TYT Watch: Cenk Interviews Karen Straughan (GirlWritesWhat)

atheist4thecause · 2015-02-04T17:37:58+00:00

Well folks, to those who told me over and over that TYT would never listen, consider yourself proven wrong. Cenk interviewed Karen Straughan here:...

[–]Jaykaykaykay 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]deratvia9 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ava___ 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jaykaykaykay 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pornography_saves_li 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

First of all, it was an extremely fair interview. She had the floor almost the entire interview. Second of all, it shows a shift, and believe it or not, the media covering men's issues is a good thing. Third, I'm not sure if I would say it matters more or not that they are Progressive, but the fact that they are Progressive is important, because that's the feminist stronghold. If we can get our issues accepted within the Progressive Party/Movement then that will be a really good sign. It's also good because they tend to prioritize social issues unlike the Right, and it's important to be on both sides of the issue so that men's rights issues will be attacked in different ways. The Left tends to be more Federalist and the Right tends to be more Anti-Federalist. It's important to have a max. By the way, I'm pretty sure you are downvoting basically every thread I make, which says a lot about the type of person you are.

[–]Pornography_saves_li 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pornography_saves_li 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago* (23 children) | Copy Link

Feminism and progressivism aren't the same? Really? What are their major spheres of difference? I mean, being an idiot and all, I'm having trouble seeing it. So, explain to me, oh wise one, the vast ideological gulf between feminists and SJWs.

Incidentally, cenk doing that was because they were pressured into it, by his own admission. Why do you think that is? Because no one has heard of this movement before? How hard do you think it is to face exactly what we do now, only more ignored, and with a thousandth the number of people.

All the media, an nearly every feminist, pretends you don't exist and won't even acknowledge your issues, a phenomenon called the 'lace curtain'. Getting a letter to the editor published in the local paper was a celebrated victory, it was so bad. And all your precious progressives, when they acknowledged us, viciously attacked us on levels they can no longer get away with.

I, and a few other men, grew that movement to what it is today. I know how we did it, and I know why it worked as well as it did. And itdid work quite well, considering the budget.

Sure, yyou'll complain we could have done it better, but then you weren't there now were you? I was probably what you could call 'the marketing guy', I've got a lifetime of sales experience and study of human nature in marketing situations (which means I understand 'buying motive'...do you?), and more importantly, I have actually done shit other than pontificate on reddit.

You have not.

So, what gives you the swelled fucking head to make you declare me an 'idiot' exactly?

[–]timoppenheimer 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Pornography_saves_li 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pornography_saves_li 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

The 'progressives stand for equality' thing

Whether you think Progressiveness actually stands for equality is up for debate, but if the idea behind Progressiveness is to be for equality then you could say the movement has been hijacked, but does stand for equality. You aren't a Leftist, so it's no surprise that you view the Progressive Movement negatively by ideology. Btw, ideology seems to be your go-to word any time you want attack something. There's nothing inherently wrong with ideology. It means you care about how things should be. Pragmatists tend to care about how things can be, but pragmatists also often limit themselves in necessary ways because they deem a change impossible when it isn't, just like how you told me that TYT would never listen to the MRM, and now you're eating crow.

As for the system, anyone stupid enough to believe the theater that is politics deserves to suffer its consequences.

I'd like to point out that there are consequences to not being willing to work within a system at all as well, such as maintaining the status quo and silencing your own voice.

And to go all appeal to majority on you, nearly every political poll shows those that actually trust government to be a tiny, tiny minority.

So?

[–]Pornography_saves_li 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

You think cenk uyger 'listened' to the MRM. Fuck, you have some low standards buddy. That interview was forced on him by viewers, by his own admission right at the beginning of the video. I guess they lead from the rear? Hardly 'crow', but take your victories where you can get them I suppose.

When the 'consequences' of not working within a system are identical to working within it, why constrain oneself? Just how much evidence that politicians, hell society itself, doesn't give shit one about men or their issues do you need anyway? And for that matter, when have men EVER gotten ahead through appeals to 'the authorities'.

You go ahead and convince yourself government really is 'here to help', but get out of the way of those who learned better years, maybe decades, before you even knew mens issues existed.

As to the political majority opinion thing, that was preemptive against yet another attempt to portray me as conspiracy theory moron. I've learned to expect shit like that from you 'enlightened' types.

[–]atheist4thecause[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

You think cenk uyger 'listened' to the MRM.

Yes. Not only is there evidence of TYT moving towards the center a bit, but they interviewed an MRA.

Fuck, you have some low standards buddy

How is whether I think Cenk listened to the MRM about standards? I don't quite get that one.

That interview was forced on him by viewers, by his own admission right at the beginning of the video.

Yes, viewers like me that specifically asked for an MRA interview to be had, that held TYT, specifically Ana, responsible for what they said about MRA's, and the hard work that we put in to show how TYT was actively denying male issues, especially on police brutality (bringing up the racial angle but never the gender angle) and rape issues (at UVA, they talked about future rape victims possibly not feeling comfortable coming forward but rarely, if ever, talked about how the actual falsely accused victims were negatively impacted themselves). Feel free to keep living in your world where men's rights always gets ignored no matter what, but I'll live in reality where we can see clear evidence of the MRM making a difference. It's almost like you don't want MRA's making a difference, because every time we do, you deny it's us actually making the difference. While you wallow in your powerlessness, I'll continue to make a difference.

When the 'consequences' of not working within a system are identical to working within it, why constrain oneself?

Except that they don't bring the same results. How is your strategy of denying any progress is every made and not trying to bring any progress supposed to bring about the change?

Just how much evidence that politicians, hell society itself, doesn't give shit one about men or their issues do you need anyway?

In case you haven't been paying attention, we've had confirmed politicians on this Subreddit asking for ideas on how to change policy. We have media outlets interviewing MRA's. MRA websites and groups are growing not only in the USA, but throughout the world. There is change all over man. I know you're used to the past where we've been ignored, but things are changing. Jump on board. If you try to see some of these changes I think you'll end up a happier person. I know I feel a sense of pride and happiness every time I see something like this happen.

And for that matter, when have men EVER gotten ahead through appeals to 'the authorities'.

People like me got through to Cenk, who is an authority at TYT. There have been court cases where fathers have won. I remember seeing someone on here post where they got their children from a female officer that was abusing her badge against him. A Voice For Men did an article about a man who fought the system (and is still doing so) who won many battles in court. We are seeing male homeless shelters popping up in many different countries. Have you noticed that feminists have really cut down on the argument that MRA's don't do anything and just whine, recently? I have.

As to the political majority opinion thing, that was preemptive against yet another attempt to portray me as conspiracy theory moron. I've learned to expect shit like that from you 'enlightened' types.

Huh?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pornography_saves_li 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pornography_saves_li 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]electricalnoise 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SwanOfAvon22 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[S] -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]SwanOfAvon22 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]atheist4thecause[S] -7 points-6 points-5 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Which is emphatically NOT what she was saying.

I know it's not, but he asked over and over and she could have boldly stated that she was for the woman's right to vote, but she didn't do that. IIRC, at one point she does say that she's for the right of women to vote, but she doesn't state it boldly at all, and when pressed, she doesn't restate it. Sometimes it's not about what you say, but about what you refuse to say.

She was trying to convey a nuanced position

Yes, but Cenk was trying to find some common ground, which she could have easily given.

Cenk wouldn't listen

Because they had different goals. His goal was to find common ground, and hers was to state a position.

Cenk wouldn't listen, literally spoke over her

I'm pretty sure that if you go back and time it out, she talked much more than Cenk did. It's EXTREMELY common for an interviewer to speak over someone in order to try to gain control of the interview, and I would like to point out, she spoke over Cenk quite a bit.

and then dismissed her as a radical.

I don't think that's a fair characterization. He didn't dismiss her. Sure, he called her radical, but that's because she refused to say that women deserved the right to vote. He certainly didn't dismiss her by any means, which is shown by stating that she will likely be back on at some point, but she could have easily put an end to that misunderstanding by boldly stating she is for the woman's right to vote. She didn't do that, and so Cenk was left thinking she was a radical against the position.

[–]SwanOfAvon22 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You don't find common ground by going "yadda yadda yadda" when someone is talking. If he had actually listened to what she had to say, he might have been able to understand the point she was trying to make. Instead he worked himself up and then exploded on her, all while she maintained her cool.

And, as you said, she did say she was in favor of women's right to vote, multiple times. She was responding to his claims about women not having a voice and not being able to own property, and she gave as examples the temperance/abolitionist movements. He countered with an ultimatum and said something along the lines of "Wow, you're a radical" with a dismissive, superior tone.

I get that just by allowing her to talk he's done better than a lot of her interviewers, but that's setting the bar extremely low, no?

[+]atheist4thecause[S] -10 points-9 points-8 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You don't find common ground by going "yadda yadda yadda" when someone is talking.

That was at the very end, and he did that because Karen was going off on long tangents that really didn't answer Cenk's initial question.

If he had actually listened to what she had to say, he might have been able to understand the point she was trying to make.

Do you think Cenk did anything right or that Karen did anything wrong? Just curious.

Instead he worked himself up and then exploded on her, all while she maintained her cool.

That's what his persona is. He uses anger in politics, and very effectively I might add. It is also very entertaining.

And, as you said, she did say she was in favor of women's right to vote, multiple times.

That's not exactly what I said, but I'll give you once, maybe twice. She could have easily made the position more clear, but she chose not to.

She was responding to his claims about women not having a voice and not being able to own property, and she gave as examples the temperance/abolitionist movements. He countered with an ultimatum and said something along the lines of "Wow, you're a radical" with a dismissive, superior tone.

That's not exactly how it went down. He asked over and over about the woman's right to vote. You conveniently ignore that. Also, people can't get upset that after quite a length of period of talking Cenk jumps in. In fact, the conversation was supposed to be about men's rights, not about anti-feminism.

I get that just by allowing her to talk he's done better than a lot of her interviewers, but that's setting the bar extremely low, no?

I think you are showing some pretty extreme biases by not criticizing Karen for anything and criticizing Cenk for just about everything.

[–]SwanOfAvon22 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That was at the very end, and he did that because Karen was going off on long tangents that really didn't answer Cenk's initial question.

He never gave me the impression that he was actually listening to her when she spoke, just waiting for his turn to talk. And he literally said, on more than one occasion, "yadda yadda yadda."

I get that, as you've said, it's his personality, but frankly his personality is at fault. I find it neither entertaining nor effective, and not just in the context of this interview. I much prefer David Pakman's style, or even Ana's.

Do you think Cenk did anything right or that Karen did anything wrong? Just curious. He let her talk and had her on his show, which is more than most people have done and I applaud him for it. I don't think he was ever in any danger of changing his mind because he never gave me the impression he was really listening to her; he had an idea of her and MRAs in general as radicals, "maybe with a few good points" but often ridiculous, and he never let her out of the box.

I don't think Karen is above criticism (who is?). She often responds to people who have zero familiarity with feminist theory as if they do, which can be alienating. Cenk, for example, has this division in his mind between "the radicals" and mainstream feminism, but he has never done the least bit of research into what mainstream feminism is. Thus Karen went about trying to complicate the "mainstream" views, and Cenk, eager to put her into his box, quickly dismissed her as a radical. But Karen isn't radical. In fact, I would bet any amount of $ that if she got a beer with Mr. or Mrs. Average Joe/Jane, they would feel much more comfortable with her views than with those of, take your pick, Germaine Greer, Amanda Marcotte, Amanda Hess, Jessica Valenti or whoever else you elect as an icon of modern feminism.

In fact, the conversation was supposed to be about men's rights, not about anti-feminism.

How do you even separate the two? People scoff at the very idea of "men's rights" because they're saturated in the feminist worldview. You can't advocate for men's rights in any area, including the areas Cenk was predisposed to agree with us, without butting heads with feminism.

I think you are showing some pretty extreme biases by not criticizing Karen for anything and criticizing Cenk for just about everything. I hardly think that I am expressing an "extreme" bias. I certainly dislike Cenk, and did before this interview, and liked Karen before/during the interview. So, sure, I am not impartial. I would have been perfectly happy with the first 20 minutes of the interview, before he started working himself up and exploded on her with that "then go make me a sandwich" remark.

Karen has shown herself to be calm and collected, even in extreme disagreements. Cenk perceived a bigger disagreement than there was, largely because he wasn't paying very close attention to what Karen was saying, and then blew up at her.

[–]atheist4thecause[S] -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You are just showing your clear biases. I never said Karen was above criticism. I said you are blaming Cenk for just about everything, and you didn't criticize Karen once. Even in this comment I don't see you criticizing Karen about anything, only Cenk. You also make a claim about Cenk's research, but I can guarantee you have no idea what Cenk has and hasn't researched. Worse yet, you go on to make conclusions based upon his lack of research. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they haven't researched the issues. That's nothing more than a cheap shot, it gets us nowhere in the discussion, and if everybody had that mindset then nobody would listen to anybody.

And how are you judging what someone did or didn't listen to? You don't seem to be applying this to Karen. Maybe you did and I missed it. How did she listen to Cenk?

About being radical, it's not necessarily negative. Here's a definition from Google:

advocating or based on thorough or complete political or social reform; representing or supporting an extreme section of a political party.

I'd like to point out that being radical isn't necessarily negative. Also, you have to remember what Cenk's interpretation was of Karen's position, not necessarily what Karen's position actually is.

How do you even separate the two?

Well, pretty easily actually. When advocating for men's rights, you're being an MRA. When advocating against feminism, you are being an anti-feminist. For instance, advocating to end homelessness is an MRA issue, but it's not anti-feminist. Advocating to end suicide is the same thing.

Karen has shown herself to be calm and collected, even in extreme disagreements.

I agree, but that does not make her right or wrong.

Cenk perceived a bigger disagreement than there was, largely because he wasn't paying very close attention to what Karen was saying, and then blew up at her.

Again, this is how Cenk is. This is how he got famous. It's his persona. There's nothing wrong with that. It's entertaining, and it sells. Look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hiRC5ZDTXk

I don't expect people to agree with Cenk, but for the love of God, lets give TYT some credit for bringing on a highly unpopular guest to much of their audience.

[–]SwanOfAvon22 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You are just showing your clear biases. I never said Karen was above criticism. I said you are blaming Cenk for just about everything, and you didn't criticize Karen once.

I never said you said Karen was above criticism...I just think that whatever "mistakes" she made in that interview, they pale in comparison to "yadda yadda yadda," "then go make me a sandwich" and "then you're just a radical," all of which would have been avoided if he was actually listening to her rather than waiting for his chance to speak. If he was listening, he might have engaged with the things she said in response to his sweeping statements about female oppression.

You also make a claim about Cenk's research, but I can guarantee you have no idea what Cenk has and hasn't researched. Worse yet, you go on to make conclusions based upon his lack of research. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they haven't researched the issues. That's nothing more than a cheap shot, it gets us nowhere in the discussion, and if everybody had that mindset then nobody would listen to anybody.

Jesus buddy. Yes, you're right. I have no idea what he has or hasn't researched. But from his sweeping statements like "women couldn't own property!" I can only conclude that he has done little to no research or he has chosen to ignore that research to prop up a false narrative. It is far from a cheap shot, though...

And how are you judging what someone did or didn't listen to? You don't seem to be applying this to Karen. Maybe you did and I missed it. How did she listen to Cenk?

Dude, he literally started saying "yadda yadda yadda" under his breath, and then rather continue the discussion from anything Karen said, he returned to his earlier points and simply raised his voice/took on a more aggressive tone. And "how did she listen to Cenk?" Most everything she said was in response to him: women's temperance movement, suffragettes/suggragists, etc.

About being radical, it's not necessarily negative. Here's a definition from Google:

I'm aware of the multiple definitions of radical, thanks. Cenk was clearly not using it in a benign way. He was being condescending and dismissive, especially with his "then go make me a sandwich" idiocy.

Well, pretty easily actually. When advocating for men's rights, you're being an MRA. When advocating against feminism, you are being an anti-feminist. For instance, advocating to end homelessness is an MRA issue, but it's not anti-feminist. Advocating to end suicide is the same thing.

I don't disagree that it's possible. But there is a fuckload of overlap. To fail to recognize this is simply to be blind. I would also say that addressing male suicide in an era when you can literally find sociology books arguing that male suicides are a result of male privilege forces you to address feminism critically...

I agree, but that does not make her right or wrong. I never said it did? But if you're after the truth, it helps to be calm and collected, particularly when contentious things are being discussed...Cenk failed this test, and so I am critical of him. That's not bias...

I don't expect people to agree with Cenk, but for the love of God, lets give TYT some credit for bringing on a highly unpopular guest to much of their audience. First, I did give him credit. I said merely having her on and allowing her to talk was better than most, which it is. Second, stop and think for a second what you're saying. What does it say about Cenk or TYT if it's some momentous thing that you talk to people who don't agree with you?

None of that prevents me from thinking he behaved boorishly and that the same persona that you seem to find "entertaining" and "effective" is a barrier to actual truth-seeking.

[–]Pornography_saves_li 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lifeiscooliguess 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MRSPArchiver 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iongantas 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SarcastiCock 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pornography_saves_li 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]SarcastiCock 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[S] -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SarcastiCock 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pornography_saves_li 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alzael -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alzael 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alzael 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

If you notice, he uses the term "radical feminists".

Much as Christians use the term "evangelical Christian".

I don't think he would agree with patriarchy theory, acceptance of rape culture by society (although he does think rape is a big problem)

Key word is, you think, you don't know. But that's neither here nor there really and rather irrelevant.

My point was that feminism is no different from a religion. Aside from a lack of supernatural elements they're functionally the same in every aspect. Really all ideologies are the same in any practical way. Whether religious, social, or political.

I've argued against the religious for the better part of fifteen years and against feminists for the better part of five and I barely have to switch gears when I do it. The exact same types of criticisms that I would apply to the religious apply to them.

Cenk, as I said, is no different than any other religious person arguing an anti-theist.

When people label themselves a term, we need to use their definition of that term, not our own.

Bullshit, we do.

[–]atheist4thecause[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Much as Christians use the term "evangelical Christian".

See, this is where I have a problem with what MRA's do and it pushes people away. Someone calls themselves a feminist by THEIR definition, then MRA's apply the MRA definition of feminism onto them, and then all these conclusions get drawn about their ideas about patriarchy theory, male malice, privilege, etc. It's not fair at all, and it's incredibly fallacious.

Key word is, you think, you don't know.

Well, I can only speak of what I think. I'm not Cenk believe it or not, and neither are you.

My point was that feminism is no different from a religion.

And you were trying to use that to say Cenk was religious. I get it. It's your not-so-clever joke.

Aside from a lack of supernatural elements they're functionally the same in every aspect. Really all ideologies are the same in any practical way. Whether religious, social, or political.

These are the conclusions I'm talking about. Cenk calls himself a feminist, therefore he believes these things because that's how I use the term, therefore he's functionally religious.

Cenk, as I said, is no different than any other religious person arguing an anti-theist.

Sigh. Talk about fallacious.

Bullshit, we do.

Well, you only have to if you don't want to be fallacious and you want to understand where the person is coming from and what they actually believe. You know, the whole caring about facts and truth thing.

[–]Alzael 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

See, this is where I have a problem with what MRA's do and it pushes people away.

Well I'm not an MRA, so your problems with them are irrelevant to me.

Someone calls themselves a feminist by THEIR definition, then MRA's apply the MRA definition of feminism onto them

Because there needs to be an understood definition in order to have a discussion. If feminism is just whatever anyone wants to say that it is, then the term is meaningless. (It's also not "THEIR" definition,there are large commonalities in what feminists believe because their is an entire mountain of teachings called "feminist theory" on which they draw from;these things are the beliefs associated with being a feminist). A similiar problem exists (not uncoincidentally) with religion. If a religion like Christianity or Islam can be interpreted anyway the individual likes then the religion and its teachings lose any ability to accurately describe reality because they are so subjective they are applicable any which way the religious person wants it.

This is why, if you listen to feminists (again, much like the religious) they do what is called a motte and bailey. They constantly switch between making objective and subjective claims when they talk about feminism. They will say for instance that feminism is defined as wanting equality, yet when called upon to answer for the actions of other feminists will claim that feminism has all sorts of types and versions, etc.

There is no time to discuss every however-million feminists individual interpretation, so generalizations need to be drawn.

This is where there's a problem with people like you. You're a much sloppier thinker than you think that you are. You don't grasp the necessities of the conversation that you think you're trying to have.

and then all these conclusions get drawn about their ideas about patriarchy theory, male malice, privilege, etc.

That's because all of those things are the central aspects of all of feminist theory. It's like Christians and the bible. If you don't believe in the bible then you aren't a christian by any recognizable measurement.Sure, you can still call yourself a Christian. But then I can call myself a Christian at that point and what's the meaning of the term then?

The term becomes so diluted that any discussion about Christianity and its ideas becomes impossible.

By the same token, if you don't believe in things such as that then you aren't a feminist by any recognizable definition of the term. It also begs the question of why identify as a feminist if you don't accept any of it's ideas, but that's a different kettle of fish.

It's not fair at all,

It's entirely fair. When you pick a label of your own free will, it is entirely fair that people judge you by how that label is generally defined and used.

That's why I don't take on labels unless they completely describe me and my positions.

and it's incredibly fallacious.

No, it isn't. It really isn't. Don't use words if you don't understand them.

I'm not Cenk believe it or not, and neither are you.

Yes, but your argument against what I said is based on a presumption of what he believes without any evidence of what you say he actually believes.

My point was based on the fact that he is a feminist. Thus it is highly likely that he believes in the common beliefs of a feminist. That's a reasonable assumption.

Your argument is based on an assumption that he doesn't believe in any of the common feminist beliefs, which is unreasonable and without evidence.

So it is not the same thing. This is what I meant by sloppy thinking on your part.

Cenk calls himself a feminist, therefore he believes these things because that's how I use the term

No, he believes these things because that's what the term "feminist" is understood to mean. Now he might not necessarily believe all of those things, as there are always outliers, but since that is an unknown we can only go by what we do know. That he is a feminist, and these are the general beliefs and principles.

If you have something more concrete we can work that into the evaluation.

therefore he's functionally religious.

He is. Did you watch that video?He talked and acted just like any theist debating religion. Which is what feminism is, a religion. So, he belongs to a religious group (or at least one that in general behaves the same as any religion and has a belief structure similiar to one) and demonstrates behaviour in line with someone who belongs to a religion.......

It's not that hard to understand the point.

Sigh. Talk about fallacious.

Again, don't use words you don't actually understand.

As a sidenote, when you say things like that and don't actually explain the reason you say it, it usually only hurts your case in front of an audience. It makes you look like you're only saying it to dismiss it because you have no actual point to make against it.

It weakens your position considerably and makes you come across looking like an ignorant jackass.

Well, you only have to if you don't want to be fallacious

Again, don't toss out that word if you don't what it means.

For instance, what fallacy would that be, exactly? You've made the accusation three times without elaboration. Note how I've actually gone to the trouble to actually explain why you are wrong.As opposed to just asserting it.

you want to understand where the person is coming from and what they actually believe

You don't know that.Yet are using that to form the basis of your rejection. So......pot,kettle,black.

You know, the whole caring about facts and truth thing.

My position was logically valid and sound based on the information at hand.If you have more information to present that we can use, do so. As it stands, there's nothing factually or logically wrong with my previous statement. Certainly nothing that you've pointed out.

[–]atheist4thecause[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alzael 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Well I'm not an MRA, so your problems with them are irrelevant to me.

You are by my definition. ;)

Because there needs to be an understood definition in order to have a discussion.

If someone is referring to themselves by a particular label, you absolutely have to use their definition of what that word means since they are the one saying it.

If feminism is just whatever anyone wants to say that it is, then the term is meaningless.

There is a difference between how people understand the word in communities, and how an individual is using a word. If I define the word green to mean Kiwi, the word isn't meaningless. Sure, when I say green then it won't be what most people think of green as, but it can be understood that when I say I want to eat a green I'm saying I want to eat a Kiwi. The word maintains meaning, and since I'm the one using the word, I can actually define it however I want.

(It's also not "THEIR" definition,there are large commonalities in what feminists believe because their is an entire mountain of teachings called "feminist theory" on which they draw from;these things are the beliefs associated with being a feminist).

Do you notice how you switched from talking about Cenk to talking about feminists? That changes everything. I agree that different communities can have different meanings for words, and no group or person owns the word (which is part of the reason you can't project your definition onto Cenk's label without committing an error).

They constantly switch between making objective and subjective claims when they talk about feminism.

I can't tell if you are talking about individual people or the group as a whole (or both) here. As a group, feminists have some different ideas, which is why their definitions can be different. If individuals are changing their definition, that's fallacious on their part, and you can call them out on it. This is why it's actually important to ask people for definitions instead of telling them what they mean when they use a label.

yet when called upon to answer for the actions of other feminists will claim that feminism has all sorts of types and versions

It's also important to note that you can have the same word with multiple meanings and use them at the same time.

This is where there's a problem with people like you. You're a much sloppier thinker than you think that you are. You don't grasp the necessities of the conversation that you think you're trying to have.

Thanks for the laugh.

No, he believes these things because that's what the term "feminist" is understood to mean.

So why did he use the term radical feminist then? And that's a term he distanced himself from. To think there is only one understanding of a word is...well wow. I guess I disagree because of my sloppy thinking.

Your argument is based on an assumption that he doesn't believe in any of the common feminist beliefs, which is unreasonable and without evidence.

I gave you evidence. Him distancing himself from radical feminism, which is the type of feminism MRA's (and you I guess because you're apparently not an MRA even though seem to be advocating for men's rights) typically refer to as feminism in general.

There is no time to discuss every however-million feminists individual interpretation, so generalizations need to be drawn.

Well, you finally admitted that there are multiple types of feminism, so by that one statement you have defeated much of your own argument. The egocentric nature of your argument is astounding. Generalizations of Cenk's labeling need to be drawn, and they need to be drawn in a way that fits with your worldview. Amazing. And you're the non-sloppy thinker here.

No, it isn't. It really isn't. Don't use words if you don't understand them.

How often do we see this. You disagree with me therefore I don't understand what I am talking about. I see this all the time.

He talked and acted just like any theist debating religion.

The sloppiness in me is going to point out that there is no one single way to act like a theist and debate religion. Not only that, I don't agree with the spirit of your argument at all.

As a sidenote, when you say things like that and don't actually explain the reason you say it

Thanks for the tip, and on a side note for you, calling an argument fallacious IS giving a reason not to buy into the argument. People can determine whether they think it is fallacious or not.

You don't know that.

Huh? So then do you think you can understand where a person is coming from even if you don't know how they are defining words and labels? Your response here is really weird. Maybe you misunderstood me or something.

[–]Alzael 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

You are by my definition. ;)

Irrelevant. What you define it as doesn't matter.

If someone is referring to themselves by a particular label, you absolutely have to use their definition of what that word means since they are the one saying it.

No, you really don't. Just asserting it does not make your case.

And again, this is irrelevant since you don't know what he means.

If I define the word green to mean Kiwi, the word isn't meaningless. Sure, when I say green then it won't be what most people think of green as, but it can be understood that when I say I want to eat a green I'm saying I want to eat a Kiwi. The word maintains meaning, and since I'm the one using the word, I can actually define it however I want.

No. The word has meaning to you, not to anyone else. It has no meaning in terms of communicating concepts to other human beings. Which is precisely what I said.

At this point the word serves as a useless complication to communication at best, and an attempt to give yourself an out by potentially using weasel words and vague language at worst.

As a group, feminists have some different ideas

Some, the basic ideas however are constant. Women being historically oppressed,patriarchy, etc.These are the basic tenants of feminist theory.

If you don't agree with these things and claim to be a feminist then you're only a feminist in the sense that someone who doesn't believe in the bible or Jesus is a Christian. At which point the label becomes irrelevant.

which is why their definitions can be different

Which is why it has feminism has no value as an ideology. It means whatever they want it to mean. However in order to have any meaningful discussions about feminism there must be some standards set for what it means and what those terms mean.

and use them at the same time.

Yes.If you're dishonest. Which is why people like that do it. It allows them to hide by giving them fall back positions.

So why did he use the term radical feminist then?

As I said, for the same reason Christians use the term "evangelical Christian".

To think there is only one understanding of a word is...well wow.

Never said that.

I guess I disagree because of my sloppy thinking.

No, you say things like what you said above because of your sloppy thinking skills. Also things like this.

and you I guess because you're apparently not an MRA even though seem to be advocating for men's rights

Actually I don't. I don't advocate for anything aside rational and critical thinking.

which is the type of feminism MRA's.....typically refer to as feminism in general.

Because it is feminism in general. But with any group of feminists there's going to be the same basic tenets, and since those are the ones most people take issues with.....

Again, take religion. The problems with religion are not the extremists. It's the underlying ideas. The extremists are merely an obvious symptom of that. All religious get their ideas from the same source, the difference is in what they do with those ideas and how they apply them.

The same thing applies to feminism.Feminism uses the same basic ideas, regardless of the type,and those ideas are shit. The different versions of feminists just use the shit for different kinds of manure.

So no, the fact he does not like radfems is not evidence that he does not adhere to many of the standard feminist beliefs, because the radfems are what they are because of the conclusion, not the idea.

You don't need to be a radfem to believe in patriarchy, for instance. Even feminists who say they aren't radfems still say they believe in patriarchy.

Well, you finally admitted that there are multiple types of feminism,

I never said otherwise. And what do you mean "finally" it was one of the first things I said in that post.

so by that one statement you have defeated much of your own argument.

No it doesn't. I mean it might because you obviously aren't actually responding to my argument,so I suppose in your subjective reality it does. But I don't really see how that's relevant.

The egocentric nature of your argument is astounding. Generalizations of Cenk's labeling need to be drawn, and they need to be drawn in a way that fits with your worldview. Amazing. And you're the non-sloppy thinker here.

I'm sorry, was there an argument in there? Because this doesn't actually address the argument you quoted. In fact it outright misinterprets what you quoted.

Since you're so keen on fallacies I'm sure I don't have to point out to you the two that you used there.

How often do we see this. You disagree with me therefore I don't understand what I am talking about.

You're right. That is used all the time in that manner. However you actually very clearly don't understand what you are talking about. Not because you don't agree, but because you clearly don't understand.

Just because some people use that as a cheap dismissal does not mean it is necessarily being used in such a manner every time it is brought up.

By the way, what you just said was also a cheap dismissal.

Not only that, I don't agree with the spirit of your argument at all.

Yes, the problem is that you have no real counterargument.

Thanks for the tip, and on a side note for you, calling an argument fallacious IS giving a reason not to buy into the argument.

Yes, but if you can't even explain what the fallacy is or why it's fallacious......

[–]atheist4thecause[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pornography_saves_li -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pornography_saves_li -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Proselytizing is a religious act,

That is one form of proselytizing where missionaries try to go out and convert people to their religion, but actually any belief falls under proselytizing. Here's a definition:

convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.

Yes, religion is in there, but notice the "belief" and "opinion" words. Technically, you were proselytizing to me that the system is broken and needs fixing. You were proselytizing to me that Cenk didn't listen to Karen. Also, if you want to define proselytizing as a religious act, that excludes atheists by definition so you defeat your own argument there.

There is also 'false religions' to account for

"False religion" sounds like "not religion" to me.

Atheists tend, by a good margin, to be FAR more annoyingly pushy when it comes to their faith than anything short of ISIS.

How would you know if an atheist wasn't being pushy? You wouldn't hear about them. Also, there's nothing about being "annoyingly pushy" that makes a person religious. Do you want to know what of the most proselytizing groups of people: Intactivists. Again, there's nothing with trying to convince others to hold your position.

[–]Pornography_saves_li -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pornography_saves_li -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[S] -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	TYT Watch: Cenk Interviews Karen Straughan (GirlWritesWhat)
Author	atheist4thecause
Upvotes	4
Comments	72
Date	February 4, 2015 5:37 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2urvvn/tyt_watch_cenk_interviews_karen_straughan/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/tyt-watch-cenk-interviews-karen-straughan.988855 https://theredarchive.com/post/988855

Comments