Fixing Misperceptions With Mischaracterization

Stefan Molyneux has caused some controversy among the libertarian feminist community:

Stefan Molyneux’s recent video, a defense of his statement that "feminism is socialism with panties" (from which he takes his title) is not so much an enlightening philosophical speech as an ill-informed rant. The title of the video is intellectually dishonest, dismissing generations of women and men struggling for equality as panty-wearing socialists. The title panders to vulgar misogynists and is insulting to all women, feminists or not, and to anyone else who believes in equality between the sexes. The ideas expressed in this video and other videos of his that discuss feminism in a negative way are not only inaccurate but also dangerous, negatively influencing society’s perception of what feminism really is.

Because Molyneux’s anti-feminist views are unfortunately shared by many libertarian men and some libertarian women, we think it is important to take a stand and point out what is wrong and misguided about these views. Each one of the individuals signing this document has seen libertarian and conservative men attacking feminism without knowing what it means; men who have read nothing more than a few newspapers articles or anti-feminist rants by others and have no idea of feminism's rich and varied history. Their views, founded on little more than opinion, are merely knee-jerk "politically incorrect" responses that lack critical thinking and thoughtful analysis.

Fighting Like Cats And Imaginary Dogs

A while back, probably over a year ago, I made a comment on Reddit expressing my distaste for dogs in a fairly provocative manner. It shouldn't have come as any surprise that this trolling was met with some amount of hostility, most notably, the 'ol "AS IF cats are any better!"

It was just assumed that because I disliked dogs, I must like cats -- that pet preferences can be summed up in "either dog or cat." Of course, it's possible to dislike or like both animals, but because some people understand the preference as being an either/or scenario, my comment was likely to provoke a response in which the justification for the preference was framed in a false dichotomy. To serve as another example, "Democrats suck" is likely to produce several responses about how terrible Republicans are.

Dan Klein's Study on Confirmation Bias

Daniel Klein follows up on a previous survey which had shown liberals to demonstrate poor economic aptitude. The first survey contained these seven statements with incorrect responses following in parentheses:

1. Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services (disagree)
2. Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (disagree)
3. Rent control leads to housing shortages (disagree)
4. A company with the largest market share is a monopoly (agree)
5. Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (agree)
6. Free trade leads to unemployment (agree)
7. Minimum-wage laws raise unemployment (disagree)

Pay Attention to the Story

Breaking down a religion at every instance to point out an inconsistency is like watching a movie in two second intervals and screaming "He was wearing a red hat in the last frame!" Too many inconsistencies can totally ruin a movie, but if that's all you're looking for, you've missed the point.

Rahne, a respondent:

The problem is not that there are inconsistencies in the film. The problem is that the projectionists told you there were none, then became hostile when you noticed.

I agree.