Feminists now hijacking atheism? WTF?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-08-2014, 11:46 AM
RE: Feminists now hijacking atheism? WTF?
Feminism, in its entirety, is bogus. All 'forms' of feminism merely express the same two ideas differentially: 1) sameness (instead of fairness) 2) "patriarchal oppression".

Evidence from evolution & genetics thoroughly disprove #1: http://www.sciencevsfeminism.com/sex-dif...not-exist/
Evidence from history thoroughly disproves #2: http://www.sciencevsfeminism.com/category/history/

Feminism is the New Creationism: http://www.sciencevsfeminism.com
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Non Controversy's post
28-08-2014, 11:56 AM
RE: Feminists now hijacking atheism? WTF?
(28-08-2014 06:32 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Spino, if what I think you're saying on the last point making paragraph is what you think, you are categorizing something in a way you might need to understand what is or isn't being approached objectively.

I'm not exactly sure of your stance so I may be putting words into your mouth, but if you lean to thinking overanalyzing can be an issue and part of that issue is that it lacks objectivity, then you're misunderstanding the point of such style of analysis.

How am I misunderstanding the point? My position is that the fields of analysis are arts for a reason. They don't reliably make accurate models of reality.

(28-08-2014 06:32 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Not all fields operate on the same terms and i'm bothered I frequently see this argument. If you think analysis must be objectively based, I don't know how along you are on schooling, you may dislike the English/fine arts classes you'll have if you have issues with the methodology of literary analysis.

Objective methods are the only ones that I accept. Pseudosciences are considered toes because they aren't objective.
The real issue I have with literary analysis is that they are prone to confirmational bias.

(28-08-2014 06:32 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Which is what feminist frequency or other like critics are essentially using applied to other media. It's ignoring or not understanding that literary analysis isn't making an objective all encompassing point of it's topic. Thunderf00t's countervideo disappointed me because it treated it that way.

Thunder was just showing how somebody with a feminist bias is just as bad as someone with an MRA bias. It shows that the method is subjective.
The tactic is called a reductio ad absurdum.

(28-08-2014 06:32 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  He's coming from a scientific field and mindset and his males are also stereotyped as hyper masculine figures that can effect mindsets the same way isn't a negative punch against feminism.

This is confusing. It seems as if you are making two points and didn't transition effectively. So his scientific field means he isn't allowed to study the media? I would say that is an ad hominem.
So hyper-masculine figures isn't necessarily against feminism. Well if the media is oppressing everyone why are people consuming it?
The reason the media portrays things the way it does is because of profit. Games and movies all around give people what they will buy. People who are "flawless" are the easiest way to sell things.
As for Damsel in Distress: skip to 0:24
http://youtu.be/a2fT8uIIrss

(28-08-2014 06:32 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Yes, it is also true. Because one didn't focus on all possible elements of an analysis doesn't invalidate that. The process is about taking a segment and focusing on it.

But the problem was that Sarkeesian was trying to say that this was because of misogyny. Misogyny doesn't mean making men feel bad as well. If it is against both, it is misanthropy. But why would a feminist like Anita ever mention that?

If somebody points out a fallacy, and you call fallacy fallacy, that doesn't mean you are right. That just means you committed the very fallacy you accused your opponent of.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2014, 12:12 PM
RE: Feminists now hijacking atheism? WTF?
I only came across this Sarkeesian person recently. She misses the point entirely. Video games are sex-typical, not sexist — they're called 'games' because they're inherently competitive. This is clearly outlined by sex-specific cortisol/testosterone responses. [Mazur A et al. (1997) Sex difference in testosterone response to a video game contest. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18(5):317–326.] Her cherry-picked video content is irrelevant.


Anything that involves competition will be male-dominated.

Feminism is the New Creationism: http://www.sciencevsfeminism.com
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2014, 01:24 PM
Re: RE: Feminists now hijacking atheism? WTF?
(28-08-2014 11:56 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(28-08-2014 06:32 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Spino, if what I think you're saying on the last point making paragraph is what you think, you are categorizing something in a way you might need to understand what is or isn't being approached objectively.

I'm not exactly sure of your stance so I may be putting words into your mouth, but if you lean to thinking overanalyzing can be an issue and part of that issue is that it lacks objectivity, then you're misunderstanding the point of such style of analysis.

How am I misunderstanding the point? My position is that the fields of analysis are arts for a reason. They don't reliably make accurate models of reality.

(28-08-2014 06:32 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Not all fields operate on the same terms and i'm bothered I frequently see this argument. If you think analysis must be objectively based, I don't know how along you are on schooling, you may dislike the English/fine arts classes you'll have if you have issues with the methodology of literary analysis.

Objective methods are the only ones that I accept. Pseudosciences are considered toes because they aren't objective.
The real issue I have with literary analysis is that they are prone to confirmational bias.

(28-08-2014 06:32 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Which is what feminist frequency or other like critics are essentially using applied to other media. It's ignoring or not understanding that literary analysis isn't making an objective all encompassing point of it's topic. Thunderf00t's countervideo disappointed me because it treated it that way.

Thunder was just showing how somebody with a feminist bias is just as bad as someone with an MRA bias. It shows that the method is subjective.
The tactic is called a reductio ad absurdum.

(28-08-2014 06:32 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  He's coming from a scientific field and mindset and his males are also stereotyped as hyper masculine figures that can effect mindsets the same way isn't a negative punch against feminism.

This is confusing. It seems as if you are making two points and didn't transition effectively. So his scientific field means he isn't allowed to study the media? I would say that is an ad hominem.
So hyper-masculine figures isn't necessarily against feminism. Well if the media is oppressing everyone why are people consuming it?
The reason the media portrays things the way it does is because of profit. Games and movies all around give people what they will buy. People who are "flawless" are the easiest way to sell things.
As for Damsel in Distress: skip to 0:24
http://youtu.be/a2fT8uIIrss

(28-08-2014 06:32 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Yes, it is also true. Because one didn't focus on all possible elements of an analysis doesn't invalidate that. The process is about taking a segment and focusing on it.

But the problem was that Sarkeesian was trying to say that this was because of misogyny. Misogyny doesn't mean making men feel bad as well. If it is against both, it is misanthropy. But why would a feminist like Anita ever mention that?

"make models of reality" it seems you do misunderstand the point here. No one analytical view is trying to reliably make a model of reality. It's not an objective method. Video games and social structures fall into the subjective arts realms and should be treated as such.

I don't say you should judge media from a scientific view, but judging something inherently subjective by showing something else that's subjective is a pointless meander.

Lumi here says government is oppressive and people continually support government, why do that? Even if the oppression argument was made here, that people accept it would be a horrid argument against it. Religion oppresses but there's still religious people. Some workers oppress but still have employees.

Yeah they make it for profit so what? That says nothing of why criticism isn't entirely valid and history shows change of elements in product in no direct way means it's profits will suffer.

Not sure what your point was about the last paragraph. That's what an analysis is, so what? Of course it's biased, the point is to analysis from a particular bias and expound it. It's attempts to understand other povs and other ways people different from yourself can interact with a media.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2014, 05:43 PM
RE: Feminists now hijacking atheism? WTF?
(28-08-2014 01:24 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  "make models of reality" it seems you do misunderstand the point here. No one analytical view is trying to reliably make a model of reality. It's not an objective method. Video games and social structures fall into the subjective arts realms and should be treated as such.

Then it is no more useful than making shapes from clouds and has no practical use in reality.

(28-08-2014 01:24 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I don't say you should judge media from a scientific view, but judging something inherently subjective by showing something else that's subjective is a pointless meander.

But it isn't subjective. People have objective actions and thoughts and behave in verifiable ways. When it comes to media and studies of culture, I say that they do need to be more scientific. Statistics, preditctions, why is that a bad way to discuss media? My view is that if you are afraid of a scientific or objective methodology applied to your analysis, then you fear that it won't hold up to scrutiny.

(28-08-2014 01:24 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Lumi here says government is oppressive and people continually support government, why do that? Even if the oppression argument was made here, that people accept it would be a horrid argument against it. Religion oppresses but there's still religious people. Some workers oppress but still have employees.

How does this apply to my position?

(28-08-2014 01:24 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Yeah they make it for profit so what? That says nothing of why criticism isn't entirely valid and history shows change of elements in product in no direct way means it's profits will suffer.

She was purposefully dishonest in multiple videos. The argument I was refuting was that it wasn't worth the internet hate, in which I said that was a worthwhile sum for the backlash she got. If I were dishonest, I could call it a steal.
http://youtu.be/WuRSaLZidWI

(28-08-2014 01:24 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Not sure what your point was about the last paragraph. That's what an analysis is, so what? Of course it's biased, the point is to analysis from a particular bias and expound it. It's attempts to understand other povs and other ways people different from yourself can interact with a media.

Bias is okay? In what world?
A confirmational bias is when anything said can be turned to prove your point. That isn't a method that deserves any credibility. "Different points of view" is a false equivalency. I want an objective point of view. Any less is worthless.
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BesbHVJCUAALBxQ.jpg
However, they can come up with correct answers. That isn't what I am saying. But I am saying I need objective evidence rather than biased evidence before I make the call. Otherwise, I have to stay sceptical.

If somebody points out a fallacy, and you call fallacy fallacy, that doesn't mean you are right. That just means you committed the very fallacy you accused your opponent of.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2014, 06:08 PM
RE: Feminists now hijacking atheism? WTF?
Person 1: Did you know that 78% of NBA players are black? We need to implement quotas in basketball and rap music. If you aren't a white-ist, you are a bigot.
Person 2: but black people serve longer prison sentences and are discriminated against in court! That's way more important!
Person 1: Black supremacist! Bigot! You hate white people!

If somebody points out a fallacy, and you call fallacy fallacy, that doesn't mean you are right. That just means you committed the very fallacy you accused your opponent of.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2014, 06:17 PM (This post was last modified: 28-08-2014 06:21 PM by Michael_Tadlock.)
RE: Feminists now hijacking atheism? WTF?
I disagree in entirely, literary analysis can be objective. For example, in the feminist frequency video on the "damsel in distress" video game trope she makes the following points:

1. The trope itself is not sexist - watch it again. She doesn't say that any video game is sexist.
2. The plot device necessitates a weak female character, the "damsel" and a strong male character, the "hero". If you agree with the definition of the terms "weak", "strong, and "damsel in distress" then you cannot argue this premise.
3. The overuse of this trope paints females in video games in a weak light as compared to male characters. You can objectively analyze this point by comparing the number of games where male characters are rescued by a heroin as compared to female characters rescued by a male hero. This isn't an "opinion", this is rudimentary statistics.

She doesn't say super mario is a bad game, or even that it is sexist. She doesn't say the trope is sexist. She says the trope is overused - meaning women are portrayed as weak and helpless in video games far more often than men are. This is objective. You can find many examples, spanning throughout the years, of the damsel in distress trope in video games, contrast them in quantity and frequency to the reverse position in games, and objectively determine females are cast in distress far more often than men are. This is not a subjective opinion, this is a fact. If you except the definition of the words then certain conclusions necessarily fall out. That is what analysis is. She doesn't say "I don't like this" or "I prefer the other" she forms an objective, rational argument grounded in observation and in observance of clearly defined terms and definitions. A casual dismissal of her arguments doesn't make you right either. You have to do better than that. You have to form a better rational argument based on objective observations and definitions of terms, or in the very least have to be able to deconstruct her argument.

And by the way, saying "because men have testosterone and where hunters" is no better than saying "men and women are just different" and shrugging it off. It is dressing up the same non argument with bigger words, but it means the same thing. You have to do better than that.

I won't speak to your reasoning because I haven't heard it yet. If you don't like what she is saying that is one thing. You don't have to "like" it, that is your opinion. If you don't agree that is your prerogative. You are free to believe whatever you like for whatever reason you like. If you say she is wrong then you have to make your case. She made her's. That is only fair; that is how debate works.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2014, 06:19 PM (This post was last modified: 28-08-2014 06:33 PM by ClydeLee.)
Re: RE: Feminists now hijacking atheism? WTF?
(28-08-2014 05:43 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(28-08-2014 01:24 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  "make models of reality" it seems you do misunderstand the point here. No one analytical view is trying to reliably make a model of reality. It's not an objective method. Video games and social structures fall into the subjective arts realms and should be treated as such.

Then it is no more useful than making shapes from clouds and has no practical use in reality.

(28-08-2014 01:24 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I don't say you should judge media from a scientific view, but judging something inherently subjective by showing something else that's subjective is a pointless meander.

But it isn't subjective. People have objective actions and thoughts and behave in verifiable ways. When it comes to media and studies of culture, I say that they do need to be more scientific. Statistics, preditctions, why is that a bad way to discuss media? My view is that if you are afraid of a scientific or objective methodology applied to your analysis, then you fear that it won't hold up to scrutiny.

(28-08-2014 01:24 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Lumi here says government is oppressive and people continually support government, why do that? Even if the oppression argument was made here, that people accept it would be a horrid argument against it. Religion oppresses but there's still religious people. Some workers oppress but still have employees.

How does this apply to my position?

(28-08-2014 01:24 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Yeah they make it for profit so what? That says nothing of why criticism isn't entirely valid and history shows change of elements in product in no direct way means it's profits will suffer.

She was purposefully dishonest in multiple videos. The argument I was refuting was that it wasn't worth the internet hate, in which I said that was a worthwhile sum for the backlash she got. If I were dishonest, I could call it a steal.
http://youtu.be/WuRSaLZidWI

(28-08-2014 01:24 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Not sure what your point was about the last paragraph. That's what an analysis is, so what? Of course it's biased, the point is to analysis from a particular bias and expound it. It's attempts to understand other povs and other ways people different from yourself can interact with a media.

Bias is okay? In what world?
A confirmational bias is when anything said can be turned to prove your point. That isn't a method that deserves any credibility. "Different points of view" is a false equivalency. I want an objective point of view. Any less is worthless.
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BesbHVJCUAALBxQ.jpg
However, they can come up with correct answers. That isn't what I am saying. But I am saying I need objective evidence rather than biased evidence before I make the call. Otherwise, I have to stay sceptical.

I admire if you have a desire for an,objective point of view, but it's not ideal for all situations if there isn't objectivity for all if reality. Alternatively, I have no clue what you read if you continues to think I'm saying judging media objectively is wrong. I've never made a point of such order.

Bias is okay when you're mature and wise enough to understand the scenario and context a bias is being used within. That's why academic fields of fine arts function properly. I wouldn't want you to be anything but skeptical, that's the point of analysis. But keep skeptical of what info can be answered and skeptical of your own skepticism.

Michael- I'm the sense that you are using objective points In arguments, an analysis is using,objectively, but the process as a whole is still subjective. As in, talking about a segment of the tropes or situations and not all the ways to view those elements.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2014, 06:55 PM
RE: Feminists now hijacking atheism? WTF?
(28-08-2014 06:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I admire if you have a desire for an,objective point of view, but it's not ideal for all situations if there isn't objectivity for all if reality. Alternatively, I have no clue what you read if you continues to think I'm saying judging media objectively is wrong. I've never made a point of such order.

I say we keep as objective as possible. What I thought you meant was that subjectivity is fine when studying things that have more reliable alternatives. I apologise if it was a strawman.

(28-08-2014 06:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Bias is okay when you're mature and wise enough to understand the scenario and context a bias is being used within.

That sentence didn't end the way I thought it was going to. I would have said that if you are wise enough to accept and attempt to minimise your bias it is more effective.
I accept that bias is always going to be a factor, but minimising such and trying to be unbiased is always the best option.

(28-08-2014 06:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  That's why academic fields of fine arts function properly. I wouldn't want you to be anything but skeptical, that's the point of analysis.

I don't agree with how fine arts are analysed. I know loads of people in those contexts and are much less likely to be rational in real life, in comparison to those I know who are more scientifically minded. But my experience is that fallacies and bad justification are generally used. My experience in Art and English GCSEs were distasteful because of this.

(28-08-2014 06:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  But keep skeptical of what info can be answered and skeptical of your own skepticism.

I've heard that before. "Doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith" in church. It's one of the reasons I am an atheist to begin with. It was clear indoctrination.
This is why I think modern feminism is a religion.

If somebody points out a fallacy, and you call fallacy fallacy, that doesn't mean you are right. That just means you committed the very fallacy you accused your opponent of.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes spinosauruskin's post
28-08-2014, 07:04 PM (This post was last modified: 28-08-2014 07:07 PM by Michael_Tadlock.)
RE: Feminists now hijacking atheism? WTF?
(28-08-2014 06:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(28-08-2014 05:43 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  Then it is no more useful than making shapes from clouds and has no practical use in reality.


But it isn't subjective. People have objective actions and thoughts and behave in verifiable ways. When it comes to media and studies of culture, I say that they do need to be more scientific. Statistics, preditctions, why is that a bad way to discuss media? My view is that if you are afraid of a scientific or objective methodology applied to your analysis, then you fear that it won't hold up to scrutiny.


How does this apply to my position?


She was purposefully dishonest in multiple videos. The argument I was refuting was that it wasn't worth the internet hate, in which I said that was a worthwhile sum for the backlash she got. If I were dishonest, I could call it a steal.
http://youtu.be/WuRSaLZidWI


Bias is okay? In what world?
A confirmational bias is when anything said can be turned to prove your point. That isn't a method that deserves any credibility. "Different points of view" is a false equivalency. I want an objective point of view. Any less is worthless.
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BesbHVJCUAALBxQ.jpg
However, they can come up with correct answers. That isn't what I am saying. But I am saying I need objective evidence rather than biased evidence before I make the call. Otherwise, I have to stay sceptical.

I admire if you have a desire for an,objective point of view, but it's not ideal for all situations if there isn't objectivity for all if reality. Alternatively, I have no clue what you read if you continues to think I'm saying judging media objectively is wrong. I've never made a point of such order.

Bias is okay when you're mature and wise enough to understand the scenario and context a bias is being used within. That's why academic fields of fine arts function properly. I wouldn't want you to be anything but skeptical, that's the point of analysis. But keep skeptical of what info can be answered and skeptical of your own skepticism.

Michael- I'm the sense that you are using objective points In arguments, an analysis is using,objectively, but the process as a whole is still subjective. As in, talking about a segment of the tropes or situations and not all the ways to view those elements.

Subjective means "only true for the subject", or "only apparent to the subject". That is not what literary analysis is. Words have meaning. If you agree on the meaning of the word "weak", then you can make perfectly objective arguments for why one thing or another is "weak". If you don't lend that kind of objectivity to the word then the argument becomes completely absurd. You can say whatever you like then about anything, and hey, its your opinion, and any one opinion is good as another.

The arguments made in feminist frequency are predicated on the definition of words. How you feel, what you prefer, whether you determine something to be "good" or "bad", these are opinion, these are subjective. In isolation they cannot be used to form a rational argument. When she uses words like "strong" and "weak" in the context of a videogame or a narrative we know exactly what she means and agree on the definition of these words ahead of time. When she says something is not representative we know exactly what the word representative means and we agree on the definition of the word ahead of time. If, while describing something, she uses other words that together mean the same thing as "not representative", then she has succeeded in proving that these things are "not representative". For example when she says male characters are portrayed in strong roles far more often than female characters, we know that "far more often (as one thing compared to another)" means exactly the same thing as "not representative". This isn't an opinion. This is a fact. You can't have a rational discussion about a thing if you cannot objectively compare one thing to another.

That isn't subjective at all, that is absolutely and completely objective. It is true for me and true for you that "representative" means "not equal representation". You can choose to deny the definition of a the word, but that doesn't make you right. If you can't agree upon a definition for the word that makes the argument pointless and absurd.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: