I noticed feminists and manosphere writers are calling each other crazy, emotionally damaged, complete with fake pity and condescension. Sometimes it’s pretty obvious the writer is just being a jerk on purpose and wants to damage that person’s reputation. Other times, it seems the writer either truly believes their own words, or they lie very well and never drop their mask.
Well, I’m not gonna tell people to stop it “to be nice”. I just want to inform everyone that whether the opponent has mental problems or not, is completely irrelevant to whether their argument is correct or not. It’s usually just a quick way to make it look like the opponent’s argument has been invalidated. It’s dishonest and illogical. There are also disadvantages to using it knowingly.
- If you say “He has no authority on censorship, because he’s crazy”, what will you say if a totally rational, emotionally healthy person with a perfect reputation comes along and makes the same argument? Will you be a hypocrite, or say “Yes, he has authority on this topic, because he’s emotionally healthy, and should be able to censor whatever he wants”?
- We all have had something happen in our lives, and we complain about it on the internet. Unless you very carefully engineer your internet reputation, the opponent can dig up dirt on you, and claim you’re crazier than them, using evidence you yourself released. You thought talking about how you overcame depression and work burnout was inspirational? Nope, it will be used against you. You thought being open about stuff on the internet made you look brave? Nah, it just means you’re a crazy who can’t contain your emotions and have to spread them all over the internet.
- A manosphere writer shouldn’t cheer on the psychiatry industry, as it’s more likely to break him than his ideological opponents. Unpopular thoughts are often misunderstood and can be labeled as crazy. Don’t dig your own grave. No one will have sympathy when you fall into it.