Street Epistemology with an Anti-Feminist


CN: Rape, Suicide

A few weeks ago when I interviewed Anthony Magnabosco, he told me that you can use Street Epistemology for any belief, not just religion. I recently tested this when an anti-feminist started spewing anti-feminist bullshit on a friend’s Facebook wall, and here’s our exchange:

Anti-Feminist: Feminists live in a delusional world which is highly resistant to facts and logic which would shatter their fantasy narrative.

Me: Y’know, there is a podcast called Promoting Secular Feminism that actually uses facts.

Anti-Feminist: Very peculiar! Why don’t feminists use those facts in debates?

Me: Depends. Which feminists have you debated with?

Anti-Feminist: Which types? Hard to tell. Pretty sure most types ranging from first wave to gender feminists.
I don’t bother debating with equity feminists since I tend to agree with them on most points. They’re just humanitarians who can’t deal with the fact that the word feminism is sexually biased.

Me: How so?

Anti-Feminist: “Fem”

Me: Well it seems to me the point of feminism is to address issues affecting women, so why not use “fem?”

Anti-Feminist: Because it makes it biased to that group and that groups interest and often limits it to that idea. not to mention women are equal in the western world a fighting a imaginary dragon at this point.

Me: What makes you think women have gained full equality in the West?

Anti-Feminist: Name an area where they don’t. Also, there are issue affecting humanity, so why not address the issues affect humanity as an egalitarian?

Me: Well, there are several areas where it’s hard for women to get abortions. Also, women are part of humanity, so why not address women’s issues?

Anti-Feminist: Men are a part of humanity. Why not address men’s issues?

Me: What would be men’s issues?

Anti-Feminist: You’re missing my point, but some of the issues that are having an effect on men are the high suicide rates 80% of the suicides are committed by men, issues with custody battles women win out 84% of the time regardless of character, men are 76% of homicide victims and not to mention the savage way they are treated in prison and raped. But the point of that was to say that there issues affecting humanity as a whole, so why not be an egalitarian/humanist?

Me: Most feminists that I know address these issues as well

Anti-Feminist: I actually had a feminist promoting male genital mutilation on my wall last week.  I would argue that most forms of feminism inherently damage humanity as a whole.

Me: Do you have any statistics?

Anti-Feminist: For what?

Me: Statistics for why feminism is the worst thing in the world since religion. One particular radical advocating male genital mutilation doesn’t count.

Anti-Feminist: Before I potentially waste my time talking with you, do you believe in cultural relativism? Do you think it is ethical to eat animals if you don’t need to?

Okay, so here’s where I think I messed up. I went from focusing on his beliefs to my own.

Me: I think I know where you’re going with your first question, so let me be frank: No, I don’t believe it’s okay for Muslim men to assault women! I’m against purity culture in all forms, whether it’s Christian or Muslim. I’m also against using the death penalty for adultery because 1). what is adultery anyway? And 2). what consenting adults do in the bedroom is no one’s business. As far as your second question . . . I’m not really sure where you’re going with that one. Nevertheless, if lab grown meat ever becomes a thing, I’d be all for it!

Anti-Feminist: You didn’t answer either of the questions.

Me: I thought I did, but maybe I automatically assumed what you meant by cultural relativism and eating animals without needing to. When people say cultural relativism, they are usually referring to regressive leftists who refuse to acknowledge Islam has problems like Christianity. So if that’s what you mean by cultural relativism, then my answer is no.

Anti-Feminist: But even the way you worded that isn’t acceptable. Islam doesn’t have problems like Christianity. Christianity is a little bit shitty. Islam is the shittiest of the shit. Islam is way worse. It’s not even close. If you can’t acknowledge that Islam is far worse than Christianity, we’re done here.

Me: Well in that case, TTFN–ta ta for now!

TL;DR It was just YouTube talking points, and not a constructive conversation. Oh well, at least I tried.

Comments

  1. polishsalami says

    Any technique that attempts to cure muddle-headed thinking will fail on most occasions.

    Most people find it easier to live with their delusions and prejudices than to examine the world as it actually is. The problem is that you will have to interact with someone for fair while to work out whether they are capable of changing, and even the hopeful cases are prone to relapse.

  2. Yet Another Anti-Feminist says

    This is the main points
    “humanitarians who can’t deal with the fact that the word feminism is sexually biased”
    “Because it makes it biased to that group and that groups interest and often limits it to that idea”
    “But the point of that was to say that there issues affecting humanity as a whole, so why not be an egalitarian/humanist?”

    If as a humanitarians you can deal with both man and woman issues , the justification for “the point of feminism is to address issues affecting women” falls apart.

    The “Most feminists that I know address these issues as well” was addressed by “humanitarians who can’t deal with the fact that the word feminism is sexually biased”.

    polishsalami , never lose hope , for helping yourself or others.

  3. says

    I’m not sure I’d call that “street epistemology” since you weren’t really challenging their basis for knowledge – that was more “socratic method” – asking your opponent to explain their position and clarify it, then looking for leading questions that make them either retrench or make increasingly uncomfortable claims.

    The danger with that approach is that you’re not really leading the conversation and your opponent can side-track things whenever they want to, i.e.: “Before I potentially waste my time talking with you, do you believe in cultural relativism? Do you think it is ethical to eat animals if you don’t need to?” Probably better strategy there would have been to request clarification what they mean by cultural relativism, because there are a lot of different definitions people use… Of course the same applies to feminism. Just getting an anti-feminist to define what they are anti- is half the fun.

Leave a Reply

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