The Curious Case of Trigglypuff

A few days ago I checked my Twitter account and happened upon a curious hashtag: #trigglypuff.

My first response was what is a trigglypuff? A quick Google search provided the answer:

This was but a moment from the spectacle at University of Massachusetts Amherst. Continue reading

A Dose of Stupid v123

It happens every day. In fact, it is pretty hard to avoid it. There are some things that can only be understood with a slap on the forehead. Things so mind-boggling that one wonders how humans managed to evolve thumbs while being this mentally inept. Case in point:

Six Lazy Strawman Arguments about Critics of Feminism and Bad Advice About How to Beat Those Strawmen

Every few months some writes an article about how misunderstood feminists are and how to combat the misunderstanding. They typically only cite other feminists to support their arguments and rely on slanted studies and strawman attacks to defeat the criticism.

If the best you can do is lie about your critics and resort to logical fallacies and insults, then you give people no reason to support your movement. For some bizarre reason Suzannah Weiss decided to prove this point:

Have you ever called someone out, then had them twist it around and call you out right back? Anyone who has tried to bring attention to sexism (or racism, or homophobia, or anything of that nature) can probably relate to the frustrations of pointing out a double-standard or microaggression and being accused of overreacting or “reading too deeply into it.”

While I’m all for friendly debate, some debaters aren’t trying to engage with your position — they’re trying to dismiss it. Here are some cheap tricks I’ve seen people use to dismiss feminism and what you can say to defend yourself if they’re willing to listen.

So instead of Weiss providing a method of addressing people’s criticism of feminism and offering substantive commentary about that criticism, Weiss decides to go the lazy route and offer cheap tricks of her own to address challenges against her ideology. Let us see how this goes: Continue reading

Turning the table on “safe spaces”

In a move of pure ironic comupence, Ohio State officials responded to student protestors by using their own tactics against them:

At Ohio State last week, a sit-in and protest inside a university building was cut short when students were warned that they would be forcibly removed by police, arrested, and possibly expelled if they did not vacate the premises within a few hours, by 5 a.m.

This was inevitable. I doubt teachers and facility were genuinely afraid the students would harm them (although given the intensity of the protests it will eventually happen). This was likely a method of getting the students out of the way.

It is a brilliant move as it not only shows the ridiculousness of the “safe space” argument, but it also allows students to feel what it is like to fall under unfair suspicious.

Perhaps the most entertaining part is that the students technically violated the school’s policy. This means that the school was within their right to send the students away. From the school’s messenger: Continue reading

Factual Feminist: Intersectional Feminism

I first read the term “intersectional” years ago as child. It appeared in one of my aunt’s feminist books. I cannot recall which one, but I do recall the explanation given in the text. According to the text, white female feminists had ignored the plight of black and other minority women. White women rallied around middle and upper class issues that affected them, completely missing the experiences of the typically lower class minority women. The focus of feminist discussions, according to the explanation, also revolved around white women’s plight. The issues that affected minority women were rarely, if ever, discussed or addressed.

This in essence made minority women, black women in particular, doubly oppressed. They were oppressed by their sex and their race, whereas white women were only oppressed by their sex. There was an additional oppression within the feminist movement as well. White women basked in the privilege of being the majority, dominate voice in the movement while minority women remained silenced.

Modern intersectional feminism supposedly addresses this oppression, but it really worsens the divide between the groups as the focus becomes more about who has it worse than solving any problems. It leads to concepts like safe spaces, the progress stack, and an ironic amount of discrimination, prejudice, and bigotry against the so-called “oppressors”. Rather than bringing people together, it leads to more conflict. Once the “oppressors” are drummed out or silenced, these intersectional feminists tend to turn on each other, arguing over the most benign, superficial differences.

Christina Hoff Sommers offered a breakdown of the intersectional theory and why it is so (ironically) problematic: Continue reading

No, You Didn’t Go on a Date With a (Closeted) MRA

Men’s rights activists are feminists favorite punching bag. Whenever feminists encounter someone or something they do not like, they associate it with the men’s rights movement. This is particularly true when they encounter criticism of feminism. Many feminists find it difficult to believe that anyone would reject or oppose their ideology. The only reason feminists can fathom someone would do that is that the person is guided by misogyny. What is the primary source of modern misogyny according to feminists? The men’s rights movement.

It is therefore no surprise that when Sarah Khan wrote an article about a date gone wrong due to political disagreement, her first impulse was to accuse the man of being a men’s rights activist:

I’m on OKCupid (again), Tinder, Bumble, Plenty of Fish and Happn; I go on many dates. Sometimes there’s fiery chemistry and the date lasts for hours and hours. Other times there’s such an absence of any sort of spark or attraction that I genuinely mourn the time wasted. But even the worst date I had had didn’t come close to being as bad or emotionally trying as the one with the closeted MRA.

I have a feeling that the problem will not lie with the “closeted MRA”. Indeed, Khan quickly proved that point: Continue reading

A Dose of Stupid v122

It happens every day. In fact, it is pretty hard to avoid it. There are some things that can only be understood with a slap on the forehead. Things so mind-boggling that one wonders how humans managed to evolve thumbs while being this mentally inept. Case in point:

4 Reasons Demanding ‘Objectivity’ in Social Justice Debates Can Be Oppressive

Of course it can. Sian Ferguson graces us with this gem of an insight and provides one of the most hypocritical reasons for this warped logic. As Ferguson explains:

Picture this: You’re scrolling through Facebook or Twitter when you come across an important discussion on something that affects you personally – like, say, sexual assault when you’ve been sexually violated before.

Since it’s something that’s very important to you, you decide to contribute to the discussion by offering your personal perspective, experience, and feelings around the subject.

Only to have it dismissed because you’re, supposedly, too emotional or too subjective.

Having your perspective dismissed because it isn’t “objective” enough is an incredibly frustrating – and unfortunately common – experience.

It is a common situation, however, the situation Ferguson describes typically happens to men, particularly white men, and male victims. Feminists and progressives are keen to tell men that their life experiences are anecdotal and do not represent any accurate indication of society. In most social justice circles, these experiences are simply dismissed as subjective nonsense.

Yet Ferguson states:

But a lot of us – both in social justice circles and out – tend to glorify objectivity in debates. Often, we think arguments and discussions are better when they’re unemotional, unbiased, and unattached from personal perspectives – exactly as we were taught.

By oppressive systems.

And so, glorifying objectivity in social justice debates can be really harmful for a number of different reasons.

Ferguson does not show that these “oppressive systems” taught anyone anything. The claim is presented without evidence and argued from a weak point of “some black feminist said subjective truth is truth.” Do not take my word for it: Continue reading

A Dose Stupid v122: The Gawker “We’d Publish a Child’s Sex Tape” Edition

It happens every day. In fact, it is pretty hard to avoid it. There are some things that can only be understood with a slap on the forehead. Things so mind-boggling that one wonders how humans managed to evolve thumbs while being this mentally inept. Case in point:

A former Gawker editor testifies that he would publish a sex video involving children as long as they are over the age of four.

I will allow former editor Albert J. Daulerio explain:

A palpable sense of shock rippled through a courtroom here on Wednesday morning when the former editor in chief of Gawker.com was shown in a videotaped deposition suggesting that when it comes to the newsworthiness of celebrities’ sex videos, children more than 4 years old are fair game.

The former editor, Albert J. Daulerio, a defendant in an invasion-of-privacy lawsuit brought by the retired wrestler Hulk Hogan, made the comment under questioning by a plaintiff’s lawyer, who had asked him where he drew the line when it came to posting videos of people having sex.

“Can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy?” asked the lawyer, Douglas E. Mirell.

“If they were a child,” Mr. Daulerio replied.

“Under what age?” the lawyer pressed.

“Four.”

It is rare that I am shocked by anyone’s statements. I realized years ago that people are more than willing to do horrible things and rationalize them. However, I was genuinely surprised by this remark. I would think an editor would have the sense not to say something like that aloud. Continue reading