4 ms·

I agree completely with what you're saying, but I think you're being far too generous in your interpretation of the author's point. Some people accuse others o

I agree completely with what you're saying, but I think you're being far too generous in your interpretation of the author's point. Some people accuse others of logical fallacies for the wrong reasons—they want avoid responding to one or more points they know the other person is trying to make, so they lazily hide behind extraneous non-arguments to avoid confronting any substance. At the same time, some people employ logical fallacies to push an agenda and make it effectively impossible to respond without dismantling their entire argument... by pointing out the logical fallacies. Hmmm. Unsurprisingly, the author of this piece is a dishonest shill who wants free reign to use logical fallacies to advance his agenda. When I clicked the link, I was certain the author would find a way to push his radical, post-modern feminism. As @realtalker has pointed out, the author almost certainly wrote this in response to the stinging criticism he received for this piece the Islamaphobia section in particular): http://plover.net/~bonds/nolongeraskeptic.html#islamophobia http://plover.net/~bonds/nolongeraskeptic.html#islamophobia Radical, post-modern feminists like the author do not pepper their otherwise-reasoned arguments with logical fallacies; their arguments are based upon logical fallacies. As I said, the only way to respond to inherently dishonest arguments like that is to point how the arguments are dishonest. The author wants full immunity. [And to be abundantly clear, by "author" I don't mean @mindcrime. I mean the author of the linked piece.]

Avshalom 13y ago
So wait, thinking "guys, elevator come-ons are not such a good idea" is "Fair enough" is radical, post-modern feminism?
- hacker789 13y ago
  I firmly feel there's nothing wrong with asking someone in an elevator whether they'd like to get coffee. That said, to answer your question, my answer is no. Someone responding to "guys, elevator come-ons are not such a good idea" with "fair enough" doesn't remotely make someone a radical, post-modern feminist. Why do you ask?
  - rmrfrmrf 13y ago
    > I firmly feel there's nothing wrong with asking someone in an elevator whether they'd like to get coffee. Please ask a psychologist to be screened for Antisocial Personality Disorder and/or Autism.
    - hacker789 13y ago
      Nice. Feminist bullies use the same tactics and insults that kids use in middle school. What's so wrong with asking someone in an elevator? I'm all ears. Is it because you think women will cower in terror because they're an enclosed box with a man?
      - rmrfrmrf 13y ago
        There's nothing insulting about having a mental illness. However, having such blatant disregard for others' feelings and established societal norms can land you in jail. While you may be incapable of empathy on your own, therapy can help you find ways to make the effects of empathy beneficial to you (usually by some form of quantification of results based on emulation of empathy).
        hacker789 13y ago
        You've both diagnosed me with autism and insinuated it could land me in jail if left untreated? You're lovely. I'll ask you again. What's so wrong with calmly asking someone in an elevator for coffee? I remember these discussions after Rebecca Watson publicly complained about it—the vast majority of people felt she was vastly overreacting. So it's definitely not an "established societal norm". Despite their rhetoric, radical feminists love infantilizing women. They treat women as fragile, triggerable, sensitive creatures who won't feel safe unless they're handled with kid gloves.
        swombat 13y ago
        Would you feel uncomfortable if a fat, ugly woman with an annoying nasal voice opened conversation at the beginning of a 30-floor elevator ride by asking you out for coffee? "Can I get a coffee with you mister? You're so handsome." "Er, no, sorry, I'm busy." 45 seconds of lift going up in embarrassed silence I'm sure anyone can handle it, but it's definitely uncomfortable. Now imagine if this happened every day, because if it's socially acceptable and you are handsome and working in a tall building, it probably will.
EthanHeilman 13y ago
>Radical, post-modern feminists like the author do not pepper their otherwise-reasoned arguments with logical fallacies; their arguments are based upon logical fallacies. What evidence do you have the author is post-modern? I looked around on the authors blog and didn't see anything post-modern. You are dismissing a large number of thinkers, this is all radical post-modern feminists, out of hand. I don't understand why or what that has to do with your other claims.
ezy 13y ago
Please define radical, post-modern feminist. Thanks.
EthanHeilman 13y ago
hacker789 previous comments have an anti-feminist bent (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5573103 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5573103) so I would suggest that it is coloring hacker789's judgement of this piece. This is probably why hacker789 talks about the authors motivations or secret intentions (similar to what I am doing to hacker789 now).
- hacker789 13y ago
  "Feminist" is such a broad brush that labeling something "anti-feminist" isn't very useful. But you're still right—like anyone, my biases can color my judgement of things, often causing me to prejudge a written piece based on its author. This time, I was right; often, I am not.
- lucisferre 13y ago
  Using ad hominem against the ad hominem of a response to a piece about the use of logical fallacies. This. Is. So. Meta. Love it.
tptacek 13y ago
This comment is a joke, right? You're trying to provide an example of what an irrelevant invocation of "ad hominem" actually looks like, right?
- hacker789 13y ago
  Nope. I certainly used ad hominem, but it wasn't central to my argument. To ignore the rest of my post would be an example of the following: > they want avoid responding to one or more points they know the other person is trying to make, so they lazily hide behind extraneous non-arguments to avoid confronting any substance.

Avshalom 13y ago

So wait, thinking "guys, elevator come-ons are not such a good idea" is "Fair enough" is radical, post-modern feminism?

hacker789 13y ago
I firmly feel there's nothing wrong with asking someone in an elevator whether they'd like to get coffee. That said, to answer your question, my answer is no. Someone responding to "guys, elevator come-ons are not such a good idea" with "fair enough" doesn't remotely make someone a radical, post-modern feminist. Why do you ask?
- rmrfrmrf 13y ago
  > I firmly feel there's nothing wrong with asking someone in an elevator whether they'd like to get coffee. Please ask a psychologist to be screened for Antisocial Personality Disorder and/or Autism.
  - hacker789 13y ago
    Nice. Feminist bullies use the same tactics and insults that kids use in middle school. What's so wrong with asking someone in an elevator? I'm all ears. Is it because you think women will cower in terror because they're an enclosed box with a man?
    - rmrfrmrf 13y ago
      There's nothing insulting about having a mental illness. However, having such blatant disregard for others' feelings and established societal norms can land you in jail. While you may be incapable of empathy on your own, therapy can help you find ways to make the effects of empathy beneficial to you (usually by some form of quantification of results based on emulation of empathy).
      - hacker789 13y ago
        You've both diagnosed me with autism and insinuated it could land me in jail if left untreated? You're lovely. I'll ask you again. What's so wrong with calmly asking someone in an elevator for coffee? I remember these discussions after Rebecca Watson publicly complained about it—the vast majority of people felt she was vastly overreacting. So it's definitely not an "established societal norm". Despite their rhetoric, radical feminists love infantilizing women. They treat women as fragile, triggerable, sensitive creatures who won't feel safe unless they're handled with kid gloves.
        swombat 13y ago
        Would you feel uncomfortable if a fat, ugly woman with an annoying nasal voice opened conversation at the beginning of a 30-floor elevator ride by asking you out for coffee? "Can I get a coffee with you mister? You're so handsome." "Er, no, sorry, I'm busy." 45 seconds of lift going up in embarrassed silence I'm sure anyone can handle it, but it's definitely uncomfortable. Now imagine if this happened every day, because if it's socially acceptable and you are handsome and working in a tall building, it probably will.

EthanHeilman 13y ago

>Radical, post-modern feminists like the author do not pepper their otherwise-reasoned arguments with logical fallacies; their arguments are based upon logical fallacies. What evidence do you have the author is post-modern? I looked around on the authors blog and didn't see anything post-modern. You are dismissing a large number of thinkers, this is all radical post-modern feminists, out of hand. I don't understand why or what that has to do with your other claims.

ezy 13y ago

Please define radical, post-modern feminist. Thanks.

EthanHeilman 13y ago

hacker789 previous comments have an anti-feminist bent (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5573103 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5573103) so I would suggest that it is coloring hacker789's judgement of this piece. This is probably why hacker789 talks about the authors motivations or secret intentions (similar to what I am doing to hacker789 now).

hacker789 13y ago
"Feminist" is such a broad brush that labeling something "anti-feminist" isn't very useful. But you're still right—like anyone, my biases can color my judgement of things, often causing me to prejudge a written piece based on its author. This time, I was right; often, I am not.
lucisferre 13y ago
Using ad hominem against the ad hominem of a response to a piece about the use of logical fallacies. This. Is. So. Meta. Love it.

tptacek 13y ago

This comment is a joke, right? You're trying to provide an example of what an irrelevant invocation of "ad hominem" actually looks like, right?

hacker789 13y ago
Nope. I certainly used ad hominem, but it wasn't central to my argument. To ignore the rest of my post would be an example of the following: > they want avoid responding to one or more points they know the other person is trying to make, so they lazily hide behind extraneous non-arguments to avoid confronting any substance.