Anti-Sex Feminists and Extremist Muslims – Strange Bedfellows

Given the paucity of written material on the topic of  3rd (or perhaps 4th) wave feminism’s gargantuan departure from the ideals of 2nd wave and the regression of freedoms which they are seemingly calling for, it is with a heavy heart that I try to make a tiny dent in that vast empty reading list.

The 2nd wave of feminism was about empowering women, giving women’s choices primacy over societal norms and roles. Women were encouraged to venture into the work force and win in that arena because women are just as capable as men. This period brought about many changes in the legal status of women via multiple legislative enactments. The failure of the Equal Rights Amendment to pass in the US was one of only 2 legislative or judicial defeats suffered by the 2nd wave. The ERA failure was in part due to conservative women such as Phylis Schlafly arguing (correctly IMO) that if passed would lead to women being drafted alongside the young men.

The 2nd wave’s view of culture was that popular culture was thoroughly sexist, and encouraged women to create their own pop culture to combat the perceived sexism in the mainstream pop culture¹. Feminists formed major institutions with political and societal clout such as NOW. These institutions behave as most institutions do…with self interest. In other words, they seek to retain what power they have and to acquire more power. They are not inclined to look around, decide that the job is finished, give each other a pat on the back, throw a celebratory champagne dinner, and dissolve or downsize themselves. Institutions simply don’t do this voluntarily. They just “discover” more problems that need their continued existence to combat.

All the while the mainstream 2nd wave was making sweeping political and legal progress for women, the more radical elements were quietly gaining strength out of the spotlight. These radical views came to the fore in the 1980’s with the Feminist Sex Wars. These debates  bifurcated feminism into the sex positive and radical (or anti-porn) brigades. Unsurprisingly, the National Organization for Women pitched it’s tent decidedly on the anti-porn side. This battle is ongoing even today, but it is important to note that this battle is mostly internal. Very few feminists will challenge or criticize their own openly. Some who have done so end up being declared “anti-feminist”.

 

Modernity has brought about various new media which both divisions of feminism took to with gusto. Social networks, blogs, video upload sites, and a wide proliferation of on-line magazines have allowed far more voices than ever to be heard. It is a great irony that the very freedom allowed by this new media, is too often used in opposition to free expression. Among those who enjoy the freedom to have their message received globally are some who would limit what you or anyone else should be allowed to see, read, listen to, or play. One such group is Muslim extremists.

Using the freedom of the internet and the great sanctity that most western nations place on freedom of expression, these extremists promulgate their message to the free world. That message, in part, is that certain ideas should be prohibited, certain images should be banned, certain actions should be blasphemy. So offended and outraged are they by certain criticisms and depictions of their prophet that they are willing to kill those who create the depictions or speak out against their ideology. Some examples: Kurt Westergaard  the Danish cartoonist, Salman Rushdie British Indian author, Ayaan Hirsi Ali a Somali activist and author, and of course the recent Charlie Hebdo murders.

Sadly there are other groups who use their freedom of expression to try to limit yours. The anti-porn, sex negative feminists. The difference here between the radical Muslims and the radical feminists is only one of tactics. Tactics and the images and ideas they don’t want you to be exposed to. Muslim extremists object to depictions of their prophet. Sex-negative feminists object to depictions of women. There is the UK newspaper, The Sun, who have a campaign by these feminists to get rid of the paper’s notorious page 3 photos. There was the famous #Shirtstorm incident where cartoon depictions of women on a scientist’s shirt were decried by these sex-negative feminists.

Hmmm, cartoons? Yes, cartoons feature prominently in both the radical Muslim outrage and the anti-sex feminist outrage. I’ll leave it for you, dear reader, to decide if that is a telling feature or just an irrelevant bug.

The last example of sex negative feminism’s assault on free expression is one Anita Sarkeesian. Anita, with her helpmate Jonathan (don’t call me Josh) McIntosh, are waging their own campaign against the animated depictions of women. ( There must be some great power in cartoonish depictions of forbidden ideas.) These two are leading a fight to restrict the ways in which artists and game developers can depict women. Rather than fight the much less lucrative battle against actual harms done to women, often by the extremist Muslim groups (which they actually defend), they fight for the suppression of pixelated sexuality and violence and not the actual real world injustices. Rather than create their own popular culture¹ or ideal depictions, they simply criticize.

Sex and violence have been subjects of artistic expressions and depictions since the dawn of mankind. Art imitates life is the adage, and it is true. Artists depicting real life situations is one of the ways humans have of examining the concepts involved in these situation safely (where no real humans are harmed). Throughout all of history there have been groups and ideologies that sought to restrict this freedom of thought and expression. One such group’s stranglehold on thought and expression helped cost humanity almost 500 years of progress.

The Social Justice Warriors have often used a phrase in their discourse, “Don’t be on the wrong side of history”. I agree with that sentiment and in the case of freedom of expression vs offense…I’m not on the wrong side. History has already vindicated my stance. So to you sex-negative feminists, Social Justice Warriors, and extremist Muslims I say, “Don’t YOU be on the wrong side of history”.


 

 ¹ One difference between 2nd wave and new anti-sex feminists.

 

Russell Wilson: The Real Teela Brown?

I rarely write about sports, but I am a fan of several. I am a huge Rays fan, which I wrote a little about here. I also penned a piece on a controversy involving golf, here.  I follow the Buccaneers and the Gators in American football. I enjoy soccer, although I don’t follow any teams currently.

Last night’s NFL National Conference Championship game featured one of the most improbable come-from-behind victories I have ever witnessed. It was so improbable, it reminded me of Teela Brown.

In Larry Niven’s epic Science Fiction novel “Ringworld”, Teela Brown is a character who, it is believed, was genetically selected for luck. In the setting of the novel, the number of assigned birth allowances never made up for the number of deaths. In order to balance the population, a lottery system was put into place to allow random “winners” to make up the shortfall. Teela Brown was descended from 5 generations of “Birthright Lottery” winners. In the novel, the characters surmise that Teela is so lucky that she might not even have “free will”. She may be a slave to the psychic luck that rules her life, making events happen just so that Teela can have a certain experience.

There were 3 plays in the end of the NFC Championship game that were so incredibly improbable, that Larry Niven’s novel crossed my mind. There was the fake field goal, the onside kick, and the 2-point conversion. Let’s examine each a little bit.

The fake field goal:

AJ Hawk, a 9 year veteran linebacker from Ohio State University allows Garry Gilliam, a rookie offensive lineman of 300 pounds to run past him toward the end zone. Hawk elected to go after the punter as if it were a run, even though Davon House, a cornerback was pursuing the punter. If Hawk stays with Gilliam, the touchdown doesn’t happen.

The onside kick:

The onside kick was not a surprise. Everyone in the stadium and watching it at home knew it was coming. The Packers had the “hands” team on the field, those who are familiar and competent at catching the oblong ball. With the ball in the air above him, Brandon Bostick has the ball go between his hands (without touching them) and bounce off of his helmet to be corralled by the Seahawks’ Chris Matthews. Bostick was apparently supposed to be blocking instead of trying to catch the ball. If Green Bay secures the football then, they can pretty much run out the clock and win.

The 2-point conversion:

With Wilson scrambling for his life, he flings the ball across the field and…well watch how crazy improbable this is:

There may be folks who claim divine intervention for the outcome of this game, but for me the answer is: Russel Wilson seems to have the the Teela Brown gene.

 

 

Occam’s Squirrel

Throughout the week it is sometimes my habit to peruse YouTube’s music videos during my lunch. If you follow me on Twitter, you’ve probably seen me tweet out some of my lunchtime music selections. The other day it seemed I was in a rather whimsical mood and began selecting comedic songs for my lunch hour concert. One of the songs I selected that day was an old comedy song by Ray Stevens called “The Mississippi Squirrel Revival“. It’s a funny musical story of a squirrel getting let loose in a church of unsuspecting congregants. The link above is the song itself but if you prefer, you can just read the lyrics here.

So as sometimes happens with human beings, certain songs can get “stuck” in our heads and this one got stuck in mine. It was around this time, I became involved in one of those evolution vs intelligent design discussions on Twitter. I didn’t Storify this particular exchange as I am often wont to do, but to give you a bit of the flavor of discourse I’ll show you one fairly representative tweet from one of the ID proponents:

A lot of these type of assertions, despite my and others pointing out instances in nature of order through merely natural means such as crystal formation.(One answer to the crystal formation was along the lines of : Yes, God is a wonderful artist. (sigh). The discussion was long and boring with neither side giving an inch. I even linked the ID folks to this wonderful explanation of teleonomic design by YouTuber Ozymandias Ramses II which was appropriate to the discussion at the time. Unsurprisingly, it went unwatched by the ID folks.

This morning as the damned song was still bouncing around against the insides of my skull, a new thought occurred to me through the juxtaposition of the song and the “debate” with the ID proponents. If one examines the events in the song as though it really happened, one can come away with two very different accounts of those events. Indeed, the song itself touts one version :

But the one I’ll remember to my dyin’ day
Is how He (God) put that church back on the narrow way
With a half crazed Mississippi squirrel

In this view, the squirrel is the agent of God, that caused the behavior of the church members to change. This is God working in mysterious (and comedic) ways.

In the rationalist view, the squirrel was just being a squirrel. An unpredictable wild animal in a crowded human environment. The “revival” it caused is entirely explained by the psychological factors of the church goers and their irrational beliefs coupled with the squirrel’s unpredictable animal behavior.

The difference between these two views of the song’s events (and by extrapolation the views of the ID proponents) should be obvious to the reader by now. The song’s author posits a superfluous, highly complex, intelligent, omnipotent agent that used the squirrel to achieve its ends. We rationalists cut out the superfluous agent with Occam’s Razor.  It occurred to me that this is exactly the same view of events such as abiogenesis, evolution, and the big bang that creationists use to explain the squirrel. They seek to insert an unnecessary agent into the evidence. This is why when the creationist says “We’re both looking at the same evidence and drawing different conclusions”, he thinks he is being perfectly rational.

William of Ockham begs to differ.

 

Get some time.

 

 

Third Wave Brats

Western society is an over indulgent parent. We have raised Veruca Salt in the form of modern, outrage junkie, 3rd (or 4th) wave feminism. Just like Roald Dahl’s character, we “treat her like a princess and give her anything she wants, no matter how ridiculous the price or how outrageous the item”. In short, we have spoiled her.

Some of the more recent examples of our mollycoddling include both the petty and the serious, the ridiculous and the grim. Let’s start with the trivial and work our way up to the severe.

The petty ones that really look interesting in juxtaposition are the “manspreading” issue which the New York MTA took so seriously that they will launch an “awareness campaign” for and the women’s restroom oppression issue (women sometimes have to wait in queue for public restrooms). The latter example has been renewed in Time magazine.

Let’s juxtapose these two “issues” for a moment. In the restroom complaint, the differing biology of men and women is cited as a reason for the need of either more restrooms or more space (and presumably toilets) in women’s restrooms. In the former “issue” of manspreading, no such biological difference allowance is made. This is what we call having one’s cake and eating it too. Using biology in one complaint and ignoring it when it becomes inconvenient in the other complaint. Consistency in examining contributory factors would be nice.

A further example of the indulgence we as a society allow feminism, is that in the manspreading issue, no actual consumer complaints were received by the MTA (according to a spokesperson). This public benefit corporation acting as a de facto government agency, began their campaign based upon what? Twitter hashtag activism?

So much for the petty stuff which one might say out of apathy, ” Ahhh, let them have their campaigns.” On to the serious stuff.

California recently passed an admittedly “terrible” law overseeing the sexual behavior of college adults. This law was passed based on the outrage from the 2007 study’s 1 in 5 number. A number which if true would be appallingly high. A number so high that I would consider not allowing my daughters to attend university. A number that was WRONG. The more recent Bureau of Justice study puts the figure at a much more believable 6.1 per THOUSAND ( 0.61% vs 20%). This is governmental action spurred by the “oppressed” class using faulty studies. If the world actually worked the way these ideologues claim it did, no government action would support laws like this.

There is a feminist led drive to leave women out of the incarceration portion of the criminal justice system ENTIRELY! While some of these beliefs about non violent offenders are pretty good ideas to me, the concept of excluding women from incarceration doesn’t strike me as particularly “equal” treatment. It also doesn’t seem to be something that an “oppressed class” could even ask for openly. In fact, it is exactly the kind of “conversation” that one would expect from a horribly spoiled child. “I shouldn’t be punished the same as my brother, Daddy.”

The recent string of petty “issues” raised by these harridans, from a scientist’s shirt to men sitting comfortably in public,  has hopefully opened some eyes about the utter narcissism of these brats. It’s time western society says “No.” to these princesses in a clear and stern voice ( and then suffer through the inevitable tantrum such action will give rise to).

 

Get some time.

The Oppressiveness of Daiquiris

The primary flaw of 3rd wave feminism’s paradigm is a statistical fallacy known as overgeneralization. The key component of which is asserting that what holds true for a specified sample of the population holds true for the entire demographic. In the case of feminism the specified sample is men in “power positions”. The rest of the demographic, the 99.99% of men not in these positions are asserted to have the same “privileges” as the tiny fraction of men in the upper echelons of governance and commerce.

An equally flawed view of society could be gained by asserting that selected miniscule populations are representative of the entire demographic as I will demonstrate in a few (hopefully humorous) false scenarios in this essay.

You are already familiar with one such use of this fallacy in advertising. Take a tiny fraction of the users of a specific product for weight loss or muscle building, and trumpet their results as the same ones the average customer can achieve. Usually these ads show extreme changes from before to after with gigantic people becoming fit or scrawny ones becoming buff. Often overlooked in tiny print are the words, “Results not typical”. This is feminism in a single phrase: “results not typical”. All women are oppressed by non-typical men, and all men are non-typical. This highly irrational belief system is often expressed by the phrase, “Well men get to rule the world. ”  I’m sure your garbage collector feels he is ruling the world, love.

This simplification of horribly complex human motivations and interactions down to man=oppressor, woman=oppressed is a bit like declaring all drinks sweet and fruity by sampling just the daiquiris (those damned oppressive daiquiris).

It is a bit like judging all films based on the Oscar winners…from 2004. I’m sure someone liked Catwoman.

It is a little bit like judging all boats by the Queen Elizabeth II. How does your dingy stand up? (er, pardon the double entendre)

Ah, but I can hear the rabid screams from the SJWs now: “Aren’t you doing the same exact thing with feminists, judging them all by the extremes?”  In a word, no. I wasn’t talking about individual feminists nor the extreme fringe (all PIV sex is rape) but the ideology of 3rd wave (academic) feminism. I can most certainly judge an ideology by its written output. From Standpoint Theory to the blithely callous sexism of Jessica Valenti. From the now famous “Dear Colleague Letter” steamrolling due process to the VAWA  despite dozens of studies citing reciprocal rates (if not higher rates) of domestic violence by women against men.

It is the ideology I criticize, the blind acceptance of certain “great truths” despite evidence to the contrary. It doesn’t matter to me if your “great truth” is : Jesus is the son of God or if it is that women alone can see the true nature of society. Ideology in this sense is the defense of an idea or set of ideas against all attacks including evidence. Feminism’s modern advocates do this with all  the fervor of the creationist and all the political power of the NRA lobby.

I’m of the belief that fervency, power, and a disdain for evidence are a really bad combination.

 

Get some time.

The Narrative

So I came across the following tweets by the decidedly non-erudite Jonathan (Josh) McIntosh:

 

Being of a curious bent, I followed Josh’s link to the Wikipedia article which has to do with the experience of “losing oneself” in a story. We’ve all likely experienced this phenomenon. If you’ve ever been reading a good novel and lose track of time or fail to hear someone calling you, that’s the experience. It is proposed that this process can change beliefs and attitudes of the person “transported”.  Well, this experience is limited to narratives, that is- stories. Non fiction doesn’t work. Also it seems that there needs to be an emotional component to this phenomenon.

It seems also that empathy increases with narrative transportation. Also from that article, the story receiver’s prior knowledge or a high motivational reason to doubt the information in the narrative will prevent changes in beliefs from NT. In any event even very recent (2014) studies have concluded that much more research is needed into the long term effects (if any) of NT on behavioral changes.

So it appears that Josh is getting his cart in front of his horse here, but I’m willing to give him the complete benefit of the doubt in my next paragraph. That’s right, for sake of argument I’m going to grant his assertion that NT not only causes behavioral changes, but that it does this for a long period of time after the consumption of the narrative in question.

So, what are the logical consequences of my granted premise? For one, all stories: books, films, plays, television dramas, and story based video games produce this effect. In essence, we are bombarded by the various media with belief and behavior altering narratives on a daily basis. Anything with a story is a potential brainwashing media. Every library, television set, theater, computer, and gaming console must therefore have to be vetted to ensure only “proper” beliefs are transmitted. The obvious questions become: Who does this vetting and What ideas or beliefs are “proper”?  I don’t know about you, but this is starting to sound Orwellian to me.

The logical conclusion from Josh’s implied assertion about narratives is (surprise) that authoritarian control is needed to police these narratives for the good of the people. Does anyone want to guess who, in Josh’s mind, should sort the “right” beliefs and ideas from the “wrong” ones? I wouldn’t trust anyone with the job of censor.

Amusingly, another thought crossed my mind as I began to assess Josh’s tweets more fully. It seems to me that the narrative is and has been the primary tool used by those who have come to be known as Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) against various aspects of society that they want to change. From the college campus “rape culture” and the now famous Rolling Stone article to the press coverage of #Gamergate to the accusations of subcultures such as atheists being rife with misogyny and sexism, one thread runs through it all. The narrative. The story, which changes minds, and effects beliefs. Their story. The one vetted for purity and “correct” effect. As we’ve seen, it doesn’t even matter if the story is true.

They aren’t even hiding it. It’s right up front on a 20 by 10  ft screen:

LAB2

 

Get some time.

 

The Beginning of the End?

Recent radical Tumblr-esque outrages in the news have made criticizing feminism a little less like something only a hateful misogynist would do.

Whether it’s a campaign to ban words from the language (Ban Bossy), an unfortunate choice of villain (10 hours of a woman walking in NYC), or the most recent pearl clutching and hand wringing over a scientist’s shirt, the Neo-Purtian feminists have suffered some significant PR hits.

The Ban Bossy campaign was heartily rebuffed as being too close to fascist book burnings and Orwellian Newspeak for freedom lovers around the world. The concept of elimination of words to prevent certain undesirable thoughts struck many as abhorrent.

Another campaign, this time by a feminist group called FCKH8, created a video of 8-10 year old girls swearing like sailors in a deliberate attempt to offend the viewer. This offense was then compared to the offense of the $0.23 earnings gap and other feminist complaints.

In another example of missing the mark, an attempt to call attention to “street harassment” (also known as catcalling), the video maker disproportionally showed the behavior in question from lower/working class brown skinned people. This led to several hilarious parodies of the original video.

The most recent example of absolute privilege blindness by this extreme branch of the feminism tree, is the treatment of Dr. Matt Taylor for the unpardonable crime of wearing a shirt with cartoon women in bikinis on it. This outrage arose on what should have been a joyous day, remembered not for his apparel, but for his participation in landing a probe on a comet. While the media coverage of this event seemingly has been all slanted in favor of the Neo-Puritans, the comments sections have been delightfully unconcerned with his crime.

This highlighted the divergence between the media’s coverage of events like these and the reaction by the general public. It is perhaps similar to the driving force in GamerGate (an online consumer revolt against ultra left wing, authoritarian feminist gaming sites). As media sources move further away from the sensibilities of their primary readership, tension between the two grows. Ultimately in Gamergate, that tension reached a breaking point several months ago with the publication of “The Zoe Post” and the DDOSing of The Fine Young Capitalists.

I believe that as these outrages and campaigns continue to either be more extreme or to complain about ever more petty things, the rift between the majority of people and the radical authoritarian brand of feminism that seems to be in vogue today will only increase. One can only hope that it will spawn other “Gamergates” in various other sub culture media, and possibly even with the mainstream itself. In any event, it is no longer a faux pas to criticize these campaigns and outrage manufactroversies.

As an opponent to this particular brand of authoritarian feminism, I can’t wait for their next campaign or outrage.

 

GamerGate vs Elevatorgate, a Comparison

There have been over a million tweets regarding #Gamergate. I have typed out a few myself along with 2 blog posts prior to this one about it.

The reason(s) I am on the Gamergate “side” of this squabble? Firstly, I love video games. My live in girlfriend would attest to the amount of time I spend with an XBox 360 controller in my hand. I have been playing video games since Pong. My first “gaming system” was a Commodore 64. I’ve played on PC, NES, SNES, XBox, XBox 360, and Wii.

Secondly, I’m against ideologies. All of them. In my opinion ideologies hold certain beliefs to be inviolate regardless of evidence. Religions, political “wings” and academic feminism are all examples of ideologies. They all have, at their core a belief or set of beliefs that they consider “great truths”. Any evidence that conflicts with these “great truths” are ignored, belittled, or actively covered up.

On to the comparison.

One of the better descriptions of the Elevatorgate drama I have found on the webs is this one from Freethought Kampala. The author goes into tedious detail and it’s all very well sourced. I only have a few issues with it, one of which is in how it claims the drama started. I don’t mean that the post is inaccurate, just that it doesn’t go far enough back in time to the real beginning of the conflict.

In my opinion the incident (or something like) it had been percolating beneath the surface for a good while before the offer of a hot caffeinated beverage divided the Atheist community.

GamerGate (or #GamerGate ) has an equally excellent summary at “Know Your Meme”. It too suffers from the lack of background information on the roiling troubles in the gaming community that preceded it.

Both followed a pattern that can be summarized by:

1. A group, hobby, or interest consisting of mostly males (due to disinterest by females) becomes more popular.

2. Females begin to join in. Some out of genuine interest and some ideologues that have ulterior motives.

3. Ideological joiners begin to complain that women are under represented due to sexism (rather than the differences in interest levels)

4. Some original group members disagree that sexism is the cause. This disagreement is then claimed to be proof of the sexism in a form of argument called a KafkaTrap.

5. Tempers flare. Trolls, seeing the opportunity to create strife, send harassment to the ideologues. These harassments are then touted as further “proof” of the sexism.

The pattern is a proven method of infiltrating a group with an interest and co-opting the focus of the group onto the ideology of the infiltrators. I’m assuming I don’t have to actually tell you the name of this ideology. It has been making its “slow march through the institutions” for over 40 years. The result of this infiltration is either capitulation to the ideologues or a schism.

A schism is not the end for the ideologically driven. It simply means they will have to play the long game. This usually involves media assisted denouncements of those opposing the ideology. They are dehumanized. They are grouped in with the worst trolls and shit stirrers.

Sometimes these schisms are sparked by a single event which releases the tensions and passions of the build up phase in a fiery cathartic moment. In EG it was the elevator incident and the subsequent infighting about it. In GG it was the Zoe Post (along with Mundane Matt getting a DMCA and TFYC being decried by ideologues).

History:

In the late 1990’s through mid 2000’s Jack Thompson, a currently disbarred attorney, brought a good deal of attention to violent video games. Jack routinely denigrated gamers as “brain impaired” and comparing them to “Hitler Youth”. The gamers seem better prepared for battles than did the atheists, but that may be false confidence. I’m getting ahead of myself, though.

In the much more recently popular Atheism community, the ideologues were beginning to show up in the late 2000’s to the present. A post from 2010, when read today conveys a sense of foreboding doom that was likely not apparent at the time. Atheists, used to logical reasoned debate with theists, at first tried the same approach to these new claims of sexism, privilege, Patriarchy, and “lived experience”. The traditional methods were only moderately effective and the ideologues refined their arguments.

In 2012 Anita Sarkeesian, Canadian Communications major with a MA in “Social and Political Thought” from York University, announced a Kickstarter campaign to fund her latest project “Tropes vs Women in Video Games” on her “Feminist Frequency” YouTube channel. In stark contrast to most (if not all) of her previous FF videos (several of which had taken issue with video games), the comment section was open for any YouTube user to leave comments. The result was predictable. Irate internet denizens, trolls, and gamers flooded the video comment section with hateful posts.

Ms. Sarkeesian, then used these hurtful comments as evidence that there is a sexism problem in gaming. She parleyed these comments, along with a flash game depicting her visage in an ever increasing brutalized condition, into nearly $160,000 US dollars.

 

The year before (2011) Rebecca Watson, also the proud owner of a Communications degree, described her polite encounter with a man in a Dublin hotel elevator (for the life of me I can’t figure out why this wasn’t called LiftGate in deference to the UK term for Elevator).

Striking parallels:

Both EG and GG began in what were originally male dominated interests groups.

Both EG and GG had ideologically minded joiners once the groups or hobby became more popular.

Both used the disproportionate numbers of males as evidence for sexism, when a more reasoned explanation would have just been interest levels (which were organically already beginning to change).

Both harnessed hateful comments, and untraceable internet “threats” as evidence for the claimed sexism.

Both claimed that they received the hateful comments solely due to their gender (rather than the draconian moderation of comments or the refusal to engage in discourse).

Both use emotional leverage provided by the deeply ingrained desire to protect women as a shield from more rational assaults on their points.

Today:

So, here we are. An internet world filled with terms like privilege, cis-het, transmisogyny, internalized oppression, and Tumblr. God help us all (and I’m an atheist).

The way forward should be the same for both groups. Hard science over emotion, logic over feelings, and civility above all. The reason civility is so important is because these people thrive on “threats” and “harassment”. Every anonymous threat or vulgar insult are like Pac Man “power pills” for their cause. These behaviors are so beneficial to them that it has become popular to question their veracity. This too plays into their hands. Call for the law enforcement to apprehend the credible threats. Call for folks to report and ban the threats that aren’t actionable by law enforcement.

Gamers, at first glance seem better prepared for an internet battle of ideas and ideologies. They’ve dealt with the likes of Jack Thompson, and have even moved a developer to create a more fleshed out game ending through sheer determination.  What they lack,however, is the experience with emotionally manipulative rhetoric. Gamers, like atheists, are not seen sympathetically by the overall population. The ideologues, by claiming that they represent women (the most sympathetically perceived group in society), have a decided advantage in an emotional standoff. It’s a bit like charging the end boss as a level 5 thief.

The only way to regain popular opinion and stave off this infiltration is coldly. Calm, reasoned points invalidating the claims of the ideologues IS effective, but slow. The email campaigns targeting advertisers is also a great strategy. Be warned though, there is no quick win here. There are no cheat codes to level up and beat the end boss. You really have to grind it out and remain calm.

Good luck, and Get Some Time.

 

 

 

 

A KafkaTrap Defense

I’ve written about the KafkaTrap before, but I’ve never demonstrated a successful defense from one. This post aims to do just that.

In response to this tweet:

Me: StopGamerGate2014 because we should judge all Muslims by ISIS, all feminists by Valerie Solanas, and all by the threateners.

My Kafkatrapping interlocutor enters with (and in keeping with YouTube conventions I will present my opponent’s quotes in bold while my replies remain unbolded):

Him: @submanusn incorrect comparison. Should be “all gamers by gamergate”.

Me: I stand by my comparison.

Him: Well I suppose I was just hair splitting either way. So, have you done anything to discourage your personal ISIS?

This is one of the alternate forms of kafkatrapping. I recognized it right away as an attempt to tar me with the “sins” of others. He continues:

Him: Because your concerns, however sincere they are, are currently misplaced in what the battle has actually become about.

Me: Is this the part of the Kafkatrap where I’m supposed to present evidence that I no longer beat my wife?

This response lets both those onlookers who know what a Kafkatrap is and those who don’t see the loaded question just asked.

Me: Which is?

Him: No. See, this is the problem, you are all about big general issues like how people are COLLECTIVELY judging gamergate by etc.[end tweet] but as soon as one of these general descriptors of wrong-doing grazes you, you go on the defensive, “IT’S NOT ME”[end] “IT’S JUST SOMEONE ELSE.”[end] If you’re not against us, then you are actually with us, simply through not doing crap like that.

Me: I see. My actual inclusion of both Muslims and feminists in the comparison was calculated. Both groups are defended by the[end] very SJW types that are anti GG and by using the same “Not all X are like that” [end] My record is clean, I have no “worry” about your “censure”. I’m responsible for my own voice, not for other adults.

Here I refuse his insinuation that I’m tarred with the original sin of any one but myself.

The encounter went quite well after that. The entire conversation was recorded and preserved by @lazysavant here (the interlocutor deleted all of his tweets in the exchange or I would point you there).

Check it out if you like and learn to not fall into the KafkaTrap.

 

Special thanks to LazySavant.

Get some time.

 

Collaborative Post with John Bullock (@beagrie)

John Bullock recently approached me with an idea for a collaborative post on the behaviors and tactics of the SJW’s. I’ll excerpt a sample for you here, and if you like it, go read the full post here.

 

Oh, sure, there are real life people who are caricature sexists or racists or what have you, the kind of people who are beyond reproach, but when it comes down to it most of the arguments are over the details, not the wider issue. Two people who wholeheartedly agree that sexism is a bad thing will argue endlessly over what constitutes sexism.

It was a lot of fun working with John and I hope to collaborate with him again. Check out his podcast (along with ineffable @ZoeJen_) at http://thegenderbias.com/. Also check out his YouTube channel and follow him on Twitter.