8 ms·

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Not_a_woman http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Not_a_woman http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/You%27re_the_sexist#.22Talking

by ilyanep 13y ago

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Not_a_woman http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Not_a_woman http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/You%27re_the_sexist#.22Talking_about_sexism_victimises_women.22 http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/You%27re_the_sexist#.22Ta...

vezzy-fnord 13y ago
Someone should coin an analogue to Godwin, where linking to the Geek Feminism Wiki is seen as an instant loss of credibility. The wiki is hugely anecdotal beyond all reason, poorly written, often incoherent and their editorial guidelines clearly show that they have virtually no standard as long as the content fits under a vaguely feminist or social justice-oriented perspective. (http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Meta:Editorial_guidelines http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Meta:Editorial_guidelines) Their "vision of intersectional feminism" is postmodernism gone wrong.
- ilyanep 13y ago
  Well now you're making an ad hominem fallacy. Can you please read the actual pages I linked and tell me why you disagree with their arguments or why the arguments they are debunking don't apply to what you wrote?
  - stelonix 13y ago
    An ad hominem is an attack on the messenger. The poster merely gave reasons why the credibility of said link shouldn't be taken at face value.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - ceol 13y ago
      "Credibility"? It's an argument. You either agree with it or you don't. That was most certainly an ad hominem. It was an attempt to counter a point by attacking the messenger, not the argument. Textbook, really.
  - vezzy-fnord 13y ago
    Ad hominem? Hardly. It's funny if you link to articles about "silencing tactics" and then falsely invoke an ad hominem fallacy. Pointing out bad and illegitimate sources is not an ad hominem. In any event, your first article isn't even relevant to the original poster. The second doesn't even address any argument, it just moves the goalposts into an issue of patriarchal values and how all women are (ostensibly) inherently oppressed from conception.
- mafuyu 13y ago
  Godwin's Law doesn't say anything about credibility. It just states the probability of a Nazi reference approaches 1, but many people incorrectly use it to attack the credibility of a statement. That said, the Geek Feminism Wiki is a specific website which can be shown to be credible or not.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- jpwright 13y ago
  Not sure if you read the links, but I think they were posted here to (accurately) point out that overgard's comment contains two really common tropes that people use to dismiss men talking about feminism. Each post is like two paragraphs long and not particularly controversial, so a comparison to the Bible is pretty far off.
- ilyanep 13y ago
  "Geek Feminism is a highly politicized source [because they're feminist]...Perhaps you can find a more neutral source to cite as evidence [that somehow covers feminist issues without being "politicized"]" Furthermore, those explicit two pages I linked basically describe his argument and then rebut them. We can have a discussion about why the pages don't in fact describe his argument or about why you disagree with the rebuttal. I can even verbatim paste what it says if you want. I don't really want to debate on how skewed or biased the wiki is, because I don't really read it. But those two pages seemed relevant to me.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- codygman 13y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
- Nutella4 13y ago
  Apparently feminism is political and anti-feminism is neutral in your world.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- vectorjohn 13y ago
overgard 13y ago
My argument is that women have a sense of humor and we don't have to infantilize them by acting like they can't take a joke. Clearly I'm a patriarchal monster. Thank god we have all these social justice warriors to protect women from the word bro.
- Steuard 13y ago
  Yes, women have a sense of humor, and in general they're really good at taking a joke from time to time. But if you keep your eyes open, you'll eventually notice that women (especially in tech) wind up having to "take a joke" all the friggin' time. And that gets really old. I mean, seriously, look at this very example. Imagine that the "bro" command became a standard tool. Now picture a woman being stuck typing "bro" on a regular basis during her working day. It's never a big deal, obviously. But she still has to type it again, over and over, taking a tiny but not quite negligible emotional hit of feeling excluded every single time. It's not the end of the world, sure... but why would anybody choose to make things that way if there's another choice?
  - overgard 13y ago
    Except: the joke isn't even directed at women. Women aren't being asked to "take the joke" here because it has nothing to do with women. The only tie to women here is from self proclaimed social justice warriors decrying the fact that someone might call something "bro".
    - Steuard 13y ago
      Ok, you've got me confused now. You just said, 'Women aren't being asked to "take the joke" here'. But in your previous comment that I was replying to, you said, 'My argument is that women have a sense of humor and we don't have to infantilize them by acting like they can't take a joke.' Which is it?
      - reallyseriously 13y ago
        If I may cut in, he's saying "bro" is poking fun at other men so it has nothing to do with making a joke at the expense of women. At the same time, all people, both men and women can take aka understand "the joke" so others don't need to protect women from it like they are children without adult reasoning abilities.
ufmace 13y ago
I think what bothers me the most about that site is how ideological their arguments get. It's all done under the banner of protecting women, but they've gone way beyond being about what any actual women think and care about, and are more about pushing their ideology of how everybody should think and act onto everyone. To them, the ideology is all-important and must be injected into all situations, no matter how tenuous the link. Anything that touches these subject without bowing to the ideology is forbidden and must be destroyed. To the point that you can't name a little help utility a cute play on words of a well-known utility without starting a huge frickin argument.
- icarus127 13y ago
  >they've gone way beyond being about what any actual women think and care about... And those articles were written by whom then? Apparently at least one woman actually cares about those issues. Or are you trying to say that by going "that far" she or they are not "actual" women? Whatever that means.

by ilyanep 13y ago

vezzy-fnord 13y ago

Someone should coin an analogue to Godwin, where linking to the Geek Feminism Wiki is seen as an instant loss of credibility. The wiki is hugely anecdotal beyond all reason, poorly written, often incoherent and their editorial guidelines clearly show that they have virtually no standard as long as the content fits under a vaguely feminist or social justice-oriented perspective. (http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Meta:Editorial_guidelines http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Meta:Editorial_guidelines) Their "vision of intersectional feminism" is postmodernism gone wrong.

ilyanep 13y ago
Well now you're making an ad hominem fallacy. Can you please read the actual pages I linked and tell me why you disagree with their arguments or why the arguments they are debunking don't apply to what you wrote?
- stelonix 13y ago
  An ad hominem is an attack on the messenger. The poster merely gave reasons why the credibility of said link shouldn't be taken at face value.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - ceol 13y ago
    "Credibility"? It's an argument. You either agree with it or you don't. That was most certainly an ad hominem. It was an attempt to counter a point by attacking the messenger, not the argument. Textbook, really.
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  Ad hominem? Hardly. It's funny if you link to articles about "silencing tactics" and then falsely invoke an ad hominem fallacy. Pointing out bad and illegitimate sources is not an ad hominem. In any event, your first article isn't even relevant to the original poster. The second doesn't even address any argument, it just moves the goalposts into an issue of patriarchal values and how all women are (ostensibly) inherently oppressed from conception.
mafuyu 13y ago
Godwin's Law doesn't say anything about credibility. It just states the probability of a Nazi reference approaches 1, but many people incorrectly use it to attack the credibility of a statement. That said, the Geek Feminism Wiki is a specific website which can be shown to be credible or not.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

jpwright 13y ago
Not sure if you read the links, but I think they were posted here to (accurately) point out that overgard's comment contains two really common tropes that people use to dismiss men talking about feminism. Each post is like two paragraphs long and not particularly controversial, so a comparison to the Bible is pretty far off.
ilyanep 13y ago
"Geek Feminism is a highly politicized source [because they're feminist]...Perhaps you can find a more neutral source to cite as evidence [that somehow covers feminist issues without being "politicized"]" Furthermore, those explicit two pages I linked basically describe his argument and then rebut them. We can have a discussion about why the pages don't in fact describe his argument or about why you disagree with the rebuttal. I can even verbatim paste what it says if you want. I don't really want to debate on how skewed or biased the wiki is, because I don't really read it. But those two pages seemed relevant to me.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
codygman 13y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
Nutella4 13y ago
Apparently feminism is political and anti-feminism is neutral in your world.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
vectorjohn 13y ago

overgard 13y ago

My argument is that women have a sense of humor and we don't have to infantilize them by acting like they can't take a joke. Clearly I'm a patriarchal monster. Thank god we have all these social justice warriors to protect women from the word bro.

Steuard 13y ago
Yes, women have a sense of humor, and in general they're really good at taking a joke from time to time. But if you keep your eyes open, you'll eventually notice that women (especially in tech) wind up having to "take a joke" all the friggin' time. And that gets really old. I mean, seriously, look at this very example. Imagine that the "bro" command became a standard tool. Now picture a woman being stuck typing "bro" on a regular basis during her working day. It's never a big deal, obviously. But she still has to type it again, over and over, taking a tiny but not quite negligible emotional hit of feeling excluded every single time. It's not the end of the world, sure... but why would anybody choose to make things that way if there's another choice?
- overgard 13y ago
  Except: the joke isn't even directed at women. Women aren't being asked to "take the joke" here because it has nothing to do with women. The only tie to women here is from self proclaimed social justice warriors decrying the fact that someone might call something "bro".
  - Steuard 13y ago
    Ok, you've got me confused now. You just said, 'Women aren't being asked to "take the joke" here'. But in your previous comment that I was replying to, you said, 'My argument is that women have a sense of humor and we don't have to infantilize them by acting like they can't take a joke.' Which is it?
    - reallyseriously 13y ago
      If I may cut in, he's saying "bro" is poking fun at other men so it has nothing to do with making a joke at the expense of women. At the same time, all people, both men and women can take aka understand "the joke" so others don't need to protect women from it like they are children without adult reasoning abilities.

ufmace 13y ago

I think what bothers me the most about that site is how ideological their arguments get. It's all done under the banner of protecting women, but they've gone way beyond being about what any actual women think and care about, and are more about pushing their ideology of how everybody should think and act onto everyone. To them, the ideology is all-important and must be injected into all situations, no matter how tenuous the link. Anything that touches these subject without bowing to the ideology is forbidden and must be destroyed. To the point that you can't name a little help utility a cute play on words of a well-known utility without starting a huge frickin argument.

icarus127 13y ago
>they've gone way beyond being about what any actual women think and care about... And those articles were written by whom then? Apparently at least one woman actually cares about those issues. Or are you trying to say that by going "that far" she or they are not "actual" women? Whatever that means.