-1=e^ipi

You really don't understand the meaning of strawman argument, do you? To be a strawman argument I would have to misrepresent someone's arguments. Regardless of whether or not you agree with my claim about universities threatening to financially punish people, I'm not even making a claim about someone's argument being X, so it's not a strawman argument. So much self projection, wow. I guess you are mad that I point out your logical fallacies when you make them. Asking a question about the consistency of someone's position is not a false equivalence. A false equivalence has the logical form of A and B are similar, therefore A and B are the same. That's very different from asking 'do you believe A?'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence Who did they harass and how did they do it? Back up your claim with evidence. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it isn't kicking people out for having the 'wrong' opinions. Name 1 person who was harassed... Karen Straughan.

^ Can't give 1 example. As expected.

We need a thread to discuss the terrible plague of Manspreading that is infecting our society! Btw, the above statement is sarcasm (I probably have to say this or Michael will delete this thread). What is manspreading? Apparently it is this: Or this: Yes apparently men are spreading their legs too much when riding transport. Not only does this take up more space, but according to leading 3rd wave feminists and social justice warriors it is a form of pecocking and men imposing their patriarchal dominance on females by presenting their junk. This is apparently such a problem that New York City has made manspreading illegal. Not only that, but arrests have been made. Now of course the cops are primarily arresting blacks and latinos, and they make arrests at midnight when the buses are primarily empty, but that's just a minor detail. http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/05/nypd-is-now-arresting-people-for-manspreading-their-legs-too-wide-on-subways/ To combat manspreading, feminists on tumblr and elsewhere have been publicly shaming men in cities such as London, New York and Toronto for manspreading via taking pictures and posting them online. In all seriousness, feminism has long passed the point of 'fighting for equality' and now because fighting against the patriarchy for women's rights is the raison d'etre for so many people, they have to make up problems. Dear 3rd wave feminists (male, female or other) and SJWs, you may not have noticed this but men have these things called testicles. They are male reproductive organs that are located between the legs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testicle. Due to these organs, it is extremely uncomfortable not to have your legs somewhat apart while sitting if you are male. Not only that but there is an issue of stability. Men have a higher centre of gravity. Due to that, they have a greater moment of inertia for a given mass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_of_inertia. Not only that but men have smaller hips relative to their body mass compared to women. To compensate this and to avoid falling on those around you, one needs to have legs somewhat apart while sitting on a moving vehicle. This is not only an issue for men but for women that have greater upper body strength and relatively slim builds. I can understand complaining about manspreading if someone has their legs like 180 degrees apart, but 30 degrees apart? Seriously? Has our society become so misandric that we have to publicly shame men for existing and having testicles or higher centers or gravity?

Yes, teach them climate science, teach them physics, teach them the scientific method. Far better use of time than preaching climate change alarmism.

I agree, but arguably our public schools do preach religion, be it SJWism or climate change alarmism.

Not to mention that if someone is good at math, they probably have enough logical consistency to not believe in this SJW nonsense.

It's not so funny once you think about the implications. Removal of free speech on universities across North America, financially punishing staff with 'incorrect' views, etc. SJW influence grows day by day. See cybercoma, the reason you can convince yourself that you are not racist, while simultaneously supporting racist policies such as affirmative action is because you suffer from large amounts of cognitive dissonance. The value of an argument is independent of the person who makes it. What you are doing above is an appeal to authority fallacy. See above. Except this time it's an ad hominem. Not to mention this idea that someone's opinion should be dismissed or have less value if they are a white male is sexist/racist. Appeal to motive fallacy.

Please provide an example of where I misrepresented someone's argument and didn't retract my claim shortly after. Please provide the person that was misrepresented, the argument they made, and how I misrepresented it. You and Black Dog seem to think that me making jabs at SJWs counts as 'strawman arguments'. I suspect a lot of it may be projection.

Another issue is that since certain ridings historically tend to go a certain way (some are very conservative, some are very ndp, etc.) a group of people may not get the best candidate for them. Let's say hypothetically that the greens get enough votes for 1 seat in the house of commons. Most of the green voters would prefer to be represented by person A who is in riding X. However, riding X has a lower % of votes compared to riding Y, so under your system person B of the green party in riding Y is chosen over riding X. Not only that, but you create an incentive for parties to move high ranking party members to 'safe ridings' in order to ensure that they get elected. So you may actually get less regional representation because perhaps the MP you like in your region (who represents the region very well) is displaced by another candidate of the same party in order to ensure that this new candidate is in a safe riding. It's about giving people more options. Also, the fact is that a lot of people do vote by political party. Just because you don't, why should that trump the desire of those that do want to vote for a political party?

Much like it's up to university administration on who they hire or give tenure. So if they financially punish someone for having an incorrect opinion, such as thinking the most qualified person should get the job, it must be okay. You realize this type of argument is known as 'might is right'? No, but they did pay and they didn't break any rules. Should a bakery be allowed to discriminate against gay people? I understand why perfectly fine. No, it's because those views were threatening the safe and inclusive environment for women. So to make the environment more safe and inclusive, they kick out some neuroatypical bisexual women with differing views. If you want to split hairs, I guess the organizers might have been okay if Honey Badger just kept their mouth shut all the time and never mentioned that they have dissenting opinions. Yes, the neuroatypical bisexual women that support trans rights and gender equality were harming the cause of women's rights. *sarcasm* Name one person that was 'insulted' by honey badger brigade while they were there.

You lack reading comprehension if you think that my earlier statement necessarily implies that anyone is telling this group that. I never claimed anyone did. Perhaps you lack a decent imagination. There are lots of groups of people that aren't necessarily SJW that I disagree with. This includes Christian Fundamentalists, Islamists and 911 truthers. If the SJWs would prefer me to use a more politically correct name for them then they have to come up with a name for me to use. Please do.

In order for you to strawman someone, someone must exist to strawman. Who am I strawmaning? (or is saying strawpersoning more gender neutral?)

You keep claiming strawman, yet how am I making a strawman? Who's position am I misrepresenting?

It's all relative. I guess they would be relative to slaves that had worse conditions. Economic theories, psychology theories and sociology theories make falsifiable predictions all the time. A very famous example would be the Keynesian prediction that stagflation could not occur... turned out to be false, quite false. Or the neoclassical prediction that raising a minimum wage can never increase employment (arguably falsified by Card and Krueger). It really isn't. Are we all supposed to believe in this mythical patriarchy and base policies on it's existence, yet we cannot test its existence? Sounds like theocracy to me.

Telling a group of people that they are privileged so that they deserve all the injustice they encounter due to this privilege is a very effective way to oppress a group of people. Being protected is a privilege. Also, a lot of sexism we observe today stems from male disposibility (which is due to the lower intrinsic reproductive value to the species that males possess). Many social organization theories make falsifiable predictions. But yes, patriarchy is unfalsifiable. It's in the same category as Intelligent Design.

This thread is to discuss making English and French (and maybe other languages) to be more gender neutral in order to help avoid confusion, be more convenient and to be more inclusive. Right now in English it is very inconvenient to always write things like him/her, she/he, etc. and many aspects of our language are unnecessarily gendered (policeman, mankind, even the fact that woman is two syllables and contains the word man is arguably not gender neutral). Not only is it inconvenient, but it creates confusion when addressing people with ambiguous or unknown gender. The current situation isn't very inclusive of gender non-binary individuals. I made a poll for preferred English gender neutral pronouns; please select your preferred option. There have been many attempts to construct gender neutral pronouns for English, although none of the options are commonplace currently. You can read about the justification for different gender neutral pronouns here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-specific_and_gender-neutral_pronouns#Summary. In many cases, moving towards gender neutral language is relatively straightforward (usage of police officer instead of policeman, usage of humanity instead of mankind, etc.). However in other cases it is less straightforward. The words woman and female contain man and male and are two syllables rather than 1. This arguably subconsciously gender conditions people to think that women are secondary to men or that women are less convenient then men. Maybe use something like fem for female or woman (which would be similar to the french word femme and would be just as compact as man). With respect to how to move society to more gender neutral words, I suggest getting enough support to elect a government that favours gender neutral language and wants to legislate gender neutral language as acceptable English in government institutions. However, don't force people to use gender neutral words if they don't want to (since that is authoritarian and will turn people off), simply make it an acceptable option for those that wish to (it will also help that there is a common standard for gender neutral language). Over time people will use gender neutral words in situations where it makes sense. French is even worse. The language is intrinsically more sexist than English. It contains gender associations everywhere by assigning genders to nouns that should have nothing to do with gender, be it le stylo, l'honneur, la lâcheté, la porte, etc. Not only that, but feminine endings are generally longer than male endings, which subconsciously suggests to the user of the language that women are secondary and inconvenient. Then you have cases where ils is used to describe a group of males and females as well as il being used to describe the state of the world such as il pleut. This again suggests that maleness is the norm and females are secondary. There are ways to make french more gender neutral. For example, getting rid of female word endings, replacing le and la with lo (which is linguistically between le and la) and using words like on instead of il or elle. Modifying french to be more gender neutral not only has the advantages I mentioned for English, but also makes the language easier to learn for non-Francophones, which means that there will be more people able to speak French. I'll end this post by providing a random link to someone's suggestion on how to make French more gender neutral. https://www.duolingo.com/comment/4186240

Yes, clearly all these males dying in trenches in WW1, during the height of 'patriarchy' are all just 'horseshit'. Way to go patriarchy! Privileging men since before 1914. I don't have any gamer gate bros. Women first is an inherently sexist policy. Just like men first is sexist. Please provide me with 1 falsifiable prediction made by patriarchy theory that cannot also be explained with matriarchy theory.

Fixed (forgot an f) Edit: my frozen picture got deleted as well. Is someone messing with my posts?

So let's see. Frozen is now a microaggression as it features predominately white people without representation of people of colour. The horror! And apparently according to other SJWs, frozen is misogynistic because it treats women as sex objects (http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24441-bbc-world-service-gets-trolled-by-fake-sjw/).

The nonsense spreads. Now to the University of Wisconsin. http://www.uwsp.edu/acadaff/NewFacultyResources/NFSRacialMicroaggressions_Table.pdf

Perhaps cybercoma should have chosen better words than 'people aren't equal is a problem'.

You mean like back in the day where only males where drafted and made to go fight and die in wars? Or how about males historically having higher workplace death rates? How about during disasters such as the titanic where they had women and children first policies? History isn't as simple as this naive patriarchy nonsense propagated by the feminist mainstream. You are setting up a false dichotomy here (feminism vs traditionalism) as well as a guilt by association (if you disagree with certain forms of feminism then you are against civil rights).

So you don't agree with gender equality then? Well at least you are honest about it.

Or you could just listen & believe women when they tell you that they feel threatened by contrary opinions. For example, removing the Honey Badger Brigade from the Calgary Comic Con because they threatened the 'safe and inclusive' environment for women with their dangerous opinions is an example of trying to establish this safe space.

I know right. We need to make sure that everyone is equal and that no one is different from anyone else ever.