Why has nobody realized that Anita is a fake feminist and that those of us who are truly feminists don't actually think that way?
>muh No True Scotsman
>>371607
That's a poor use of the fallacy considering it's an objective fact that Anita goes completely against feminist ideals and in fact encourages a dictatorship.
>>371600
true feminists are 2D
>>371600
If anyone's a fake feminist, it has to be that Christina Hoff woman, GGers worship.
>>371600
True feminists are long dead, nigger.
2nd and 3rd wave feminism is pure marxist cancer.
>>371658
Iie, senpai, 3rd wave feminism is the cancer consuming Marxism.
>>371615
>implying there's one universal set of ideals
>implying you aren't just saying she's not a feminist because it makes you look bad
Just stop. Obviously you have a different idea of feminism but your way is not any more official or correct than Anitas.
There are a lot of shitty feminist, you're not allowed to just write them off because you don't like it.
>>371607
I guess redditors truly are 4channers and to say otherwise is using no true scotsman
>>371675
Yes they are and they're also redditors. "4channers" are not inherently good nor do they have do anything other than use the site to be a "4channer". You can hate redditors and (rightfully) call them cancer but denying they use the site is laughable
>>371600
>this is considered fat in Japan
>>371690
>this is considered "healthy" in America
>>371690
Actually, no it is not.
>>371658
Feminism and Marxism have nothing to do with each other. Stop watching Fox News.
>>371600
I dont care.
You need to fuck off and the people who cant stop talking about it need to fuck off too.
>>371600
If you mean regular folk, people always oversimplify the world. It's expensive to understand every human subculture.
And in the case of government officials, it's not about what she really is, but how she can further political agendas. Anita is a blatant hypocrite. She was a doxxer herself, and now she gave a conference about online harrasment in the fucking UN. I don't know what is going to happen, and why she is given so much voice, but the way I see it people in spheres of power just use her story as a mean for the destruction of anonimity online.
>>371815
we're talking cultural marxism
>>371658
How can that be the case when I am a true feminist.
>>371847
regardless of you ideology, I usually advice against calling yourself a "true" anything.
Even in less divided ideologies where you cannot point out differences between "waves", human culture splinters very easily, And you'd find yourself arguing over semantics any time you try to defend you are the "true" one.
I mean that if 2nd and 3rd wave feminism didn't exist, you'd still be arguing about what true feminism is anyways, and your own definition is meaningless; your only support for it is that *that* is what you think it is. And who are you to define it?
>>371600
Probably because so-called "true feminists" never speak out against or criticize her, at least not loudly enough for the common folk to hear it.
If you want extremists to stop giving you a bad name, you can't just go "we're not all like that!" You have to actually shout the extremists down, or else nobody will be able to tell the difference.
>>372216
Also this. "Feminist" is such a vague, poorly-defined label that pretty much anyone who isn't an active advocate of Sharia Law can call themselves a "feminist". What does the word even mean? Ask any two self-proclaimed feminists and chances are they'll give you wildly different, and in some cases contradictory, definitions. The only definition that has a decent consensus is "the radical notion that women are people", and only because it's so broad and vague that it encompasses basically everyone on the planet save for a handful of nutjobs like Elliot Rodger.
If you really care about a cause, just dispense with the label entirely and support the cause directly. Want to stop workplace harassment? Then just say "I want to stop workplace harassment". There's no need to attach a vapid, overused, meaningless label to it when all it's going to do is confuse people.
>>371815
Marx and Marxism have, ironically, very little to do with each other. Marx himself is even quoted as saying of what Marxism had become towards the end of his life that "if that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist".
He started a movement which almost immediately deviated from his vision of what it was supposed to be. The man was a failure by pretty much every definition and I don't know why people hold him in such high regard.
Once groups get too large the fool will outnumber the geniuses because fools outnumber geniuses in general and people identify with like minded individuals.
>>372231
>He started a movement which almost immediately deviated from his vision of what it was supposed to be. The man was a failure by pretty much every definition
The same can be said about every ideology. Power hungry leaders have always co-opted ideologies to fool people, it doesn't mean the philosophers behind the ideas are failures.
>I don't know why people hold him in such high regard
If you read his works you'd know. And keep in mind that I'm not a Marxist, but his description and critique of the capitalist mode of production was brilliant.
>>371600
I'm sorry to inform you, but the masses of idiots will be the people who shape history; not the people that understand what is actually going on.
>>373823
Fuck, that is the truest thing I've seen in a long time.
