Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday November 05 2015, @04:25AM   Printer-friendly
from the it's-a-sad-world dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 05 2015, @06:41AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 05 2015, @06:41AM (#258725)

    Please don't call these extremists "feminists". There's enough of a kerfuffle over the term already on the internet.

    Feminists want equal rights for men and women.

    Extremist feminists are just as whacko as Extremist mens rights or Extremist muslims or Extremists christians or Extremist anything: extreme and not representative of the cause the claim to suport.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 05 2015, @07:44AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 05 2015, @07:44AM (#258737)

    Sounds awfully like No True Scotsman to me.

    • (Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday November 05 2015, @03:43PM

      by Vanderhoth (61) on Thursday November 05 2015, @03:43PM (#258899)

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 05 2015, @11:02PM (#259157)

        If they say they are feminist and someone denies they are, that is a no true scot argument.

        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.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 05 2015, @11:00PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 05 2015, @11:00PM (#259154)

      Except for, you know, definitions and such. Its not a No True Scottsman when you're using the actual definition for a group; "No True Scottsman" requires limiting the definition to remove certain undesirables, but when said undesirables don't fit in the definition from the start there's no fallacy in pointing out that they're not a member of the group.

      • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday November 06 2015, @03:26AM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Friday November 06 2015, @03:26AM (#259257)

        The problem arises when people erroneously believe that some term has some objective, scientific definition in the first place. Saying that people are rocks is wrong unless I redefine what a "rock" is. Someone saying that they are a feminist, a Muslim, a Christian, or any of these other things is much more subjective.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 06 2015, @06:38PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 06 2015, @06:38PM (#259581)

          Someone saying that they are a feminist, a Muslim, a Christian, or any of these other things is much more subjective.

          Except, like "rock", they all already have established definitions, none of which include "Self-identifies as one". Including everyone in a group who self-identifies as one, despite them not meeting the widely-accepted, well-established definitions, hinges upon redefining those terms specifically to include people who do not fit with or belong in the group by definition and have literally no association with it except self-identification. For lack of a better term, its a "Reverse No True Scottsman" - redefining a term or group specifically to include certain undesirables, in order to promote faulty generalizations and smear that group.

          • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday November 07 2015, @07:53AM

            by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Saturday November 07 2015, @07:53AM (#259865)

            Except, like "rock", they all already have established definitions,

            Which are quite subjective, so almost anyone can fit the definition. Which is the point.

            none of which include "Self-identifies as one".

            And none of which include, "if someone thinks they aren't one, then they aren't". Your logic is fucking silly. These words do not *have* objective definitions; not even close. So you can't just arbitrarily decide that because someone thinks X, they must not be a member of that group.

            For lack of a better term, its a "Reverse No True Scottsman" - redefining a term or group specifically to include certain undesirables, in order to promote faulty generalizations and smear that group.

            It would only be a generalization if I said that all or most people in the group were like this, but I didn't. Using your logic, No True Scotsman fallacies wouldn't even exist.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday November 05 2015, @09:37AM

    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday November 05 2015, @09:37AM (#258759)

    Maybe their views of these so-called extremists do not represent the views of the majority of whatever group they are part of, but that doesn't mean you get to decide they're not feminists/Muslims/Christians/Men's rights activists/whatever.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 05 2015, @11:05PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 05 2015, @11:05PM (#259161)

      So everything is defined by self-identification? If I say I'm a shoe, does that automatically make me a shoe? If I say I'm AnalPumpernickel, does that automatically make me AnalPumpernickel?

      • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday November 06 2015, @03:23AM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Friday November 06 2015, @03:23AM (#259253)

        So everything is defined by self-identification?

        There are no concrete definitions of many of these terms, or their definitions change over time. It's just one big No True Scotsman. What is a "True Muslim", a "True Feminist", a "True Christian", etc.? Any definition you come up with will likely be arbitrary, and I have no reason to take it any more seriously than their definitions.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 06 2015, @06:50PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 06 2015, @06:50PM (#259589)

          There are no concrete definitions of many of these terms, or their definitions change over time.

          There's no concrete definitions for anything - look up any word in the dictionary and you'll see more than one entry - and all definitions change over time - look at "bad" for example, it means both "bad" and "good / awesome". Does that mean no definitions are valid? Lets just throw out language altogether, because that's what you're arguing to do. All definitions are subjective and subject to change, so thats not a valid reason to cherrypick some to ignore and claim as invalid while allowing others to stand. Try again. And nowhere was there any mention of "True [group member]s", you're pushing a strawman there; they either fit under the definition of the group or they don't, nothing about there being "True" members.

          • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday November 07 2015, @08:01AM

            by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Saturday November 07 2015, @08:01AM (#259867)

            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.