[crux_]

Men's rights advocacy is, as a movement, pretty much the same thing as the whole "war on Christmas" crap that comes up on right wing TV every year.

It has no legitimacy because it's not legitimate.

Instead it is largely the same old prejudices, finding renewed strength under a thin mask of collective victimhood, desperately clung to.

[papsosouid]

Did you reply to the wrong post by accident or something? I was asking about the motivation behind strawman arguments, not requesting /b/ tier trolling.

[crux_]

Just because you have no response to something doesn't make it trolling.

The men's rights movement as it is should not exist. Not because male inequality is covered by feminist ideals, though it is, but because the "men's rights" movement is largely nothing more than a pretext for men to openly and self-righteously flaunt their anti-woman beliefs.

[papsosouid]

>Just because you have no response to something doesn't make it trolling.

Certainly not. Posting deliberately inflammatory nonsense is however. Especially when posting it as a complete non-sequitur reply to an entirely unrelated post. Doubly so when you then proceed to act like a response is warranted, and double down on the random nonsense.

[crux_]

The post I replied to was, in part, a (poorly worded) justification of the need for "men's rights advocates," and that is the part I chose to reply to.

If you're angered by my disagreement, it's not because I'm being inflammatory. I have not engaged in the name-calling you have, nor have I tried to undermine your posts by pretending to be unable to understand them. I have simply stated my honest opinion.

Perhaps you really do have trouble understanding what I'm communicating; if so, my condolences.

But it's more likely that you're simply unprepared for direct challenges, so you avoid the topics at hand and try to score points via misdirection.

[papsosouid]

>The post I replied to was, in part, a (poorly worded) justification of the need for "men's rights advocates

No, it was not. I said nothing about men's rights, you simply assume that I must be an MRA because I disagreed with something you perceive as feminist. Just like MRAs assume I am a feminist when I disagree with something they say.

>If you're angered by my disagreement

Why do you think I am angered? And you have not expressed disagreement, your post literally had nothing to do with anything I said. You posted a complete non-sequitur, which you know is deliberately inflammatory, under the assumption that I am someone who will be offended by it. That is the very definition of trolling, even if your assumption is incorrect.

[crux_]

Don't be disingenuous. Your comment introduced a group opposed to MRA's existence, then argued that they were wrong in doing so.

As for the rest, I have no interest in labeling people into petty little tribal buckets. I don't care what you call yourself.

That said, the amount of effort you are expending trying to undermine my opinion by personal attacks and misdirection strongly suggests you find my beliefs threatening, but lack either the evidence or the intellectual capabilities to produce a counterargument.

Finally, of course you are angered. On what other basis can you label my comments "inflammatory"?