[hacker789]

I agree completely with what you're saying, but I think you're being far too generous in your interpretation of the author's point.

Some people accuse others of logical fallacies for the wrong reasons—they want avoid responding to one or more points they know the other person is trying to make, so they lazily hide behind extraneous non-arguments to avoid confronting any substance.

At the same time, some people employ logical fallacies to push an agenda and make it effectively impossible to respond without dismantling their entire argument... by pointing out the logical fallacies. Hmmm.

Unsurprisingly, the author of this piece is a dishonest shill who wants free reign to use logical fallacies to advance his agenda.

When I clicked the link, I was certain the author would find a way to push his radical, post-modern feminism. As @realtalker has pointed out, the author almost certainly wrote this in response to the stinging criticism he received for this piece the Islamaphobia section in particular): http://plover.net/~bonds/nolongeraskeptic.html#islamophobia

Radical, post-modern feminists like the author do not pepper their otherwise-reasoned arguments with logical fallacies; their arguments are based upon logical fallacies. As I said, the only way to respond to inherently dishonest arguments like that is to point how the arguments are dishonest.

The author wants full immunity.

[And to be abundantly clear, by "author" I don't mean @mindcrime. I mean the author of the linked piece.]

[tptacek]

This comment is a joke, right? You're trying to provide an example of what an irrelevant invocation of "ad hominem" actually looks like, right?

[hacker789]

Nope. I certainly used ad hominem, but it wasn't central to my argument. To ignore the rest of my post would be an example of the following:

> they want avoid responding to one or more points they know the other person is trying to make, so they lazily hide behind extraneous non-arguments to avoid confronting any substance.

[EthanHeilman]

>Radical, post-modern feminists like the author do not pepper their otherwise-reasoned arguments with logical fallacies; their arguments are based upon logical fallacies.

What evidence do you have the author is post-modern? I looked around on the authors blog and didn't see anything post-modern.

You are dismissing a large number of thinkers, this is all radical post-modern feminists, out of hand. I don't understand why or what that has to do with your other claims.

[EthanHeilman]

hacker789 previous comments have an anti-feminist bent (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5573103) so I would suggest that it is coloring hacker789's judgement of this piece. This is probably why hacker789 talks about the authors motivations or secret intentions (similar to what I am doing to hacker789 now).

[lucisferre]

Using ad hominem against the ad hominem of a response to a piece about the use of logical fallacies. This. Is. So. Meta.

Love it.

[hacker789]

"Feminist" is such a broad brush that labeling something "anti-feminist" isn't very useful.

But you're still right—like anyone, my biases can color my judgement of things, often causing me to prejudge a written piece based on its author. This time, I was right; often, I am not.

[ezy]

Please define radical, post-modern feminist. Thanks.

[Avshalom]

So wait, thinking "guys, elevator come-ons are not such a good idea" is "Fair enough" is radical, post-modern feminism?

[hacker789]

I firmly feel there's nothing wrong with asking someone in an elevator whether they'd like to get coffee.

That said, to answer your question, my answer is no. Someone responding to "guys, elevator come-ons are not such a good idea" with "fair enough" doesn't remotely make someone a radical, post-modern feminist.

Why do you ask?

[rmrfrmrf]

> I firmly feel there's nothing wrong with asking someone in an elevator whether they'd like to get coffee.

Please ask a psychologist to be screened for Antisocial Personality Disorder and/or Autism.

[hacker789]

Nice. Feminist bullies use the same tactics and insults that kids use in middle school.

What's so wrong with asking someone in an elevator? I'm all ears. Is it because you think women will cower in terror because they're an enclosed box with a man?

[JohnHaugeland]

> What's so wrong with asking someone in an elevator? I'm all ears.

If the request makes them uncomfortable, the closed nature of the space makes it difficult for them to make a polite exit. The same applies to other locations where someone is temporarily unable to leave.

This also isn't really so much about dating or gender. Equally inappropriate would be uninvited political or religious commentary, bleak comedy, reference to recent very sad topics (violence, disease, natural disaster, abuse scandal,) or other topics with an unusual likelihood of creating distress.

The general idea is, just wait for the elevator to open, and ask once they have stepped outside; thirty seconds isn't going to kill you.

[rmrfrmrf]

There's nothing insulting about having a mental illness. However, having such blatant disregard for others' feelings and established societal norms can land you in jail. While you may be incapable of empathy on your own, therapy can help you find ways to make the effects of empathy beneficial to you (usually by some form of quantification of results based on emulation of empathy).

[hacker789]

You've both diagnosed me with autism and insinuated it could land me in jail if left untreated? You're lovely.

I'll ask you again. What's so wrong with calmly asking someone in an elevator for coffee? I remember these discussions after Rebecca Watson publicly complained about it—the vast majority of people felt she was vastly overreacting. So it's definitely not an "established societal norm".

Despite their rhetoric, radical feminists love infantilizing women. They treat women as fragile, triggerable, sensitive creatures who won't feel safe unless they're handled with kid gloves.