6 Logical Fallacies You Can Expect From Feminists And SJWs

Logic and reason have never been the strong points of feminists and the social justice crowd. Really, we are truly overwhelmed by how often they slander, sabotage, and twist around our arguments with their childish bickering, profanity-laced tirades, and all-round third rate debating skills.

You can learn about a wide range of logical fallacies right here, but there are six specific fallacies which feminists and social justice warriors are particularly prone to use whenever they land on a manosphere website. Did you write an article about short hair, eating disorders, or ugly tattoos? Chances are you might become acquainted with a few (if not all) of these fallacies in a single counter-argument.

1. The Strawman fallacy

strawman

Is this your husband? Because you speak of him all the time…

The Strawman fallacy, or sometimes laughably called the “Straw Person” fallacy by SJWs who get all riled up on gender neutrality issues, is the deliberate exaggeration and misrepresentation of somebody’s argument. This is the first fallacy explored in this article precisely because it’s also the most commonly used by our opponents. Jesus H. Christ, do the feminists and social justice warriors ever love to strawman.

To showcase a prominent example of this fallacy, Ana Kasparian (the stuck-up talking head of “The Young Turks” fame) presents a lengthy tirade against Roosh’s article “No One Would Have Died If PUAHate Killer Elliot Rodger Learned Game” in the upcoming video, which aired back in 2014.

Of particular interest, she attacks a segment of his article which is read between the 2:00 – 2:35 minute marker. At this point, Ana exaggerates and misrepresents Roosh’s statement to such an extent, that she thinks (that he thinks) the female victims of Elliot Rodger’s rampage “deserved to get shot and deserved to get attacked.

C’mon missy. You and I both damn well know that Roosh did not say, nor imply, anything to that matter.

2. Ad hominem

finger-pointing

All of you “Kings” have tiny penises!

“Ad Hominem” is attacking somebody’s character or personality traits in a much more confrontational attempt to undermine their argument. With many feminists and SJW’s being naturally profane, degenerate, and all-around insufferable human beings, using ad hominem attacks against the manosphere comes naturally for them.

Be on the lookout for exclamations that we all have “tiny penises”, that we should all go “jump off a cliff,” that we are “fetid little trolls,” and all other colorful variations of misandry mayhem coming out of their sewer chutes.

3. Anecdotal evidence

anecdote

Or your short hair and tattoos…

Anecdotes are personal experiences or isolated examples given as testimony from a third party. Their counter-argument generally has the implied purpose of demeaning or giving less credibility to the original argument, while at the same time offering no compelling evidence to back up their claims.

Matt Forney’s world famous article “5 Reasons Why Girls With Tattoos And Piercings Are Broken” is absolutely brimming with anecdotes from SJW’s as to why (they think) his article is complete rubbish, even though there are a lot of truths within the piece. The hilariously cut-and-paste formula for their rebuttal goes a little something like this…

As a woman with _____ tattoos and ____ piercings, I will have you know I

am not ______ and I am not a _____. I am happily ______ with ______

children and I am a ______, ______, and ______ person. I was educated at

the finest ________ where I studied _______. My tattoo is not _____, it

is ______ and _______. I got it after a ______-changing experience

where I visited ______ and _______ with the ______.

You are a vicious _________ and a _______, and I hope you ______.

4. Cherry Picking

cherry picking

This is a bad cherry, so all of your cherries must be bad!

Also known as the “Texas sharpshooter fallacy,” this is a false cause fallacy in which someone takes a very small cluster of data (usually a single sentence in an otherwise lengthy article or video) to suit their own argument.

In the case of feminists and SJW’s when they are attacking the manosphere, this is often with the intention of discrediting the article or video in it’s entirety. One particularly “bad” sentence could be all it takes to trigger a full-on doxing witch hunt.

Cherry picking is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, and since paying full attention and listening to reason are major hurdles for our opponents, expect plenty of this fallacious fruit to be harvested from your written and spoken words.

5. Appeal to emotion

Scared-woman

but but but……. my feewings!

Appeal to emotion, or more fancifully known as “argumentum ad passiones,” is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient’s emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence. Everyone (barring sociopaths) has emotions, and are certainly capable of letting those emotions conflict with logic.

However, because women are far more emotionally driven creatures than men, appeals to emotion are a massive problem for them. Go back to a Return of Kings classic like “Girls With Short Hair Are Damaged” and you can observe the flood of butthurt female commentary which is bursting with emotional zeal. And to think it’s all over short hair…

6. Tu Quoque

fierce argument

You’re a turd sandwich! No, YOU’RE a turd sandwich!!

Pronounced as ‘”too-kwo-kwee” and also known as the “appeal to hypocrisy,” this fallacy literally translates as “you too” or “back to you.” It is usually employed as an effective, though incredibly immature, red herring in order to take the heat off of someone having to defend their argument.

By doing so, they not only prevent the debate from proceeding any further, but in their warped minds they will consider themselves the “winner” just as long as they make the final insult.

The “Giant Douche versus Turd Sandwich” presidential debate from a popular 2004 episode of South Park captured a tu quoque standoff flawlessly. Poor Turd Sandwich, he simply cannot accept an irrefutable truth about himself.

Conclusion

Finally, we must we honest with ourselves. Everybody uses logical fallacies when laying out their arguments at some stage. Even among ourselves on Return of Kings. “Cherry picking” a single sentence for scrutiny, at the expense of an otherwise good article, happens on a fairly regular basis. There’s no doubt it’s irksome to the authors who spent many hours composing the piece.

The best we can hope to do is keep our own fallacies to a minimum, both in their frequency and the intensity of their damage. Still, there is no denying that the bastard children of the Frankfurt School, feminists and SJW’s, use fallacious attacks far more often than we could ever fathom.

After all, their ideologies are all based around lies and deceit anyway.

If you like this article and are concerned about the future of the Western world, check out Roosh’s book Free Speech Isn’t Free. It gives an inside look to how the globalist establishment is attempting to marginalize masculine men with a leftist agenda that promotes censorship, feminism, and sterility. It also shares key knowledge and tools that you can use to defend yourself against social justice attacks. Click here to learn more about the book. Your support will help maintain our operation.

Read More: 5 Reasons To Date A Girl With An Eating Disorder

229 thoughts on “6 Logical Fallacies You Can Expect From Feminists And SJWs”

  1. Great Article. I was actually going to post a copy of “The Form” we have been using on the branded broad thread, and then there it was in #3! Well done. If anyone wants to see real life examples of #2, take a stroll down the branded broad thread, 40,000+ examples there.

  2. What is noticeable is how many politicians use
    all of these too.
    Politics firmly captured by leftist/feminist agenda.
    The UK General Election (Labour party in particular) is entirely run on straw men arguments, appeals to emotion and anecdotal bullshit

    1. The U.S., British, and Israeli governments also use the “slippery slope” fallacy so much like it’s going out of fashion. They always claim if Iran is allowed to have a peaceful nuclear program, then they will inevitably make bombs to annihilate Israel, etc. It’s all a bunch of crap.

      1. Here (the UK) it’s been proved time and time again that the vast majority of jobs created in the economy in the past 5 years have NOT been zero-hours, insecure work, and yet the left parrot that they have every fucking time.
        I can’t believe the get away with such blatant fucking lies.
        Why do they get away with it? Because the populous is primed to accept emotion over fact.
        Facts are oppressive

      2. What makes you think Iran would never use nuclear weapons? They have no respect for life, and they have demonstrated that their word means shit.

        1. Love your handle, hate your argument. The very same thing can be said about ANY government, especially the USA. Don’t believe me? Go to a Reservation and ask an Indian.

        2. I do believe you. The difference is we don’t want to die. Hence no nuclear holocaust during the cold war with Russia.

        3. HIstory? The fact that if they did their country could and likely would be turned into glass very quickly — remembers that Israel has nuclear weapons, as does the US, UK, France, and Pakistan as well.
          Recommended reading for all of the rabid Iran haters: Operation Ajax and how Mohammad Reza Pahlavi came into power.
          And finally, why did the Iranians seize our embassy in Tehran in 1979?
          Anybody?
          You may just discover that the anti-Iran propaganda we’ve all been exposed to since the embassy incident is a bunch of bullshit.

        4. Indeed. It is rather extraordinary that any clear thinking individual believes the propaganda emanating from the government and its compliant servant, the media.

        5. Every thing is a possibility. All you can do is try to make an educated guess. The countries that have the bomb already, will keep them. Nothing we can do. But we can’t make it easy for people not afraid of death to get it.

  3. So, what’s the right course of arguing with these people? Showing them studies as proof? Exposing their hypocrisy? Ignoring them?
    Whatever the answer is, why writers of RoK don’t always follow it? A lot of articles on RoK are just accusations targeted towards women for doing this and that, where this and that makes them out of our control. I’m just trying to comprehend why authors who brag about being logical and rational beings use these same bullshit fallacies so often? With so little articles being supported by logical and observable evidence it undermines the credibility of articles and makes these articles and their authors look like a clickbait trash comunity for frustrated and lost fags.

    1. Sometimes overtly pointing out the specific strategy (“that’s a strawman argument”) they are using can be effective. It keeps you from reacting on an emotional level and exposes how weak and manipulative their argument is. A lot of times they aren’t even aware that they are doing it because it’s habitual. It will knock them off balance and force them to reengage on a logical, not emotional level. If they can’t do it they are likely to get frustrated and try to make an ad hominem attack before storming off as you laugh.

      1. Have you really debated these people? Pointing out logical fallacies doesn’t cause them to engage rationally… it causes them to ‘double down’ on defending their fallacy.

    2. If they have no agency, then their opinions do not matter, if they hold any opinions at all.
      If they have agency, and they don’t hold any real opinions, then they may be co-opted through the premise of being reasonable.
      See José Ortega y Gasset’s “The Revolt of the Masses” for why the masses typically do not hold opinions …

  4. It also irks me when people flippantly shrug off the problems of a certain place because these problems exist elsewhere. For example, the whole you shouldn’t complain about degeneracy in Canada because muh starving African children who have it worse than you argument. This isn’t restricted to the Cult Marx crowd and seems to be quite common place. Im not sure if it’s officially categorized as an argumentative fallacy but it should be if it isn’t.

    1. Why should anyone care about a problem with which they are not personally involved?
      Why on earth should I give a fuck about children starving in Africa?

      1. That…. imo it’s either be Nationlistic or envision Utopia with the fruitcakes.
        You can tell by my picture that I am not of the latter mind.

  5. Comedian Bill Burr has a great bit where he talks about how women argue. He points out that once a woman has lost the debate she will hit you with a comment that targets your deepest insecurities in order to get you to flip out emotionally. If she does this, don’t respond to it, just recognize that you have already won.
    The list above is great but leaves out one of their favorite tactics. If all else fails they will play the victim card and claim they went through some sort of trauma. This shields them from further criticism and ends the discussion, because social convention dictates you don’t pick on a victim or pry into someone’s difficult past.

        1. The situation below is really no different.
          Logic and reason is irrelevant.
          ok ok – w/ a fem one can only smile & nod where as w/ a lib one must cease & desist entirely.

        2. It’s quite true. However, the same argument will apply toward alt-right Conservatives as well. The common ground is the middle ground which tends to be the most stable with the most rational-minded folks supporting it.

      1. I just let people talk themselves in circles. I learned a decade ago if you actually compete in a debate then it will go nowhere. However, if you just sit back and listen and point out fallacies or falsehoods then you may actually get a point across. Then again, so many people are delusional these days…

      2. I would also like to add ignoring them and adding a facial expression that says “you seriously are not worth my time” works pretty good too, depends on the situation the mood may strike to get into an argument with a fucking dolt just for shits n’giggles.

        1. The best argument for a woman is to draw attention to her weight. “You know, I have noticed that just about every girl that is pro-abortion gets fat like, only a few years after they leave their teens. Do you think getting an abortion causes obesity? You look like you might have had an abortion or six…”

        1. Indeed. Amusingly, it is simply another emotional reaction to their inability or unwillingness to accept reality.

        2. Then shame that by calling it “girlnorance” …
          It’s not “womanorance” because they’re behaving like girls …

      3. And as I mention, just as horny as if you’d put them across your knee and spanked their bottom until it glowed.

    1. Burr is correct in his analyses. It’s just a shame he sold out and ended up marrying into the enemy philosophy.

      1. I was also saddened to see his recent descent into softness and madness. Used to like the guy, but his last bit was painful to watch.

        1. Incidentally, i haven’t overlooked your “catholic” response to me. I’m just collating all the necessary info i need in order to respond to you properly 🙂

    2. Maybe we should start picking on victims and prying into people’s pasts. I don’t mean to sound like an asshole but being a victim does not and should not shield one from criticism.
      “Are you saying you want to attack rape victims?” Yes, I am saying I want to attack rape victims. Just to get that out of the way.

  6. Be careful.
    Anecdotal evidence that can be backed up and verified can be used to effectively discredit universal statements that are made by one side in a debate.
    The lesson is that one should narrow the focus of such statements so that “one off” examples cannot be used in such a manner.

  7. Great article. A few other common fallacies used by SJWs are:
    Guilt by association (a species of ad hominem). Example: “Madonna posted a tweet about Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher hated teh gehyz, so Madonna must too.”
    The genetic fallacy, which is dismissing an argument because of its source. Example: “You say smoking is bad for your health., You know who else thought smoking was bad? The Nazis!
    Begging the question, which is when you already assume that the conclusion of the argument is true. SJWs often do this by front-loading assumptions as adjectives. For example, “The misogynist Roosh V said women should drink responsibly to reduce their chances of getting raped. He’s a misogynist!” Or, “Some celebrity made racist comments about….”

    1. careful there, these days not even dead POC saints are free of scrutiny. Example: Gandhi. Hmm, I see Che Guevara was also a racist.

  8. If you want to sharpen your skills, come to the comments section of Five Reasons Why Women With Tattoos and Piercings are Broken.
    *****************
    The article is 7 months old and the Butt-Hurt Feminist Brigade is still showing up every few days to let us know that we should find their stupid solipsist tattoos attractive.
    *****************
    Sort your comments by “Most Recent”. They are STILL coming.

    1. We are getting feminist trolls? JOY! I look forward to engaging them figuratively and NOT literally, since they tend to be about as attractive as the business end of a pissed off skunk.
      Can you recommend some names to look out for? There are several comments there.

      1. Here is a brief list of recent trolls to the Tattoo Story.
        ************************************************
        Shane/Jane/Jordan/Mercedes/Lexus/Trixie/Bambi/
        BabyGurl/Swallow/Precious/Angel/Jenna/Houston/Sapphire/
        Fantasia/Vixen/Jade/Jasmine/Dallas/Nella/Lisbeth/Maya/
        Amy/Honey/Cougar/Will/Myself/Tatted Mom/auntlisa/
        eleni/Beth/Jessica/Crystal/Krotius/Ellsworth/Melody/Emma/
        Emily/Naomi Lixit
        ***************************************************
        I’m sure it has not escaped you that these all sound like tiddie dancer names.

        1. Who are also felons and dug addicts at the same time.
          Trust me, I’ve worked in a strip club, barely anybody is there by CHOICE. They either have no other job/life skills or can’t get any other job due to felonies!
          Don’t buy into that whole bullshit Hollywood “Paying her way through college!” myth, either. You know how many such girls I ever met? ONE! Whose boyfriend happened to be a drug dealer, go figure! What woman ever has to pay for college herself, anyway? Daddy or Sugar Daddy or Betaboy always has it handled!

        2. You got that right. Milo who started Night Trips in OKC is a friend of mine. The stories he tells about those girls are enough to cause a straight man to see gay public park bathroom sex as a more hygienic option.

        3. It’s sad, bro. Completely soulless, dead-inside creatures. The things you have to do when you have more kids than you can afford to feed!

    2. Return of Kings base is under attack by SJW’s (Social Justice Walkers)? Grab your harpoons and tow cables. We’re on our way!!

    3. I wonder what it will be like around Christmas when she is a crone. I can hear it now, “Show us your tattoos grandma!” / “Naw, they’re faded and I don’t feel like straightening out my wrinkled sagging skin. Go ask your grandpa to show you his genital piercings again.”

      1. Here is one of my favorites from the tattoo thread.
        ***************
        Note the skeletonized swallow. Granny got this tattoo late in her game. She still wants for the world to know that she is available, and what she has to offer.

        1. Now that is intergenerational empowerment that Grandma is sharing with little Suzie!
          **********
          GRRRRRRRRRL POWER!

        2. Don’t get me wrong. Girls who swallow are great and all of that, but advertising through a tattoo is a lot like being a homosexual and demanding that the entire world accept and praise one’s “bravery” just because he has a preference for one of the less common sex acts.
          ***********
          I wish they would just do what they do as one adult to another without demanding that I somehow publicly bless and affirm the righteous nature of their particular brand of buggery.

      2. I’ll tell you what it will look like. It’ll look like a painter’s palette where he mixes colors of paint together to make a specific color. You’ll have to be on acid and imagine what that image is/was.

    4. The worst part about the tattoo thing is while there are biker chicks and “alt models” who do go for some very elaborate tattoos, the vast majority of the tattoos I see out there are on fat women and the tattoos suck too.
      Pro tip, ladies: putting tattoos on your big fat thighs does not stop them from being big fat thighs. And that you are wearing baggy shorts and flip flops with said big fat tattoo thighs makes you look as stupid as you do a fat cow.

        1. You have produced a respectable body of work.
          ************
          How have you managed to avoid commenting on the tattoo story?

        2. Ossifer, I swear, I have a day job and I can only do this commenting thing when I’m drunk driving on the Internet …

        3. Ah, yes, read on these works, that show of such an exercise may colour your amusement — we are oft to blame in this, ’tis too much proved, that with devotion’s visage and with pious action we do sugar o’er the devil himself …

        4. For your edification — Hamlet’s speech to Ophelia:
          “If thou dost marry, I’ll give thee this plague for thy dowry: be thou as chaste as ice, as pure as snow, thou shalt not escape calumny. Get thee to a nunnery, go: farewell. Or, if thou wilt needs marry, marry a fool; for wise men know well enough what monsters you make of them. To a nunnery, go, and quickly too. Farewell.”
          — Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1
          There’s also that “to be, or not to be” bit, if you’re remotely curious about that.

        5. I like Jones a lot.
          **************
          I haven’t the heart to tell him I strongly prefer Milton to Shakespeare. In fact I despise Shakespeare and would rather read Voltaire or Goethe.

        6. Sorry to hear that. I’ve long liked Shakespeare. Plays are meant to be seen in performance more than to be read, and the quality of that performance makes all the difference. Shakespeare is too often mangled, even by some of the “greats.” Fortunately, some really good film versions have come out in the past few decades. The 2004 release of The Merchant of Venice with Jeremy Irons, Al Pacino and Lynn Collins was outstanding. It very closely follows the original play, and Pacino gives by far the best portrayal of Shylock I’ve ever seen.

        7. After DeNiro, I think Pacino is the greatest living actor. Maybe those Italian fellas could convince me to like Shakespeare.

        8. My limited lifespan is finely divided among many loves. Shakespeare already has his masses of followers. He won’t miss me much as I spend my evenings in my shop working on old cars and motorcycles with friends and my son.
          *************************
          Speaking of those loves, I’ll be spending the front half of my 50th birthday sailing with the boys in our Scout Troop. They’ll get to see a competitive side to me that none but my own boy has experienced. I haven’t sailed since before my kids were born and spending the daylight hours of that day with our unit reprising one of my favorite things to do from my own youth will be pretty close to perfect.

        9. Bound to become a new trend — Shakespeare and chile on Sunday.
          Some years ago, I took a couple of upper division Theater History classes for grins. In one of them a couple of hard-core feminists got on an anti-Shakespeare rant in a discussion. You know, evil Shakespeare was a misogynist, so all his work has to be scrubbed and re-written (never mind that it was written in the 16th century). I asked them how their opinion was justified by The Merchant of Venice. They looked at me questioningly, as if they’d never read it, which they probably hadn’t. You know, I told them — the one where the men (Antonio and Bassanio) screw up royally, but Portia (the woman) — saves their butts. The men then screw up again, but Portia — the woman — rescues them again. Then they betray Portia and screw up yet again, but Portia, the woman, forgives them and saves them yet again. I told them that that didn’t sound too anti-woman to me.

        10. “What, sir, would the people of the earth be without woman? They would be scarce, sir, almighty scarce.” Mark Twain
          Vive la différence! 😉

        11. How great is that!
          Best wishes for a happy and healthy birthday with many happy and healthy returns of the day!
          I envy your Scout Troops. They will probably have the time of their lives!
          I, personally, never went sailing. My sister, brother-in-law, and their four children go ever year in the summer to Newport, Rhode Island for a few days to do just that. It sounds incredible!
          Four years ago, I went white water rafting in Maine with my family. it was positively amazing. As my youngest put it, (he is now 10, he was then 6), “That was totally wicked!!!” : )

        12. My favorite thing in the world to do with friends is to load up a bunch of big canoes and spend 4 days or so traveling down a good river, fishing, cooking, camping, talking and enjoying life as we go.
          *************
          My wife will be in California on business during my birthday, so spending the day with the boys will be the next best thing.
          *************
          Believe it or not, it will be 5 weeks before there is a weekend available when we can both float a river. That will be my birthday with her. Three other experienced couples will join us. Well start a Lake Francis on the upper Illinois River early Friday morning and float almost all of the way to Lake Tenkiller over the next three days. The trip is 56 miles and we won’t have to push hard to make it.

        13. Now there’s an idea!
          I will gladly mention it to David. I know he is into going to new places, but being together would indeed make it more special.

        14. How great is that?!
          I hope you have the best of health and weather to enjoy it all with. There is nothing better in life than great friends and family.
          (At the end of one’s life, all you have are the memories. Knowing that one lived life to the fullest is the greatest consolation one can ever have.)

        15. That’s a freedom worth retaining, I love fly fishing and though friends can do it, I’m quite at peace fishing a river into the evening by myself, with the views that can’t be bought and some of the biggest trout in the world, I don’t often eat them anymore but I still get a thrill catching them even letting them go is a great feeling. I crush the barb on the hook to make it easier to turn them loose.

        16. The production of Titus, made for film in the last decade with Anthony Hopkins as Titus Andronicus and other worthies as co stars was something that I enjoyed the second time as much as the first and hope you can watch it with the same enjoyment.

        17. There’s a reconstructed version of the Globe Theatre in Southwark, London if you’re curious — during the summers it’s swarmed over by tourists, but when it’s colder, you can actually get near it.

        18. I would rather be Voltaire, but I also read Shakespeare. 🙂
          In fact, I believe the world would be considerably better if there were more people like Voltaire: I’d prefer a lot less Sherlock Holmes and a lot more Professor Moriarty, to put things another way …

        19. When Voltaire wrote “Candide” he was writing the story of my life, with two notable exceptions.
          *************
          1.) I have never married an ugly whore.
          2.) I am definitely not “simple”.

        1. Exercise extreme vigilance when you see blue stars on chicks …
          That’s a coded signal for lesbianism.

    5. I wonder if she’s holding her arms like that to hide the razor marks on the insides of her forearms?

    6. LOL those trolls there keep coming back for more punishment! I waited last night but they never showed!

      1. (Responded to the wrong post a moment ago.)
        **************
        Hiesenberg told me once that they’re planning, and they will be back.
        **************
        I’ve got some real Deusies lined up for the next wave.

        1. An American friend tonight, paraphrased:
          “I’ve seen these videos of skanky women on British trains throwing things, getting into bitch fights, and dragging White Knight assholes into the messes they make. Americans don’t do this because Americans can throw bullets instead …”
          Who needs rocks?

        2. A few years ago, before Wisconsin had concealed carry, a large group of youths set upon families leaving the State Fair. They threw rocks at the cars, busted windshields, tried to tip cars, robbed a few people, and were generally a bunch of pricks.
          *************
          That would never happen in Oklahoma. Thugs here somehow have apprehended the knowledge that eating a face full of Silvertips is bad for your figure.

  9. Good Article! #3 Cut and Paste response was classic and dead on! The Hegelian dialectic which is fundamental to ruling our new colorblind, multi-cultural societies involves setting people up to argue over one ideological conflict after another. Each of these conflicts changes society in a fundamental way that brings us closer and closer to having one single ideology. Any academic familiar with Hegel will agree on the Hegelian process: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.
    For example, if the issue of abortion is brought into public debate, people will coalesce around the views that are pro-abortion and the views that are anti-abortion. This public debate will continue for a certain time, and at some point the two views will be reconciled by some over-arching view, and the two groups will be ideologically fused into one single group.
    This process has been a couple of hundred years in the making, dating back to the debates between socialism and capitalism. Over and over again the cycle continues, and more middle grounds are achieved, until in the final stage we achieve a radical middle, “a new theory of law that is acceptable to everyone but is appealing to no one in particular.”

    1. That would actually be fine except for the fact that the issues involved cannot be compromised upon. Or if there IS a compromise, the goalposts are moved in order to make it impossible to compromise again.
      Women can either vote or they cannot. Compromise automatically means victory for ‘women can vote’.
      abortion is either evil or it is not. compromising automatically makes it not evil… whether that is in certain situations or all situations is irrelevant, compromise means immediate and complete surrender.
      In the ‘real world’ there is not such thing as a ‘radical middle’

  10. This is an insightful article but you forgot to include the pseudo intellectual remark that takes a plausible circumstance and duplicitously attempts to create a fact around it aka the specious argument, and of course the classic non sequitur.
    The first might go something like this:
    Female: “women have reported rapes at an increasing rate since the year 2000, therefore rape culture exists. More women are therefore being raped than ever before”
    Upon superficial examination the first sentence seems plausible and may be considered true if one doesn’t bother to follow up with research. Yes, more women are reporting rapes HOWEVER that does NOT mean that ALL those reports must be considered accurate, or even legitimate, especially given the numerous examples of infamous false rape allegations that we have become aware of. Imagine how many more false rape charges are happening against Men that we are NOT aware of?
    The first sentence becomes invalidated when one does the necessary research and therefore ends up completely discrediting the second. The example is a typical specious argument the left in general tends to make.
    The second is the classic non sequitur.
    It usually happens when your argument is rock solid and involves a chicanery of sorts from your opponent that attempts to invalidate your argument using some completely irrelevant (and oftentimes slanderous) remark.
    Let’s say i was debating a feminist and they used the specious remark i mentioned earlier and i responded to them no less different than what i presented before.
    It might go something like this:
    Me: All rapes are not legitimate just because they are being reported by females. Yes, more women are reporting rapes HOWEVER that does NOT mean that ALL those reports must be considered accurate, or even legitimate, especially given the numerous examples of infamous false rape allegations that we have become aware of. Imagine how many more false rape charges are happening against Men that we are NOT aware of?
    I might even throw in: All snigs are not snags just because all snags are snigs.
    The typical feminist would thus respond like this:
    “Don’t you realize how bad women have it in our society? We don’t get equal pay, we don’t get equal rights, we don’t get equal anything!”
    (misandrist insult optional)
    Do you see? rather than addressing my remark on the same intellectual battleground, she chooses instead to flee faster than a skinhead at a black panther rally and drops some completely irrelevant remark while doing so.
    The remark could also be considered a red herring, depending on the intent.

  11. Good article. When I take a step back to observe from a neutral point of view, the whole thing is really sad considering how men and women are supposed to form relationships and work together with mutual respect. This is what happens to a society when you have bullshit version of gender equality forcefully enforced, men and women become competitors, not companions.

  12. This is how crazy these bitches are. 2 MONTHS AGO this feminist came on here starting trouble. I told her to fuck off. She answered a 2 month old post to me which I forgot about 3 days ago. Here is the full interaction:
    HER POST 2 MONTHS AGO
    It is very shocking to see men simply do not believe that a woman’s goal in life is not be their house servant.Really is that so hard to believe? Is it hard to think that a woman should be treated like a human being? If you ask any girl even if she is a teenager, nobody will tell you that what they want to do in life is clean and cook for you, no, women are intelligent and they want to achieve amazing things, and are doing so every day.
    MY REPLY 2 MONTHS AGO
    You are so right! Women have had the vote for 100 years (20th Century) which was the bloodiest century in the history of mankind. And all the incredible works of art they have produced since their liberation make Michael Angelo look like a finger painter! The great musical compositions make Mozart look like a child, the amazing scientific progress they have made makes Tesla look utterly foolish, the social stability they have brought to the table with their egalitarian prattle makes Lycurgus seem like a simpleton. America is in such better shape than when I was a lad back in the 60’s & 70’s, when we could just leave our door unlocked and wide open and go shopping without any fear. Yes, America is soooo much better after 100 years of womens suffrage and womens liberation of the 60’s!
    The fight against racism and social inequality has pushed more than 1 BILLION people into early graves since 1900. All the revolutions since the French Revolution have been about equality and they have all ended bloody! The term terrorism was originally coined to describe the original state-sponsored terrorism called The Red Terror!
    Nature abhors a vacuum and when you kill God He must be replaced with something else. This is always the state. The state is deified and we get our new prophet Hitler, Pol Pot, Lenin, Stalin, Franco, Mussolini, Mao, Reagan, Obama, etc. ad nauseum…
    The idea that all men are created equal, first proclaimed as part of a national ideology by the American Declaration of Independence in 1776, is probably the most influential socio-moral-political idea of the modern world. It is also the most fundamental and axiomatic; for the Declaration of Independence, after declaring the “self-evident truth all men are created equal”, goes on immediately, in the same sentence, to assert “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights…” In other words, the whole Human Rights philosophy (or religion) of the so-called “international community”, is based on “the egalitarian dogma”; most of the actions of modern politicians are justified on the basis of “human rights”, which in turn are justified on the basis of egalitarianism.
    Even after witnessing the vast upheavals and huge rivers of blood that have been poured out to force equality on the nations of the world since 1776, the world still loves the dogma, still worships it, is still prepared to die for it. Even most Christians, who should know better, regard it as an article of their faith which they believe in with greater sincerity and passion than any other article, including the Holy Trinity or the Divinity of Christ.
    “I know that since the women started out on their crusade they have scored in every project they undertook against unjust laws. I would like to see them help make the laws and those who are to enforce them. I would like to see the whiplash in women’s hands.” ~ Mark Twain – quoted in The New York Times, January 21, 1901.
    Voting is an act of weakness, a form of complicity with a corrupt regime. Universal suffrage is the most refined manifestation of the political charlatanism of the state. It is the surest means of making the masses co-operate in the building of their own prison. So thanks a million for contributing to the incredible society that I find myself living in…
    HER REPLY 2 MONTHS AGO
    yea, you expect women to have the same accomplishments as men in history as they have not had that much time to have them, and society still has a very hard time accepting women as equals, and wants desperatley to push them back into slavery( and saying that all women should be housewifes is just that ) .
    yes, and people have died and will keep dying for freedom.
    women are and will keep making laws, and have an active participation in political life now a lot more that they have had in the past.
    you neglect the fact that this women who are absurd enough to escape the ideal image that men formed in their head about them, needed time and courage to enter a once dominted male enviroment of very strong sexism ( such as you can see on this web-site ) .
    there are so many examples: hilary clinton, angela merkel, margaret tatcher etc. , the llist goes on. ( queen elisabeth the 1st )
    Do women make laws ? they deffinetley do.
    Saying women lack accomplishments is a huge lie , and yes maybe some were not recognized as geniuses but that does not diminish their contributions to society and the world in general.
    you seem to have a very strong belief that a woman’s place in society should be men’s decision, and I am sure you are sure you are in every way superior to them.
    think about this for a change : the most horrible that exist and have existed in the history of mankind have been caused by men.
    what makes you supperior to women is the abuse you are capable of and your efforts to strip them of their rights, and the fact that men have been in power longer than women which gives you the advantage of not being seen as inappropriate.
    the power to vote, is really the only political power the average man holds, and what a corrupt regime is is subject to opinion.
    MY REPLY 2 MONTHS AGO
    Listen here you feminist bitch, this website is not for YOU, it is for Men. Do you crave a little abuse so you can PROVE your feminist points of view or are you just a masochist? We don’t go over to your bullshit feminazi websites and hang out starting trouble, at least I don’t. Yet you bitches come traipsing into hostile territory and start slinging your shit bombs. The only reason feminism has had the impact it has is because it was birthed after the industrial age and set in a very “soft” period of history. Without technology it would be hard drudgery and a womans place in the kitchen would NOT be questioned. You need a good bitch slap about 1000 times, like most men receive in their lives from parents and government. No one coddles us, we are meat for the grinder and you bitches want YOUR hands on the handle. I may forgive you your feminist bullshit if you get down on your knees and beg, and while you are down there suck my dick while you’re at it.
    HER REPLY ( 3 DAYS AGO! ) I believe she IS a masochist…)
    Maybe you should seek some serious help.
    I do not hate men, while you clearly hate women.
    For speaking out, you have just:
    1. Verbally abused me
    2. Threatened me with physical harm
    I do not succumb to physical threats, after all it is what true misogynists want.
    If you do not care for women’s opinions than you clearly are a woman hater, and that makes no sense at all when all the worst things in the world were caused by men.
    Keep writing abuse if you like but dwell a little bit on this comment.
    Hate is not healthy.
    Go ahead with the abusive comments if you like.
    I didn’t answer her and don’t plan on it, I especially like #2, “I threatened her with physical harm.” Where the hell did she get that!?!

    1. It might be the part where you said she needs a 1000 bitch slaps. I understand what you meant but in the mind of a woman…

      1. Thanks for clearing that up Bob. Reminds me of a little joke. There are 3 men and 1 woman standing around the office water cooler chit chatting. One of the men says “The problem with women is they take everything personally.” To which the woman replies “WELL I DON’T!!!”

    2. The standard feminist defense response includes:
      1. You are bullying me and being mean to me
      2. Clearly you hate women which is why you think the things you do.
      3. You need some sort of mental help
      4. I feel threatened by you because of non-specific thing you said to me
      5. (optional) Not all women are like that woman you are talking about

      1. 1. Appeal to emotion
        2. Ad hominem, unwarranted assumption
        3. Ad hominem
        4. Appeal to emotion
        5. Cherry picking, anecdotal, no true Scotsman
        Hmmm… Article checks out.

    3. You gave her the confabulatory equivalent of the Hiroshima bombing with this little gem:
      “You are so right! Women have had the vote for 100 years (20th Century) which was the bloodiest century in the history of mankind. And all the incredible works of art they have produced since their liberation make Michael Angelo look like a finger painter! The great musical compositions make Mozart look like a child, the amazing scientific progress they have made makes Tesla look utterly foolish, the social stability they have brought to the table with their egalitarian prattle makes Lycurgus seem like a simpleton. America is in such better shape than when I was a lad back in the 60’s & 70’s, when we could just leave our door unlocked and wide open and go shopping without any fear. Yes, America is soooo much better after 100 years of womens suffrage and womens liberation of the 60’s!”
      This was to counter her point that “women are intelligent and they want to achieve amazing things, and are doing so every day.”
      Of course in her emo-instinctual mind, your remark was wrong because she doesn’t agree with it. She then has to reverse course and basically undermine her entire point here with this little cubic zirconium of “wisdom”:
      “yea, you expect women to have the same accomplishments as men in history as they have not had that much time to have them”
      So her argument here can be summed up like this:
      Women are achieving amazing things every day except when a man disagrees, then they need more time to achieve amazing things since a 100 years isn’t enough.
      I would have asked her how many years would they need then? A thousand? A million? I would have asked her if Women achieve amazing things every day, why can’t they achieve a means of nullifying the monthly negative effects of a period? I would have asked her why Women didn’t create ibuprofen, an ingredient that treats for menstrual cramps?
      My only issue here is with your use of profanity. No offense, but you already had her on the ropes. When you cursed she probably claimed victory since profanity usually tends to signify the death of a formal debate.
      Did she upset you? I’m curious.
      By the way let me know if you’d like a link to my formal debate with a practicing feminist on here…i’m sure you’d find it interesting.

      1. Given the last century of feminism one would think the following would not be so lopsided:
        *95.6% of all patents are held by men.
        *91% of the nation’s electrical engineers are men.
        *97.6% of electrical power line installers and maintenance workers are men.
        *95.5% of water and liquid waste treatment plant and system operators are men.
        *95.9% of aircraft pilots and flight engineers are men.
        *98.4% of aircraft mechanics and service technicians are men.
        *91.9% of computer network architects, who design and implement all our computer based communications systems are men.
        *94.2% of radio and telecommunications equipment installers and repair technicians are men.
        *93.4% of garbage collectors are men.
        *78.2% of all workers in production, transportation and material moving occupations are men.
        *82.4% of all industrial production managers are men.
        *97.5% of all extraction workers, providing the raw materials to run our economy are men.
        In white collar jobs the vast majority of CEOs and billionaires are men.

        1. Don’t you know? That’s all because of rape culture. All the Men in those statistics chased females away by threatening to rape them if they applied.
          😛

        2. Not at all. The proper feminist punishment for the unsolicited advance of statistical information is self castration.
          This has become…a statistical situation! ha ha.

    4. Her entitlement mentality is quite extraordinary, yet hardly surprising. One who feels entitled will obviously possess no sense of gratitude.

  13. I honestly think we shouldn’t engage with them at all. Its like arguing with an insane toddler. Pointless. Better to focus our efforts on dealing the men who enable them and who hold the power (i.e. politicians and media types)

    1. Well said! But I fear that dealing with politicians and media types will be worse than dealing with women…

    1. The slippery slope is OUR property… If they try to use it, the fact that they are on it themselves bites them in the ass.

  14. Whenever I’ve written to politicians or print journalists challenging them on their opinions or correcting them on things like facts, they have generally responded and are reasonably polite and have engaged with me adult-to-adult. Whenever I challenge feminists (always cordially, but always fact-based) the response I receive goes something like this: “you emailing / tweeting me is incredibly creepy” or/and “you are bullying me” or/and “this is very threatening” or a combination thereof.

    1. Indeed. This is why it is pointless to debate them. You get nothing from them. Better to treat them like a woman and simply tell them to shut it!

  15. “‘Ad Hominem’ is attacking somebody’s character . . . to undermine their argument. With many feminists and SJW’s being naturally profane, degenerate, and all-around insufferable human beings . . .”
    The irony is strong with this one!

      1. I’m not making any effort to undermine his article, because in broad strokes I think he’s right. My reaction to the two sentences was actually “that has to be deliberate/tongue in cheek”.
        As much as anything I was trying to point out that I saw the joke

        1. well, except in this case the actual focus is on their character, because all of their arguments are based on character.
          If you are discussing whether or not someone is a good person, pointing out that they are an evil, self-serving troll does not technically fit the definition of an ‘ad hominem argument’.

        2. Child, please. It is a deliberate and obvious ad hominem attack, and it’s funny. The idea that you can “factually” point out that someone is a self-serving troll is the most contrived nonsense I’ll see today.

  16. I’m seeing a lot more “Y-y-y-you guys are just like ISIS!” being tossed around. Apparently the cliche and trite endless references to Nazis finally wore thin.

    1. maybe their socialist sensibilities finally caught the Socialist part of the National Socialists (NAZI). we shall never know.

    2. Yet I’m willing to bet that most of the people in the western world that are running to join ISIS are leftists.

    3. Except for the fact that I don’t wear a rag on my head, wipe my ass with my bare hand, decapitate people on youtube, fuck camels, claim to be a slave of god, get on my knees 7 times a day, refuse to bathe, and cure STD’s by fucking virgins, that’s exactly right.

  17. http://i.imgbox.com/PK0YAx8g.jpg
    1. The mother of all logical fallacies is BULVERISM. From Wikipedia:
    You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.
    In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it “Bulverism”. Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third — “Oh you say that because you are a man.” “At that moment”, E. Bulver assures us, “there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument.
    http://i.imgbox.com/AGQ3MWRj.jpg
    2. For SJWs logical fallacies and double standards are a feature, not a bug.
    http://i.imgbox.com/cpCbV9cw.png
    http://i.imgbox.com/GHIMbwRI.jpg
    3. Never ever in the history of feminism has a lack of logic or facts stopped feminism.
    http://i.imgbox.com/dypZNZ6s.jpg
    4. You can not fight feminism and SJW with logic. That SJW is spreading and feminism is winning has nothing to do with better arguments or logic. Feminism is winning because it has massive support from women and white knights.
    http://i.imgbox.com/PQZxiVSg.jpg
    http://i.imgbox.com/f1aD6edZ.jpg
    5. You have to fight feminism by attacking those who spread feminism. You have to go personal against feminist women and white knights. Nothing else helps as is proven by the long history of failure of the men’s rights movement.
    http://i.imgbox.com/rta4LGbz.jpg
    http://i.imgbox.com/ugjcaUCM.jpg

    1. I agree with most of this, however i would state that an intellectual (and civilized) debate is still effective when one realizes that the desired result is not to convince the female opponent on logical grounds, but rather to convince the bystander mangina through his innate link to logic and reason.
      If we end up cursing the feminists can simply claim we have no logical ground to stand on. Profanity usually signals the death of formal conversation.
      You can always claim victory when they have to resort to epithets, because they have nothing else left except to slander you shamelessly.
      Why use the feminist equivalent of a debating tactic when engaging in virtual or personal intellectual opposition with feminists?
      I have decimated every feminist argument i have ever encountered using logic, reason and the occasional sarcastic and sardonic remark, especially when i smell blood in the water.
      I recommend you all do so as well.

      1. You can always claim victory when they have to resort to epithets

        This is only some theoretical victory, like the dead pedestrian who was killed by a driver when the driver overlooked red lights. Theoretically the pedestrian had logic, facts and rights on his side. He’s dead anyway.

        I have decimated every feminist argument i have

        But this is the whole point of my post. One can decimate every argument, and yet feminism is spreading, spreading, spreading.
        http://i.imgbox.com/D5q1hENj.jpg
        The last year was one of the best years in feminism’s history.
        You can not outargue children’s desire for sweets. It’s kids’ nature. In the same way you can not outargue feminism, it’s women’s nature. Kids don’t care about your elaborate arguments why sweets are terrible.

        1. “This is only some theoretical victory, like the dead pedestrian who was killed by a driver when the driver overlooked red lights. Theoretically the pedestrian had logic, facts and rights on his side. He’s dead anyway.”
          The purpose behind it marks the difference between a victory with a point and a meaningless one. Maybe that death was witnessed by a bystander who will always remember it and take extra precautions while driving.
          “But this is the whole point of my post. One can decimate every argument, and yet feminism is spreading, spreading, spreading.”
          As i said, the point is not to debate them for the sake of debating them, but rather to win over the bystander manginas witnessing the exchange. There are former manginas who took the red pill but mostly because they came across Alpha males who were demonstrating masculinity and especially against feminism demonstrated by feminists.
          I agree that you cant “outargue” feminism, but that’s not the point I was trying to make. Arguing with a female is the equivalent of what a woman does when she typically engages in a disagreement with a Man aka argue emotionally.
          Debating however implies logic and reason; two things which Men psychologically possess to such an extent that it’s practically a patent.
          Debating for the purpose of giving manginas an example of what a Man TRULY is, allows for the possibility of undoing the chronic social brainwashing that mangina has experienced in his life.
          To paraphrase from your typical modern day zombie fare: “one more of us we save is one less of them we have to fight.”

        2. shooting them is easier.
          But you do have a point. Arguing, debating, discussing, comparing, showing an example to, or explaining to a woman is worthless.
          Men are the ones that need to be convinced. Women’s opinions are meaningless. Without a solid wall of male support, feminism is literally nothing but air.
          Men are the enemy that need to be turned. Not feminist women. They are irrelevant.

        3. I agree with your ratiolate, but i’d like to point something out. Males need to be turned, not Men. There is a difference there i have been encouraging everyone here to purposely note. Men are evolved males or former manginas. Men are red pill, males are not.
          Regardless, my sentiments align with yours. Without manginas, the feminist movement would have NO real power.
          The only victories they’ve had are the ones gender quislings with the Y chromosome gave them.

        4. The purpose behind it marks the difference between a victory with a point and a meaningless one. Maybe that death was witnessed by a bystander who will always remember it and take extra precautions while driving.

          1. In the case of feminism it’s vice versa. Even if a male bystander decides to be more careful, the female bystander will be more reckless because she will realize that she does not have to fear any consequences.
          2. Whatever you do, you should be aware of the age of the problem: http://i.imgbox.com/lW4fPH8d.jpg
          3. Good luck arguing for bystanders about this: http://i.imgbox.com/JzzSBLbw.png

        5. “1. In the case of feminism it’s vice versa. Even if a male bystander decides to be more careful, the female bystander will be more reckless because she will realize that she does not have to fear any consequences.”
          Brother, if we don’t try to help our indoctrinated bystander kinfolk, of what practical use is our wisdom? Look at everything you know now…were you always this astute? If yes, you were fortunate. If not, how did you arrive at a red pill perspective? Did a masculine Man help in any way? If so, it is the obligation you owe to your brethren of the Y chromosome to share your knowledge to help those less fortunate than you. You won’t be able to save everyone but if you can help save one more by exposing the hypocrisy of the feminists through intelligent civilized debate, that is one less mangina in the world doomed to a lifetime of mediocrity. You are of course free to disagree, but i ask you at least to consider my proposal.
          I dont consider myself MRA, or MGTOW, or whatever other designations some would choose. I’m just a Man, a just Man, a justified Man in his masculine beliefs. Whatever others want to call me is less important than what i choose to call and not to call myself.
          I’m the Man standing on the cliff facing the edge of tomorrow, looking down at the burning of new Rome.
          To my left are the ones doing the burning, to my right are the ones allowing it to burn.
          Behind me are all those who are waiting to build. Many i helped save, a few helped save me. The one above saved us all.
          Deus est veritas

  18. Right, but also keep in mind that feminists don’t care about logic unless it can be used to justify their emotionally driven beliefs – otherwise they wouldn’t continue to believe equality is real or even desirable
    Meaning that logical arguments are not really the way to deal with these people because
    1. Reason only works on reasonable people
    2. Neither feminists or the average person (the audience) thinks logically
    I’m convinced that young men lose social ground by trying to debate with the left. In the social arena it’s things like popularity and intimidation that work. Skip the nice guy stuff and proceed directly to bashing, harassing, and shouting down the enemy.
    If you feel bad about it remember this: It’s what they’ve been doing the whole time

    1. are you kidding me? when some of those young men and women bash back, the illogical masses go full throttle and have so far doxxed, harassed, got people fired etc. Shit, one chick that drew comics to prove that not every POC is oppressed and that they don’t think in hives had her work place phoned until she was fired, and then other sane people had to call her boss to explain she didn’t do anything wrong. Just stay away from these circus freaks, they just want attention even if it’s negative. don’t feed them.

    2. “I’m convinced that young men lose social ground by trying to debate with the left.”
      This is a war, not a debate. Attack, attack, attack!

  19. Took a class in college called “critical discourse.” The teacher was a born-again preacher who also used to teach debate. He told us, point blank, that the purpose of debate was not to find out the facts of the issues argued, but to win the debate, which means make the audience believe you are right. Do whatever you have to do, but win the debate. Most feminists have at least some college. Just. Win. The. Debate. At all costs. That’s what we’re up against, gentlemen.

  20. I would have included the “slippery slope” argument. Instead of engaging with the issue at hand, the feminist will shift attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypothetical will occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion by leveraging fear. In effect, the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture. “You want women to go back to the stone age.”

    1. Of course, you make their mind explode if you say “I wouldn’t mind the stone age. I bet I could make loincloths make a come back.”

  21. Great post! It hits home for me because yesterday I decided to take the opposing viewpoint in a forum of PC-types (A thread about an actor calling a fictional character a slut in jest). I very rarely engage with SJW’s because of the reasons you mentioned, but I had to say SOMETHING – The argument was over something ridiculous and the echo chamber vibe of everyone’s statements was out of this world.
    Very quickly my defense of an actor using the word “slut” (It’s just a word, sticks and stones, etc.) quickly turned into me wanting to contribute to “rape culture”. Somehow, it was argued, normalizing the word “slut” will cause people to think sexual assault is okay….Or something. What they don’t realize is that everyone has agency, and if someone decides to commit rape because an actor used the word “slut” then it’s not the actor’s fault, there was definitely something fucked up with the hypothetical rapist in the first place. But then again SJW’s have a victim mentality, and admitting that people have agency will blow most of their talking points out of the water.
    I was also amazed at how much they could write and not say anything. It’s difficult to explain, because the words are in English and I could read them and know what they meant. But in the end I had NO IDEA what they were trying to get at. But silly me, I was approaching the issue using logic. Therefore I must be the idiot for not seeing how jokes and words will *inevitably* lead to women being raped.

    1. “I was also amazed at how much they could write and not say anything.
      It’s difficult to explain, because the words are in English and I could
      read them and know what they meant.”
      Politic use that kind of unending blabla the goal is to:
      – puzzle the opponent
      – make the audience think they are smarter
      – keep the conversation and be the last to talk
      More to read from Schopnauher
      https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/controversy/contents.html

    2. Hee hee. Coincidently, me and two colleagues (all women) were discussing the ridiculousness of the “Avengers scandal” yesterday at work. We too, couldn’t understand the giant leap in [il]logic. How exactly does jokingly calling a FICTIONAL character a slut lead to real women being sexually assaulted?
      Not all women disagree with you guys, at least on some points.

      1. Then there’s the opposite – One girl who didn’t even see the video posted about 10 pages’ worth of reasons why slut-shaming is bad, and once again somehow brought rape culture into the discussion. Then someone kindly linked her the video…..
        ……Once she saw it she changed her tune and realized it wasn’t so bad. But the mind of an overly-emotional woman is a dangerous place. Without even seeing the video and just hearing that a (Made-up) female was called a slut she imagined what it could be about and had all these hypothetical scenarios about how this could lead to women being raped.

        1. The video was funny. But frankly, most people these days are really quick to spout off on issues they know nothing about. Yeah internet.

      2. Also, I’ve found the best way to figure out if a girl’s a slut is to slut-shame other women in front of them. If the girl gets defensive and/or takes it personally then chances are she’s a slut and she knows it.
        Funny, isn’t it, that women fight for sexual liberation, yet they still instinctively know that having too many cocks inside them is a bad thing.

        1. Well, personally I find large scale promiscuity fairly disgusting in either sex, but I’m old fashioned that way. There is a double standard there, to be fair. I only say that because there are PLENTY of double standards to which men are the victims these days (the Avengers issue is a prime example), so let’s call a spade a spade shall we?

        2. They’re perfectly within their rights to do as they please, just like I’d like to do as I please. But that doesn’t mean I have to agree with it.

        3. I agree with you 100%. Not sure how generally crappy behaviour became a social movement, but it has. Just because someone has the right to do something, doesn’t make it a good idea. People seem to confuse this, A LOT. Pretty women will always have more suitors, rich men will always have more conquests. Fat people are generally unattractive to both sexes. It’s not fair, but life isn’t fair and no amount of stomping your (not you personally) collective feet is going to change that. You and I both have the right to behave in whatever way we please, but others around us have the right to make judgements based on our behaviour. I was pointing out the double standard in a more theoretical context.

  22. While more of a mendacious debating practice rather than a logical fallacy, there is the motte and bailey argument. Any discussion of that will almost always use feminism as a prime example. There is also your basic circular reasoning.

  23. I’ve started to realize older cartoons actually make fun of feminists and SJWs. Sargon of Akkad reminded me just recently.

  24. Ah, The Young Turks… Guess what, you clowns, you AREN’T Europeans, no matter how hard you try and convince yourselves you are! Europe doesn’t want 100,000,000 more Muslims (try asking someone from there, I have!) so they will never accept you no matter how badly you want to insert yourselves into there! And by the same warped logic, so if Iran, Iraq and Syria all supposedly border “Europe”, can they all claim being European as well? Why not just have a false Europe keep on pushing Eastward then, as one country after another invites itself to the party?
    So clearly the only people who think Turks are European… Are Turks themselves. I don’t know why they feel ashamed to simply be okay with being Middle Eastern. You can either be a more progressive (far from ideal, but hey, it’s a start!), economically sound, and militarily strong leader in The Middle East or an unwanted, ridiculed stepchild in Europe. Take you pick!

  25. I feel you left out one important one; the Apex Fallacy. Basically, everything a person deems to be beneath them, magically ceases to exist for the sake of the argument.
    E.g.: The entire senior management of a mining company is white, middle-aged males, so their hiring policy is unfair to women. Where it is failed to mention that the majority of the staff working in the mines is also white, middle-aged males.

  26. Ugh I failed critical thinking this content brings back terrible memories, ever have to do a TRUTH table? I mean who calls it a truth table!? That being said my favourite fallacy was always “begging the question” or stating the conclusion as a premise.

  27. The next time I find myself under the gun, being nagged at by some fairy mob slave I’ll be sure to use that knowledge to my advantage.

  28. The author missed a tactic: when a man succeeds in completely taking the wind out of a woman’s argument, she is liable to switch modes and gratuitously attempt to sexually seduce the man into ‘taking’ her, thereby impaling and mooting her existential dissonance on his swollen member.
    Now, if the man in question doesn’t notice, ignores or fails to heed the indickators, and refrains from “drilling the point home” vigorously until she acknowledges his dominance with loud orgasmics (a’la: “yes!”, “oh god!”, “f*ck!”, “aaaaah!” etc.), she will take it as a victory and proof that men are weak scoundrels who sometimes talk the talk whilst failing to walk the walk, and go get another tattoo or piercing and drown her inner sense of loss during a sweaty session with some short-haired bulldyke with a bad temper, paddle and strapon dildo, sometimes right there in the restroom.

  29. “I bet you still live in your mom’s basement!”
    Did you know that there is actually a fallacy for this? It is called Argument Ad Cellarium – accusing someone of living in his mother’s cellar (basement).
    I think a Manosphere writer might have made it up, and then added it to Wikipedia. Either way, it’s great to see it being recognized.
    Link attached: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_cellarium
    This then, in turn, leads to Martin’s Law: “If during an online argument anyone accuses their interlocutor of living in their parents’ basement, the argument is over and the accuser has lost.”

    1. Which then leads to Martin’s Law:
      Martin’s Law: “If during an online argument anyone accuses their interlocutor of living in their parents’ basement, the argument is over and the accuser has lost.”

      1. Kirk: I also forgot to tell you men that since you are all unknown extras, in this episode you are all going to die during your leave sojourn. As your captain I will be making a poignant pause for a few seconds when informed of your deaths.

  30. Hiesenberg told me once that they’re planning, and they will be back.
    **************
    I’ve got some real Deusies lined up for the next wave.

  31. I’ll take feminists seriously once women stop watching vile, misogynistic dreck like THE BACHELOR and those REAL HOUSEWIVES shows.
    Those things are made BY women-haters FOR women-haters, the vast majority of whom are other women.
    So while chicks just inhale hateful, trashy shows like this that exist purely to depict women at their worst then I don’t give credence to a word any of them say.

  32. a) Over at Matt Forney’s tattoo article… SO MUCH FUN. I’m sure my esteemed colleagues will concur.
    b) This website is absolutely amazing!

  33. Don’t argue with SJWs; just dominate them.
    Outcompete them in everything they do. When they take over a country, move somewhere else and use your expertise to uplift it. If you deprive these people of their ability to exploit you, they are too weak to do anything about it or even take care of themselves afterward.

    1. O H M Y G O D
      *****************
      There is actually a feminist magazine called “Vagenda”!
      *****************
      When did they start writing our jokes for us?
      *****************
      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

      1. Gotta love it! From Wiki: “The Vagenda is a feminist online magazine launched in January 2012. It uses the tagline “Like King Lear, but for girls,” taken from Grazia magazine’s summary of the film The Iron Lady, starring Meryl Streep.”

        1. She’s a ghoul. But you knew that.
          Last night on Facebook I got into it with a pro-abort ghoul. I didn’t mean to, I make a habit of not going there over there.
          But this ghoul kept on and on about how I was too old and old people were a drain on the economy, how no man could even speak about abortion, about how the real violence was due to men and not abortion, etc.
          So when she would accuse me of wanting violence I would point out that the violence was abortion and that in advocating abortion she was the one advocating violence. With each of these replies I posted a gruesome color photo of an aborted child.
          She reported all of the photos to FB. I received automated messages, one for each photo, stating that my photo had be reported as a violation against photos depicting violence against persons.
          You can’t make that up.
          I mentioned to her how astounding it was that in her mind the violence was okay, but photos of it were violations.
          Ghouls are very sick.
          (This morning I received messages that my photos were NOT removed by FB.)

        2. Could you let her know that I’m not the only one who think she babbling incoherently?
          She seems to have taken the most offense at that phrase
          And wow
          Sounds like a real idiot with whom you were arguing
          I bet that the irony of reporting your pics as “depicting violence against ‘persons’” was completely lost on her
          Lol
          Oh and if men have no say in abortion then Roe should be overturned–it was decided by an all male SCOTUS

        3. PJ, as you know, I gave up on her some time ago. I lack the patience you and others have with these folks. She did say that she was not educated in the States, so English is likely not her first language. You might ask her where she’s from. In any case, you are dealing with a dye-hard zealot who is not about to be convinced.

        4. The FB ghoul was a real moron.
          She kept appealing to “the law” so as is my habit I made reference to the St. Augustin/MLK quote about unjust laws not being any law at all.
          Basically she discounted that point because those guys were soooo long ago.
          Later when I reminded her of her narcissism and how it had her essentially discounting the entire Civil Rights Movement and MLK she literally responded that she wasn’t around in 1963.
          She kept telling me to go to an old folks home.
          Euthanasia is the next stop on the Ghoul Train.

        5. Wow, PJ – like Jed, I had to turn away. Watching that slow-moving train-wreck unfold was too painful.
          “Nothing can be coherent to anybody that dreams of the advent of the fetus kingdom.” I mean, WTH??
          Her belief that abortion is a legitimate form of birth control because “real” birth control is too expensive just turned my stomach. But my hat is off to you for staying in that fight!

        6. LOL… the pro-abort reported your pictures of aborted “fetuses” as “violence against persons…” in the process being right about the issue for the very first time.

        7. And non-persons when convenient as well.
          Their senseless political re-definitions of people and institutions can have devastating real-world consequences.

        1. I propose a new month of the year to be introduced called Vagenda. it could sort of kick in as part of September, so those who don’t give a tinker’s cuss, as the actress said to the Bishop, don’t have to notice, while those who Lgbt means a lot can pretend everyone takes them seriously especially during that special month, Vagenda, that is.

      2. If you think that’s funny let me tell you about the time i debated one called “Vagina power.”
        You just can’t make this stuff up…feminists are like a male comedian’s gold mine lol

  34. It reminds me of an old political postcard where a man is pointing out an obvious truth to an irate female SJW and she is portrayed shouting something like ‘I don’t fuckin care if its logical’. Ironically it was celebrated by feminist women.

  35. Some more…
    7. The one with the final say is the winner…
    8. The one with more voices speaking, clapping and on side is always right. The way it looks women love talk shows and being the one getting clapped and given praise. Getting praise is a reward children and young adults as they grow but when they become adults they have to realize the praise isn’t the important part. Women never get past that praise which further concretes proof that women never grow up.
    9. The “X cannot ever do the bad things Y does.” A good example is women cannot cheat “they’re just bored of their relationship/marriage” but men cheat.
    10. The not “some” men are but “all” men are argument
    11. Always using the same “Hitler” example. Because he was the only tyrannical ruler there ever was.
    12. Repeating the same things other liberals say. The Copy and Paste thing.
    13. Saying quotes that hold no meaning to the time and setting of the place like “Men should never lay a hand on a woman.” On an article where a man defends himself from a rabid woman and ends up injuring her.

  36. As George Carlin said: Never argue with an idiot. They’ll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

  37. Ad Hominem is a specific type of the more general “Genetic Fallacy” – arguing against where a point comes from, rather than agruing the point itself. The phrase to listen for is “X is only saying that because …”. ‘X’ is often ‘You’, but it can be other things.

  38. All six of these are frequently on display at Washington Post in the comments of any political article involving improprieties of the Obama Admin. But there is a seventh method having to do with delivery of argument in great volume and in mass quantity. Let me explain a little. One might think (I’m actually pretty sure, I’
    m from DC and hear things) White House Communications employs dozens of “interns” to peruse the stories in the Post, NYTimes, etc. I think they work the Boston Globe as well, although in such a Liberal enclave, not necessary. They start from the early-morning hours when the papers come out on line and they start right in, two and three AM.
    They cherry-pick articles and Op/Eds particular to said improprieties and proceed to take the Obama position in triplicate to comments disparaging to the Administration in any way. It’s a cacophony of angry, preposterous rhetoric.and of such great number the scrolling of the comments never ends, tallying thousands of replies to some articles and Op/Eds within a few hours. It’s almost as if bots were serving up great gusts of liberal oratory by the bale. From a layman’s standpoint, having this become routine and come on so quickly in the past year or so, to have comments go up a factor of 10 or 20 times makes no sense. It can’t be grass-roots traffic.
    So it isn’t just these Big Six, there’s another, a Seventh, a greater one even that I’m not sure how to define other than to call it “Delivery On Demand”. Fair assessment if true? Remarks?

  39. What if I’m talking to a woman about the wage gap myth and she tells me that she gets paid less for the same job? Particularly, as a video game store employee? It seems to fall under anecdotal evidence, but it’s not a simple matter of telling me she’s “just as hard working as the guys” or anything like that. It’s literally what she got when she signed up.

  40. I am certain that I am not alone on this: when ever the “Queen” didn’t get what she wanted out of an argument, she would screech ‘I HATE YOU!’. (no, not the actual queen of any place) Imagine when I didn’t return those harsh words back, as I took my wedding vows very seriously. (that made her even more upset)

  41. Where’s the no true scotsman fallacy? Whenever I point out something incredibly stupid that has been done in the name of feminism, the feminists defend themselves with “Well that wasn’t a REAL feminist!”

  42. While the other five are rubbish, ‘Appeal To Hypocrisy’ can be an important tool. I agree that it is unhelpful in addressing and rectifying the fault of the accused, but exposing hypocrisy helps reveal whether the ‘fault’ was really a fault in the first place, or at least to what degree and under what circumstances. For example, let’s examine your very own hypocritical statement:
    “With many feminists and SJW’s being naturally profane, degenerate, and
    all-around insufferable human beings, using ad hominem attacks against
    the manosphere comes naturally for them.”
    If I were to appeal to your hypocrisy, it would indeed be unhelpful in condemning and combating the ad hominem attacks against the ‘manosphere’. However, after we’ve established that such attacks are faulty, it would force us to subsequently address your own ad hominem offences. Such a reversal of judge and defendant admittedly lies outside the scope of ‘anti-manosphere’ attacks, yet is no less warranted (consider it a new trial with the same theme). In other words, if someone uses Tu Quoque against you, the best course of action is to suspend it, conclude the relevant argument at hand, and then return to the issue of your hypocrisy, so that we may fairly evaluate the nature of the fault in question.

  43. If you guys don’t have small penis especially and aren’t less than conventionally attractive,please do post pictures to show this 🙂
    Also by the logic that a lot of your readers express,where whenever their affections weren’t returned by women they expressed them to,she was somehow wronging them by simply being polite but disinterested?,shoukd I be upset everytime I smile at a man and he doesn’t then have flowers delivered to my house or buy me jewelery? Sounds RIDICULOUS,right? Thinking that a woman is obligated to return your affections because you expressed them with kindness is just as RIDICULOUS.But what can I possibly say to a bunch of guys who all feel the same as each other and believe that men should all behave in similar ways to achieve certain goals? (Natural copycats? anyone else see this?) I personally,take no issue with you believing whatever you like about whomever you want.Being in a marriage with someone who fits your idea of “purity” and “worthiness” while having to seek out the company of people you clearly have no respect for sounds miserable and lonely to me.To each their own,I guess.Id rather be happy and honest and actually give and receive love from the person I choose to be with for the entirety of my being,not just a myth of chastity I express to try and hold them to a level of behavior I don’t hold myself to.Maybe lonliness and disconnection of sex and emotion in your primary relationship is appealing to all of you? I don’t get it.My marriage bed is a place where fantasy is mutually explored and we know all of each others “filthy” secrets from our individual sexual pasts. Since you guys don’t seem to think that women are worthy of this much respect and only seem to be capable of respecting other men,perhaps consider that while you may enjoy the sexual companionship of women,you may be much happier and fulfilled with the companionship of another man.Being lonely and resenting ypur life partner just doesn’t sound like a good time to me.

  44. In my opinion SJWs and those on the far-right are driven largely by their own emotions to the point of passion. Passion has a tendency of clouding objectivity and rational thought. I see the extremes on both sides and from my perspective that is is a large factor in why we are living in such politically polarized times.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *