4 ms·
Has anyone even heard of this website before all of this? What's the point of all this free publicity for them? Streisand effect is real.
by Grue3 9y ago
Has anyone even heard of this website before all of this? What's the point of all this free publicity for them? Streisand effect is real.
- zimpenfish 9y agoPeople following the rise of the far-right (and to some extent the MRA movement since there's a strong overlap) have, yes, because it's been a focal point for a good long while now.
- xiaoma 9y agoMRA? You mean the group of mostly men pushing for equal rights to custody and/or visitation of their kids? Wasn't that group started by a male feminist scholar? What do they have to do with this fringe hate website most of us never heard of before?
- rednerrus 9y ago"You're either with us or you're against us."
- zimpenfish 9y agoWell, for a current example, there's Christopher Cantwell - Daily Stormer writer, helped organise "Unite The Right", was at the rally waving guns around, unabashed racist, etc. - and also quite a popular contributor to A Voice For Men (until he fell out with Elam.) Also many articles along this theme, eg: https://www.vox.com/culture/2016/12/14/13576192/alt-right-sexism-recruitment https://www.vox.com/culture/2016/12/14/13576192/alt-right-se...
- xiaoma 9y agoAnd Hitler himself was a big believer in no smoking spaces. That doesn't mean that anti-smoking groups have anything to do with the genocide Nazis engaged in, just because Nazis were also officially against smoking.
- zimpenfish 9y agoOk, I can't even understand how you've got to this analogy.
- xiaoma 9y agoGiving you the benefit of the doubt that you're trying to understand, I'll restate the logical fallacy a bit more formally: Person A believes thing 1. Person A believes thing 2. Therefore people who believe 1 also believe 2. This line of reasoning can be rhetorically powerful but it's flawed and, IMO, toxic to the discussion.
- zimpenfish 9y ago> the far-right (and to some extent the MRA movement since there's a strong overlap What I actually said was: People in set A believe thing 1. People in set B believe thing 2. There is a strong overlap between set A and set B. You'll note there's nothing about a causal connection, only a correlation. [edit for formatting]