Talk:Feminist internet laws

Saving my place, I'll expand and finish this later today or tomorrow.--Token Conservative (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory

 * Section title added by Kels when they replied.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Somehow I landed here looking for info on what happened after Donglegate. Well, the laws mentioned are designed to further reinforce feminist arrogance towards other views. That's how people outside feminism view feminists anyway. To change that you would have to change the definition of the word 'arrogant' just like feminists constantly do on purpose with the flexible terms 'sexism' and 'misogyny'. So we have one constant here - flexible terms use. And there is even yet another feminist internet law you have left out. And it's the most common law on the internet. It's that it is feminism that produces what it calls online sexism, this as a counter reaction, and it does this in order to propel itself. Without online feminists there would be no online sexism. Hope I could be of help with this one. :) cheers --95.90.0.42 (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This makes me laugh due to irony, "That's how people outside feminism view feminists anyway." Exactly!  And as the Lewis section says, it's false impressions like that in the public which contribute to justifying feminism.  After all, we live in a world where a room perceived to be mostly women can only have about 25% or so being females, can we automatically accept public perception regarding feminist "arrogance" to be accurate? But then, as with Christians claiming persecution because they aren't given preferential treatment, is it at all surprising when there's pushback against women gaining their own voices.  And indeed, comments like the one above all full of accusations of arrogance and that weird idea about feminism causing all online sexism definitely contribute to justifying feminism.  Which, ironically enough, is great support for keeping the Lewis' Law section. --Kels (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You can only get so far without factual knowledge. Without it, every judging statement seems judgmental and therefore arrogant. (Both the comments above seem incredibly judgmental and arrogant without a factual context to see them in.)
 * The way forward, of course, is to argue with facts to increase general knowledge instead of just assuming everyone is on the same page and jumping right to the judgments. Nullahnung (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest looking at the original timestamp before further replies.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A number of problems with this post: saying "exactly!" when referring to feminism acting exactly the way it's viewed outside, matching the negative stereotypes... and then proceeding to call them "false" impressions in an innocent tone of voice; saying that the direct observation of such stereotype-matching behavior is actually somehow based on "public perception"; saying something weird about people in a room; and implying that the proper reaction by feminists catching themselves doing exactly what those negative stereotypes say, should be to reaffirm their stance rather than stop engaging in said stereotypical behavior.
 * His mistake: saying ALL online sexism is due to feminism, rather than a significant portion of it. 1:4 for feminists!93.223.47.26 (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "I have a bare asseriton that my brainless stereotypes are totally justified, dismantle that, suckers!" Come on, man. Ikanreed (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Statements 1, 2 and 4 weren't aseritons, nor were they bare - they were a brief list of logical mistakes the user made in response to the statements by another user. 3 was a joke, and 5 undeniable common sense. I said nothing about "totally" justifying any of my stereotypes. Cheers. 93.223.5.152 (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Oops, better walk back my shitty argument." Unfortunately, considering the inanity of what you said and that you're trying to cling to it mentally, I feel compelled to at least try to get you to think about what you said.  I like how "common sense" justifies your super shitty bare assertion you were called on.  "I think X is true, thus it's common sense, even though I can cite zero evidence of my claim".
 * "Common sense", to people like you, is a way of stating "I haven't put any sincere thought into this and don't want to be called on my bullshit." Ikanreed (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I walked back nothing, and there was no "argument". I'm not crazy... I'm not crazy! EEEEVRYYYYYYYYYONES AFTAHMEEEEAAHHHH. Since the 5th of my bare asseritons... well, 4th, the third one was kind of like the War Doctor of my post, doesn't really count, but anyway, since that's the one thing you've finally decided to challenge, allow me to put it this way: if you don't have the psychological insight to understand that and demand academic evidence, you'll also demand scientists to confirm to you that when people are given the choice between paying for something or get it for free, a lot of them tend to choose the latter. Or that people at school befriend some, but not others. 93.223.5.152 (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. You're just talking nonsense, not supporting your points. At all. You blow in and go "BIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAS!!!!!!! EVIL" and then don't quantify, qualify, or define that. Then you go "stereotypes are totally valid" like it's nothing. When I suggest that maybe your horrible, awful opinions ought to be justified, you imagine I've just asked for some impossible threshold of evidence. You can say we're hiding behind the fact that our wiki doesn't have an overriding need for neutrality, but you know, for that argument to hold any water at all, there needs to be something to hide from. Ikanreed (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't know pointing out logical contradictions between two sentences required any extra "support", and also I have made an argument down there below - you should pay more attention ;)
 * I didn't say anything about stereotypes being valid.
 * You didn't address what I said about basic psychology - guess you're walking back eh? :D
 * I don't know what you said there about "hiding", but that sounded suspiciously defensive there... was it an admission by any chance? Yes it was. Yes it was. 93.223.5.152 (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't get your point, are you saying we shouldn't have an article about "Feminist internet laws"? Why shouldn't we cover the topic? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * They don't have a central thesis they're trying to argue. They're mostly just trying to nitpick random bullshit to keep an argument going.  Suggestive of intentional trolling.  Ikanreed (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand how the article can change, it's just listing what these "laws" are and explaining what they mean --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No. 93.223.5.152 (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge
Moved to RationalWiki:Duplicate articles.

Radical Feminist Wiki
I see that all social articles on RationalWiki are effectively following the ideology of radfems. Ideology is not rational. Posting a warning that "this stuff may not be rational, but it's helpful to chase off people who disagree with our ideology" makes the agenda quite clear. Removing my explanation of why Lewis' law is irrational further proves the point, because it IS NOT rational and has no place on a Wiki that, by its name of choice, centers around rational thought. "Anyone who argues against our ideology automatically justifies our ideology" is the same argument that aggressive Christian conservatives use to justify their damage to society at large. 75.138.214.37 (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Read this: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:I_thought_this_was_supposed_to_be_RATIONALWiki
 * Also, "not logically rigorous" does not mean "not with a rational basis".
 * I think you'll have difficulty convincing anyone here that they are a radfem. People always have different notions of what a radfem is (which is: "feminists that are too radical for me").
 * (Also, I'm not actually interested in this subject, so don't argue with me personally.) Nullahnung (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Zero (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Still too circlejerky for me... *cringe* Nullahnung (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's worse than the original template. Especially when you bother to put your signature on a new line, leaving a single link on the whole line, as if it's some kind of trump card or something...--ZooGuard (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Blergh, another specimen of the "Obtuse Literalism" school of Internet Rationalism. I'll expand the text and see if I can get it into a form that can pass through nerdskulls.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The community here has allowed its penchant for snark and side jabs to multiply uncontrollably ;)
 * Be thankful for what you get - not pointing out how a feminist claim is utter horse and instead just reporting it like good old Other Wiki, is pretty much the best you can expect of them at this stage. My own take on that is that the probability of someone calling a non-/anti-feminist/dissenter a misogynist or crank or manchild approaches 1 even faster. And also, didn't know the feminist cause was to reeducate every last fucking idiot on the planet... the more you learn, eh?
 * But I'm not sufficiently notable to coin two such brilliant and accurate phrases, so I don't think this should be in the article. 93.223.5.152 (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * How many times are you going to come to this talk page and go "Waaah you're not confirming my biases!!!!!". Make an actual argument about specific problems or shut up.   Even the fucking neo-nazi whiners can do that sometimes. Ikanreed (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well that'd make them better than you, then, as well as the entirety of this wiki :D 93.223.5.152 (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well that'd make them better than you, then, as well as the entirety of this wiki :D 93.223.5.152 (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

So did she become a misandrist after the attacks or did she hate men already? Isn't that what Radical Feminism is for, to demonise men and weaken women?--106.68.23.249 (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Not really, no. Unless you know some really bitter RadFems, that is. You're a radical because you get your point across in socially-unacceptable ways, not because you're an asshole. I did a History presentation last year on the early 20th century feminist movements - the Suffragists who campaigned peacefully for voter reform (of whom most were actually male trade unionists who were also denied votes, so saw themselves as equally hated by the State) and the Suffragettes, who launched a terrorist campaign throughout the UK, burning down train carriages and houses. Their actions weren't about demonising men since "men" as a whole weren't the issue: unpopular rich people preventing voter reform so they could keep their seats were the problem - they just happened to be men due to the culture. So yeah, in short: RadFems aren't RadFems because they hate men; RadFems are RadFems because they're crazy.-- Forerunner (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Finally a balanced statement of feminism that doesn't justify or deny misandry.--106.69.139.131 (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

What do you think of this?
" The best way to spot a feminist on the internet is if they don't spend all of their time talking about feminism. " TheSocktor (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know exactly what that could be referring to. I also don't know if trying to specify nebulous labels does anybody any good. Nullahnung (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I also don't know if this is really true. 23:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Basically that people who are obsessed with feminism are more likely to be an opponent of it than a proponent. TheSocktor (talk) 08:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I follow what you're saying, I'm not entirely sure it's accurate but I get it. 11:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not accurate at all. 12:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Moff's Law
I noticed that the entry for Moff's Law included a summary but no actual articulation of the "law" itself, so I added one (referencing Geek Feminism). Since the law follows the model of Godwin's Law, I moved the description of Godwin's Feminist Corollary above the other entries. -DogWelder
 * The problem is that text criticism can quickly degenerate to eisegesis, be it feminist or any other, which often provokes a response parodied (or nutpicked) in the article. That should've been mentioned there (which is not saying, that any textual criticism, feminist or not, is automatically eisegesis, but Sturgeon's Law applies here, too).--Arisboch (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Anita's Law Edit
I feel as though Anita's Law was a corollary on Lewis's law, so I edited it to reflect that.86.150.153.224 (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No need for this. We don't make up the laws, we just write about them. 16:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)