Gamers who harass women are literally losers

[Exhuminator]

>We have this inane logic operative in much of society that any opinion is as good as another
>I find this way of thinking to be irresponsible at best and dangerous at worst

It depends on the subject. (Though you are sounding deeply totalitarian.) I'll simply say the merit of concern should reside upon the weight of the subject, as well as the ability to quantify the subject in terms that are definable as concretely true. Feminism being an umbrella term for multiple philosophies, intrinsically means it does not fall under such discrete scrutiny.

What I am saying there is that you simply saying "this thing about feminism must be true because I know a lot about feminism" does not actually make it true. It's literally impossible to say anything must be true about a subject that is actually built from thought constructs that vary person to person. Taking an authoritative stance on a matter such as that is not logical.

>Given that Exhuminator had made some earlier comments showing a lack of understanding about some basic principles of the connections between feminist ideas >around credibility, appearance, agency, etc.

I did not have a "lack of understanding". I understand feminism perfectly well, in the way that I believe feminism works best. Your own understanding of feminism varies from my own. But that doesn't mean your version is more correct than mine. To say my opinion is wrong merely because it doesn't meet the majority opinion means you are making an appeal to popularity.

>to explain that my opinion is not grounded in "well, I think" but in some actual authority on the subject.

Again you are claiming to have factual authority about a subject that is not discretely definable. But rather exists under multiple formats and philosophies.

If we were discussing plate tectonics, mathematics, or even automobile repair, then your authority in such matters would hold actual tangible meaning. But what we have been discussing are philosophical concepts. Which means by default these concepts are entirely subjective, meaning there is no one single bulletproof definition of what one is allowed to think concerning it. You are absolutely allowed to believe you are right and I am wrong. I'm not saying you aren't. But to pretend you can actually be succinctly correct about an intangible philosophical subject is... strange.

>Then people started attacking her appearance, etc., which is irrelevant.

It IS relevant when her appearance contradicts her own message. But it's only relevant in that regard if you see it that way. Which you do not, but I do, so there you go.

>in your argumentative style to be persuasive and shape readers' opinions, and so I worry when it falls into the realm of the fallacious

And I would totally be behind you correcting me, if what I was saying was truly fallacious.

But what I said in this thread, that caused this whole shit storm, were personal opinions about subjective matters. It'd be different if I had expressed ignorant opinions about concrete matters, but that simply isn't the case.

But please, if you reply again, be cognizant that I fully understand you find my personal opinions about feminism/Anita to be incorrect, uninformed, ignorant, and conflicting with your own. Fair enough. No need to continue expressing that point.

tl;dr

[mjmjr25]

Every post in this thread has been predictable...and long.

[dsheinem]

And I would totally be behind you correcting me, if what I was saying was truly fallacious.

Cool. Ok then.

Of course people can have different philosophical views within or about feminism (or postmodernism, or Marxism, etc.). I have never said "this view of feminism is the one true one" or that my view is "right," I said that you didn't seem to know jack about either the specific feminist philosophy you were trying to espouse or the one that you were trying to dismiss. This was obvious because all of your major claims rested on fallacies. For example:

*You used Naomi Wolf to argue against the theory of agency found within lipstick feminism. This is the same Naomi Wolf who, in the very book you cited, writes “For I conclude that the enemy is not lipstick, but guilt itself; that we deserve lipstick, if we want it, AND free speech; we deserve to be sexual AND serious--or whatever we please; we are entitled to wear cowboy boots to our own revolution.” You were guilty of a fallacy of selective attention (which is often linked to confirmation bias.)

*There is no correct answer to "why do women wear makeup?". It is as absurd as asking "why do men wear ties?" Asking this question as a means of trying to then support your claims about a particular area of feminist philosophy is the fallacy of casual reductionism.

*Saying Anita's arguments are bad because you think she's hypocritical for caring about her appearance is known as the tu quoque fallacy.

I welcome a debate about the merits of various feminist philosophies and, even, their relationship to Sarkeesian's ethos. I only ask that we do it without fallacious reasoning. It seemed to me both earlier in the thread and now that you are trying to justify your own view of feminist philosophy as informed and valid, and thus as constituting a reasonable basis for a critical framework from which to dismiss the arguments presented in Sarkeesian's videos. All along the way, though, you have undermined yourself (and thus the value of your proposed framework) with fallacious reasoning, demonstrable mischaracterizations of the ongoing thread discussion, and multiple attempts to foreclose criticism of your reasoning by agitating for some kind of "final word" on the matter.

None of what I am saying here has anything to do with wanting to change someone's "subjective" or "personal" views, I'm instead trying to explain why it is problematic to allow certain kinds of statements and logics to simply go unchecked in a topic of public discussion.

[Exhuminator]

*There is no correct answer to "why do women wear makeup?"

Just as "this is how feminism works and any outliers from my proposed framework are automatically incorrect" is not a correct answer.

tu quoque fallacy / fallacious reasoning / you have undermined yourself / fallacious reasoning

All of that is impossible given the non-concrete nature of the subject matter. I have explained why that is at least three times to you. I will not continue to do so.

demonstrable mischaracterizations of the ongoing thread discussion, and multiple attempts to foreclose criticism of your reasoning by agitating for some kind of "final word" on the matter

If I am guilty of this, then you are as well.

I'm instead trying to explain why it is problematic to allow certain kinds of statements and logics to simply go unchecked in a topic of public discussion

While that statement seems incredibly pompous, I do at least admire how strongly you can feel about things.

[dsheinem]

You seem to know even less about argumentation than you do about feminism...

[Exhuminator]

And now we're back to the classic Dsh ad hominem tactic, where you imply I'm just ignorant, and therefore de facto incorrect.

[Erik_Twice]

Really Dsh, you are very aggressive and mean sometimes. "Being right" should not be a excuse to belittle people :/

[dsheinem]

I'm not making ad hominem attacks or being "mean". From Ex's last few posts he seems to not understand what a fallacy is, how a fallacy works, or why discussion of them is relevant in a debate such as the one we've been having. When I pointed out specific examples of their use, he just claimed that those examples were "impossible" to call fallacies because feminist philosophy is "non-concrete". This is further poor argumentation! Point A has nothing to do with Point B (just as Anita's makeup has nothing to do with her arguments in the videos).

An ad hominem statement is not a critique of someone's argument, it is a critique of their person. I've pointed out poor reasoning in Ex's argument concerning two subjects: that's hardly a personal attack.

[Sarge]

Educate. Elucidate. You can make your point without undercutting someone else's perceived level of knowledge on a subject, or by trumpeting your own perceived superiority.

[Gunstar Green]

An ad hominem statement is not a critique of someone's argument, it is a critique of their person. I've pointed out poor reasoning in Ex's argument concerning two subjects: that's hardly a personal attack.

I don't think I agree with you. You didn't attack his argument in that statement, you attacked his worth as a debater. If that was your intention, fine.

On top of that I personally found your statement as worthless as "agree to disagree" only it serves to shut down discussion while taking the high ground instead of conceding to a difference of opinion. Again, if that was your intention that's fine too I guess.

But surely you can see why people are cross with the way you've been composing yourself.