Delta said:I take no issue with A.V. Yader's overall message that facebook profiles are just carefully crafted bullshit, and I'm not terribly fixated on the "lying, duplicitous scumbags" quote either. I'm speaking to a larger problem.
In any ideological group, not just this one, members have a tendency to say outrageous and idiotic things when speaking to their like-minded peers. Not having to consider the opposition's counterarguments (because the opposition isn't around to present them) brings out the worst in people. It's how college liberals have become so unbelievably crazy with the lack of intellectual diversity on campus. Unfortunately, we're not immune to the effect either, and the quote I highlighted earlier is just one example of many.
Consider it this way: How hard would you want to hammer a feminist who said that men are "nothing but scumbags?"
I strongly encourage everyone, whether posting or writing articles, to write under the mindset that you're speaking to a general audience, not just fellow RVF members. It's the best way to ward off intellectual laziness and prevent yourself from saying something ridiculous that may turn off men who could otherwise benefit from the community.
The feminists and SJWs drove us out of the relatively neutral, mainstream forums where we otherwise would've shared our views. For the sake of reaching more people, we would've moderated our tone to appeal to the masses, if we'd been allowed to continue speaking in those places. But whenever we dissented in the slightest from the party line or said anything mildly politically incorrect, they called us extremists, bigots, misogynists, etc. and kicked us out.
Therefore, we had to retreat to our own "safe spaces" where we could speak freely, and where entryist feminists and SJWs were banned in order to keep them from taking over and disrupting the conversation through censorship, shaming, etc. (as they do in every other online community that tolerates their presence). Naturally, this tended to produce a radicalization and a polarization of the discourse. But whose fault is that?
For the most part, feminists and SJWs refuse to engage their opponents in any kind of civil debate. When we're on their turf (e.g. a college campus, or a corporate workplace policed by HR), we're forced to stay quiet to avoid offending them, because they don't want to hear what we have to say. So it's easy to get out of the habit of accommodating their sensibilities when we do decide to express our opinions, in a place where we're free to do so.
Our only choices are to either acquiesce entirely to all SJW and feminist doctrine, or be branded intolerant, ignorant, hateful, etc. Since they're going to hate on us anyway, we have no particular reason to try to moderate our tone to appease them, when the time comes that we decide not to go along with their agenda.
We can try to meet our opponents halfway, but they're not going to meet us halfway, so what's the point? Whom are we trying to appeal to? The public is not going to openly come over to our side (although they might vote for someone like Donald Trump in the privacy of the voting booth) till the rebellion against political correctness has been successful enough that people feel it's safe to speak their minds. In trying to accomplish that rebellion, sometimes we can make effective use of tools like rhetoric, which help us to excite and rally the troops, and provoke a rash response from our critics. (So yes, it's arguably a form of trolling, but it's for a good cause.)