Dumbest article you've ready

[Riotguards]

so yeah, i choose you escapist to list the most stupidest (non parody) article you've read regarding any issue, this can range from anything from politics, science, gossip, etc, etc and if so why is it the dumbest you've read



the most dumbest article i've read is just recently as today, i never though i'd read something that misses the point so far but its just impossible, the dumbest article name? well none other than "Feminism vs. Humanism: Continuing to Claim a Feminist Identity" from

http://feminismandreligion.com/2013/08/21/feminism-vs-humanism-continuing-to-claim-a-feminist-identity-by-gina-messina-dysert/ (mods if its now allowed please tell me)

quoted as saying

while feminism and humanism seem to be working toward the same objective, the foundations of humanism contradict the feminist mission of justice.

First, the European Enlightenment is responsible for the foundation of humanism. As Emily Lindsay Jackson points out, European privileged white men sought to remake humans of the New World in their own image. Likewise, as Judith Butler explains, contemporary humanism does not value diversity and difference, but rather presumes only one way to be human.

While feminism calls for justice in all forms and honors diversity, humanism demands we all conform to an ?enlightened? understanding of what it means to be human. Thus, as Jackson states, ?humanist solutions to current social problems ? based on science, secularism, and ?artistic creativity? ? at the same time reinforce western, privileged, patriarchal values?? Whereas feminism is concerned with gender politics, humanism is founded on patriarchal values that ignore the gender based injustice endured by women around the globe.

i don't think i need to tell you that the definition of humanist is equality so how this person managed to reach the conclusion that humanist = male empowerment and supports "patriarchal" view

i think any intelligent feminist would agree that humanist is simply equality for all and no discrimination between anyone (i.e. women getting far too lenient sentences on crimes vs men getting high pay positions because they are male)


well enough of that, lets hear what you've read!

 

[TheIceQueen]

We can't even go a couple days without a thread about "A dumb feminist said something stupid!" Yeah, that's right. Dumb people of any population say stupid things. At least the other threads don't try and bother hiding their intention of it by putting up a "But you can mock other people of other types, too!" wall, which is, admittedly, a little clever of you, sure.

But really, what's the point of this? What's the discussion value? We sit here and laugh at other people for saying stupid things? There's no value in that and it just comes off like a circle-jerking echo chamber.

 

[Harpalyce]

That sounds like a very interesting article. Thank you for linking it! I actually quite agree with the article. It's really simple, actually. There's a lot of issues of equality but right now, in male vs. female, ladies are definitely getting the shorter end of the stick. It's good - actually, it's essential - to recognize that. Even in little ways, like saying that the problems are FEMinism instead of just HUMANism. And humanism definitely has its roots in, well, whiteness. Feminism is trying to catch up on that, because it has a lot of the same problems; it's why non-white feminists often use the word "womanism" to distinguish that they're specifically fighting for rights *not* from the point of view of a white middle-upper-class lady. But, well, you've probably already heard that from the article which sounds quite good actually. I'm guessing you might be reading it for some class or futher discussion, if you're college-age? So it might be a good topic to bring this to the discussion - a bit more politely, maybe - and then have somebody else lay out the logic until it snaps into place for you. c:

As for the stupidest article I've read lately... probably one of the many trying to say that what went down in Ferguson, especially the levels of unrest and protesting, had absolutely nothing to do with race. A close second would be any article advocating an anti-vaccination stance, which is my huge personal pet peeve.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

99% of articles claiming that we don't need to do anything about climate change, or that it's not happening. Even if the scientists were totally unsure whether it is happening (and they are pretty sure at this stage) it is necessary in my mind to take action if we don't want to kill ourselves off or make the world hostile to human life. One thing we know is that the climate systems involved are very sensitive and the slightest change can have enormous effects we're probably not aware of yet. Messing with that is sheer stupidity.

Not to mention these kinds of articles are almost always politically motivated. I read one a few weeks ago which said the world was actually cooling and we need to burn more fuel. No surprise to know the author was associated with the mining industry. How this shit gets published in newspapers is frightening.

 

[Ylla]

We can't even go a couple days without a thread about "A dumb feminist said something stupid!" Yeah, that's right. Dumb people of any population say stupid things. At least the other threads don't try and bother hiding their intention of it by putting up a "But you can mock other people of other types, too!" wall, which is, admittedly, a little clever of you, sure.

If im correct that article was the other way around; someone twisting humanism into feminist hate.

Also BloodBrainBarrier; those are the funniest articles of all:
"since global warming is a lie we only have to worry about petroleum when it effectively runs out"
i still chuckle when i write it XD

 

[TheIceQueen]

We can't even go a couple days without a thread about "A dumb feminist said something stupid!" Yeah, that's right. Dumb people of any population say stupid things. At least the other threads don't try and bother hiding their intention of it by putting up a "But you can mock other people of other types, too!" wall, which is, admittedly, a little clever of you, sure.

If im correct that article was the other way around; someone twisting humanism into feminist hate.

Also BloodBrainBarrier; those are the funniest articles of all:
"since global warming is a lie we only have to worry about petroleum when it effectively runs out"
i still chuckle when i write it XD

I'm not talking about the article. I'm talking about what the OP is saying. There's quite a few threads on the Escapist that boil down to dragging some random feminist blog post all the way over here for no real reason other than because feminism is the biggest boogeyman right now (It makes me pine for the days of ME3 ending, it really does). This one just makes a slightly better attempt of hiding the intentions.

 

[Queen Michael]

A while back, I read an article where the writer encouraged people to stop trying to interpret so many famous people as bisexual. Apparently, it was wrong to see Christopher Hitchens as bisexual just because he'd had some gay experiences in his youth -- even though that makes it more wrong to see him as straight in my opinion -- and the writer also argued that some celebrity whose name I've forgotten can't be bi since she married a man.

Insane troll logic at its finest.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Something Ann Coulter wrote about football. I forget what exactly.

 

[Ylla]

I'm not talking about the article. I'm talking about what the OP is saying. There's quite a few threads on the Escapist that boil down to dragging some random feminist blog post all the way over here for no real reason other than because feminism is the biggest boogeyman right now (It makes me pine for the days of ME3 ending, it really does). This one just makes a slightly better attempt of hiding the intentions.

Oh well, its kind of odd... this anti-feminism movement in the internet, i dont even know what to think anymore.
I wonder if were doing fine in my country at least theres no bitching everytime someone mentions the theme. I feel like USA is deliberately taking steps backwards.

 

[A_Parked_Car]

Well, I will go with an article that was actually published in an academic journal. It is entitled "Army Air Force and Navy Air Force: Japanese Aviation and the Opening Phase of the War in the Far East" by A.D. Harvey. Without going into any great technical detail, Harvey clearly didn't have the slightest idea what he was talking about. The kicker is that I actually agree with his basic argument, it is just that 90% of his evidence and analysis is god awful.

 

[Queen Michael]

Well, I will go with an article that was actually published in an academic journal. It is entitled "Army Air Force and Navy Air Force: Japanese Aviation and the Opening Phase of the War in the Far East" by A.D. Harvey. Without going into any great technical detail, Harvey clearly didn't have the slightest idea what he was talking about. The kicker is that I actually agree with his basic argument, it is just that 90% of his evidence and analysis is god awful.

What was he saying that was so stupid?

 

[A_Parked_Car]

What was he saying that was so stupid?

Well, military history gets a stigma as being overly technical in nature. This is true to a certain extent, but in reality most professional military historians are pretty clueless when it comes to understanding how military technology works. For many things that one may write about in military history this lack of knowledge is easy to work around or flat-out not required in some cases. However, Harvey decided to write on a very specific technological and tactical topic and just didn't have the knowledge to back it up. His understanding of aircraft technology and tactics was abysmal and therefore large portions of his argument were painful to read.

I can't really explain in detail why I find his article so distasteful without writing a full paper myself. Simply put, imagine that irritating feeling you get when you read an article about something you are personally very knowledgeable about and the author is constantly getting basic facts wrong. It is really frustrating. Doubly so when said article was actually given a pass by a group of academic journal editors and published. XD

 

[Vausch]

I read an article in the daily caller about a former Planned Parenthood employee that said PP has a quota for how many abortions they have to get each year, and how she says they do everything to convince every woman that comes in to get an abortion regardless of how far along they are or why they came in. Said article also had quotes from Louie Gohmert (AKA the most idiotic member of congress to date) saying how it's sick how they're doing this to profit off of killing babies.

Problems with that:

1. Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organisation. They don't profit off of anything they do.

2. They don't have abortion quotas. It was a budget that went over how many that particular clinic had done in previous years and estimated what they should plan for the next year.

3. People took an article written by the daily caller that mentioned Louie Gohmert seriously. And was sad, because so far that paper/site is making Fox News look unbiased and sane.

 

[Eddie the head]

Ok am I crazy or did you say "dumbest article you've ready?" Because no one appears to be talking about the tilde being incredibly confusing. I get what you mean now, but could you go back and edit it?

Alright on topic. Anything by a creationist. Oh wait never mind the "spirit science" guy. I read something by him once and it was just wow. Even the worse creationist usually makes a coherent sentence. I mean they are wrong, but if you put the words together they mean something.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Huh.

Yet another half-arsed attack of feminism pretending to be about something else, this time not even linking to a bad article. And the thread is "Dumbest artical you've ready".

Not sure if this is supposed to be a parody. Could do with some work if it is.

 

[Riotguards]

Huh.

Yet another half-arsed attack of feminism pretending to be about something else, this time not even linking to a bad article. And the thread is "Dumbest artical you've ready".

Not sure if this is supposed to be a parody. Could do with some work if it is.

i honestly did not notice it was spelt wrong, thanks

if i was attacking feminism then i guess i did a bad attempt when i said

i think any intelligent feminist would agree that humanist is simply equality for all and no discrimination between anyone (i.e. women getting far too lenient sentences on crimes vs men getting high pay positions because they are male)

i'm all for feminist getting their rights and all but this person who defines herself as a feminist clearly does not know what she is talking about just like this recent video (from a news anchor)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIKfoO-JTcc

TheIceQueen
I'm not talking about the article. I'm talking about what the OP is saying. There's quite a few threads on the Escapist that boil down to dragging some random feminist blog post all the way over here for no real reason other than because feminism is the biggest boogeyman right now (It makes me pine for the days of ME3 ending, it really does). This one just makes a slightly better attempt of hiding the intentions.

so let me get this straight, criticising people for saying stupid stuff or doing stupid stuff is bad, we cannot comment on someone's views because it would be perceived as an attack on the entire movement/group/organisation

i'm not sure if you read what she said but she quite clearly put herself in the line of fire when she said about humanism being patriarchal, unless your saying you agree with her and that focusing on one groups issues is better for everyone
if this was referring to Men's Rights Activism would you say this is an attack on the MRA?

it seems really weird that you would take this as an attack because it calls out on people's stupidity


i kinda like how you managed to turns this from a thread about stupid things being said to "we're being attack!"

 

[Thaluikhain]

i'm all for feminist getting their rights and all but this person who defines herself as a feminist clearly does not know what she is talking about

Why?

Because she says there is a problem with the current humanist movement? That a movement aimed removing discrimination has problems with prejudices and biases of its own?

The latter is true, to a greater or lesser extent, of more or less any rights movement. The LGBT movement is dominated by white cis men, feminism is dominated by white cis straight people and so on. Members from the west often assume that their way of doing things is the way people in all nations should approach these issues.

It would beggar belief that humanism was immune to these problems. Now, that's not to say that it can't do any good, the same way that history is full of people who have done good things on certain issues despite being dubious on others, but there are always going to be concerns about it.

 

[Riotguards]

Why?

Because she says there is a problem with the current humanist movement? That a movement aimed removing discrimination has problems with prejudices and biases of its own?

The latter is true, to a greater or lesser extent, of more or less any rights movement. The LGBT movement is dominated by white cis men, feminism is dominated by white cis straight people and so on. Members from the west often assume that their way of doing things is the way people in all nations should approach these issues.

It would beggar belief that humanism was immune to these problems. Now, that's not to say that it can't do any good, the same way that history is full of people who have done good things on certain issues despite being dubious on others, but there are always going to be concerns about it.

well you hardly know my stance on feminism yet you perceive it as an attack on feminism

if i had said

"stupid feminist wanting to get a matrinarcy, they're so stupid that they don't even know what humanism is about"

you would have a reason to call me out on my BS but i quite clearly did not, i understand that in the past when humanism was drawn up, it was most likely based around white culture, but is that really humanism, when humanism is the concept of equal rights for ALL, its like saying a your a white supremacist yet you absolutely hate white people or an atheist who says they believe in zeus or thor

whether you do good or not is in your own merits even doing stupid stuff does not mean the group you associate with is wrong either

actually i've done a tad bit more looking up and to be honest i can see why people who label themselves as feminist would feel threatened by humanism

it seems as if people who identify themselves as a feminist but then move on to humanism (aka equal right for all instead of rights for women) then its somehow a statement that they have abandoned all rights for women or they do not agree with what previous feminism got for womens rights

simple put feminist want to make feminism more than what it really is, by saying stuff like

Whereas feminism is concerned with gender politics, humanism is founded on patriarchal values that ignore the gender based injustice endured by women around the globe

the foundations of humanism contradict the feminist mission of justice

While feminism calls for justice in all forms and honors diversity

the first quote passes feminism as gender politics where as humanism does not?, its as if humanism doesn't relate to humans which is very wrong

the second is wrong, assuming what she said is true and humanism is male rights, does not mean humanism is male rights, it'd be like calling yourself a pacifist and then having pub fights all the time

the third, well you can't honor diversity when you focus on one group of people over the other group

again, i do not hate feminist, i do agree that in 3rd world countries women are subjected to horrible discrimination and that they should start fighting for their rights, but i'd rather them fight for humanism instead of just feminism

 

[Riotguards]

double post sorry

 

[Lilani]

Something Ann Coulter wrote about football. I forget what exactly.

Everything Ann Coulter has ever written can be called the dumbest article written. Out of context she almost seems like a female Stephen Colbert with how crazy the things she says and writes are, except the difference between the two is she's actually serious.