You can find footage of people defending literally any controversial take you might have. Doesn't mean there are enough subscribers to consider their position.

Highlighting one extreme statement in a huge ideological umbrella framework does not indict the entire ideology, as your original sentence claimed.

Is that controversial statement a common one in that ideology? An official one? Do many groups from that ideology subscribe to it?

You keep using the phrase "feminism", a memeplex that's as massive and diverse as any social movement, political ideology, or religion. But it's easy to oversimplify and be reductive towards such a memeplex, which includes members as diverse as Susan B. Anthony and Gloria Steinem, Zoe Quinn and Ariel Levy, Andrew Dworkin and Malala Yousafzai. You have to understand when dealing with a hugely variegated ideology it's unhelpful to speak in absolutes.

No but the groups behaviour however does; behaviour illustrated in just one example I have given. And I never claimed one example was what it took to make the situation, I stated the situation and gave an example when pressed for evidence.

The "memeplex" offers no such nuance to any of those that they oppose; and for all the claimed diversity within the movement the resultant behaviour remains the same.

> The "memeplex" offers no such nuance to any of those that they oppose; and for all the claimed diversity within the movement the resultant behaviour remains the same.

On the contrary, memeplex indicates quantity, size. A massive ideology with a thousand schools of thought inside. J.K. Rowling and Charlotte Clymer both identify as feminists. So do both Naomi Wu and Sarah Jeong. Such an umbrella term of ideologies contains myriads of sub-ideologies, many of them often in direct competition and contradiction with each other. To judge such an umbrella based on a single facet is to equate all of Islam to Salafi jihadism, or all of Christianity to Joel Osteen. It would seem that I am not the one operating without nuance, in this discussion.

> behaviour illustrated in just one example I have given.

A single statement from a single video? Perhaps that's the measure by how you judge all ideologies, but most do not subscribe to that heuristic.

> I stated the situation and gave an example when pressed for evidence.

And thus it is up to you to further prove that such evidence is indicative of the ideology, broadly.

You can feel whatever you want about what it indicates, none opposed the worst aspects of their group, most supported them when pressed, most subscribe to a number of malicious beliefs and behaviours; you are welcome to show evidence where they dont. And again they offer no such nuance to those they disagree with so combined with the above none shall be offered in return.

The groups public behaviour indicates the ideology just fine; and when a group becomes publicly malicious enough on a large enough scale the onus is on the defence (eg its a given the nazis were evil; someone defending them doesn't get to come in and just hysterically scream "show me the evidence" because its public knowledge).

There's no feelings involved, only hard facts and cold logic. Comprehensive evidence has not been demonstrated on the other side; only irrational emotion. Argument from outrage is fallacious and has no bearing on reasoned debate. Allegations of public maliciousness must be demonstrated; attempts to claim such exists a priori without actual demonstration is an attempt to engage in the big lie. You have undercut your own position, sir.

You have presented no hard facts or logic. As stated, the groups public behaviour is consistent and malicious enough to be common knowledge. If you can't follow that logic then how can you hope to have an opinion on what is or isn't fact and logic. Or is this another attempt to redefine words for malicious use? Something far from uncommon within said group.

We have seen it over and over again in universities, in the corporate world. We have seen it in their numerous attempts to stifle free speech and to abolish right to fair trial. We have seen it in their uniform hypocrisy (were gendered insults still considered bad or is that mansplaining?) We have seen it in the trope of sex predators using the identity as a social shield for themselves.

You are being a denier at this stage.

You need to actually present evidence, saying things just are, don't make them so.

Re-read the comment; saying things just aren't, don't make them so.

I'm not surprised these conversations are predictable to you, if every time you twist the other person's argument into one that fits the narrative.

Stating reality I'm afraid to tell you isn't twisting to fit a narrative, but again, subscribers to an ideology who find "men are on average taller and stronger than women" to be a controversial statement will no doubt struggle with this as well.