I Don’t Think These Words Mean What You Think They Do

Hmmm, Nihilist and Misogynist?

I don’t think she knows what either of those words mean, but then I don’t make up my own definitions to words as the SJW’s always seem to do.

6 thoughts on “I Don’t Think These Words Mean What You Think They Do

  1. Actually, I think she does know what those two words mean.

    How about some examples of definitions that the so-called SJW’s have made up? You are doing the very thing you criticized Ophelia Benson for doing the other day: making a charge or asserting a claim without actually providing any evidence to back it up.


    • Misogyny – disagreeing with a woman, when the actual definition is “hatred of women”. The so-called “feminists” believe any questioning or disagreement with a position they take is misogyny.

      Sexism – daring to tell a woman anything. AKA “mansplaining”.


  2. Now I think you are making things up. The definitions you provided are not definitions that any of the so-called SJWs have actually used or stated. You are projecting based, I think, on an ideological disagreement (perhaps even a dislike) of these persons.

    Provide an actual evidence-based argument that these definitions were actually made-up by and used by the SJWs?

    “The so-called “feminists” believe any questioning or disagreement with a position they take is misogyny.”

    This is yet another assertion made without any actual evidence or an argument.

    By the way, hatred of women is not the only proper usage of the word misogyny. Oxford dictionary has this as one of its definition: Dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women. If you read the Wikipedia entry for the word, you will find that use of the word is not confined solely to hatred of women.

    This said, I do think that the word misogyny is used to often in place of the less inflammatory and probably more appropriate terms sexist or sexism. But you have not provided any convincing argument that it is used by any of the SJWs simply to label those who simply question or disagree with them.


  3. 1) Rebecca Watson described an inept pick-up line as “sexual harassment”;

    2) Justin Vacula followed someone on twitter. This was labeled “stalking”;

    3) Vacula attended a conference open to the public, sat quietly by himself while blogging neutral, uncontroversial updates. This, too, was labeled “stalking”;

    4) Harriet Hall wore a t-shirt at TAM with the words “I’m not a skepchick. I’m a skeptic.” Surly Amy & friends labeled this “harassment” & “abuse”, and sought to have Hall’s t-shirt banned;

    5) Stephanie Svan labeled as “harassment”, humorous photoshops of her, which to find she had to actively scour/vanity search an obscure discussion board;

    6) Latsot has defined as ‘rape”, two people having sex if either has consumed any amount of alcohol;

    7) Myers, Svan, Benson & others described Dawkins’ nuanced discussion of his own childhood molestation as a defense of molestation;

    8) Criticism of Islam, a religion practiced by 700 million people of diverse backgrounds, is labeled “racism”;

    9) Expression of doubt that [patriarchy/privilege/rape culture/sexism in atheism/implicit bias] exists, is taken as evidence that [patriarchy/privilege/rape culture/sexism in atheism/implicit bias] exists. Ergo: dissent = thoughtcrime.

    And the list could easily go on & on. But that’s all the effort you’re getting from me for your disingenuous sophistry.


  4. 1) Provide the link to the post where Rebecca described the incident on the elevator as sexual harassment. I watched the original vlog in which she discussed the incident. She did not describe it as sexual harassment. Her only comment on the incident was to say “guys, don’t do that”. She did not engage in language aimed at shaming anyone. She never identified the individual and she did not engage in anything that could or should be described as a rant. She never described the incident as an example of misogyny. So this one is not an example of her using the strawman definition that conskep stated.

    2) and 3) also are not examples of the use of this fictitious definition. Sure, Jason was accused of stalking (and I agree that his actions did not constitute stalking). But he was not accused of misogyny. Again, these two fail as examples to support your claim.

    4) Harriet Hall was never accused of misogyny as a result of wearing that T-shirt. I am unaware of any examples of her being called a misogynist or accused of saying anything misogynistic. If such comments were made about her then provide the link. This example fails as support for your claim.

    5) I don’t know of which photoshops you speak concerning images of Stephanie Svan. I refuse to take your word for it that they were humorous. You don’t get to decide for Stephanie nor anyone else what is humorous to that person. Obviously she did not think them so. Labeling them as harassment is not the same thing as saying they were misogynistic. So again, this example fails to support your claim or provide evidence that these feminists are using the term misogyny simply to label people with whom they disagree

    6) I agree, based only on what you described (since you don’t give a link) that what Latsot described as rape is certainly questionable. But this is not an example of someone using the definition of misogyny conskep stated. Yet another failure to support your claim.

    7) This also is not an example that supports the claim that conskep’s fictitious definition of misogyny is being used. I agree that Myers and the others were wrong to describe Dawkins comments as defending child molestation. But they did not use this to accuse him of misogyny.

    8) Yet another failure to provide an example that is relevant to the claim made.

    9) And yet another example provided that is not relevant to the claim made about the definition of misogyny.

    In summary, not one of your examples is relevant to the claim that the so-called Usual Suspects have redefined misogyny in the way that conskep charged and have used it in that manner.

    Your view of Myers, Benson, Watson, Zven and the others is so colored by your deep dislike of them that you are performing intellectual contortions in your attempt to prove a strawman accusation.


  5. Dogma: “In summary, not one of your examples is relevant to the claim that the so-called Usual Suspects have redefined misogyny in the way that conskep charged”

    Nice try at misdirecting, troll. I was elaborating on consskep’s ” I don’t make up my own definitions to words as the SJW’s always seem to do.” Words. Plural. If you were an honest interlocutor, rather than a dutiful little pharyngulite troll, sent to do the cult’s bidding in the outside world, I might enact the labor to provide copious examples of the redefinition by Plussers of “misogyny” as well.

    Oh, and try to wrap your cult-leader-worshipping brain around this concept: My loathing of Myers & gang is based on my assessment of them, not the other way ’round. FTR, I first heard of Myers from a Dawkins’ recommendation, so I was predisposed to like him. I quickly realized Myers & his FTB cronies were a misanthropic, mendacious, mentally unstable pack. Know what? Pretty much everyone outside of the Branch Davidian compound realizes that now, too. And if your pathetic sophistry is the best you all can rustle up to rehabilitate PZ Koresh’s tarnished reputation, I don’t see that changing.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s