something I like to teach to any feminist I meet, yelling, snarling at me. I like to introduce them to Hanlons Razor: Do NOT, attribute malice to which can be easily attributed as stupidity." Or, in the case of most progressives looking for any reason to point and call a cism of any kind. Because they see the world through a Blik, well- a figurative lens. People like this should take Hanlons razor and attribute it as such: Do not attribute to hate, what can easily be attributed as ignorance. If more people kept that in mind, maybe there would be open discourse. And feminists wouldnt hide in their echochambers, laughing at the very idea of a debate. But, obviously, their right, your wrong. Never mind the fact learning is not done that way. Learning is through taking in another's perspective even if it does not follow your own, because they may be right. But know what? Listen and Believe? Not think and ask questions? Seems logic and reasoning is a dying principle.  (Of which must mention. I am not attributing stupidity as malice with miss Bendel. What with her obvious rhetoric and her paper called why I hate men, it is obvious that while yes she is stupid. Everything she said, was of malice. Hate. And misandry.

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Against that slur 'feminazi'.
« Reply #30 on: September 29, 2015, 01:47:33 PM »
Garuss, I couldn't find any significant hits for a "Judy Bendel". Do you perhaps mean Julie Bindel, a name I only knew offhand because of mainstream feminist criticism of her? Yeah, she's not just a feminist, she's a TERF. I'm not sure if you recognize the term or not, but... short version: It was created, is endorsed, and is used primarily by mainstream feminists who are utterly disgusted by the shit spewed by her and those like her.

The feminists you claim don't exist.

The feminists who have actively, for years, campaigned against her and people like her, encouraged conventions and organizations to stop paying and providing a platform for her and people like her, on one notable occasion actually managed to get a venue to cancel an entire convention for her ilk.

But that, apparently, is "not batting an eye".

So... over half of what you wrote is taking this extreme radical who is opposed mostly by feminists and using her to smear feminism as a whole. Great job there.

You're also wrong on both why "feminazi" exists and how it's used. It was popularized by Rush Limbaugh (though he credits a friend with coining it), defined as “a feminist to whom the most important thing in life is ensuring that as many abortions as possible occur”. This is, for the record, a set with zero members. When he decided to cite examples of "feminazis", he came up with such radical kill-all-men examples as Gloria Steinem and Susan Sarandon. So no, it doesn't exist to describe people like Julie Bindel. It exists to smear all feminists by claiming they just want to cause abortions and casually linking them to the best-known genocide in human history. In short, "feminazi" basically means "feminist as defined by someone who hates feminism".

It's used... pretty much that way today.

EDIT: Something I meant to touch on but forgot: I find it funny that one fringe character that happens to fail at feminism is justification for calling feminists Nazis, but at least four well-known anti-feminists murdering people en masse isn't enough to slur the "men's rights" movement that way. I wonder why that might be.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2015, 02:15:31 PM by Ephiral »

Offline Garuss Vakarian

Re: Against that slur 'feminazi'.
« Reply #31 on: September 29, 2015, 10:09:55 PM »
Edit: I dont mean to say all fems are like this, I mainly mean Rad Fems. As I understand your trying to say feminists are against rad fems, you have to understand your voices are not heard. And while your voices are not heard, theirs are. Now as you would wish to call them a TURF, in the the end of the day they are Feminists. You cant change that. They are FEMINISTS. To say they are not real feminists, is a no true scotsman. I wont say your a bad person by association, because your a feminist. I will only judge by personal action. Not all are bad, but I speak of the bad ones and the bad ones alone. Now, in the end there I feel you were trying to shame me by association. Saying it is funny I make my comparisons, while MRA's dont shame something anti's do. If that was not the case I apologize. But, in all honesty, it does appear to be what you were doing. Shaming some one may be effective in a debate, but it is just as shameful, as whatever you perceived them to do. I dont need an apology, but do let me know if I got it all wrong. Id rather it be you were not trying to silence me.

Off the bat if you actually looked at what I had to say then you would see, Bendel was a few typos. After proof reading I did correctly say Bindel on plenty of points in the post. Though it may not be prooven, I am assuming you did not read, or paid very little attention to my post. Or at least, I feel that way. You had seen the name, recognized her and instantly jumped to say something. Deciding not to afford me the time, even if I was right. Because my opinion is different, I am automatically wrong. In fact, you did not for a second try to refute any of my points. But merely jumped to a no true scotsman fallacy, saying feminists are not like one way, when you cant speak for them all. I dont say all feminists are bad, and if I ever allude to or say as such I assure you it was a heated moment for I do not feel ALL of something is all ONE WAY or ANOTHER. I know there are exceptions. Any way, your Stating "OH but she is condemned rapidly." With no evidence towards as such. Why? Because she is NOT. At least not publicly. And if there are feminists against her, or others like her, as I am certain there are. NONE have the platform to speak. And if they did they would be publicly ridiculed for being against women, as any feminists that disagreed with a more outspoken and radical feminist has. IE, Christina Hof Summers.  Im not saying, never did, that it is her actions SPECIFICALLY that made the term feminazi. That would be redundant.

Hey how about International Castration day folks!
http://www.politicalforum.com/womens-rights/346066-all-men-should-castrated-international-castration-day.html

Or pulling fire alarms, to silence open dialogue, which has a right to exist with freedom of speech. A part of freedom which feminists would abolish towards their ideologies, if given the choice.


A man openly ruined for his shirt.

But know what, how do you expect things to be any different with these people. They have a Blik, a social lens. Let's imagine a pair of goggles, and when you wear them everything you see, is what you WANT it to be. Things that dont support what you believe to be true, are twisted in your head, and when you cant see anything that can obviously be twisted you look closely wherever you can just to find something. ANYTHING, you can twist, point out, or find. That is a blik, and it is the entire basis of how rad feminism cling's to dear life. Hell, Anita Sarkesian said this her self in a talk among other prominent feminists. No one refuted her. She said, you have to look in a social lens, everything is sexist, this and that and you HAVE to point it all out. She admitted she looks through a blik, and everyone else on that stage admitted on default for not speaking against such a policy. Sadly, I only have a clip from the other half of her quote, stating everything is sexist and such. If you want to hear her say, you have to look at life through a social lens, Id recommend listening to the whole panel, as she DID say that. I just cant find a clip of her doing it, without giving you a 20 minute video. Sorry.



 It's not about making things equal any more, it's about staying relevant with a false narrative that everything is sexist and wrong. So that they (They being rad fems) can feel relevant in the west. When in reality, they are not relevant at all here. ESPECIALLY, when women and people of color are deemed more important then white or male. As if, because your white and or male you have no right to a dialogue and you are the problem. It's exactly what the nazi's did to the jews. They pointed and said, "Look, they are the problem in society. They corrupt it, they make it TOXIC, they are our countries issue. Let's eradicate them." The nazi's devalued jews, made them look inhuman and wrong, so that so many of their people hated the jews that any one with a lick of sense were to few in number to do anything. And why would they want to do anything when they would be killed or publicly condemned for protecting jews? THAT IS HOW IT HAPPENED. The country did not wake up one day and decide Hitler was right. It took time, it took effort to make their people believe that Jews were inherently a problem to society. Can you really say feminism at this point is any different? When they say men are toxic, evil, and rapists by nature? That white people are a issue in society and keep colored individuals down? Women and people of color are systematically oppressed, even though plenty are in western politics. But thats the thing, it wouldn't matter how many women or people of other ethnicity's there are that are successful or in power, because as long as there is one male, or white person in any position of power then there must be a patriarchy. This is not eqaulity, this is segregation. Feminism is making men and white people their bad guy, their villian. The common enemy to rise against. Just like the Nazi's, who did so to, the jews. thank god they are not the majority.

Quote
You're also wrong on both why "feminazi" exists and how it's used. It was popularized by Rush Limbaugh (though he credits a friend with coining it), defined as “a feminist to whom the most important thing in life is ensuring that as many abortions as possible occur”. This is, for the record, a set with zero members. When he decided to cite examples of "feminazis", he came up with such radical kill-all-men examples as Gloria Steinem and Susan Sarandon. So no, it doesn't exist to describe people like Julie Bindel. It exists to smear all feminists by claiming they just want to cause abortions and casually linking them to the best-known genocide in human history. In short, "feminazi" basically means "feminist as defined by someone who hates feminism".

It's used... pretty much that way today.

Ya I know Rush said it, but it is POPULARIZED for a number of different reasons. My description is simply stating why the connotation is NOT wrong.  For someone acting like I am an idiot, you sure lack evidence to prove feminists are not like this. When I have and can continue to provide evidence on the matter. (Edit, dont have to disregard that statement. But upon re reading this post I feel it was unfair, and redundant to say as such. IE; that you didnt provide evidence of them not being bad. It is redundant due to the fact you werent trying to disproove they exist but merely trying to say they are laughed out by 'real feminists.')  Lol, and I said already that it is used as a term to silence FEMINISTS, so the links you sent (Edit:About how feminazi is meant to silence feminists.) are pointless. Feminazi is no different then Misogynist, Neckbeared, over priviliaged white boy. Oh ya, there is a difference. It is different to you (Edit: Them) because it is used against feminism, and any ideology that silences all others that disagree with it on a daily bases should be untouchable right? There should be laws against criticizing it. http://www.infostormer.com/un-wants-to-censor-internet-to-prevent-feminists-from-suffering-hurt-feelings/ . Oh ya thats happening, The un is considering this shit. What is Anita Sarkesian identifying as harassement online for the UN to recognize as ilegal? "Harassment is not just what is legal or ilegal. It is not just the threats of violence it is also the day to day grind that you are a liar, you suck." Etc. She is trying to get the un to make criticism of any kind, be it in good or bad taste, illegal. I understand threats of violence, but the attempt of extending it to accusations of being a liar? Or something as simple as you suck? Sounds an awful lot like trying to SILENCE, CRITICISM'S. Everything is open to criticism my dear, be it in good or bad taste. If your feelings are hurt, I am sorry. But under the constitution I have every right to say "Anita, You are a liar. You dont actually play games and have openly admitted as such on video years before your non profit organization. Your just trying to manipulate feminists, you suck." But as it seems. For now on, calling out a feminist on their bullshit for saying they are a liar, counts as cyber violence. And this is the same women that thinks, everything is sexist, everything is misogynist, everything is homophobic. And you have to point it all out. Ha ha, wow Anita, what a hypocrite. Her and Zoey quin are actually calling out to the UN, right now, for laws. With Chinese style internet Censorship that would shut down anyone. Who hurts their feelings, by disagreeing with them on the internet.

The un, and I quote: Concluded the political and government bodies needed to use their  Licensing Prerogative to better protect human and womens rights. (Notice how for some reason they couldn't just leave it at human.) By only granting licenses to those telecoms and search engines whom. "Supervise content, and it's dissemination."

http://www.infostormer.com/un-wants-to-censor-internet-to-prevent-feminists-from-suffering-hurt-feelings/

Translated: They will only allow one to connect to content, if it is supervised, and filtered. Like the Chinese government does, with anything that the government does NOT want their people to see or know about. It is a form of THOUGHT CONTROL. So if a search engine does not comply with UN mandated feminist harassment policies, and dont censor out any form of anti feminist content, they will be shut down. Meaning one cant even say a feminist is a liar, with out breaking internet laws. The likes of Facebook, Twitter, or youtube are to quote; Proactively police it's every profile and post. And if you think that is, unimaginable. Then just look at Canada, where a man now faces a 6 month sentence, for the horrible crime of simply disagreeing with feminists on twitter. 54 year old, Greg Elliot was also banned from using the internet for the duration of his trial. And more then likely, his sentence, if he is found guilty of any crimes. And if you think it wont be that bad when the UN try's to push this agenda, remember this is all done by an agency that appointed Saudi Arabia to head a key pro human rights panel. The same country, that is currently CRUCIFYING, a young girl, for anti government hate speech.

Quote
EDIT: Something I meant to touch on but forgot: I find it funny that one fringe character that happens to fail at feminism is justification for calling feminists Nazis, but at least four well-known anti-feminists murdering people en masse isn't enough to slur the "men's rights" movement that way. I wonder why that might be.

Ha ha ha. I never said I was an MRA. I am egalitarian, I dont support the rights of one sex over the other but search for equality between the two. I dont focus on men or women. Like MRA's or feminists. And I find it so funny how you try to do that right there, you just shamed me. You know Hilary Clinton excepted money from Iran and it's organizations? You know Hilary is a supporter to planned parenthood, baby butchers that sell their parts on the black market? How does being shamed by association feel? Bitter I take it. You know what, your proving me right. Every one, notice while I did make facts in my first post and simply critiqued a feminist that is not publicly villianized for her views. And instead of talking about anything specific, or refuting me on anything I said this person goes straight to shaming me. His/Her (Edited that, sorry I didnt notice your a liege.), post showed that she would rather tell me to take it at faith that no one agrees with Julie Bindel, without any evidence of it publicly happening. (Edit, thats my issue. I know people are calling her out. I am speaking, PUBLICALLY. Ie, news, social media.) This person wanted to shame me. Know it or not, thats what you just did. This person wanted to silence me. (Edit, know it or not, that is what you just did.) See, she is grabbing things and trying to point me in a negative light. And now in her little edit, she outright try's to ridicule me as some one who would not pay attention to the crimes of men, as if I dont pay attention to the crimes of BOTH sexes. This is for the soul purpose of silencing me, shaming me. Because, if I am shameful who would listen? This is no different then what social science teaches today in it's schools and classes. They are taking straight from the play book of mass public manipulation, Saul Alinsky's magnum opus, Rules for Radicals.  Here, allow me to tell you about the book. It is a fascinating look into the tactics of a feminist. I know for a fact they use this book, I have friends who are told to read this book in their own Social Science classes.

Straight from Wikipedia:Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals is the late work of community organizer Saul D. Alinsky, and his last book, published in 1971 shortly before his death. His goal for the Rules for Radicals was to create a guide for future community organizers to use in uniting low-income communities, or "Have-Nots", in order to empower them to gain social, political, legal and economic equality by challenging the current agencies that promoted their inequality.[1] Within it, Alinsky compiled the lessons he had learned throughout his personal experiences of community organizing spanning from 1939-1971 and targeted these lessons at the current, new generation of radicals.

The Rules behind Saul Alinsky's methods.

“Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.

“Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.

“Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.

“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

“A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.

“A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.

“Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.

“The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.

"The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition." It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.

“If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.

“The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

 The main theme throughout Rules for Radicals and Alinsky’s work was empowerment of the poor. Alinsky used symbol construction and nonviolent conflict to create a structured organization with a clearly defined goal that could take direct action against a common enemy. At this point, Alinsky would withdraw from the organization to allow their progress to be powered by the community itself, not by Alinsky. This empowered the organizations he worked with to create change for whatever issue they were battling. Symbol construction, nonviolent conflict, direct action, and empowerment of the poor were the main themes of Alinsky’s work in organizer, and whether reading Rules for Radicals, or examining his work directly, they can be distinctly observed within every community he organized.

Rules for Radicals is dedicated by Saul Alinsky to the original radical, Lucifer - also known as Satan, the Devil, The Old Serpent, and The Dragon (Rev. 12:2; 20:2). In this book is found the following: "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer."

A few other quotes of the man:
[t]he job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a 'dangerous enemy.'" According to Alinsky, "the hysterical instant reaction of the establishment [will] not only validate [the organizer's] credentials of competency but also ensure automatic popular invitation."

In an interview for play boy, when asked if he would rather go to heaven or hell, he stated:
ALINSKY: ... if there is an afterlife, and I have anything to say about it, I will unreservedly choose to go to hell.
PLAYBOY: Why?
ALINSKY: Hell would be heaven for me. All my life I've been with the have-nots. Over here, if you're a have-not, you're short of dough. If you're a have-not in hell, you're short of virtue. Once I get into hell, I'll start organizing the have-nots over there.
PLAYBOY: Why them?
ALINSKY: They're my kind of people.

So ya, our youth in college are told to read the life's work of a man. That dedicates his book on manipulating others, to the original evil. Be you religious or not, it is straight creepy to dedicate your last book to the universal figure head of pain and torment. Oh ya and Saul Alinsky was friends with Hilary Clinton. He was in fact a mentor to her.

Edit: I dont mean to say all fems are like this, I mainly mean Rad Fems. As I understand your trying to say feminists are against rad fems, you have to understand your voices are not heard. And while your voices are not heard, theirs are. Now as you would wish to call them a TURF, in the the end of the day they are Feminists. You cant change that. They are FEMINISTS. To say they are not real feminists, is a no true scotsman. I wont say your a bad person by association, because your a feminist. I will only judge by personal action. Not all are bad, but I speak of the bad ones and the bad ones alone. Now, in the end there I feel you were trying to shame me by association, by mentioning MRA's and something anti fems did. If that was not the case I apologize. But, in all honesty, it does appear to be what you were doing. Shaming some one may be effective in a debate, but it is just as shameful, as whatever you perceived them to do.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2015, 10:29:07 AM by Garuss Vakarian »

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Against that slur 'feminazi'.
« Reply #32 on: September 30, 2015, 03:52:11 PM »
Edit: I dont mean to say all fems are like this, I mainly mean Rad Fems. As I understand your trying to say feminists are against rad fems, you have to understand your voices are not heard. And while your voices are not heard, theirs are.

No, you need to understand: You're not listening.

There are a lot of us. Like, waaaaaaay more of us than of them. And we talk. A lot. Waaaaay more than they do.

So why is it that they're the only ones you ever seem to hear, hmm?

Now as you would wish to call them a TURF, in the the end of the day they are Feminists. You cant change that. They are FEMINISTS. To say they are not real feminists, is a no true scotsman.
Which is why I didn't, but thanks for misreading and strawmanning me. "Feminist" is the F in TERF. What I did say is that tehy are an extreme fringe, repudiated vocally by mainstream feminism all the fucking time, and yet you use their existence to justify slurs against all feminists. Meanwhile, Marc Lépine can murder 14 women in the name of stopping feminism and promoting men's rights, and where's the slur there?

I wont say your a bad person by association, because your a feminist. I will only judge by personal action. Not all are bad, but I speak of the bad ones and the bad ones alone.
Not when you use the word "feminazi", which was explicitly created and defined in such a way as to include all feminists everywhere.

Now, in the end there I feel you were trying to shame me by association. Saying it is funny I make my comparisons, while MRA's dont shame something anti's do. If that was not the case I apologize. But, in all honesty, it does appear to be what you were doing. Shaming some one may be effective in a debate, but it is just as shameful, as whatever you perceived them to do. I dont need an apology, but do let me know if I got it all wrong. Id rather it be you were not trying to silence me.
Not even trying to associate you with MRAs, let alone shame by association - just pointing out that there's hold one hell of a double standard. You throw slurs and characterize feminism by the violent words of an extreme few, but have no apparent issue with (and no slurs for) the actual bodycount of the other side.

Off the bat if you actually looked at what I had to say then you would see, Bendel was a few typos. After proof reading I did correctly say Bindel on plenty of points in the post. Though it may not be prooven, I am assuming you did not read, or paid very little attention to my post. Or at least, I feel that way. You had seen the name, recognized her and instantly jumped to say something. Deciding not to afford me the time, even if I was right. Because my opinion is different, I am automatically wrong. In fact, you did not for a second try to refute any of my points. But merely jumped to a no true scotsman fallacy, saying feminists are not like one way, when you cant speak for them all. I dont say all feminists are bad, and if I ever allude to or say as such I assure you it was a heated moment for I do not feel ALL of something is all ONE WAY or ANOTHER. I know there are exceptions. Any way, your Stating "OH but she is condemned rapidly." With no evidence towards as such. Why? Because she is NOT. At least not publicly. And if there are feminists against her, or others like her, as I am certain there are. NONE have the platform to speak. And if they did they would be publicly ridiculed for being against women, as any feminists that disagreed with a more outspoken and radical feminist has. IE, Christina Hof Summers.  Im not saying, never did, that it is her actions SPECIFICALLY that made the term feminazi. That would be redundant.
I find it hilarious that in the process of accusing me of not reading (and I admit I didn't respond point-by-point because you're goddamn longwinded, though I did read everything), you accuse me of a No True Scotsman I never made. Who didn't read whom?

I didn't present anything because, well, there's an extremely large inferential gap I didn't want to sidetrack into and doubted you'd much care about anyway. So I didn't bother with laying the necessary groundwork of explaiing modern feminist thought about how patriarchy hurts men, or how gay and trans issues are feminist issues, and how this ties into what Bindel says and does and the pushback she gets, and this was necessary groundwork for understanding the context and content of the articles I've seen. But... well, again, I literally only know who she is because feminists I read (in public, on the Internet, and some of whom take part at active boots-on-ground protests - also in public) tore her apart for saying and supporting hateful bullshit.

Hey how about International Castration day folks!
http://www.politicalforum.com/womens-rights/346066-all-men-should-castrated-international-castration-day.html
Exactly how much time and effort is every feminist supposed to spend repudiating every single individual fringe case before you'll stop throwing slurs at us? What was that about not damning by association again?

Or pulling fire alarms, to silence open dialogue, which has a right to exist with freedom of speech. A part of freedom which feminists would abolish towards their ideologies, if given the choice.
Funny, you know what I don't see there? Any evidence at all of who set off the alarm or why. Also, you'll note that the protestors are credited as "Anarchist Party". But yes, let's use this to accuse all feminists of wanting to kill freedom of speech, despite the fact that, y'know, feminists talk a lot about how utterly terrible [http://freethoughtblogs.com/entequilaesverdad/2015/03/05/mary-horner-lyell-a-monument-of-patience/]silencing[/url] and erasure are. (Protip: You'll notice that that last one is a feminist calling out another feminist for exclusionary bullshit after taking one too many drinks from the Bindel well. Bonus: Here's a feminist decrying tactics far milder than bindel's, in an article that doesn't need deep context, which I happened to stumble across while gathering links.)

A man openly ruined for his shirt.
Ruined how, exactly? Was he fired? Discredited as a scientist? Blacklisted from major journals or future projects? Or did he get criticized, apologize, have the apology largely accepted (though people continued to point out the systemic issues that let this happen), and then get given a thousand-dollar plaque and a $23k charitable donation made in his name?

But know what, how do you expect things to be any different with these people. They have a Blik, a social lens. Let's imagine a pair of goggles, and when you wear them everything you see, is what you WANT it to be. Things that dont support what you believe to be true, are twisted in your head, and when you cant see anything that can obviously be twisted you look closely wherever you can just to find something. ANYTHING, you can twist, point out, or find. That is a blik, and it is the entire basis of how rad feminism cling's to dear life. Hell, Anita Sarkesian said this her self in a talk among other prominent feminists. No one refuted her. She said, you have to look in a social lens, everything is sexist, this and that and you HAVE to point it all out. She admitted she looks through a blik, and everyone else on that stage admitted on default for not speaking against such a policy.
Snipped a bit because it's not terribly relevant and takes a lot of real estate. Did she say "you have to twist everything to fit" - as you're claiming here - or "When you look at this in context and with awareness, you notice things that were invisible to you before"? Think carefully.

Also, are you really saying that anybody who considers a minority perspective is inherently wrong and warping things and searching for things to distort? Really?

It's not about making things equal any more, it's about staying relevant with a false narrative that everything is sexist and wrong. So that they (They being rad fems) can feel relevant in the west. When in reality, they are not relevant at all here. ESPECIALLY, when women and people of color are deemed more important then white or male. As if, because your white and or male you have no right to a dialogue and you are the problem. It's exactly what the nazi's did to the jews. They pointed and said, "Look, they are the problem in society. They corrupt it, they make it TOXIC, they are our countries issue. Let's eradicate them." The nazi's devalued jews, made them look inhuman and wrong, so that so many of their people hated the jews that any one with a lick of sense were to few in number to do anything. And why would they want to do anything when they would be killed or publicly condemned for protecting jews? THAT IS HOW IT HAPPENED. The country did not wake up one day and decide Hitler was right. It took time, it took effort to make their people believe that Jews were inherently a problem to society. Can you really say feminism at this point is any different? When they say men are toxic, evil, and rapists by nature? That white people are a issue in society and keep colored individuals down? Women and people of color are systematically oppressed, even though plenty are in western politics. But thats the thing, it wouldn't matter how many women or people of other ethnicity's there are that are successful or in power, because as long as there is one male, or white person in any position of power then there must be a patriarchy. This is not eqaulity, this is segregation. Feminism is making men and white people their bad guy, their villian. The common enemy to rise against. Just like the Nazi's, who did so to, the jews. thank god they are not the majority.
Again gonna point out that you're calling people Nazis for words while [ignoring actual literal mass murderers, plural. Also gonna point out that feminism includes men, white and of colour. Anything further I say is gonna be sidestepped with "I was only talking about this tiny minority as though they're all femiists how dare you No True Scotsman me!" so moving on.

Ya I know Rush said it, but it is POPULARIZED for a number of different reasons. My description is simply stating why the connotation is NOT wrong.  For someone acting like I am an idiot, you sure lack evidence to prove feminists are not like this.
Try looking at literally anything feminist without "Rad" in front of it ever. It's frankly not my job to be your 101, especially not when you're also demanding that I respond to every single word of your ridiculously wordy Gish gallop lest you claim that I obviously didn't read it.

When I have and can continue to provide evidence on the matter. (Edit, dont have to disregard that statement. But upon re reading this post I feel it was unfair, and redundant to say as such. IE; that you didnt provide evidence of them not being bad. It is redundant due to the fact you werent trying to disproove they exist but merely trying to say they are laughed out by 'real feminists.')

You're almost on to something here - if you want to smear feminism the way you have been, it's you who needs to make the case that these are popular and widespread trains of thought.

Lol, and I said already that it is used as a term to silence FEMINISTS, so the links you sent (Edit:About how feminazi is meant to silence feminists.) are pointless. Feminazi is no different then Misogynist, Neckbeared, over priviliaged white boy.

Yes, there is: One is unflattering to a group with significant political power. One compares those who are lower on the power hierarchy to the best-known genocide in human history because there are a few fringe characters, while that group suffers murder and violence for their beliefs.

Oh ya, there is a difference. It is different to you (Edit: Them) because it is used against feminism, and any ideology that silences all others that disagree with it on a daily bases should be untouchable right? There should be laws against criticizing it. http://www.infostormer.com/un-wants-to-censor-internet-to-prevent-feminists-from-suffering-hurt-feelings/ . Oh ya thats happening, The un is considering this shit. What is Anita Sarkesian identifying as harassement online for the UN to recognize as ilegal? "Harassment is not just what is legal or ilegal. It is not just the threats of violence it is also the day to day grind that you are a liar, you suck." Etc. She is trying to get the un to make criticism of any kind, be it in good or bad taste, illegal. I understand threats of violence, but the attempt of extending it to accusations of being a liar? Or something as simple as you suck? Sounds an awful lot like trying to SILENCE, CRITICISM'S. Everything is open to criticism my dear, be it in good or bad taste. If your feelings are hurt, I am sorry. But under the constitution I have every right to say "Anita, You are a liar. You dont actually play games and have openly admitted as such on video years before your non profit organization. Your just trying to manipulate feminists, you suck." But as it seems. For now on, calling out a feminist on their bullshit for saying they are a liar, counts as cyber violence. And this is the same women that thinks, everything is sexist, everything is misogynist, everything is homophobic. And you have to point it all out. Ha ha, wow Anita, what a hypocrite. Her and Zoey quin are actually calling out to the UN, right now, for laws. With Chinese style internet Censorship that would shut down anyone. Who hurts their feelings, by disagreeing with them on the internet.
Everyone is open to criticism. This is not a position I, or even Sarkeesian, would disagree with. However, even now, not everyone is open to, say, a four-year-and-counting constant flood of threats, harassment, abuse, lies, and silencing, while being painted as oppressive censors who want to silence all men and ban all sex, for such radical comments as "Guys, don't do that."

The un, and I quote: Concluded the political and government bodies needed to use their  Licensing Prerogative to better protect human and womens rights. (Notice how for some reason they couldn't just leave it at human.) By only granting licenses to those telecoms and search engines whom. "Supervise content, and it's dissemination."
...so... you don't think governments should be in the business of protecting people's rights? Or you just don't think it's as important as, say, copyright?

Translated: They will only allow one to connect to content, if it is supervised, and filtered. Like the Chinese government does, with anything that the government does NOT want their people to see or know about. It is a form of THOUGHT CONTROL. So if a search engine does not comply with UN mandated feminist harassment policies, and dont censor out any form of anti feminist content, they will be shut down. Meaning one cant even say a feminist is a liar, with out breaking internet laws. The likes of Facebook, Twitter, or youtube are to quote; Proactively police it's every profile and post. And if you think that is, unimaginable. Then just look at Canada, where a man now faces a 6 month sentence, for the horrible crime of simply disagreeing with feminists on twitter. 54 year old, Greg Elliot was also banned from using the internet for the duration of his trial. And more then likely, his sentence, if he is found guilty of any crimes. And if you think it wont be that bad when the UN try's to push this agenda, remember this is all done by an agency that appointed Saudi Arabia to head a key pro human rights panel. The same country, that is currently CRUCIFYING, a young girl, for anti government hate speech.
Um. you've got so much wrong here I'm not sure where to begin. First, this is the same UN that declared internet freedom, especially freedom of speech, a fundamental human right. This should be a significant clue that you're way off base. Second, where did the UN say "filtered", exactly? Third, the UN can't and doesn't "mandate" anything. They make recommendations, which member nations are free to follow or ignore at their perogative. Fourth, they're speaking to harassment, not literally every single disparaging remark anyone could ever make. Fifth, by "disagreeing with", you mean "trying to destroy the career of".

Ha ha ha. I never said I was an MRA. I am egalitarian, I dont support the rights of one sex over the other but search for equality between the two. I dont focus on men or women. Like MRA's or feminists. And I find it so funny how you try to do that right there, you just shamed me.
Except... You do. Harsh words from women are apparently worse than actual mass murder by men, giving that you want specific vocabulary to compare one of these things to genocide. I never said you were an MRA, I said people who use "feminazi" are giving them one hell of a pass. I am not, despite your repeated accusations, shaming you by association or even claiming there is an association. I'm asking why there is have a massive double standard.

You know Hilary Clinton excepted money from Iran and it's organizations? You know Hilary is a supporter to planned parenthood, baby butchers that sell their parts on the black market? How does being shamed by association feel? Bitter I take it.
Not particularly, considering a) I've actually spoken against Hilary, and b) you're showing how utterly completely pathetic your "research" and "evidence" are.

You know what, your proving me right. Every one, notice while I did make facts in my first post and simply critiqued a feminist that is not publicly villianized for her views. And instead of talking about anything specific, or refuting me on anything I said this person goes straight to shaming me. His/Her (Edited that, sorry I didnt notice your a liege.), post showed that she would rather tell me to take it at faith that no one agrees with Julie Bindel, without any evidence of it publicly happening. (Edit, thats my issue. I know people are calling her out. I am speaking, PUBLICALLY. Ie, news, social media.) This person wanted to shame me. Know it or not, thats what you just did. This person wanted to silence me. (Edit, know it or not, that is what you just did.) See, she is grabbing things and trying to point me in a negative light. And now in her little edit, she outright try's to ridicule me as some one who would not pay attention to the crimes of men, as if I dont pay attention to the crimes of BOTH sexes. This is for the soul purpose of silencing me, shaming me. Because, if I am shameful who would listen? This is no different then what social science teaches today in it's schools and classes. They are taking straight from the play book of mass public manipulation, Saul Alinsky's magnum opus, Rules for Radicals.  Here, allow me to tell you about the book. It is a fascinating look into the tactics of a feminist. I know for a fact they use this book, I have friends who are told to read this book in their own Social Science classes.

That's an awfully heavy cross you've got there. Might want to put it down and check your facts for a second.

One, thanks for ascribing terrible and unsubstantiated (and factually incorrect) motives to me while decrying me for "shaming" you.
Two, I'm not your 101, and certainly not your 201, nor should I be required to be. I'm sorry it's not easy to find a 101-level article decrying her specifically for the specific statements you're citing.
Three, I did not silence you. I didn't tell you to shut up or get off the internet. I didn't bury you in an endless torrent of rape and death threats and ugly insults. I didn't try to cut off your access to the Internet, or spread horrifying myths about you. You, on the other hand...
Four, I called attention to the fact that there isn't even a word[ on par with "feminazi" for the ideology that men proclaim while shooting women en masse, and that it's a bit of a double-standard to ignore that while comparing harsh words to a campaign of genocide. You're the one who decided, based on nothing in my text, that this was calling you out specifically in an attempt to shame you. Maybe respond to what I read, not what you think you can twist it into (while accusing everyone else of doing the twisting)?
Five, aren't all these accusations of guilt by association a bit out of place in an argument that boils down to "Julie Bindel exists, therefore there should be a word that equates feminism with genocide"?
Six, aren't they especially out of place as the intro to an odd rant decrying someone I've never read and have no association with, and using that to smear someone else I have no association with because she has been friendly with him, in a reply ostensibly to me?

Cut some of your rant, but I want to point out something interesting from your own citations.

“Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
Like, say, not actually reading any mainstream feminist sources at all, or even taking 30 seconds to fact-check what you've been told?

“Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
Like, say, throwing lengthy rants about something that is only tangentally connected to the subject at hand in your fever dreams at your opponent?

“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
Just gonna point back here again.

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
Like, say, comparing the radical proposition that women are people to genocide?

“A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
See my last two responses; they apply here.

“A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.
Right! You need to make a new accusation every so often. Like, say, that supplying research institutions with material that allows life-saving research is actually an evil conspiracy to murder and sell babies.

“Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
Look at the page o' hate again. Note that this is because, in 2011, she said "Guys, don't do that."

“The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
Like, say, threatening a feminist speaker with mass murder so she'll cancel a talk, then accusing her of silencing?

"The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition." It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.
Like, say, GamerGate? Or, again, the Page O' Hate? Or this?

“If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
Except when it's not, like when mass murderers aren't as bad as harsh words.

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
Feminists talk about institutionalized sexism. Anti-feminists talk about how Anita Sarkeesian is an ugly bitch.

Cut the rest of your random off-topic rant.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2015, 03:53:56 PM by Ephiral »

Online Vergil Tanner

Re: Against that slur 'feminazi'.
« Reply #33 on: September 30, 2015, 04:23:55 PM »
Ugh, I don't want to get dragged into this discussion so I won't be addressing ANY of the points regarding Feminism that you made (since again, I don't want to get involved in an ideological debate after the day I've had), but Ephiral, I do want to point out one or two things that I think you need to be called out on.


"You throw slurs and characterize feminism by the violent words of an extreme few"
"yet you use their existence to justify slurs against all feminists."
"You throw slurs and characterize feminism by the violent words of an extreme few"

No, he isn't. He's even specifically said that's not what he's trying to do. He's specifically stated that he's only talking about Rad Fems there, and that he's not attributing these views to feminism as a whole. Please don't misrepresent him, since that would - whether you're intentionally doing it or not - make you a hypocrite.

Funnily enough, that seems to be exactly what you're trying to imply when talking about the MRM and the people who have done bad shit in their name. Might not be your intent, but that's how it's coming across. I would be careful with your choice of words, or you might start coming across as if you have your own double standards.


"Not when you use the word "feminazi", which was explicitly created and defined in such a way as to include all feminists everywhere."

Here you're actively trying to dictate what he's thinking. You can disagree, but you can't say "That isn't what you mean!" when somebody tells you what their intention is...can you read minds? No? Then you really have no grounds to accuse him of being dishonest about his meaning.


"before you'll stop throwing slurs at us?"

Again, he isn't. He specifically said that he's talking about Rad Fems.


" Harsh words from women are apparently worse than actual mass murder by men,"

He never said that and you know full well that isn't what he meant. Stop misrepresenting him.


"double-standard to ignore that while comparing harsh words to a campaign of genocide."

He didn't ignore it, he just didn't bring it up because it isn't relevant. When talking about the sexist and oppressive ideas that some strains of feminism have and whether they are comparable to Nazi ideology, saying "Yeah, but Anti Feminists have done worse in the past!" is hardly relevant and adds nothing to the discussion. Nobodies denying that it happens...it just wasn't on-topic.


"Except when it's not, like when mass murderers aren't as bad as harsh words."

Except that he didn't say that. You seem to have a habit of extrapolating things that people aren't saying from their text and accusing them of saying it. It's very dishonest IMHO.
And I doubt you'd find many people who would disagree that mass murder is worse than some harsh language. I fail to see how the point you're trying to make is relevant to refuting the idea that there are people whose ideas and beliefs are comparable to Nazism. Remember, it wasn't the ACT of Genocide that made them Nazi's, it was the ideology BEHIND it that made them Nazi's. They were Nazi's before they created the Death Camps.


"Anti-feminists talk about how Anita Sarkeesian is an ugly bitch."

Massive strawman. Whether or not I disagree with all or even any of the Anti-Feminist rhetoric, that is grossly oversimplifying the position and deliberately misrepresenting them. Anti Feminism isn't a movement or an organised group, so there are going to be a lot of different strains. Again, not gonna get into the possible merits and cons of Anti Feminism and feminism and MRA thought etc etc, I just think that you need to be called out on the fact that you criticised Garrus for apparently strawmanning you and then did it to not only him but a whole host of other people. Disagree with them, fine, but at least engage with their arguments rather than dismissing them based on their more vitriolic members. I mean, I don't personally identify as a feminist for a large host of personal reasons, and I don't "talk about how Anita Sarkeesian is an ugly bitch." I engage with her points and, on the side, dislike her as a person. Now I'm not necessarily anti-feminist (I'm anti SOME feminists, like I'm anti SOME politicians and anti SOME TV shows and Anti SOME Fre- well, no, I'm anti ALL French people, but that's more on principle than anything else), but it's an example of how not every non-feminist is just a raging misogynist with no valid points whatsoever.



Anywho. Not gonna engage with any of the other points - haven't got the energy or the inclination - I just felt like you needed to have somebody point out that your last couple of posts make it sound like you're doing a lot of the things you're accusing Garrus of doing. I'm sure it isn't your intention, but it's how you're coming across.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2015, 04:27:40 PM by Vergil Tanner »

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Against that slur 'feminazi'.
« Reply #34 on: September 30, 2015, 06:58:10 PM »
"You throw slurs and characterize feminism by the violent words of an extreme few"
"yet you use their existence to justify slurs against all feminists."
"You throw slurs and characterize feminism by the violent words of an extreme few"

No, he isn't. He's even specifically said that's not what he's trying to do. He's specifically stated that he's only talking about Rad Fems there, and that he's not attributing these views to feminism as a whole. Please don't misrepresent him, since that would - whether you're intentionally doing it or not - make you a hypocrite.
...except he also accuses feminists in general of wanting to end free speech, accuses specific non-radical feminists of trying to get laws passed to silence any and all criticism, and claims a man is facing criminal charges already for just disagreeing with feminists. He does all this in support of the term "feminazi", which was created and defined and is still used to refer to any and all feminists. So yes, he's mischaracterizing feminism and using that mischaracterization to justify slurs against all feminists. I stand behind that.

Funnily enough, that seems to be exactly what you're trying to imply when talking about the MRM and the people who have done bad shit in their name. Might not be your intent, but that's how it's coming across. I would be careful with your choice of words, or you might start coming across as if you have your own double standards.
My point there, and I admit I may have conveyed this poorly, is that actual violence provokes less response from the people who use "feminazi" than violent rhetoric, and that the gender of the actors and speakers probably plays a role in this.


"Not when you use the word "feminazi", which was explicitly created and defined in such a way as to include all feminists everywhere."

Here you're actively trying to dictate what he's thinking. You can disagree, but you can't say "That isn't what you mean!" when somebody tells you what their intention is...can you read minds? No? Then you really have no grounds to accuse him of being dishonest about his meaning.
No. I'm telling him "That isn't what that word means." I can't tell what he's trying to convey, but I absolutely can tell what he is conveying. If that's not what he intends, he's free to clarify - but when you use a term that has never been defined that narrowly, you... don't speak as narrowly as you might think or intend.


"before you'll stop throwing slurs at us?"

Again, he isn't. He specifically said that he's talking about Rad Fems.
...and then went on to talk about all feminists in a disparaging, insulting, and patently untrue manner.


" Harsh words from women are apparently worse than actual mass murder by men,"

He never said that and you know full well that isn't what he meant. Stop misrepresenting him.
One of these, according to his stated opinion, justifies equation with genocide. The other does not. This is not misrepresenting, this is drawing conclusions based on what he said.


"double-standard to ignore that while comparing harsh words to a campaign of genocide."

He didn't ignore it, he just didn't bring it up because it isn't relevant. When talking about the sexist and oppressive ideas that some strains of feminism have and whether they are comparable to Nazi ideology, saying "Yeah, but Anti Feminists have done worse in the past!" is hardly relevant and adds nothing to the discussion. Nobodies denying that it happens...it just wasn't on-topic.
Ignore it inasmuch as there is no comparable vocabulary, and I see no one arguing for it. But it's completely wrong to say that maybe harsh words shouldn't be equated to genocide, apparently?

Gonna cut further restatements of the same.

And I doubt you'd find many people who would disagree that mass murder is worse than some harsh language. I fail to see how the point you're trying to make is relevant to refuting the idea that there are people whose ideas and beliefs are comparable to Nazism. Remember, it wasn't the ACT of Genocide that made them Nazi's, it was the ideology BEHIND it that made them Nazi's. They were Nazi's before they created the Death Camps.
But it's the act of genocide that makes them the go-to insult. That was, in fact, the exact point behind the creation of the term "feminazi" - to slur feminists as genocidal for supporting a woman's right to choose.

And I can absolutely find plenty of people who demonstrate, through their actions, that harsh words from women are worse than mass murder from men - by ignoring or even endorsing the ideology that directly fed the murderers, dismissing them as unconnected, isolated cases of mental illness (and let's not get started on how ridiculously ableist and wrong that is) rather than having some distinct commonalities.


"Anti-feminists talk about how Anita Sarkeesian is an ugly bitch."

Massive strawman. Whether or not I disagree with all or even any of the Anti-Feminist rhetoric, that is grossly oversimplifying the position and deliberately misrepresenting them. Anti Feminism isn't a movement or an organised group, so there are going to be a lot of different strains. Again, not gonna get into the possible merits and cons of Anti Feminism and feminism and MRA thought etc etc, I just think that you need to be called out on the fact that you criticised Garrus for apparently strawmanning you and then did it to not only him but a whole host of other people. Disagree with them, fine, but at least engage with their arguments rather than dismissing them based on their more vitriolic members. I mean, I don't personally identify as a feminist for a large host of personal reasons, and I don't "talk about how Anita Sarkeesian is an ugly bitch." I engage with her points and, on the side, dislike her as a person. Now I'm not necessarily anti-feminist (I'm anti SOME feminists, like I'm anti SOME politicians and anti SOME TV shows and Anti SOME Fre- well, no, I'm anti ALL French people, but that's more on principle than anything else), but it's an example of how not every non-feminist is just a raging misogynist with no valid points whatsoever.
Is it a strawman when there are literally thousands of examples? The specific reason I cited this is that there are thousands of examples, aimed at this one person alone. It's an extremely common thread, far more so than anything Garrus has accused feminists of. I've already pointed out the similar thousands of examples in the four year campaign against Rebecca Watson, and the art project where eleven women were able to literally cover an entire room and every object in it in the sexualized threats and insults they received. I could cite more examples, including multiple women who were hounded to the point of PTSD (and at least one who was then harassed for saying this). I could cite extremely prominent MRAs ignoring opportunities to support men in order to attack feminists.

The point I'm trying to make here is that, unlike what few real problems Garrus cites, this is an extremely common and broad-based thread with wide support among those who share an anti-feminist ideology. It's not a strawman, it's basically the default expectation any time a woman voices something that makes men uncomfortable. The inverse is absolutely not true.

Online Vergil Tanner

Re: Against that slur 'feminazi'.
« Reply #35 on: September 30, 2015, 07:44:13 PM »
...except he also accuses feminists in general of wanting to end free speech, accuses specific non-radical feminists of trying to get laws passed to silence any and all criticism, and claims a man is facing criminal charges already for just disagreeing with feminists. He does all this in support of the term "feminazi", which was created and defined and is still used to refer to any and all feminists. So yes, he's mischaracterizing feminism and using that mischaracterization to justify slurs against all feminists. I stand behind that.

Except no. He's specifically said that he's NOT referring to all feminists, just the radical ones and you're claiming that he's trying to use these examples to mar ALL of feminism...from what I've read, he's said numerous times that that is specifically NOT what he's trying to do. Stand behind it all you want, it's still misrepresenting him and what he's saying simply because he's outright said that he isn't trying to do what you're accusing him of trying to do. Whether he comes across that way is another matter entirely, but since he's said that he isn't trying to do it, accusing him of intent is - unless you have some kind of evidence that he's lying about his intent - is misrepresentation.


My point there, and I admit I may have conveyed this poorly, is that actual violence provokes less response from the people who use "feminazi" than violent rhetoric, and that the gender of the actors and speakers probably plays a role in this.

I would hold off on saying things like "probably sexist" unless you have some evidence...but as a counterpoint, I use Feminazi (against feminists with actual ideas that are comparable to nazism) and I react more strongly to actual violence than simple violent rhetoric (as I think I demonstrated earlier on this thread when I noted that my general attitude towards Youtube and Twitter angry messages is "ignore it unless they contain actual details of your personal life"). However, I don't really want to get into any longwinded debates here, so I'll avoid going down THAT rabbit hole. Short version: I agree that actual violence is worse than violent rhetoric, I was just pointing out that the way you phrased it made it seem like you were accusing Garrus of saying the opposite.

No. I'm telling him "That isn't what that word means." I can't tell what he's trying to convey, but I absolutely can tell what he is conveying. If that's not what he intends, he's free to clarify - but when you use a term that has never been defined that narrowly, you... don't speak as narrowly as you might think or intend.

Again, don't necessarily disagree - I make certain to define my terms whenever I use a new one - just pointing out that your tone made it sound like you were doing something else. I'm primarily stepping in to try and defuse the hurling of accusations back and forth. "You're misrepresenting me!" "You did it first!" "No I didn't!" Etc Ad Nauseum. Words can change meaning, and I think that context and clarification helps a lot with that since words can be used differently (see: the "non literal" definition of "literally" being added to the dictionary), but considering that he opened up his original post with a "this is what I mean when I say Feminazi"-like disclaimer, I think it's somewhat unfair of you to attribute a different meaning to his words when he's already stated what he means when he uses the term. You can argue over whether the word SHOULD have that meaning, but when he's outright said what he means, saying he means something different...well, when telling him what he means, you're wrong. He's the authority on what he means, unless you can read minds. :P


...and then went on to talk about all feminists in a disparaging, insulting, and patently untrue manner.

Which is originally why I didn't step in then (I started to, then reread his post and was like "Whilst I don't think he means that, he did come across that way). HOWEVER, the point you're missing is that in his NEXT post, he made a point of going back and saying "I misspoke, this is what I meant: I didn't intend to paint all feminists like that, just the Rad Fems." I can quote the specific bits if you want. Your indignation in your first reply was justified. When he clarified his position and corrected himself, continuing to accuse him of the thing he specifically said "No, I didn't mean it that way" means you're either not listening or just don't care about what he says he means.

One of these, according to his stated opinion, justifies equation with genocide. The other does not. This is not misrepresenting, this is drawing conclusions based on what he said.

It is, simply because he outright said that he attributes it to people who have nazi-like ideas. I'm willing to grant that it wasn't intentional, but you are wrong about his opinion....I read it as "this select type of feminist has ideas that are equatable to nazism, therefore the comparison to Nazism is justified." Remember, Nazism wasn't JUST "LET'S COMMIT GENOCIDE!" There was a whole host of ideas that contributed and led up to that conclusion...and come on. There are feminists - no matter how comparatively few - who advocate breeding and work camps, and consider men to be inferior. If that doesn't warrant comparisons with the Nazi ideology, then what does? The only thing stopping them from actually DOING it is material power and influence.

Ignore it inasmuch as there is no comparable vocabulary, and I see no one arguing for it. But it's completely wrong to say that maybe harsh words shouldn't be equated to genocide, apparently?

Not completely wrong....just utterly irrelevant to the discussion we were having, considering that we were talking about whether it's ever acceptable to use it. Of course, there is a word that means a similar thing...I found it on Urban Dictionary in the second post of this page. Not widely known, of course, but it does exist. Feel free to start using it...I might. It's a funny word. Mascunazi. Mascunazi. Mascunazi. See, I know the negative connotations of it, but when I say it out loud it just sounds silly so I giggle a little (is that the correct masculine verb? Or should it be chuckle? Snicker? Chortle? Guffaw? I like Guffaw. It's a very evocative word.). Fitting, considering it's supposed to be used to ridicule, no?


But it's the act of genocide that makes them the go-to insult. That was, in fact, the exact point behind the creation of the term "feminazi" - to slur feminists as genocidal for supporting a woman's right to choose.

Be that as it may, it wasn't Genocide that MADE them suddenly become Nazi's. Therefore, somebody doesn't have to have actually COMMITTED a Genocide in order to be compared to them. Most Neo-Nazi's today haven't gone out and rounded up black kids and set pitbulls on them for a sick kind of enjoyment, so does that mean that they're not technically Nazi's because they haven't killed millions of people? No. They hold Nazi ideas, so they are Nazi's. It's the ideals and beliefs that make you part of an ideology, NOT necessarily heinous crimes. Is somebody technically not a Christian because they haven't gone on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem? Of course not.


And I can absolutely find plenty of people who demonstrate, through their actions, that harsh words from women are worse than mass murder from men - by ignoring or even endorsing the ideology that directly fed the murderers, dismissing them as unconnected, isolated cases of mental illness (and let's not get started on how ridiculously ableist and wrong that is) rather than having some distinct commonalities.

Ok. So what? Are you saying that any ideology that a psychopath takes to his own twisted conclusions is inherently evil? Don't get me wrong, there are definitely murders inspired by hate speech and calls to action, but having an ideology that you claim drove you to it doesn't necessarily mean that the ideology or ideas are bad. I mean, there are loads of examples of people being driven to shitty actions by books, songs and movies, so correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation.

That being said...yeah, there are people who are like that. So what? Garrus isn't, I think, one of them...so why bring it up against him when it wasn't part of the initial discussion?


Is it a strawman when there are literally thousands of examples? The specific reason I cited this is that there are thousands of examples, aimed at this one person alone. It's an extremely common thread, far more so than anything Garrus has accused feminists of. I've already pointed out the similar thousands of examples in the four year campaign against Rebecca Watson, and the art project where eleven women were able to literally cover an entire room and every object in it in the sexualized threats and insults they received. I could cite more examples, including multiple women who were hounded to the point of PTSD (and at least one who was then harassed for saying this). I could cite extremely prominent MRAs ignoring opportunities to support men in order to attack feminists.

So? Not to sound callous, since any harassment is wrong and definitely should be eradicated as best as we are able, but you've already said that judging an entire group based on its militant, radical fringe is unfair...so what's the difference between somebody doing it to feminism and you doing it to the MRM? And yeah, the threats and whatnot that Rebecca Watson and Sarkeesian got are shitty, but...do you have any evidence that even a majority of them were sent from active members of majority, mainstream Anti-Feminism, MRA or MRM groups? I'm not gonna get into a big feminist debate, as I said...but being "anti feminist" and identifying as "Anti-Feminist" are two different things. The first is just disliking feminists. The second is actually an intellectual position where you disagree with the majority of feminist rhetoric.


The point I'm trying to make here is that, unlike what few real problems Garrus cites, this is an extremely common and broad-based thread with wide support among those who share an anti-feminist ideology. It's not a strawman, it's basically the default expectation any time a woman voices something that makes men uncomfortable. The inverse is absolutely not true.

To a certain extent, it's the expectation when anybody says something on the internet that makes anybody uncomfortable. It isn't exactly unique to women....whilst it is a problem for women, the internet is just a shitty place for anybody who is particularly outspoken over anything.

But it's this kind of rhetoric that I find utterly pointless: it basically boils down to "uuuuuh, my side has it woooooorse!" Yeah, instead of bickering over who has more problems, can we just discuss what problems both "sides" have and how to solve them without making it a dick measuring competition? The impression I get is that whenever they end up meeting they end up bickering when, ideally, the moderates should be on the same side. A perfect example is back when I was in University, I met the Secretary of the Feminist Society and disagreed with her on a few key points (which ones aren't really relevant, but we had several long discussions about the subject in general). A few weeks later, she approached me as if to give me a flyer for the Society, and then stopped and went "Oh, you're the MRA." And she said it with a sneer, as if it was supposed to be an insult. I was like "....first off, no. Second off, why do you think that's such a dirty word? Why would it be an inherently bad thing if I were?" I mean....if you look at mainstream groups, "MRA" and "Feminist" aren't mutually exclusive terms. I just wish more people would understand that rather than trying to turn it into some kind of competition.

*shrug*

Ah well. People will be people and the internet is the internet, I suppose.

Offline Aethereal

Re: Against that slur 'feminazi'.
« Reply #36 on: September 30, 2015, 10:09:24 PM »
       I can't decide whether this particular insult is predominantly childish, nonsensical or offensive, to be fair... In any case I don't use it.

Offline Skynet

Re: Against that slur 'feminazi'.
« Reply #37 on: October 03, 2015, 12:49:11 AM »
The term 'feminazi' was coined by Rush Limbaugh, who himself has a terrible track record of sexist behavior and fighting against women's rights, so where there's smoke, there's fire.

And regardless of the origin of the term, it's pretty much Godwin's Law by comparing a disliked group to a genocidal regime, so there's a lot of False Equivalency going on.  It's an awful lot like how some folks who throw around the term "Cultural Marxism" whenever somebody proposes a left-wing idea irregardless of whether or not it's actually Communist.

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Against that slur 'feminazi'.
« Reply #38 on: October 03, 2015, 12:54:01 AM »
Also, can we please take a moment  to note that actual people affected by the actual Holocaust have weighed in time and time and time again on the entire trend of comparing things you don't like to Nazis? It's kinda super offensive to them, trivializes what they and their loved ones went through, and yet nobody ever listens for even a moment. It'd be nice if that changed.

Online Vergil Tanner

Re: Against that slur 'feminazi'.
« Reply #39 on: October 03, 2015, 05:25:04 AM »
And regardless of the origin of the term, it's pretty much Godwin's Law by comparing a disliked group to a genocidal regime, so there's a lot of False Equivalency going on.

Well, unless the individual or group in question has ideas that are actual comparable to Nazi's (sense of supremacy, sees the others as inferior, wants to subjugate other "kinds" of people or wants to employ concentration camps of some kind). I mean, if they have ideas that are comparable to Nazi's....if the shoe fits, y'know? Which is why I only use it when talking about specific kinds of people.


Also, can we please take a moment  to note that actual people affected by the actual Holocaust have weighed in time and time and time again on the entire trend of comparing things you don't like to Nazis? It's kinda super offensive to them, trivializes what they and their loved ones went through, and yet nobody ever listens for even a moment. It'd be nice if that changed.

I agree to the whole "comparing everything to Nazi's" thing and I agree that it's overused....but in general - ignoring the term "Feminazi" for a moment - if somebody has ideas in the same vein as the Nazi's, I'm going to make the comparison. I'm sorry if that's offensive, but I'm not gonna wear oven mitts when dealing with people whose ideas extend far enough to actually consider subjugating other races/sexes/genders/whatever. If they're Nazi-like, I'm gonna call them Nazi-like. *shrug*

Offline Aethereal

Re: Against that slur 'feminazi'.
« Reply #40 on: October 03, 2015, 10:55:29 AM »
I mean, if they have ideas that are comparable to Nazi's....if the shoe fits, y'know?
       In this instance, they're sexist, not nationalist. Nazis are *far* from the only group of people who had practices along the vein (including the Soviets), yet there is a particular drive for comparing everything and everyone with Nazis, regardless of there being or having been other, perhaps even more similar totalitarian entities. And in the end, they still aren't nationalists, they're sexists. So why?

Online Vergil Tanner

Re: Against that slur 'feminazi'.
« Reply #41 on: October 03, 2015, 04:20:58 PM »
       In this instance, they're sexist, not nationalist. Nazis are *far* from the only group of people who had practices along the vein (including the Soviets), yet there is a particular drive for comparing everything and everyone with Nazis, regardless of there being or having been other, perhaps even more similar totalitarian entities. And in the end, they still aren't nationalists, they're sexists. So why?

Because, Nazi's had a specific set of ideals related to what to do with the people that were the object of their bigotry. Nazi's weren't JUST Nationalist, they were sexist and racist as well, as well as disable-ist (is that even word? Ah, never mind, it is now). The reason to use Nazism is that they're the most "infamous" group in modern society of that kind of ideological supremacy taken to th extreme, so it's an easier comparison for people to recognise. And I say again: Regardless of the object of their ideology - whether it's based on sex, gender, race, shoe size, height, whatever - the outcome for certain people is the same; the illusion of having the "right" to subjugate, dominate and exterminate, and if they have the power, doing just that. You don't need to share the root of the Nazi ideology to share the "ideal" tactics and practices, after all, and that is where the comparison arises from. And y'know what? Yeah, I would compare them to Soviets as well. In fact, I have before.
So I don't really understand your objection; the people I'm talking about are advocating the same tactics and practices as the Nazi's used, just on a different target. So why shouldn't I make the comparison again?