5 ms·

Is there any label that people apply to themselves or others that successfully filters out the lunatic fringe from reasonable people? I'm not afraid to call my

Is there any label that people apply to themselves or others that successfully filters out the lunatic fringe from reasonable people? I'm not afraid to call myself a feminist (even though that puts me in the same camp as some crazy people) in the same way that I'm not afraid to call myself a hacker or a man or a parent or an urban farmer.

claudius 13y ago
> Is there any label that people apply to themselves or others that successfully filters out the lunatic fringe from reasonable people? I don’t know, it probably has to do with the visibility of these fringe groups and your position in the spectrum described by the label. I am sure there are lunatic social democrats somewhere, I have just not yet met them, and I am also positive that there are lunatic liberal democrats somewhere, but again I have not yet met them. OTOH, there certainly are lunatic ‘scientists’, but they take a sufficiently small stage in public that I can self-identify as a scientist without having to worry about being confused with them. > I'm not afraid to call myself a feminist (even though that puts me in the same camp as some crazy people) in the same way that I'm not afraid to call myself a hacker or a man or a parent or an urban farmer. Even if I was a hacker (I really am not, just an interested guy), I would hesitate to call myself a hacker in front of an audience that associates the word mostly with their CC details being stolen. Language is difficult.
- MartinCron 13y ago
  If someone misunderstands what I mean about self-identifying as a hacker, it creates an opportunity to explain that the word can mean "person who is driven to build, tinker, explore, and experiment" the same way that the word feminist can mean "person who feels that civilized societies shouldn't treat women as second-class citizens". Language is difficult, but it's important enough to care about doing well.
- quinnchr 13y ago
  The only reason "lunatic" feminists seem more visible is because people feel compelled to point out the most extreme views of "lunatic" feminists every single time there is a discussion of feminism. It would be like if every time a science article was posted on HN you had multiple people pointing out that all science is crazy because some lunatics used to think eugenics was a good idea. Seriously, pick any thread on HN vaguely related to feminism and you will find multiple people claiming that feminism is a worthless lunatic ideology not based on reality. And 99% of them use outdated theory (just as eugenics is outdated) and complete misrepresentations to back up their claims. For example saying things like: "oh, wait, one of the leading feminists (Alice Schwarzer) is strongly opposing any legalisation of prostitution" When in fact her position is nowhere close to that: "She views prostitution as violence against women and favors laws like those in Sweden, where the sale of sexual services is legal but their purchase is not. (See also: Prostitution in Germany.)" It's pretty ridiculous to claim that feminism seems crazy because fringe feminists are simply more public, when you are directly and purposefully contributing to making them more public in a pretty transparent attempt to discredit feminism.
  - Sssnake 13y ago
    >The only reason "lunatic" feminists seem more visible is because people feel compelled to point out the most extreme views of "lunatic" feminists every single time there is a discussion of feminism. No, that is not the only reason. The fact that their beliefs are mainstream, and not a fringe at all is a major reason they seem more visible. These are the bulk of the women's studies departments at universities. These are the most mainstream organizations like NOW. They are the ones actively fighting against equality, and screaming hate at men for daring to want to talk about men's issues. >When in fact her position is nowhere close to that Her position is exactly that, and she has repeatedly campaigned to prevent legalized prostitution. She literally views consensual sex between adults as a violent act, with the woman always the victim and the man always the aggressor. You even quoted as much, yet you act like it is a lie? That does not seem like the actions of someone engaging in an honest, good faith attempt at discussion.
    - quinnchr 13y ago
      I guess that's true if you consider being for legalized sex work the exact same as being against legalized sex work. She's pretty explicitly pro legalized sex work. Let me quote the relevant part again: "She views prostitution as violence against women and favors laws like those in Sweden, where the sale of sexual services is legal" If you interpret viewing prostitution as violence the same as viewing sex between consensual adults as violence you're totally right on that one too. In what ways do organizations like NOW actively fight against equality, and scream hate at men for daring to want to talk about men's issues?
      - Sssnake 13y ago
        >I guess that's true if you consider being for legalized sex work the exact same as being against legalized sex work Why are you being so blatantly dishonest? She is not for legalized sex work, she is for making purchasing sex a crime. That is not legalizing sex work, it is simply not making the prostitutes side criminal. >"She views prostitution as violence against women and favors laws like those in Sweden, where the sale of sexual services is legal" And being a customer is a crime. That is not legal. Again, why such incredibly dishonesty? >If you interpret viewing prostitution as violence the same as viewing sex between consensual adults as violence Prostitution is sex between consenting adults. >In what ways do organizations like NOW actively fight against equality Actively campaigning against laws that would make joint custody the default? >scream hate at men for daring to want to talk about men's issues? You've seriously never seen the UofT videos? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0

claudius 13y ago

> Is there any label that people apply to themselves or others that successfully filters out the lunatic fringe from reasonable people? I don’t know, it probably has to do with the visibility of these fringe groups and your position in the spectrum described by the label. I am sure there are lunatic social democrats somewhere, I have just not yet met them, and I am also positive that there are lunatic liberal democrats somewhere, but again I have not yet met them. OTOH, there certainly are lunatic ‘scientists’, but they take a sufficiently small stage in public that I can self-identify as a scientist without having to worry about being confused with them. > I'm not afraid to call myself a feminist (even though that puts me in the same camp as some crazy people) in the same way that I'm not afraid to call myself a hacker or a man or a parent or an urban farmer. Even if I was a hacker (I really am not, just an interested guy), I would hesitate to call myself a hacker in front of an audience that associates the word mostly with their CC details being stolen. Language is difficult.

MartinCron 13y ago
If someone misunderstands what I mean about self-identifying as a hacker, it creates an opportunity to explain that the word can mean "person who is driven to build, tinker, explore, and experiment" the same way that the word feminist can mean "person who feels that civilized societies shouldn't treat women as second-class citizens". Language is difficult, but it's important enough to care about doing well.
quinnchr 13y ago
The only reason "lunatic" feminists seem more visible is because people feel compelled to point out the most extreme views of "lunatic" feminists every single time there is a discussion of feminism. It would be like if every time a science article was posted on HN you had multiple people pointing out that all science is crazy because some lunatics used to think eugenics was a good idea. Seriously, pick any thread on HN vaguely related to feminism and you will find multiple people claiming that feminism is a worthless lunatic ideology not based on reality. And 99% of them use outdated theory (just as eugenics is outdated) and complete misrepresentations to back up their claims. For example saying things like: "oh, wait, one of the leading feminists (Alice Schwarzer) is strongly opposing any legalisation of prostitution" When in fact her position is nowhere close to that: "She views prostitution as violence against women and favors laws like those in Sweden, where the sale of sexual services is legal but their purchase is not. (See also: Prostitution in Germany.)" It's pretty ridiculous to claim that feminism seems crazy because fringe feminists are simply more public, when you are directly and purposefully contributing to making them more public in a pretty transparent attempt to discredit feminism.
- Sssnake 13y ago
  >The only reason "lunatic" feminists seem more visible is because people feel compelled to point out the most extreme views of "lunatic" feminists every single time there is a discussion of feminism. No, that is not the only reason. The fact that their beliefs are mainstream, and not a fringe at all is a major reason they seem more visible. These are the bulk of the women's studies departments at universities. These are the most mainstream organizations like NOW. They are the ones actively fighting against equality, and screaming hate at men for daring to want to talk about men's issues. >When in fact her position is nowhere close to that Her position is exactly that, and she has repeatedly campaigned to prevent legalized prostitution. She literally views consensual sex between adults as a violent act, with the woman always the victim and the man always the aggressor. You even quoted as much, yet you act like it is a lie? That does not seem like the actions of someone engaging in an honest, good faith attempt at discussion.
  - quinnchr 13y ago
    I guess that's true if you consider being for legalized sex work the exact same as being against legalized sex work. She's pretty explicitly pro legalized sex work. Let me quote the relevant part again: "She views prostitution as violence against women and favors laws like those in Sweden, where the sale of sexual services is legal" If you interpret viewing prostitution as violence the same as viewing sex between consensual adults as violence you're totally right on that one too. In what ways do organizations like NOW actively fight against equality, and scream hate at men for daring to want to talk about men's issues?
    - Sssnake 13y ago
      >I guess that's true if you consider being for legalized sex work the exact same as being against legalized sex work Why are you being so blatantly dishonest? She is not for legalized sex work, she is for making purchasing sex a crime. That is not legalizing sex work, it is simply not making the prostitutes side criminal. >"She views prostitution as violence against women and favors laws like those in Sweden, where the sale of sexual services is legal" And being a customer is a crime. That is not legal. Again, why such incredibly dishonesty? >If you interpret viewing prostitution as violence the same as viewing sex between consensual adults as violence Prostitution is sex between consenting adults. >In what ways do organizations like NOW actively fight against equality Actively campaigning against laws that would make joint custody the default? >scream hate at men for daring to want to talk about men's issues? You've seriously never seen the UofT videos? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0