There are much much better sources for arguments against power imbalances than feminism, why didn’t you pick those?
Um… it seemed like too much work, so I intentionally pointed at a source with below-average reputation on LW, then directed attention at how that source handles its case in an unusually reasoned, consistent manner. Which should imply that evidence for it must be plentiful and come easy. (“Patriarchy: so obvious and oppressive that even a feminist could see it!” Sorry.)
Also yeah, don’t worry, I didn’t really assume that you abandoned all prudence here and just looked for something illiberal to say, in order to signal cool metacontrarianism. I have a considerably higher opinion of you :)
The problem might simply be that I often argue with your stuff from some weird idiosyncrasic position, while you might do the sensible thing for open debates: write with the average LWer opinion in mind and direct much of your reasoning at it—which might make your points look too skewed to me.
I totally want to resurrect Hitler and am creating a secret army in my Antarctic base for him to command.
You actually want the original? Man, you’re too late by far, maybe if you hurry up you could grab a cheap 4th-order Hitler clone with blueprints at some EvilCo sale.
P.S.: fun fact, Chesterton criticized feminism because he felt that it was contributing to the destruction of an older, better familial order… that is, Matriarchy in all but name! If, like me, you ever felt sick after reading the stereotypical amoral PUA shit about gender, reading him is an antidote; gets the sleaze right out. Chesterton was certainly masterful at opposing any ever-modern “misanthropic” creed. I’m not saying I’d really endorse his arguments, but they’re a delight to contemplate.
Sorry, I should’ve clarified. Make that “publicized modern feminist activists”, as some LW readers believe them to be dogmatic and epistemologically unsound, or even unproductive for their own cause. Feminist ideas as such—like all the gender-sensitivity stuff—are widespread here.
Um… it seemed like too much work, so I intentionally pointed at a source with below-average reputation on LW, then directed attention at how that source handles its case in an unusually reasoned, consistent manner. Which should imply that evidence for it must be plentiful and come easy.
(“Patriarchy: so obvious and oppressive that even a feminist could see it!” Sorry.)
Also yeah, don’t worry, I didn’t really assume that you abandoned all prudence here and just looked for something illiberal to say, in order to signal cool metacontrarianism. I have a considerably higher opinion of you :)
The problem might simply be that I often argue with your stuff from some weird idiosyncrasic position, while you might do the sensible thing for open debates: write with the average LWer opinion in mind and direct much of your reasoning at it—which might make your points look too skewed to me.
You actually want the original? Man, you’re too late by far, maybe if you hurry up you could grab a cheap 4th-order Hitler clone with blueprints at some EvilCo sale.
P.S.: fun fact, Chesterton criticized feminism because he felt that it was contributing to the destruction of an older, better familial order… that is, Matriarchy in all but name!
If, like me, you ever felt sick after reading the stereotypical amoral PUA shit about gender, reading him is an antidote; gets the sleaze right out. Chesterton was certainly masterful at opposing any ever-modern “misanthropic” creed. I’m not saying I’d really endorse his arguments, but they’re a delight to contemplate.
What do you mean by this? Is feminism disfavored here? If so, in what way?
Sorry, I should’ve clarified. Make that “publicized modern feminist activists”, as some LW readers believe them to be dogmatic and epistemologically unsound, or even unproductive for their own cause. Feminist ideas as such—like all the gender-sensitivity stuff—are widespread here.
Ah, okay. Thanks for the clarification!
Freudian slip?