6 Logical Fallacies You Can Expect From Feminists And SJWs
Feminists and social justice warriors are prone to use numerous logical fallacies in their arguments. But 6 fallacies in particular really stand out.
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
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
“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
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
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
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
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.
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.