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 Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday November 07 2015, @08:01AM
There's no concrete definitions for anything
Actually, there are commonly used definitions, and in many cases, the commonly used definitions are quite clear. That is what I refer to. But that is not the case here. You have no ability to decide that random people aren't feminists. The definition is so vague and subjective that pretty much anyone can fit it. I don't care if they self-identify as one or not; that's irrelevant.
Does that mean no definitions are valid?
No, it means that in such cases, it's trivial to make arguments that are just No True Scotsman arguments, like the one above.
Lets just throw out language altogether, because that's what you're arguing to do.
That's your straw man. The only thing I was arguing is that the above statement was a No True Scotsman fallacy, which it was.
All definitions are subjective and subject to change
And some are less objective than others. Surely you believe it's possible for a commonly used definition to be at least a bit elaborate and objective, right? As for being subject to change, I speak of definitions that actually exist at this current point in time.
But really, you're just supporting what I said by saying things like this. If all *existing* definitions of words were so ambiguous and subjective that they could mean anything, then you couldn't just arbitrarily decide that certain people weren't feminists. All you can do is say that while these people might be feminists, they don't represent all or most feminists.
And nowhere was there any mention of "True [group member]s", you're pushing a strawman there
You can't honestly be this dense. They did not explicitly use the word "True", but they did say "Please don't call these extremists "feminists"." What else does that mean, fool?
they either fit under the definition of the group or they don't, nothing about there being "True" members.
Just about anyone can fit the definition of "feminist" and some other such things. But that's exactly what "True" means in this context; that they fit the definition, as if everyone else doesn't and these are the only ones who do.