Tanoomba's Toxic Tank of Traducement
- Thread starter Lightning Lord Rule
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
- Status
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,069
- 138,991
R U SURE?
they use those terms, if it sounds like shit it's because it is, but that's what they do.
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,069
- 138,991
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
No, he wasn't. In fact, he didn't even mention how being post-modernist could cause real-world harm. He mentioned that, as an argumentative tool, it could be used to attempt to deny what we have come to accept as objective truths. Certainly, that has the potential for harm. That DOES NOT MEAN that post-modernism in and of itself is harmful. Besides, you haven't even shown that Sarkeesian is post-modernist, you just presented it as a given.
Your argument here is "Guns kills people and she owns a gun so she kills people" (without actually even showing that she owns a gun, incidentally). You're two steps removed from an actual point.
Has Sarkeesian denied biology and science? Can you show me how she has? Also, how does denying biology cause harm?
Your second argument is concern trolling garbage, though. "You're a bad person for discussing X because Y is a bigger problem" is thought police bullshit. People are allowed to discuss whatever they want to discuss for whatever reason they want to discuss it. What, you think YOU'RE the arbiter of what constitutes "imaginary problems"? Who are YOU to decide that how women are treated isn't a real issue and isn't worth discussing? How do YOU know that she's taking attention away from what you consider "real" suffering? If attention is a limited resource and we are responsible for using it to solve real-world problems, then aren't you an even shittier person than Sarkeesian spending this time talking about a pop critic who offends you instead of going out there and changing the world for the better? "Imaginary problems", indeed.
AMAZINGLY, after all this time you have yet to mention a single one of Sarkeesian's beliefs, let alone how it causes supposed harm. Keep working that "labels = arguments" angle, though, I'm sure it'll work out in the end.
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,069
- 138,991
Chomsky was talking about the entire discipline of feminism and post modernism (which fused in the early 90's) they're practically inseparable now, that's what you keep missing, whenever anita says "i'm a feminist" third wave feminism is intertwined with both post modernism and intersectionality, they are all the same stew of BS now.
is anita a feminist? then by default she deny's biology, the entire discipline of feminism deny's biology, it never teaches it, go look, if you do find ANYTHING it will be exceedingly rare, the entire discipline pretends science doesn't exist and focuses mostly on language policing, why? because gender studies when it was staffed up 90% of the teachers were pulled from the english department, that's why feminists focus on word (thought) policing mostly.
is anita a feminist? then by default she deny's biology, the entire discipline of feminism deny's biology, it never teaches it, go look, if you do find ANYTHING it will be exceedingly rare, the entire discipline pretends science doesn't exist and focuses mostly on language policing, why? because gender studies when it was staffed up 90% of the teachers were pulled from the english department, that's why feminists focus on word (thought) policing mostly.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
What are you even talking about? OF COURSE Sarkeesian is a feminist. It's her most outspoken trait. It's the name of her organization! You're really not helping prove that you can be rational with comments like these.
According to what? YOU? You haven't expressed a single issue with anything Sarkeesian has ever said so far. Instead you've said "She's a feminist, therefore she's a post-modernist, therefore she's causing harm. Noam Chomsky!" That's asinine. At any point to you intend to address anything she's actually said or any form of tangible harm she's actually caused?
No. Being a feminist doesn't "by default" deny biology. Camille Paglia, the one whose video you linked to prove that feminism is blind to science, IDENTIFIES AS A FEMINIST. She is openly critical about what a lot of other feminists do, and with good reason, but this only goes to illustrate what I've been saying: That the "feminist" label (or "intersectional", or "critical theorist", or "post-modern" if it even applies in the case of Sarkeesian), is NOT INHERENTLY HARMFUL. It's just a way of looking at things. It CAN be used in a harmful way, certainly, but it's not a given.
Do you think gun owners are harmful to society? They own objects whose explicit purpose is to kill as quickly and efficiently as possible. They own and/or carry around portable murder machines. Guns cause harm, and that is an undeniable fact. So are gun owners causing harm? Would you say "By default, carrying a gun endorses killing, therefore gun owners are harmful to society"? If not, then why are you so eager to claim being a feminist causes harm? Do you even understand what "causes harm" means, or are you only interested in thought policing?
- 1
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,069
- 138,991
right but she wasn't trained in the schools she's critiquing, anita is a product of the educational system that has all those faults
- 17,890
- 8,781
Christ, did he really call Paglia third wave? Next he'll be calling Christina Sommers an intersectionalist or Jordan Peterson a postmodernist
- 1
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,069
- 138,991
we we're talking about third wave feminists and you implied paglia was one comparing it to sarkeesian who clearly is one.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
But you haven't shown that what Sarkeesian believes is harmful. You haven't even addressed what she believes. All you've said is that because she's a feminist, then by default she's anti-biology and therefore causing harm to society.
You're WRONG that being a feminist makes one anti-biology.
You're WRONG that being a feminist makes one a post-modernist.
You're WRONG that being either a feminist or a post-modernist makes one harmful to society.
Again (again, again), at any point do you intend to address anything Sarkeesian's actually said that indicates she is causing some kind of harm?
- 1
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,069
- 138,991
yeah i did with chomsky and paglia's critiques of third wave which anita promotes
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,069
- 138,991
Tanoomba if Anita is so pro science, how does she use science in her critiques? There's some factoids thrown out sometimes but I never see her cite social science which is barely science, nevermind harder science like biology. Just like all third wave feminists she focuses on art and language for thought control.
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,069
- 138,991
like 98% of all feminists today are third wave, people like paglia are very rare nowadays, it's not as big a deal to call all third wave feminists like you think it is.
- 1
- Status