The idea is that you're changing the definition of a group to exclude undesirable examples, but what's actually wrong with that?
My feminism does not hate men or straight cisgender folk, and does not demand greater rights for women than for men, only equal.
I will still call it feminism.
My feminism is not associated with the feminism that people decry for promoting the views I have explicitly excluded.
I believe that kind of feminism is not true feminism.
How is that wrong of me? The group I'm describing -- true feminism -- is one fundamentally defined by ideas. Why should it not be able to dynamically make new decisions about what ideas comprise it and what ideas to exclude?
You can choose to be a feminist but you can't choose to be a Scotsman. I don't think it applies to ideologies. That being said, individuals can't just define what a social movement is, especially one as diverse in thought as feminism. The pornography question is an issue where there is complete opposition within feminism. I'd say both positions are "true feminist" positions.
Eli Baker
True communism has never been tried. All past attempts at it have devolved into fascism. True communism may be just a dream, but it's a beautiful dream to me. It truly is a shame that's not how human nature works, and I honestly think that's something science should strive to change.
Brandon Rodriguez
The problem with "true feminism" is the problem of what is pure and not pure, which is a subjective one. You may deemed your self to be the "true feminism" but so will the feminist that decry others views. Ultimately it will lead to clashes. The problem now is that the radicle feminist out weight the moderate feminist and they get to decide the definition of feminism. lots of the value you say you have is already in classical liberal group whom are advocates for meritocracy. The problem now is you get to decide which group you belong to. The group whom have become oppressive and decry people's opinions or classical liberals whom already have a lot of your values.Here's my tip: you don't change your value to fit a group, u choose a group that fits your value. If the group change then you have to find a new group that is most agreeable with your current views.
Lincoln Ward
The point is that whilst you can hold your own opinions about what these words mean to you, that doesn't change their actual common usage and objective meaning
>I will still call it feminism.
>My feminism is not associated with the feminism that people decry for promoting the views I have explicitly excluded.
>I believe that kind of feminism is not true feminism.
>How is that wrong of me?
If you were talking about abstract ideas along then it wouldn't be, the issue arises when talking about the real world. I would wager that most "feminists" have a different view of what the word means than you do, are they not "real" feminists?
As long as there is a substantial proportion of the group that calls themselves "feminists" who hold those ideologies, then those ideologies will be associated with the word feminism whether you like it or not.
Eli White
>That being said, individuals can't just define what a social movement is, especially one as diverse in thought as feminism. That's fair. I still hold that my feminism is the true feminism, but so do all feminists, I suppose, and all any of us has to support her own individual case over others is her conviction.
Ryan Jackson
What's wrong with that I guess is that those undesirables matter and influence the content of feminism as a social movement, and excluding them is just ignoring a problem.You have to own ypur retards I think. The alt-right has a marginal problem with people who believe in wacky conspiracy theories. What we do about that is mock them (and occasionally try to reason with them). If it doesn't cause the view to change it will at least quiet it, because they don't want to seem retarded. Then that person has less influence on his peers and we don't look as bad.
William Jackson
It isn't a fallacy, and is commonly abused. To have an identity, you have to somewhat fit a description and follow some rules. A Chinaman born in China to Chinese parents who has never set foot outside of China and only speaks Mandarin has no right to call himself a Scotsman, and we'd all laugh at him if he tried to insist he was a Scotsman and claimed we were committing the no true Scotsman fallacy by denying him the identity he wants.
NTSF is commonly used by ratheists in their process of insulting Christians or Muslims or something. They like to hold up the biggest extremists as somehow representative of Christianity and Islam as a whole, and if you deny that they insist "b-but my no true scotsman". The entire worldview of rathesists is based on a handful of fallacies and logical premises they worship as law because they think it makes them smarter than everyone else. They love describing themselves as 'rational' and 'logical' even though they have no clue as to the history of rationalism vs empiricism, logos vs pathos vs ethos - they just know that scientists are smart and respected and logical and rational and they want to be that too.
There are in fact a few basic things you have to follow to be a Christian: Believe everyone is a sinner and Christ sacrificed himself for everyone's sins, and love your neighbor as you love yourself, everything else is marginal. For Muslims it is simply believe there is One God and Muhammad is his prophet. If you're going around calling yourself a Christian and killing other Christians, then you aren't really a Christian, you're just fucking crazy, same with Muslims.
Ratheists don't really understand that pointing out that some Christian is a child molester or whatever isn't really a slight against Christianity in general. Everyone is a sinner, and so long as that child molester recognizes he is a sinner and tries to do better, he remains a Christian And no Christian has any obligation whatsoever to submit to secular judgment
Levi Collins
You should have data, logic, and examples to support your position if it's a position worth holding.
Brody Jones
>True communism has never been tried
Actually Lenin tried it.
The poor faggot was forced to give up the communist economic policies in the countryside and start the NEP instead. The peasants were furious.
Then Stalin came and when Trocky was out of the way he literally applied communism by industrializing Russia with planned economy.
Not that I was expecting knowledge and facts recognition from a feminist.
Isaiah White
A system should not cater for ideas but should cater for humans and their individuals aspirations. Communism in its truest form doesn't accommodate for that because people cannot be better than what they are now. It doesn't drive innovation or idea, it nearly drowns them.
Jose Moore
It's a fallacy because ''custom definitions'' are subjective and subjective is a fallacious argument. If it stood, then we could have 8 billion of them all being legit.
It's like saying the below >Well in MY math, 10-5=9 so you need to give me 9 euros back No. You are free to conjure your own 'thing' that has never been tried yet, but trying to disprove that an already existing thing hasn't been tried because YOU don't consider it so is a fallacy yes.
Ryder Phillips
>The group I'm describing -- true feminism -- is one fundamentally defined by ideas. >I'm describing -- true feminism
There is your problem. What you identify as "true" might not be "true" to somebody else. How hard is it to grasp that?
>Philosophy professor Bradley Dowden explains the fallacy as an "ad hoc rescue" of a refuted generalization attempt. The following is a simplified rendition of the fallacy:
>Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." >Person B: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge." >Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
>The essayist Spengler compared distinguishing between "mature" democracies, which never start wars, and "emerging democracies", which may start them, with the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Spengler alleges that "political scientists" have attempted to save the "US academic dogma" that democracies never start wars from counterexamples by maintaining that no true democracy starts a war.
And again >My feminism >true feminism
You don't even know yourself what feminism you believe in.
The point is that feminism is loosely used term that has been changed with each wave of feminism, thus it is dumb to use is as a reference.
You believe in equality? Then call it Equality not a "synonym" which was idiotically made up in 60's.
Like Mariusz Korwin-Mikke says - "Justice is to social justice like a chair to an electric chair" also pic related.
Thomas James
Feminism was initially about getting women equal rights as men. Then at some point it became about putting women over men and insulting men every chance they get. This led to men losing interest in women, and women insulting men even more because women can't handle rejection. So now we've got half the men turned gay, half the men turned tranny, and the few that are left are about a few weeks away from divorce and financial ruin. All so women can go out and get drunk and shake their ass like tv tells them to without feeling bad about it.
You're right, op, that isn't true feminism, but that's what idiots try to call it, so come up with a new word for your system or else murder the idiots so they can't keep abusing the language.
Because otherwise this is our future, everyone speaking their own language with verbiage that places moral purity on everything they do themselves and moral shame on everything everyone else does. So no one gets along, no one works together, and eventually people start murdering each other for resources anyway. Which I'm fine with; the planet has just reached too much entropy and there's no recovering. It isn't just the internet, but the fact that literally everyone is on drugs and has no center, no real role model, and anyone who tries to lead like Trump gets torn down by the resentful herd who would rather wallow in their own shit than face the truth of what they've become.
Landon Morgan
>My feminism does not hate men or straight cisgender folk, and does not demand greater rights for women than for men, only equal.
Well, if everyone having equal rights makes me a feminist, then I'm a feminist. Nobody besides stormkikes would disagree. Yet it's not that: it's all the extra shit you want that doesn't really involve rights. Besides, people can morally object to certain behaviors without believing those behaviors should be illegal.
Nathaniel Harris
>and I honestly think that's something science should strive to change. Bitch when you said you were a feminist I knew you were crazy but this is a whole new level of crazy. You can't just fucking do that. Holy shit. Real and deeply concerning ethical / philosophical / metaphysical issues aside, can you imagine the scale of the moralfag backlash? You've got a recipe for World War III there.
Tyler Bell
Ants are already being communists. I think we should be people. Maybe if we created a race of giant bipedal antmen we could safely autogenocide ourselves knowing the earth will be in good hands. I don't know. I think you acknowledging human nature is against your ideas means you're almost there. You're at the point where you're opposed to your entire species and I think you can and should take a step back and just marvel at how nihilistic and disgusting that is. I was in a similar situation a few years ago. If you're depressed, stop letting it color your worldview so much, because it's coloring it black. That's a big deal. The way out of being a loser is by embracing nature and trying to be as good as you can be.
Connor Morales
Marx clearly laid out the path societies would take: Capitalism > Socialism > Communism. We owe a shitton of capitalist theory to Marx, still used today. But Russia and China thought they were better than Europe, that only Europe would have to go through Capitalism, it was a cultural thing, and Russia/Asia could skip right to Socialism and be super awesome. Well they did advance their economies quite a bit from agrarian shit holes, but they killed millions of people in the process, so in the end they decided it would be a good idea to give Capitalism a chance after all.
But these reforms are only temporary, and when development through Capitalism has peaked they will return to Socialism and Communism.
You idiots can read the Communist Manifesto if you want, literally all of Marx's demands for policies that will transform a society into a Communist society have already been implemented in America for 100 years now, with a few modifications (e.g. instead of nationalizing all property they just tax it heavily, because this motivates you to produce more since you feel like you have ownership, same thing with the estate tax, they let you leave a little bit to your children so you produce more than you would if they took it all). Shit like Central Bank, Public School, Utility Companies, Civil Forfeiture, Estate Tax, Property tax, all this shit is written in Communist Manifesto.
Elijah Hill
Sums up most feminist
Blake Wright
America is more communist today than the USSR or China ever was. Anyone who denies this is a useful idiot who doesn't know his Marx. All the freedoms you are allowed are only allowed because they increase production more than not allowing them would.
Jayden Roberts
Ok but im nonwhite so who cares if I don't have a """"""""""""""""(((center)))"""""""""""""" or a rolemodel, im just a dumb ol subhuman shitskin who lives and dies by his animal instincts
William Robinson
Internet people don't like to hear this, but generalizations exist for a reason. Stereotypes are all valid. And the people who bitch about these things usually end up validating them in or way or another. You can't blame people for observing how others are and making judgments based on that.
If you don't want to be judged, then be better.
Sebastian Murphy
Somehow I'm not surprised this is coming from commie flag. Listen, no ideology will ever be implemeted 100%. There are always flaws and some ideologies are more prone to abuse than others. Every christian could denounce every other christian as "not true christian" because it's impossible to obey every single thing that christianity demads. So no christian at all has done anything wrong because there are no christians. This is why no true scotsman is a fallacy.
Communism is extremely prone to going full retard because of the violent revolution phase where the strongest take the lead. And they'll never hand power back to the people because why should they? Happened every time in the past, will happen every time in the future.
