Calling the Opponent Crazy is a Dishonest Way to Invalidate Their Point

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.

  1. 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”?
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Calling the Opponent Crazy is a Dishonest Way to Invalidate Their Point

  1. Liz says:

    The last thread and this one seem to be related.
    Did something in particular inspire you to write them?
    Anyway…well said! And, hope everything is okay?

    • emmatheemo says:

      Lol, no, they are not related and I’m good. The last post (about being angry) is just a tendency I noticed in myself. Sometimes it’s fun to admit to a “sin”, even if it doesn’t make me look good. I wonderef is anyone else felt that way, and could relate.
      And this post was mainly a result of thoughts that have been brewing as I observed manosphere writers and feminists call each other crazy. Lately, it has been this Youtube video:
      I agree with him that this Laci Green chick isn’t some kind of moral authority on what videos we should entertain ourselves with, but his method of attack is rubbing me the wrong way.

    • emmatheemo says:

      There is something I want to ask. You didn’t write the blog “Life of Liz”, did you? At first I thought it was you, but the tone is completely different, so I assumed it was not you.

  2. A bit of civility in internet conversations is a good thing, isn’t it?

    • emmatheemo says:

      Sure, although I don’t really mind too much if someone is uncivil. Intellectual dishonesty bothers me more than lack of online manners.

      • trugingstar says:

        People can have manners and still be jerks. I don’t see what function “manners” serve. All they do is serve as a defense mechanism for the person who has them.

      • emmatheemo says:

        Manners are good in real life. On the internet no real violence can occur, so might as well run your mouth, lol.

      • trugingstar says:

        Another thought: sheer abuse is horrible too, but that doesn’t usually happen. There’s almost always the motive of gain behind any belittling comment. And that’s where intellectual dishonesty comes in. If I make a good argument, someone else will always be there to cut me down for my delivery. They gain by making themselves look smarter and/or more exemplary by comparison.

      • emmatheemo says:

        You mean a debate can devolve into a shit-slinging match?

      • trugingstar says:

        I should probably be more careful irl. 😛

      • trugingstar says:

        Just saw your comment!

        Shit slinging’s there for sure, but you also don’t have to sling shit to make another person look bad. The best way to devalue another person’s perspective is to politely imply their ineptitude. This is an offensive attack that doesn’t compromise a person’s defenses.

        If I were having a point-by-point discussion about issues and another person was unable to defend their opinion from my point, or they simply didn’t like my point, but weren’t smart enough to counter it, they’d go back to the one thing they’re really good at: personal attack.

        Most people go through life and they spend all of their energy honing that one skill. It’s probably the best most people can do.

      • emmatheemo says:

        Ah, politely undermining someone. I don’t know the word for it, but sometimes it takes shape of concern trolling. Or psychologizing, like someone else in this thread said (especially if they later says they only feel sorry for you and want you to get help). It’s hard to be committed to being intellectually honest, and never fall for any of these. People who want to be honest, are also open to doubting conclusions if new evidence comes up, and thus, can fall into self-doubt also.

      • trugingstar says:

        “People who want to be honest, are also open to doubting conclusions if new evidence comes up, and thus, can fall into self-doubt also.”


        Right, I don’t think there’s a general name for “politely undermining” someone, unfortunately. It’s almost like being framed as a naughty child by someone (man or woman) who pretends to be your mom. 😛

  3. This is an exceptionally well timed post for me. I’m debating posting something on NPD. Also, I literally just posted something on the ‘two wrongs offset’ mentality that seems to growing, as opposed to the traditional ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’ mentality that anyone who blogs should be capable of understanding….much food for thought here!

    • emmatheemo says:

      Now I gotta go read what you wrote on “two wrongs offset”. That idea doesn’t sit well with me. How long before the user gets tangled in his/her own lies?

    • emmatheemo says:

      Do you have a link? 🙂

    • Hi Emma. I’ve written about the ‘two wrongs offset’ twice this week. One is the “Use of the Word ‘Bitch'” that you have already seen, in which a man uttering the word ‘bitch’ offsets the original offense that prompted him to lose his decorum in the first place.

      The second is a follow-up email to the same woman I wrote to in “Then There’s Me'”. This is the one I’m debating whether to post publicly or not. I hesitate to post it because: 1. In the full email it is obvious that I’m all wounded heart butt-hurt, which isn’t very guy like. 2. In the email I discuss her being narcissistic, which, as you stated above, using psychology can easily backfire on men. 3. It is more personal and pissing matchy than most of posts.

      What do you think? Should I post it? Here is a snippit example of the ‘two wrongs offsetting’ mentality:

      You said: It’s hard for me to apologize for Wednesday night when I was told to “get the fuck out.”

      That is NOT a sincere apology. This doesn’t even address the issue–it is a piss-poor attempt at deflecting the problem back to me.

      If we ever resolve this (which, obviously, 99.9% chance we can’t) I will be glad to revisit the topic of how I am supposed to stand up for myself when YOU have disrespected ME. I’m sure there is a better way than saying, “get the fuck out.” But right now I feel like a fool for being as sweet and respectful as I have been so far. I feel manipulated. I am glad I stood up for myself, and you have said nothing to make me second guess my decision to do so.

      I’m torn between the therapeutic benefit of venting via blog post versus the embarrassment of trying to reason with a narcissist who, by definition, is incapable of feeling what I want her to feel. What do you think?

      Thanks for letting random internet dude dump on you, by the way….

      • emmatheemo says:

        You could post it if it helps you, but I can empathize with the embarassment feeling, too. But perhaps it won’t be so embarassing to post, if this is just your past, and you’ve learned from the mistake.

        Btw, I do feel a bit surprised when someone would try to repeatedly reason with an unapologetically mean person. I really do wonder what people think when they try to reason a jerk into being kind (repeatedly) with words like “This is really hurting me” or “When you say X, I feel very Y”. After many failed trials, it seems so blatanly obvious to me that the person doesn’t care, and exposing more feelings will just allow them to spit into the person’s soul some more. But perhaps some people think there is good in everyone, and people are only mean if they are misunderstanding you/are hurting?.. Anyway, I would stop after the first try.

      • Okay, I’ll post. It is the letter I sent when I blocked her.

      • Okay. It’s up. We shall see if it blows up in my face, LOL.

  4. caprizchka says:

    Reblogged this on caprizchka and commented:
    I reblog this in honor of Carla Emery.

  5. Eric says:

    I never worry when other commenters pull the ‘crazy card’. I assume they’re probably engaging in psychological projection themselves. I found that if you answer them rationally, that makes them even more upset and they end up looking like fools.

    • Emma the Emo says:

      Yeah, funny how it sometimes works, isn’t it? I remember the was a kid in our neighborhood who called another kid “a flea dog” all the time. He ended up getting the nickname “flea dog”. Don’t repeat an insult if you don’t want it to become associated with you.

    • 99.9% of the time blog comments do not get to me, so I am in partial agreement. There are only a few who have the capacity to understand what I’m trying to convey anyway, and it is those few I’m trying to connect with. But there are always risks, no matter how thick-skinned you think you are….

  6. tman2000 says:

    Ayn Rand once wrote a whole about this phenomenon which she labeled Psychologizing. I mention that because her commentary on the matter is the most comprehensive rebuke of it that I have encountered. In the 60s, leftist groups would often speculate concerning the psychological issues of their enemies, rationalizing away dissenting arguments by claiming they were the product of psychological problems.

    In Roosh’s case, I can’t say that is what he has done. He’s not saying that Laci Green’s ideology is merely a product or consequence of her mental problems. He’s only questioning whether someone who is so unstable should be placed in a position of moral authority.

    While it is somewhat patronizing to claim that he doesn’t necessarily hold her body of work to be somehow tainted (he clearly does), he is at least being consistent with his overall argument by doing so.

    The ‘crazy’ label doesn’t define an argument. How it’s being applied does. You can’t discredit an argument by attributing it to craziness – you have to discredit the argument itself. You can discredit a person who is trying to assume authority – the investiture of power into a person specifically, not an office or an idea.

    You are too easy going about censorship. Censorship is an offense against humanity in many respects, it’s certainly an offense against liberal society. To demand censorship is a strong demand, a very very strong demand. You are saying that something is so poisonous that the moral agency of other adults needs to be taken from them, that they shouldn’t even be given an opportunity to judge something for themselves.

    Roosh could have simply criticized Laci on these grounds alone. He added her history of mental problems for a few reasons.

    The most practical is that it really augments the argument about Laci’s moral authority. She doesn’t have it. The second is that she has used her problems to help gain sympathy and support form her audience, she very deliberately made that information subject to public discussion for her own gain. Roosh is not letting her do so in a manner in which she can be free of consequences. Finally, feminists frequently use shaming tactics. Roosh is using the mental health issue as a shaming tactic. Albeit, he’s doing so gently, fairly, and subtly – but it’s very much an in-your-face comeback. Laci has done this to others, so again, that behavior isn’t good in any respect, but it’s important to hold feminists to standards of accountability at least some of the time.

    Just wanted to put the Roosh video and the ‘crazy’ label into context. I don’t think there’s a moral equivalency like you’re promoting. However, I appreciate your effort to be neutral in discussing the topic overall.

    • Emma the Emo says:

      Thanks for the careful reply. Maybe I’m missing something, but I still don’t feel it changes anything. So a manosphere writer is just “getting back at them”, or just using their tactics against them. He’s still using their tactics. And they happen to be dishonest. He can do whatever he wants, sure, but in my mind, it makes little difference who started it. Fighting lies with lies is not something I personally like.

      Also, I don’t see how this can be made legitimate by saying that this is not about discrediting her argument, but about discrediting her as an authority on the topic of morality (see point 1).

      On the other hand, I wouldn’t write those three points adressed to the manosphere writers if I thought these two groups (manosphere and feminists) were equally dishonest. I detect way more integrity in one of them just so you know.

      I’ll be sure to check out Rand’s commentary on this.

      • tman2000 says:

        Oh definitely check out “Psychologizing”. I think it’s exactly the subject you’ve brought up here, and regardless of what else she wrote, Rand’s take on it is very relevant to your point.

        I agree with and admire your hope for more integrity in the arguments everyone is using. It’s hard to continue to belabor the point.

        Yet still, Laci Green’s argument is of a sort that needs no refutation. Calling for censorship is absurd. I know some young people might not know that inherently, they do tend to fall prey to extreme political movements. And youth are involved in the debate, so I suppose that’s worth keeping in mind. However, I stand by the notion that Laci’s argument in this case doesn’t need refutation, so to address her argument for censorship doesn’t mean having to use a rational reply – because reason suggests an automatic response: censorship is wrong.

        I know your overall point is about civil discourse, not necessarily this or that video, as well.

        In the end, what Roosh is doing is specific from his experience and worldview concerning women. I’ve read some of your blog so I know you won’t mind if I lay it out like this.

        I think he feels that feminists will effectively rationalize whatever argument supports their goal regardless. Rational counter-arguments will be deflected. So, the only tactic of discourse that would work is to belittle, shame, and mock. It’s effectively an ’emotional’ argument meant to demoralize. I think Roosh views feminists not as equal debate partners within a civil society (considering the unequal laws they support, and the utter hate that comes from them), but rather as vile misandrists. His goal is to defeat their rhetoric.

        But hey, that’s what you’re talking about in the first place! So addressing that, let me say that it might be worth considering that this overall debate is much closer to a war than to a discussion. Seeing as how one side in particular seeks to use the law, and the violence attendant to it, to put a class of people at a decided disadvantage. Explicit exploitation rather than subtle, cultural, or implicit exploitation.

        It’s not men vs women, nor feminists vs anti-feminists, it’s feminists vs. men as a class.

        Granted, for the sake of fairness I can concede that perhaps there might be implicit cultural disadvantages for women. But I don’t think there’s very much evidence for most of what feminists claim as these disadvantages. And, their solutions are very awful.

        Now, some institutions say that if men withhold sex, or threaten to leave relationships, that counts as domestic abuse. This should be deeply disturbing to rational people, and yet somehow the vanguard of society lets this stuff surface.

      • emmatheemo says:

        I agree with you that arguing with a feminist is pointless. The best you can do is sway the public. It can be done in many ways, and Roosh is using one of them.

        Perhaps I find this method to be vulnerable, because I live in Norway. Here, the rates of forced institutionalization are high compared to the rest of Europe. I don’t think you have this problem in USA. Here, you can become forced into treatment for other reasons besides “being dangerous to yourself or others”, too. My man was in some danger, when the police attorney who arrested him started publicly speculating about his mental health (because he was loudly antifeminist) and ordered a psychologist to observe him (the psychologist was a reasonable one and concluded my boyfriend is fine). In my situation, using psychology to shame someone is downright dangerous. I’m not gonna contribute to it. It’s not as crucial for someone like Roosh to avoid psychologizing, I guess.

    • Liz says:

      “You are too easy going about censorship. Censorship is an offense against humanity in many respects, it’s certainly an offense against liberal society. To demand censorship is a strong demand, a very very strong demand. You are saying that something is so poisonous that the moral agency of other adults needs to be taken from them, that they shouldn’t even be given an opportunity to judge something for themselves.”

      Maybe I’m not familiar enough with the problem…Roosh himself censors, heavily. I don’t think women are even permitted to post in ROK. In Youtube’s case (if that’s the beef here), the consummer is being offered a service. The company that provides that service is entitled to determine the rules of service. The same reason Roosh is entitled to censor HIS own site. In Youtube’s case, funding is generated through advertisements and controversial material impacts that funding. It’s up to them to set guidelines for the material they will allow and those guidelines can be set anywhere the ownership determines to be reasonable.

      • emmatheemo says:

        In general censorship, to me, only makes sense when the government is doing it – then it’s serious. Yet no one likes SWJs, and how they make people self-sensor in fear they’ll be doxxed, or click the report button so many times you’re suspended or banned somewhere, or even openly admit they can destroy your dreams if you say something about them. From what I understand, they infest many media and try to dictate how it should be (Spiderwoman’s butt should be smaller, things shouldn’t be so “sexist”…), make things less fun and a lot of people don’t like that development. I can understand the resentment.

      • Liz says:

        Ah, thanks for the background info, Emma. That clarifies things. I can understand the resentment too.

  7. Pingback: Calling the Opponent Crazy is a Dishonest Way t...

  8. Shee says:

    AKA ad hominem logical fallacy.

  9. Ken Pulk says:

    Radfems and MRAs = two sides of the same coin

  10. Ken Pulk says:

    What about calling the opponent “mangina/brainwashed by feminism”? Hmmm?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s