From "FreeThought Blogs."
Meet HJ Hornbeck.
Don't watch the video, as he has a written transcript that, while long, you can barrel through fairly quickly as he isn't good at logic or reasoning.
The opening of the written piece:
As you can see from his YouTube video, to him MRA's are a massive projection of everything he claims to be against: harrassing/attacking women simply because they are women, extreme racism, homophobia and -- most embarrassingly -- against reason.
This isn't the first time this douchebag made waves: he first trolled the Internet with, predictably, the idea that atheists are superior to religious folk.
![[Image: szVmi.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/szVmi.jpg)
For all the claims over reason and logic that surround atheism, they have a not-so-surprising inability to understand psychology, as evidenced by the video and the poster campaign. One of the core premises that people who believe that America is a narcissistic nation is that casting off religion in a deeply religious society is always a bad idea. If you want a "reason-based" society, go to less religious societies. Expecting a society drenched in religious thought from its inception to turn away is simply sheer madness. Nothing reasonable about that.
Returning to his piece, it is a bizarre piece that turns on a few premises. First, is that people generally assume that men and women are biologically different and that bias colors scientific studies - but only scientific studies that point out differences between men and women. An idea that he doesn't explicitly state but is probably true is that he assumes that people who think sex/gender is all a social construction still harbor ideas that there are sex based differences.
Second, he assumes that he can shift the goalposts on what constitutes good statistical analysis. At first, he says that the existence of some statistical outliers is fine for studies. Then, he turns around several paragraphs later, calling out genetics research, saying the existence of one XY female or intersex individual disclaims any research that there are two sexes. The most generous interpretation is that he thinks every single human is a distinct identity that can't be gendered; later comments confirm this.
Overall, the piece is not all that well-written and he plays fast and loose with facts. He seems to regard feminism as some of unquestionable doctrine - and as an Atheist+, his assumption is correct. Feminism is the sacred cow for these people. Like I said previously, America's religious tendencies still persist and it crops up in people like HJ Hornbeck who are not critical thinkers. There has to a perfect past and there has to unassailable doctrines.
For all his bluster on social constructions and biology, his conclusion that sex and gender must be social constructions doesn't sound like somebody who is a rational person. He knows what his audience wants, he knows what he can and can't get away with. At times, like when he denies the effect of testosterone and estrogen on behavior, he comes across as if he doesn't really believe it at all.
The comments on his YouTube video are hilarious:
![[Image: a_560x0.jpg]](http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/vulture/2013/01/13/13-gg-gif-lena-dunham-reacts-to-clinton.o.jpg/a_560x0.jpg)
Dumbass
First, the fact that feminists still consider radical feminists feminists is supremely telling. If they are not what your movement is about, why do still refer to them as feminists? Hmm. . .
Second, the final sentence is laughable. The gap between a person's labor and what they actually produce is wider than ever. The existential dread we feel over work is that we subconsciously realize much of what we do is needless or we aren't able to appreciate the fruits of our labors.
How do these faggots exist in society?
The author's comment about women in wars:
![[Image: lol.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/new/lol.gif)
Take two warring societies, both with 100 individuals split 50/50 on men and women. Who loses in the long term? The one that sent 50 men into battle or the one that sent 25/25 men and women? You need to maximize the number of your wombs to ensure reproductive success. Only a highly successful, very large population can afford female soldiers. Given how high infant mortality is without modern technology, society can't afford women dying from things unrelated to childbirth.
Finally, consider Fred West, who issued statements that white men are incapable of experiencing racism and sexism. Apparently, individuals don't have psychologies or influence those around them. Only the white male superstructures influence people. Nice.
The last statement is common on these sorts of "reason" based videos and websites.
As far as the otherkin claims, I literally am at a loss.
The main problem with people like HJ Hornbeck is that they are so thoroughly self-assured of their own superior skills of logic and reason, that they engage in next to no critical thought about their own ideas. They are pure, progressive and not hampered by the bourgeois ignorance and privilege of the masses; no, they are the ones they have been waiting for.
We have seen this in Boomer Generation and we saw how it played out.
Meet HJ Hornbeck.
Don't watch the video, as he has a written transcript that, while long, you can barrel through fairly quickly as he isn't good at logic or reasoning.
The opening of the written piece:
Quote:Quote:
I believe if you visit the Youtube page you will see that HJ has adequately performed his intended task — dredging for MRA trolls and making them take anti-scientific positions. Because that’s what it takes to deny that feminism is right about its foundational claims: you’d have to be anti-science.
As you can see from his YouTube video, to him MRA's are a massive projection of everything he claims to be against: harrassing/attacking women simply because they are women, extreme racism, homophobia and -- most embarrassingly -- against reason.
This isn't the first time this douchebag made waves: he first trolled the Internet with, predictably, the idea that atheists are superior to religious folk.
For all the claims over reason and logic that surround atheism, they have a not-so-surprising inability to understand psychology, as evidenced by the video and the poster campaign. One of the core premises that people who believe that America is a narcissistic nation is that casting off religion in a deeply religious society is always a bad idea. If you want a "reason-based" society, go to less religious societies. Expecting a society drenched in religious thought from its inception to turn away is simply sheer madness. Nothing reasonable about that.
Returning to his piece, it is a bizarre piece that turns on a few premises. First, is that people generally assume that men and women are biologically different and that bias colors scientific studies - but only scientific studies that point out differences between men and women. An idea that he doesn't explicitly state but is probably true is that he assumes that people who think sex/gender is all a social construction still harbor ideas that there are sex based differences.
Second, he assumes that he can shift the goalposts on what constitutes good statistical analysis. At first, he says that the existence of some statistical outliers is fine for studies. Then, he turns around several paragraphs later, calling out genetics research, saying the existence of one XY female or intersex individual disclaims any research that there are two sexes. The most generous interpretation is that he thinks every single human is a distinct identity that can't be gendered; later comments confirm this.
Overall, the piece is not all that well-written and he plays fast and loose with facts. He seems to regard feminism as some of unquestionable doctrine - and as an Atheist+, his assumption is correct. Feminism is the sacred cow for these people. Like I said previously, America's religious tendencies still persist and it crops up in people like HJ Hornbeck who are not critical thinkers. There has to a perfect past and there has to unassailable doctrines.
For all his bluster on social constructions and biology, his conclusion that sex and gender must be social constructions doesn't sound like somebody who is a rational person. He knows what his audience wants, he knows what he can and can't get away with. At times, like when he denies the effect of testosterone and estrogen on behavior, he comes across as if he doesn't really believe it at all.
The comments on his YouTube video are hilarious:
Quote:Quote:
You have to admit, a man preaching to other people (especially women) about what is so-called "evidence-based" feminism, when such practices have previously been called "mansplaining" by the group of people he represents (FtB)? More than a little ironic.
It becomes exceptionally ironic when the talk is being presented by not just one, but two heterosexual white men, one introducing and one performing. I'm actually a little taken aback by the hypocrisy of it all. Wow.
Dumbass
Quote:Quote:
Your definition of feminism must be strange and unrepresentative. Feminist as a rule (ignore rad-fems when talking about the general views of feminists otherwise you'll end up being dishonest, a vocal minority is not a majority) now all feminists want is equality between people, this primarily works with fixing the men are more privileged than women. So discrediting claims which indicate that there are key immutable differences between male and female humans (ignoring gender, and intersex for this comment) clears the turf and allows you to take of bigotry head on.
That and factoring in thing like equal society are more vesiliant and productive evidence has a lot of give in the feminist movement.
First, the fact that feminists still consider radical feminists feminists is supremely telling. If they are not what your movement is about, why do still refer to them as feminists? Hmm. . .
Second, the final sentence is laughable. The gap between a person's labor and what they actually produce is wider than ever. The existential dread we feel over work is that we subconsciously realize much of what we do is needless or we aren't able to appreciate the fruits of our labors.
Quote:Quote:
Oops - just used "penis-bearer" to denote male after talking about how bio-essentialism is crap. You have the cis-male priv. my friend.
How do these faggots exist in society?
The author's comment about women in wars:
Quote:Quote:
That's patiently false; Viking invaders of 900AD England were gender balanced [ http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...nearthed/1
Take two warring societies, both with 100 individuals split 50/50 on men and women. Who loses in the long term? The one that sent 50 men into battle or the one that sent 25/25 men and women? You need to maximize the number of your wombs to ensure reproductive success. Only a highly successful, very large population can afford female soldiers. Given how high infant mortality is without modern technology, society can't afford women dying from things unrelated to childbirth.
Finally, consider Fred West, who issued statements that white men are incapable of experiencing racism and sexism. Apparently, individuals don't have psychologies or influence those around them. Only the white male superstructures influence people. Nice.
Quote:Quote:
So far I've been called a liar, been mocked for my way of life (trans, otherkin) and my sexuality, threatened with death and then had a man say I made argumants that I never.
This is despicable. Irrefutable proof of rape culture and patriarchy
The last statement is common on these sorts of "reason" based videos and websites.
As far as the otherkin claims, I literally am at a loss.
The main problem with people like HJ Hornbeck is that they are so thoroughly self-assured of their own superior skills of logic and reason, that they engage in next to no critical thought about their own ideas. They are pure, progressive and not hampered by the bourgeois ignorance and privilege of the masses; no, they are the ones they have been waiting for.
We have seen this in Boomer Generation and we saw how it played out.
