4 ms·

Ah yes, the good old "studies can be wrong" and moving the goal-posts to require impossible to perform studies. It's not possible to show something like sexism

by Latty 10y ago

Ah yes, the good old "studies can be wrong" and moving the goal-posts to require impossible to perform studies. It's not possible to show something like sexism universally because what is the indicator everyone does you test? You call it hand-waving, but you are the one hand-waving away the evidence we have that sexism exists. You focus on the wage gap, but that's just one argument people make - and just because some people interpret the data wrongly (expecting 1:1 to be the right outcome, disregarding the difference in common career paths), that doesn't make it entirely wrong (sexism could still be a factor - it's hard to tell), and it doesn't make it malicious or the whole of feminism somehow invalid. I see plenty of discussion about that, and I don't see people trying to force through 1:1 as the standard. Yes, amazingly there are people who call themselves feminists and are wrong, like with anything. If we had a site that was citing the wage gap, demanding 1:1 pay regardless of situation, etc... I would be onboard with calling it wrong. That doesn't magically make a site tarnishing feminists with legitimate arguments and aims as wrong. That article was reasonable unless you think teaching a child about feminism is wrong, which implies that feminism is inherantly wrong, not just potentially in the wrong hands.

Chris2048 10y ago
Ah, the good old "the good old". Diagnosing everything I say as some classic fallacy only works if you can explain why it's wrong. Did I not post a contradicting study? http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/12/beware-the-man-of-one-study/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/12/beware-the-man-of-one-s... Again, please expand; where did I move the goalpost? > It's not possible to show something like sexism universally It might be, it'd just be hard. I assume from the above you are accepting I was right? > but you are the one hand-waving away the evidence we have that sexism exists This isn't what 'hand waving' in the former context means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-waving https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-waving The burden is on you to provide evidence for your overly general statements. > that's just one argument people make I picked that as a good example. Do you have a better one? > that doesn't make it entirely wrong It doesn't make what wrong? The wage gap? ok - but I never claimed it was - there is no evidence it is a problem, and by default we don't act on things that are not wrong. Sexism can, and to some degree will, be a factor; The question is what can be shown by reasonable analysis, as opposed to ideological rhetoric. I think you are the one moving the goalposts here. You appear to have gone from "sexism definitely exists, we are all a little sexist" to "we don't know sexism doesn't exist". > or the whole of feminism somehow invalid Please stick to the things I said. This is the second time I'm saying this now. you are the one making generalizations here. > I don't see people trying to force through 1:1 as the standard Yet, it's the wage gap "problem" than inspires things like https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/mar/06/germany-gender-quota-legislation-boardroom-law-women https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/mar/06/germany-gen... > unless you think teaching a child about feminism is wrong I'm going to stop arguing this because I think you are being willfully ignorant. I clearly don't thing "teaching a child about feminism" is the correct characterisation, nor accept your "implication" (I've said twice now I believe the feminism shown here not to be "all" feminism) so repeatedly trying to frame it like this is not productive.
- Latty 10y ago
  You are simply changing your argument every time to avoid having to answer why you are defending the site which has clearly misleading articles. If you don't think teaching children about feminism is wrong, and you don't think all feminism is bad, how can you possibly defend that? I'm simply trying to make your argument make sense, not putting words in your mouth. You are denying everything while making the assertion I'm wrong to say that site is attempting to create a fear of feminism. You are refusing to explain why you think their content is reasonable, I'm trying to work out why that is.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    > You are simply changing your argument No I'm not; or quote me on it. > If you don't think teaching children about feminism is wrong I've been specific. even in the last post, I say I re-iterate that I don't believe there is singular feminism, and here you are using 'feminism' unqualified. Respond to the things I've said above, maybe quote them, and I can respond; you keep asking me to respond to your own summaries. > You are denying everything if by 'everything' you mean the specific, broadly applied claims you've made; and by 'denying' you mean ask for qualification, then yes. > making the assertion I'm wrong to say that site is attempting to create a fear of feminism I've said why I think it is wrong. > You are refusing to explain why you think their content is reasonable No, I've explained. misrepresentation, and focus are different.
    - Latty 10y ago
      > I've been specific. even in the last post, I say I re-iterate that I don't believe there is singular feminism, and here you are using 'feminism' unqualified. Respond to the things I've said above, maybe quote them, and I can respond; you keep asking me to respond to your own summaries. Because the author of the post doesn't specify! She talks about teaching her child about feminism, and you assume that is somehow bad. > I've said why I think it is wrong. No, you have not. You talked around it disputing definitions. Again, you are claiming you've been specific, but you are not. Yes, obviously feminism, like most things, means different things to different people - that doesn't somehow make rejecting it generally (which is the only way you have even hinted at the artcile not being a hit piece, even if you later refute the idea) reasonable. > No, I've explained. misrepresentation, and focus are different. That article is misleading, it misrepresents the article it is talking about - that's not focus.

by Latty 10y ago

Chris2048 10y ago

Ah, the good old "the good old". Diagnosing everything I say as some classic fallacy only works if you can explain why it's wrong. Did I not post a contradicting study? http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/12/beware-the-man-of-one-study/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/12/beware-the-man-of-one-s... Again, please expand; where did I move the goalpost? > It's not possible to show something like sexism universally It might be, it'd just be hard. I assume from the above you are accepting I was right? > but you are the one hand-waving away the evidence we have that sexism exists This isn't what 'hand waving' in the former context means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-waving https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-waving The burden is on you to provide evidence for your overly general statements. > that's just one argument people make I picked that as a good example. Do you have a better one? > that doesn't make it entirely wrong It doesn't make what wrong? The wage gap? ok - but I never claimed it was - there is no evidence it is a problem, and by default we don't act on things that are not wrong. Sexism can, and to some degree will, be a factor; The question is what can be shown by reasonable analysis, as opposed to ideological rhetoric. I think you are the one moving the goalposts here. You appear to have gone from "sexism definitely exists, we are all a little sexist" to "we don't know sexism doesn't exist". > or the whole of feminism somehow invalid Please stick to the things I said. This is the second time I'm saying this now. you are the one making generalizations here. > I don't see people trying to force through 1:1 as the standard Yet, it's the wage gap "problem" than inspires things like https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/mar/06/germany-gender-quota-legislation-boardroom-law-women https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/mar/06/germany-gen... > unless you think teaching a child about feminism is wrong I'm going to stop arguing this because I think you are being willfully ignorant. I clearly don't thing "teaching a child about feminism" is the correct characterisation, nor accept your "implication" (I've said twice now I believe the feminism shown here not to be "all" feminism) so repeatedly trying to frame it like this is not productive.

Latty 10y ago
You are simply changing your argument every time to avoid having to answer why you are defending the site which has clearly misleading articles. If you don't think teaching children about feminism is wrong, and you don't think all feminism is bad, how can you possibly defend that? I'm simply trying to make your argument make sense, not putting words in your mouth. You are denying everything while making the assertion I'm wrong to say that site is attempting to create a fear of feminism. You are refusing to explain why you think their content is reasonable, I'm trying to work out why that is.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  > You are simply changing your argument No I'm not; or quote me on it. > If you don't think teaching children about feminism is wrong I've been specific. even in the last post, I say I re-iterate that I don't believe there is singular feminism, and here you are using 'feminism' unqualified. Respond to the things I've said above, maybe quote them, and I can respond; you keep asking me to respond to your own summaries. > You are denying everything if by 'everything' you mean the specific, broadly applied claims you've made; and by 'denying' you mean ask for qualification, then yes. > making the assertion I'm wrong to say that site is attempting to create a fear of feminism I've said why I think it is wrong. > You are refusing to explain why you think their content is reasonable No, I've explained. misrepresentation, and focus are different.
  - Latty 10y ago
    > I've been specific. even in the last post, I say I re-iterate that I don't believe there is singular feminism, and here you are using 'feminism' unqualified. Respond to the things I've said above, maybe quote them, and I can respond; you keep asking me to respond to your own summaries. Because the author of the post doesn't specify! She talks about teaching her child about feminism, and you assume that is somehow bad. > I've said why I think it is wrong. No, you have not. You talked around it disputing definitions. Again, you are claiming you've been specific, but you are not. Yes, obviously feminism, like most things, means different things to different people - that doesn't somehow make rejecting it generally (which is the only way you have even hinted at the artcile not being a hit piece, even if you later refute the idea) reasonable. > No, I've explained. misrepresentation, and focus are different. That article is misleading, it misrepresents the article it is talking about - that's not focus.