Because you're playing devil's advocate against feminism.
I don't even know what that means, but I'll still say I'm not doing anything of the sort. Here's how things played out:
* You have said several times that, as men, our opinions about feminist issues don't matter, that we should shut up, etc. Gori just quoted one of those times.
* In another thread I specifically responded to that by saying that by saying that it's possible, as an intelligent empathic human, to reason about something and hold an opinion on something without necessarily having first hand experience of it, and that this is actually one of the defining characteristics of our intellect and society. I don't recall the direct response to this, if any, but I don't recall it being discussed so I imagine it was just dismissed.
* Then someone else points out that your opinion as a man must therefore be equally invalid, even if it does agree with the feminist point of view, because it's still your male brain making the decision to do that.
* Someone else points out that it's possible, as an intelligent empathic human... etc. Basically just exactly what I said before.
* So then Gori says in that case can we have no more "men can't comment on this" announcements please. At which point the reply is "that never happened anyway".
* I point out that it most definitely did happen, and that this is therefore a false statement. Further, that the reasoning employed as to why YOU can hold an opinion on it is the same reasoning I previously employed as to why I can hold an opinion about it, only for some reason it wasn't convincing when I said it but it now is this time.
* For pointing out these entirely logical inconsitencies, I get congratulated on my "extremely defensive posting", then get told by you that it's OFFensive, that it demonstrates how I don't speak english and am just trying to ignore an inconvenient truth, and now that I'm playing some sort of devil's advocate.
This is just blatant knee-jerk reactionary posting and a complete refusal to engage with anything being said or to explain your inconsistencies.
That's what I mean. I explained what was meant by that in a more nuanced manner, but you've deliberately ignored it in favor of the less reasonable, easier to dismiss as ridiculous interpretation.
Why should I bother with people who immediately run to the most outlandish interpretation of something and decide that's what must be meant by that? Don't you see how in doing so, you're beginning from a position of "this person is crazy and nonsensical," instead of assuming that I'm just a normal, reasonable person like you, who happens to have different ideas about something than you are familiar with? It's difficult to accept new ideas when you start off already prejudiced toward them and the people advocating them.
Is this not in essence exactly what you've been doing with Elliot Rodgers? Holding up his extreme and mentally disturbed, murderous behaviour, labelling it as inherently MRA, and then using that stick to bash anyone who thinks anything remotely anti-feminist just so that you can ignore THEIR inconvenient truths?
I proved beyond doubt that Rodgers was an MRA and that his primary motive was misogyny.
At the idea that I'm the reactionary here.
At your dishonest portrayal of my posts. You aren't even trying, you're just here to discredit the idea that misogyny is real and to defend MRAs and Rodgers from being called for what they are.
