FWIW neither are logical fallacies. They're rhetorical devices. And to be fair, you probably shouldn't criticise someone for deploying them if in your criticism you do it yourself...
Now you're just making things up! I never said, nor did I imply, anything at all about young earth creationists! You've created a straw man dude - don't put words into my mouth...
You're doing it too - You're conflating SJW with zealot/someone no counter evidence will convince. My point is that it's a label that's being used as a lazy way to shut down debate. Why not be more specific? Why not go with "your argument is shit because x, y & z" rather than "SJW!"
You're proving my point - you're labelling people you don't like or agree with as SJW and using label to shut down debate. Do any of the people you're talking about self-identify as SJWs? Nope.
The thing is, people rarely identify themselves as SJWs. As a rule, it's a term used to define others as a way to shut down debate. You see this on./ all the time - someone takes offence at some group of other that's trying to change the status quo, so they label them a SJW, implying negative connotations, and effectively shutting down debate. It's a shitty tactic.
This is a great post - thanks. Sadly, as evidenced by the Overrated and Troll mods you've got, and most of the replies, you could have equally validly said:
...there really is a lot of overt misogyny, as five minutes on Slashdot can prove not merely beyond doubt, but also beyond hope.
I'm currently cycle touring in central Africa and while this sounds like a potentially useful addition to my water supply solution (Katadyn water filter), it would not be a replacement for it. The main reason is that at 0.5 litres an hour (max capacity) it just wouldn't produce enough water for me. Currently, in ~30C temperatures with 80%+ humidity, riding 80km+ a day, I'm getting though upwards of 6 litres each day. It's thirsty work!
It's just sexist bullshit - it's an attempt to invalidate their position by making it about whether or not they're "hot" or not. If you're going to criticise their legal action, why not do it for legitimate reasons (the merits of their case?) Why resort to sexist bullying?
What was this website called? Any evidence to support your claim that it failed "because women wouldn't initiate contact in almost any case" rather than some other reason?
Christ Slashdot is depressing these days. Any article at all that mentions how women have a shit time in the digital world and the overwhelming majority of comments disagree, and those marked Insightful or Funny are almost exclusively whines from men about how it's all the fault of women and the "SJW crowd". If you're lucky, there'll be one or two +5 Interesting comments expressing alternative view. And they're always Interesting, never Insightful - it's as if these alternative views are *news* to people. It's just depressing.
we'd have to get developing titans like India and China
This gets bandied around a lot as a "reason" not to do anything, or to do very little, about reducing human impact on the environment (Not saying that this is your point, just picking the words out). It's crap for two reasons: first, the impact of the US on the global environment far outweighs India or China's impact, now or in the foreseeable future. Secondly, and more importantly, the argument effectively says "can't fix everything so there's no use even trying." It may be that you can't fix everything, but we have to start somewhere, and doing something is better than doing nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
Women HATE that.
Oh, the irony.
The fact that this comment right here is modded so highly really brings home how far ./ has drifted into nut-job territory.
FWIW neither are logical fallacies. They're rhetorical devices. And to be fair, you probably shouldn't criticise someone for deploying them if in your criticism you do it yourself...
It's funny because it's true!
It's just ad hominem though. It's lazy...
Now you're just making things up! I never said, nor did I imply, anything at all about young earth creationists! You've created a straw man dude - don't put words into my mouth...
You're doing it too - You're conflating SJW with zealot/someone no counter evidence will convince. My point is that it's a label that's being used as a lazy way to shut down debate. Why not be more specific? Why not go with "your argument is shit because x, y & z" rather than "SJW!"
You're proving my point - you're labelling people you don't like or agree with as SJW and using label to shut down debate. Do any of the people you're talking about self-identify as SJWs? Nope.
You haven't actually addressed my point...
The thing is, people rarely identify themselves as SJWs. As a rule, it's a term used to define others as a way to shut down debate. You see this on ./ all the time - someone takes offence at some group of other that's trying to change the status quo, so they label them a SJW, implying negative connotations, and effectively shutting down debate. It's a shitty tactic.
...there really is a lot of overt misogyny, as five minutes on Slashdot can prove not merely beyond doubt, but also beyond hope.
Thanks for pointing this out - the Slashdot "BUT FREE SPEECH" circlejerk drives me nuts.
15% of the earth's remaining oil, along with 30% of the planet's natural gas and 20% of its liquefied natural gas
I wonder how long this will last us. 50 years? 100?
I'm currently cycle touring in central Africa and while this sounds like a potentially useful addition to my water supply solution (Katadyn water filter), it would not be a replacement for it. The main reason is that at 0.5 litres an hour (max capacity) it just wouldn't produce enough water for me. Currently, in ~30C temperatures with 80%+ humidity, riding 80km+ a day, I'm getting though upwards of 6 litres each day. It's thirsty work!
That begs the question
No it doesn't, it raises the question.
It's just sexist bullshit - it's an attempt to invalidate their position by making it about whether or not they're "hot" or not. If you're going to criticise their legal action, why not do it for legitimate reasons (the merits of their case?) Why resort to sexist bullying?
What was this website called? Any evidence to support your claim that it failed "because women wouldn't initiate contact in almost any case" rather than some other reason?
Christ Slashdot is depressing these days. Any article at all that mentions how women have a shit time in the digital world and the overwhelming majority of comments disagree, and those marked Insightful or Funny are almost exclusively whines from men about how it's all the fault of women and the "SJW crowd". If you're lucky, there'll be one or two +5 Interesting comments expressing alternative view. And they're always Interesting, never Insightful - it's as if these alternative views are *news* to people. It's just depressing.
Now it's called the Reddit Hug. A more powerful force, by far...
You need a little socialism. You need to value workers over the owners of capital. You need a social safety-net.
The London Review of Books
The New York Review of Books
Foreign Affairs
The Times Literary Supplement
Were number one!
Were number one!
Were number one!
we'd have to get developing titans like India and China
This gets bandied around a lot as a "reason" not to do anything, or to do very little, about reducing human impact on the environment (Not saying that this is your point, just picking the words out). It's crap for two reasons: first, the impact of the US on the global environment far outweighs India or China's impact, now or in the foreseeable future. Secondly, and more importantly, the argument effectively says "can't fix everything so there's no use even trying." It may be that you can't fix everything, but we have to start somewhere, and doing something is better than doing nothing.
The moment folk start arguing over who owns what, that's when there'll be lawyers. I don't imagine it'll take long.
Not so much. I get you're a fan but ease up on the hyperbole if you want to be taken seriously.