Observations from debating with feminists

DavidByron2 · 2014-10-07T16:05:37+00:00

Wow, that is actually pretty much what I found doing the same stuff 20 years ago. Back in those days feminist boards didn't routinely ban people. They started that practise as a result of me and a few other people going onto those boards with criticisms. So for a while another thing I felt I had to do a lot of was to make an issue of censorship, because back in those days feminists were still pretending to care about censorship and pretend to be open minded and left wing. So generally the first few comments if not the first I'd include a question about their censorship policy. They would all say they didn't ban people for their political views, and then a few days later they'd ban me for the political views, call me a rapist after I was banned, either not tell anyone I was banned or claim I was banned for abuse, and then update their web site to say people who didn't agree with feminism couldn't post. And this happens over maybe a couple of hundred web sites over many years.

This happened so often it's now a standard on pretty much all feminist boards to have a policy of banning critics. it looks like as a result you've had to engage feminists on their own personal fb pages or whatever rather than feminist web sites per se.

When you go into that situation you know you're going to get deleted / banned / censored, it's just a question of how long before it happens, so yes, an aggressive approach is what works best. It's kind of a bluff because a smart feminist knows they don't have a chance in any sort of debate so it's best to just immediately ban critics, but that's a very tough thing to tell yourself psychologically so you can goad them into a response they know is really not a good idea.

What I do agree with is that trying to be nice gets you nowhere.

This is important to think about in the context of the concern trolling we see on this sub a lot. Saying that it's all about attacking feminism and we should be more constructive

Yeah but how many of them actually walk the walk and have tried what they suggest? Bottom line is that feminists believe some really evil shit. There's no nice way to tell someone they believe in some really evil shit. There just isn't. In fact the nicest way is to be a bit over the top about it so they can at least feel better about rejecting it, but they will ALWAYS reject it (OK 99.5% of the time -- almost never). What you are doing is planting a seed so that when in the future they have a bit of a crisis of faith and they have a brief window of time where they can frankly and rationally assess their beliefs, they will have been given some facts.

you don't reveal that you have any until they're really incensed. Wait for them to demand you provide a source for your claims

Yep. Make them do some work for it and they'll have a better emotional relationship with it. If you spoon feed them it's like a magic trick. They don't believe the source because it came from you. The best is if you make them Google it for themselves. The more they do the more they accept it, the more you do, the more they reject it.

Sadly Reddit idiots who lazily demand "source?" are psychologically setting themselves up for failure. Kind of another topic, but I try to do this for everyone now, not just feminists.

Feminists are like people in a cult. They are not robots or perfect logicians. If they were, they wouldn't be in a hate group to begin with. They wouldn't need help to get out of it.

anonlymouse · 2014-10-07T16:59:16+00:00

ManUpManDown · 2014-10-07T16:07:50+00:00

This is very interesting and insightful. My angle would be to start aggressively and with an unapologetic tone, but not necessarily intentionally offensive. Perhaps just recklessly offensive. : )

ghebert001 · 2014-10-07T19:32:43+00:00

I've found that feminists will engage you in debate so long as they think they are right. The minute you prove them wrong they either have a rage-out and then stop discussing any further or they completely ignore you.

the-tominator · 2014-10-08T07:37:52+00:00

Brilliant!

Feminists tend to be of the more emotion-led type, so that's how to get their attention indeed. This probably works for anyone who is emotion-led in their beliefs and any ideology that is feels-based and works mind-->world rather than empirical world-->mind.

Capitalsman · 2014-10-08T08:12:46+00:00

I've noticed this happen when a feminist starts a debate/argument (sometimes how they start it's hard to tell which it is) they eventually bring up that prick that shot more males than females but somehow was an evil MRA woman killer, as if his name is supposed to silence me. Once they do that I bring up the feminist Valerie Solanas (she shot Andy Warhol and called men walking dildos) and her manifesto that was printed and sold and had at least 1 movie made about her and they go silent.

ifelsedowhile · 2014-10-08T16:19:08+00:00

in any neutral space of discussion with no censorship or heavy moderation feminists are generally pwnd hard and they retreat from the conversation quite soon.

magnetswithweedinem · 2014-10-08T18:29:38+00:00

This. I've been unfriended by two old friend-turned-fems. Because i calmly gave a different opinion on some utterly retarded, biased, double standard articles.

Its weird....they have such a effective echo chamber.

MRSPArchiver · 2014-10-07T15:03:56+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

Estwald_O · 2014-10-08T14:55:57+00:00

Here is another method for debating feminism:

1) Listen to or read their conversations. Note individual feminists whose personalities seem most compatable with your own. Note who displays a strong sense of curiousity; she will be more interested in engaging.

2) Begin by asking questions, her answers will commit her to a position. Try to choose some questions that can't be answered in terms of common feminist orthodoxy.

3) Accept the feminists' premises and follow them to their logical conclusions, which are usually self contradictory. I do this partly because statistical "artillary duels" make me dizzy. Feminists will not likely demand that you prove their own premises.

4) Mostly ignore personal insults. Be aware of the power of responding to rudeness with courtesy.

5) Setting goals. People are reluctant to admit that they are wrong, but that dosen't mean that they haven't been influenced by your interaction with them. It is more important that your opponent remembers what was said than it is that she acknowleges its validity.

Jacobtk · 2014-10-08T15:59:58+00:00

[…] if I attack them head on, insulting them for posting something that's so retarded, they listen. If I'm calm and rational about it, they ignore (if they don't go as far as just deleting).

While I do not resort to insults or attacks when debating feminists, I too have noticed that the calm and rational comments often prompt the harshest responses from feminists. In my opinion, feminists react this way because they cannot defend themselves against a rational argument. An insult or attack allows them to play the victim and use it against future criticism. A calm remark, however, gives them nothing to work with. This is why many feminists try to provoke people into insulting them. The insult gives them ammunition. A calm response leaves them dumbfounded.

What's necessary to debate with feminists is to strike a nerve right off the bat. Say a single sentence that they consider incredulous - or that's explicitly offensive to them. They get upset, and commit to arguing with you. This is the bait. If you can't get them emotionally invested, you can't talk to them.

The problem is that this is the bait they want you to set. Their emotional reaction has nothing to do with being genuinely upset. It is simply an attempt to win the argument. If they can get you to play into that, they win. They will use your hostile comment as proof that you and anyone who sounds like you are woman-hating fanatics.

If you present a well researched argument in a neutral tone, particularly with a source, they will pretend they didn't notice it, hope nobody else does and move on to the next thing. They know they don't have good arguments, so they won't engage if you open with one yourself.

If you do this once, yes, that will be their response. However, if you do it consistently, they will be forced to address it. They will either argue against it, openly dismiss it, delete the comment, ban you, or do some combination of the above. None of those work in their favor. You can always save a copy of your comment and post it elsewhere. This allows you to show the person’s dishonest behavior.

This has been my approach to feminists, and I have yet to see it fail. Feminists willing to engage in honest discussion have no problem with this. However, those who only want an echo chamber lose their minds over it. If you are looking to “win” the debate, that is your chance. Even if people side with feminists, feminists will look bad if they behave that way.

This doesn't mean you don't have sources backing up your argument, what it means is you don't reveal that you have any until they're really incensed.

That will work only if they do not ban you first. This is why it is better to get the sources out first. It forces feminists to either directly address or ignore the data. For example, if you go to a feminist blog discussing sexual violence and note that 1 in 6 men were sexually abused as children, feminists will either have to concede the point (making any further claims that sexual violence is a gendered crime ironically sexist), dismiss it (making them appear to disbelieve male survivors), or ignore it (making them appear to tacitly condone the abuse).

Again, if the point is to “win” the argument, you have won it. Any response short of agreeing with you and including male survivors in the discussion (and doing so from a non-feminist perspective) will make feminists look bad. If your goal is to simply get feminists to acknowledge male survivors, as is my intent, it still works.

You can't escalate from rational to direct attacks; that makes it look like you're losing. But you can de-escalate from direct attacks to rational - nobody's going to suggest that you feel you're losing because you suddenly switched from being incensed to calm, and it makes some of their common accusations just seem ridiculous (which you can calmly point out to them).

True, no one will suggest you are losing; they will know you lost. If you could have won from the start, you would have incorporated these “tricks” into your initial comments. By attacking first and trying to appear sane later, it suggests to people that you either have no logical ground to stand on or that you are so terrible at convincing people that you have given up trying. No one will think better of you for it.

Title	Observations from debating with feminists
Author	anonlymouse
Upvotes	38
Comments	29
Date	October 7, 2014 3:02 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/2ikcso/observations-from-debating-with-feminists/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/observations-from-debating-with-feminists.1621755 https://theredarchive.com/post/1621755

Comments

5) Setting goals. People are reluctant to admit that they are wrong, but that dosen't mean that they haven't been influenced by your interaction with them. It is more important that your opponent remembers what was said than it is that she acknowleges its validity.