SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
As if they hadn't discredited the movement enough already, feminists are now reportedly attempting to collect scalps from notable men in tech. And they're not worried about little things like the sexual assault they report actually happening.
Feminists in tech have been staging attempted "honey traps" to frame prominent male software developers for sexual assault, according to explosive claims on the blog of Eric S. Raymond, a pioneer of the open source movement. In allegations that will rock the world of software development, prominent targets included Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux kernel.
Raymond quoted excerpts from an online chat with a trusted source, who told him that the Ada Inititiative, a recently-discontinued feminist advocacy group in tech, was trying to "collect scalps" by concocting charges of attempted sexual assault against male software developers.
The source told Raymond that the "MO" of the feminists was to "get alone with the target, and then immediately report "attempted sexual assault." The source said he had stopped mentoring female developers over fears that they might fabricate such charges.
In before someone disbelieves the message because they dislike the messenger.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday November 05 2015, @03:43PM
I often say this to people claiming trolls are "gamergaters" as a method to deflect from a discussion about journalistic ethics
1) The onus is first on you to prove they are feminist. If they say they are feminist and someone denies they are, that is a no true scot argument. If you're saying they're feminist just to lump trolls in with a group you don't like, that's not a no true scot, you have to first prove they are.
2) Even if they are feminist and crazy, it doesn't mean they're crazy because they're feminist, just that they're crazy and happen to be feminist
3) To further that point, if they are feminist that also doesn't mean ALL feminist are bad by extension, no more so than all dog owners are evil because of someone that owned a dog abused it.
Defining sides by their edges while ignoring their surface is how you create optical illusions. I don't doubt at all there are some crazy women who do plan to get prominent men alone so they can claim sexual harassment or rape to remove that person they see as an obstetrical to their goals, I believe this was intentionally done to Julian Assange for example, but the issue is other feminist feel compelled to defend bad actors because, like any other group, the good is lumped in with the bad as a way to make it hard for someone to say, "I support equality for everyone regardless of gender", and not be accused of also supporting misandry.
I've been in this position where I have serious issues around how journalists conduct themselves, but end up screaming that doesn't mean I support harassment, then told I must support harassment because by talking about other issues I'm not being vocal enough about not supporting harassment.
It literally happened just two days ago here on SN [soylentnews.org].
In context of how the No True Scotsman fallacy is being used here, it's a shitty tactic to make people feel bad for supporting good things by making them feel like they're also supporting bad things. Basically, guilt by association.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 05 2015, @11:02PM
Nowhere does the definition for "feminist" say "self-identifies as one". So no, what they self-identify as is meaningless, if they don't fit under the definition from the start then they're not a member of the group, and pointing that out is no fallacy.