[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"?

[mnicole]

> 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.

Exactly why I couldn't continue responding to him. Everything he says is just some empty non-statement coupled with how I'm "wrong" or "not getting it" when there's nothing even there to get. Keep fighting the good fight.

[papsosouid]

>Don't be disingenuous

The hypocrisy of that statement is overwhelming.

>Your comment introduced a group opposed to MRA's existence, then argued that they were wrong in doing so.

I did neither of those things, perhaps you should try reading it again.

>That said, the amount of effort you are expending trying to undermine my opinion

I have said absolutely nothing about your opinion in any of my posts, other than that it was entirely unrelated to anything I have said.

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

I possess basic literacy and adult level reading comprehension. If you said "gay rights is largely the same old prejudices, finding renewed strength under a thin mask of collective victimhood, desperately clung to" it would also be obviously intended to be inflammatory. Even if I am not gay, and even if your comment does not make me angry, I am still capable of grasping the obvious inflammatory nature of the statement.

[crux_]

Are you a dunce, or just too cowardly to stand behind your own words?

Introduction of a group opposed to MRA: "the vocal, hateful group of internet 'feminists' constantly claim they are against sexism in all forms, and thus men's rights advocacy should not exist ..."

Your counter of said group's supposed reason for believing MRA to be superfluous: "But in reality, when obvious sexism like this happens, those same 'feminists' do not speak out against it."

> I have said absolutely nothing about your opinion

Exactly. Yet you are strenuously trying to dismiss it nonetheless -- but doing so by attacking the messenger and other weasel tactics, rather than by honest disagreement.