
Is This Crazy Rumor the Platonic Ideal of the Men’s-Rights Internet? - smacktoward
http://nymag.com/following/2015/11/this-the-perfect-insane-anti-feminist-rumor.html
======
forgottenpass
This article is a turd. The only redeeming quality it has is at all is that it
aligns with ideas that are politically popular. That shouldn't give it a pass.

Are the allegations on ESR's blog a bit far-fetched? Sure! But poor writing
like this is the kind of thing that pushes the kind of people who care about
good arguments away from trusting people aligned with that political position
(even if the listener themselves is also aligned!). As the rhetorical and
tactical measures become more about winning than providing a strong arguments
for your positions... more and more people are willing to entertain the
allegation published by ESR!

------
pandaman
The article at the link is just a rant, the actual news is in the esr's blog:
[http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6907](http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6907). tl;dr it's
an allegation that feminists activists are looking to falsely accuse Linus
Torvalds and other prominent male developers of sexual assault.

------
hitekker
I use to think that any article should only be evaluated based on their worth
of its arguments. I now check the biases of the person and organization which
publishes it, before reading.

The difference of this approach from ad-hominem is that it's more a mental
"test" than a "shortcut". "How intellectually honest is this person or
organization? If new evidence or fact comes to light which disprove to some
degree the position they are maintaining or expounding-- will they change
their mind? Or at least be silent and move on to something else?"

If "not really", then I pretty much ignore most words they have on that
position. Taking partisans too seriously entails investing extra-thought into
separating the spin from the "truth". Put another way: reading
RushLimbaugh.com to determine what's wrong with America would probably melt my
brain.

Yes, everyone has biases: the key, at least for political understanding, is to
determine how biased they are before engaging.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Agreed. Its popular for publications with a goal, to write pseudo-scientific
articles. They adopt the forms of science or investigative journalism. But
they cherry-pick to suit their agenda. Its vital to know who is writing
something, before you can digest it responsibly.

------
anonnyj
That photo (look how dumb and ugly men are!) and the first sentence is kind of
distasteful. Even if she's right that's a really unfair way to start.

~~~
undersuit
I know such a dick move, maybe they should use an actual photo of Eric Raymond
instead. /s

------
cafard
There's a Men's-Rights Internet? What women do I sue for hiding it from me all
these years?

