I mean, at least certain mods who are rightly well hated are now gone because they were completely STUPID in their blind unadulterated powerdrunk temper tantrums. A certain awkward shelled creature and not so great nate come to mind...

That's non-sequitur. And the reason you are assumed to "get it" is that you agree with modern feminism rather than critiquing it. That's a double standard.

Except, I rejected feminism before there even was a "position" on trans-women. I've rejected feminism as it existed 8-10 years ago before and as it's further devolved into this trans-clusionary schism. The issue of trans inclusion/exclusion is irrelevant to whether or not the movement has become "female/women-supremacy" in its modern forms compared to 100 years ago when it began with the suffragettes. You're latching onto the word "female" as if we're being careful in our language to exclude trans-women. That's not a consideration of ours in the context. It doesn't matter if feminists are trans-exclusionary or not to us, both movements have female/women-supremacy as a feature, both movements together are what seems to be at issue as being "feminism" and as a "female/women supremacy movement".

You just contradicted yourself. The presumption is that rejecting transgenderism is automatically invalid and therefore either the person rejecting that set of claims is either "hateful" or "ignorant". This excuses treating them with incredible bad faith. Except that the "men" you're referring to might not agree with Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists on the topic of feminism, and in fact a lot of them don't. The original post had NOTHING to do with transgenderism. It's Similar_reading who added transgenderism to the conversation for no reason.

That's special pleading. It couldn't possibly be that someone understands it fully and still rejects it for valid reasons, no, the must be misunderstanding/misrepresenting it no matter how much evidence they have to the contrary. Critiquing your position or anyone else's isn't taking personal offense. Your critique falls flat.

I mean, I think Solomon used a similar analogy in Proverbs. That's why I don't fault anyone for using it. It just strikes me as ironic that the ones who call themselves "antifa" are the most fascist ones of them all in terms of "intellectual fascism".

You're right. Sexists generally don't think that what they believe is sexist. It's really weird actually because they're saying that because OP is a man, they can't possibly accurately represent feminism such that they offer a cogent critique. See, when OP does it, he's not describing modern feminism, he's describing "modern feminism AS DESCRIBED BY MEN..." What similar reading is saying is that he's a man, so his assessment that modern feminism has become a female supremacy movement (it has) is invalid because he just doesn't understand feminism. It's a convenient scheme where the other person is wrong simply because you say they are with no need to back up where their critique goes wrong or makes an error. Instead, they're a man, they can't possibly get it - probably because they're part of the oppressor class - and so their critique is invalid. It's sexist reasoning on Similar_reading's part and you're defending it. Congratulations, it's actually YOU who told on yourself.

You're pretty sexist to say that. "as described by men"? So men are incapable of accurately and objectively assessing modern feminism? Amazing.

> A single thin strand of metal is weak, but twisted together, they form the cables that help hold up suspension bridges. You get enough weak ideas banded together and you end up with a strong movement that's able to stand up to strong ideas (especially when the premise of those strong ideas are unappealing, so many reject them and, therefore do not have many banded together to support it). I'm not saying at all that this is you, but rather what they're doing, but ironically this is the core idea of fascism: one stick is weak but bundled together they are strong. That was the whole word-picture that Benito Mussolini used in one of his speeches promoting fascism. It's EXACTLY what they're doing. Which makes it all the more ironic and projecting that they call anyone who disagrees with them "fascists" and as good little antifa, they are totally justified in using violence against everyone else's strong ideas that they deem to be violence and fascism. After all, nothing wrong with punching a "nazi" amirite? These people need to be made to sit down, and shut up. And if they try to use violence in the ways they deem it justified, arrested. Their ideas which forego rational debate for violence and suppression are exactly the ideas that Popper meant when describing the paradox of tolerance as "intolerant" ideas that ironically must not be tolerated.

"No reactionaries" - translation: Nobody with opinions I don't like!!!!!! I will ban you for any reason or no reason if you don't agree with all my sexist opinions you sexist homophobic transphobic racist bigot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111!!!!!!! What a cowardly snake of a mod!