User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

[edit] Welcome to RationalWiki, The Blade of the Northern Lights!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

If you are interested in contributing, please read what our articles are intended to be.

You can tell us how you found RationalWiki here.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


[edit] MRA

Hello, how are you! My name is Scott, and I'm an Egalitarian, meaning I believe in equality regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ect. Some say this makes me a feminist. Some say this makes me an MRA. I prefer to avoid using said terms however, because neither term accurately describes the entirety of my beliefs. Anyways, introductions out of the way, I wished to talk to you about the MRA post you've made. I've noticed much of the post has both factual errors, many claims without sources, as well as many straw man arguments set up (with a healthy dose of sarcasm as a dismissive tactic). I've also noticed that you've lumped MRA, MGTOW, and PUA's into one group, when the differences between them are vast. Firstly, let me say both Feminism and Masculism have their toxic environments. While both groups must accept their fringe extremists (after all, we don't want to fall victim to using the "No true Scotsman" fallacy) We must also acknowledge in both groups that the exception doesn't disprove the rule, and that a vast majority of people within the movement are not represented by the fringe groups. It is therefore important to differentiate between the followers of a movement, the fringe extremists (those loud vocal minority, as you put it), and the successful operations -of- said movement. However, most of your article reads more like someone who's just read what opponents have said about the movement, instead of actually having spent much time within the movement. You also seem to be under the impression that MRA means "anti-feminist", which is not the case. While many MRA are opposed to the feminist lobbying which have passed un-egalitarian laws, as well as against the many death threats received just for attempting to gather to speak, that does not mean they're opposed to feminist ideals. In your addressing some of the grievances, you often make it out as if them having grievances, even the ones you claim are legitimate grievances, are somehow an attack on feminism. You also claim that feminists are the primary ones fighting for these grievances to be addressed, and if so, I'd love to see the links showing this. Also, in your history, you seem to leave out key details to give the whole picture of what's going on. I have since gone back and added some context to things (however, the revisions are being deleted) and rather than having a thing where we keep undoing each others revisions, I'd much rather us come together, have a rational discussion about some elements, and in the end, have a more accurate picture, reflecting both the good points of the movement, as well as pointing out the toxic areas it needs to change. --Kiorri (talk)

TL:DR, I'd love for us to be able to work together to inform the public with facts, and without bias :)

I sense a balance fallacy... just link the above figure (who has not left a signature) to We Hunted the Mammoth. Also may the figure above please leave a signature. --Aile Dhoo (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely, signnature now linked, my apologies. This doesn't actually constitute a balance fallacy, and in fact, merely ask the same criteria for critical judgement be applied to both sides, rather than claiming both sides have equal merit without cause. While the editor often points out in painstaking detail that it is wrong to paint with a broad brush when it comes to feminism, the editor fails to apply that same logic when working with the MRAs. I also fail to see why you posting the We Hunted the Mammoth has any sort of bearing on this issue. I'd already said there were toxic elements, but that doesn't mean those toxic elements are the primary or even a statistically significant number of MRAs. This would be the same as someone posting a compilation of quotes about how men are all scum, or a copy of the S.C.U.M manifesto, or any of the feminist who speak of eugenics or the kill all men hashtag, and say that means all feminists or even most feminists wish to mass murder half the population. Why don't we say this? Because we acknowledge that the toxic elements of feminism are not the majority of feminists (although at times they can be the loudest). So in short, asking for the same critical criteria to apply to all isn't a balance fallacy at all, but rather what we called structure and non-bias. A balance fallacy would be to say "Some say white people were slaves before the American Civil War, some say black people are slaves prior to the Civil War, therefore both arguments have merit. Instead, we'd say "lets apply the same logic and research requirements to both claims objectively, and see which statement is true, and which is false." That is all I'm asking for, is the same critical criteria to be applied across the board, for non biased research to be made, for claims to be backed up with evidence and citation, and for the arguments to be given non biased critical analysis. Because that's what the "Rational" in "RationalWiki" is supposed to be all about :) --Kiorri (talk)
I actually took the time to read all of this, and my response is only that you're conflating individual people with a broader philosophy as a whole. The gestalt of of feminism is to seek equality, and it's not really fair to highlight individual groups within the movement as representative of the entire school of thought. As someone who's reading Until Proven Innocent I'm aware that the feminist movement (to say nothing of the racial equality movement; the North Carolina chapter of the NAACP did things that were nothing short of sickening, and a few lunatics on the Durham city council decided that inviting the New Black Panthers to engage in voter intimidation was a completely legitimate thing to do) is a lot less ideal than this site would have one believe, and without any contradiction I can say it's also true that plenty of others within feminism who are actively trying to combat these elements; in that respect, I happen to be largely in agreement with people like Cathy Young. If you feel you can improve my edits, go right ahead; that's not intended as sarcasm, I just want to see what you have in mind. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
An even better article than spotlight fallacy for this behavior is nutpicking, which is to take someone associated with a movement, identify the worst thing they've said, and say "they're like that". ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support