This is an (unfortunate) response to Celda, and his post about preserving intellectual honesty in debate by refraining from misrepresenting statistical and factual evidence, but most importantly about exposing other MRA who may be tempted to commit it. The premise is completely noble, and I wholeheartedly agree that fabricating figures is a tactic no MRA worth their salt should ever be complacent about.

However, we must understand what factual misrepresentation really means, and though it sounds easy in principle, it can be harder in practice. Celda himself demonstrates this by replying to a comment by Demonspawn. This comment has received a lot of downvotes, which I understand indicates people disagreement with his opinion. But here lies the problem: whether he can make a convincing argument, or present some evidence, scientific or not, that would support his side is irrelevant to the fact his statement was an opinion, and that he therefore did not commit a misrepresentation of fact.

Why is this important? It's an easy silencing tactic, and one used very often by feminists. Questioning the Patriarchy and women's oppression is routinely shifted (red herring) to "MRAs pretend women had the right to vote and own property". Jumping to the defense of false rape accusation victims is labeled as misogyny because "MRAs believe women aren't raped". Accusing an ideology of being a factual misrepresentation is a dangerous appeal to authority, and is a argumentative mistake that should be denounced as vehemently as a real factual misrepresentation.