5301

Flat Earth Community / Re: Eric Dubay shot us down

« on: June 26, 2015, 09:06:39 AM »

A member wants to get a "Think Tank" together to move FE forward... And the idea is stifled, blackballed, and discouraged by TFES members?

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3120.0

What does it look like to you?


—Rx

What? As far as I can see, there's only one discouraging post in that thread, and it's made by Thork. Thork is always wrong and no one takes him seriously. Where's all this "stifling, blackballing, and discouraging"?

5302

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Confederate Flag in the Mississippi State flag

« on: June 25, 2015, 05:39:05 PM »

This is literally the dumbest thing. I guess forcing your own agenda on others is the politically correct thing to do now.

Hopefully, they'll take that decision back. Historically, Apple are very reactionary about current events, but once they get enough bad press they get back in line.

I didn't say arduous, I said it would take forever.  It would take a long time to dig a mile of trenches, but you don't need the brightest members Mensa to do it.

A wonderful thing about online forums is you don't need to announce your activity and response times to everyone, since the conversations are known not to be real-time (unless you're Yaakov). How about you just make contributive posts when you're ready for them?

Edit: Also, please look up "arduous". It's my Mensa quip you have a problem with, not my use of that word.

5303

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Confederate Flag in the Mississippi State flag

« on: June 25, 2015, 05:32:46 PM »

omg, SexWarrior.  It's going to take me forever to deconstruct all these fallacies.

Yes, responding to ~25 sentences is a very arduous task. I heard only the brightest of Mensa members can even attempt it.

5304

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Confederate Flag in the Mississippi State flag

« on: June 25, 2015, 05:13:49 PM »

Meanwhile, the paranoia spreads to viddy games. America is looking as silly as always.

5305

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Confederate Flag in the Mississippi State flag

« on: June 25, 2015, 04:27:12 PM »

Regardless, my background aside, it's ludicrous to argue that the Confederate flag does not mean racism.  I typed in "confederate flag" into Google and the fourth predictive result, right after history, was "confederate flag racist."

Does that surprise you? There's a debate on whether or not the flag is racist. People are looking for resources on the subject. I thought we buried the "Google says so, so it's true" fallacy when Thork started spamming Google Trends graphs all over the place to claim that Microsoft is more relevant than bread and what-not.

But hey, I learned some facts too using your method:



9/11 was, in fact, a conspiracy. After all, "9/11 conspiracy" is the third (objectively more factual than your fourth!!!) suggestion for 9/11.
Homeopathy is legit - after all, if it weren't, the fourth suggestion for it would indicate it somehow.
America is not #1. Shame, I was hoping to move there in a few years.
EDIT: America is also Israel. After all, the two words occurred one after the other, and thus this is the only possible interpretation.

The Confederate Flag means racism.  This should be an axiom.

I'm sorry, but using "my claim should be an axiom" to back up your claim is not gonna work.

Now, I am fully aware that people say that it does not mean racism and I do maintain that they are wrong.  You don't get to hang a swastika somewhere and claim it means environmentalism.

You do, however, get the hammer and sickle somewhere and have it mean "airline".



Unsurprisingly, Aeroflot are not trying to kill Putin and reclaim the power for the proletariat.

You cannot rewrite the meaning of a symbol because you don't like part of it.

You can, and it happens rather frequently.

If you want to have a symbol that represents your Southern heritage and don't want people to think you're racist, then pick something different than a Confederate flag.

Alternatively, stop telling people that you know what they're saying better than they are.

Semiotics is a serious field of study with deep insights into not only how people perceive things, but also the way in which we associate feelings of loyalty, aversion, and pride; to say that all that can be undone by whatever the person flying the symbol thinks is frankly arrogant.

I have just decided that by "semiotics" you mean "vanilla ice cream". That should be axiomatic because of Bing, or something. Your sentence now makes no sense and you should feel really bad for it.

Now, I will fully admit that it's my opinion that the Confederate Flag means racism, but it's not a lonely opinion.

w0w, I never knew! This changes everything and immediately makes you right! After all, the popularity of an idea always determines its truth value.

While it may not mean racism to everyone, one of the core meanings of the confederate flag is racism.

Define "core".

When you use that symbol, you get that meaning.  Plain and simple.  When the KKK uses the swastika, they are achieving the white supremacy meaning that they desire, but they are also getting strong antisemitic feelings attached to that.  If the KKK said that they are just using the swastika to only mean white supremacy (I don't think they would, but lets pretend) they can't change the feelings that the symbol evokes in those that see it.  If the KKK wanted to use the swastika to convey a meaning of only white supremacy, then they are doing a very poor job of communicating.

Restating your claim over and over does nothing to strengthen it.

However, as it turns out, the KKK doesn't mind getting these other elicitations because the symbolism of the swastika so closely aligns with their ideals.  I was criticized for this sounding that I was making an argument for symbols being able to mean different things.  It was in part (they can mean different things, but one meaning does not invalidate the other meanings), but what's really at work here is symbols can mean many things.  Lets say that the swastika means three things: Ayran supremacy, environmentalism, and Nazi Germany.

No, let's say the swastika means four things, and that this list is not exhaustive: Aryan supremacy, the Purushartha, Suparśvanātha and the Sun. See, the funny thing here is that you don't need to make up new meanings for it - you just need to stop being a stuck up American who's only willing to examine the culture of his immediate surroundings.

white supremacy is very close to Ayran supremacy

No, it's not. Please learn some history or something.

People flying the Confederate flag cannot lose the meanings of racism associated with the symbol

They already have. It just looks like the American left wing hasn't caught up with it and are now up in arms over "I don't understand it, therefore it's evil!" I thought that was the Republicans' modus operandi, but the horseshoe theory is as strong as ever.

5306

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Is mainstream feminism/social justice authoritarian?

« on: June 25, 2015, 03:21:51 AM »

You included the satire piece in a list with the heading, "Here are some examples of modern feminist or otherwise social-justice-warriory behaviour that also happens to be authoritarian."  That is it in fact satire seems pretty relevant since this particular piece is a satire piece mocking "social-justice-warriory behaviour that also happens to be authoritarian."  How does a piece that is intended to satirize and mock Bahar Mustafa and her ideology support your claim that Mustafa's brand of feminism is the mainstream view?

Ah, I see, I accidentally put it in the wrong list. Fair enough. I'll fix that.

That wasn't so hard, was it?

Only selecting the ones that do and ignoring the many counter-examples is a selection bias.

Show, don't tell. Show me those non-authoritarian opinion pieces (or whatever else you think is relevant here) by feminists. Give me links. Don't talk about how they totally exist or about how you totally already showed them to me. Just give me the links. Show. Don't tell. To clarify: I'd like to be shown and not told. I'd like to see the evidence rather than be told that it certainly exists. For the avoidance of doubt: my request here is that you show me some evidence rather than talk about how it exists.

We definitely have a big disagreement over what authoritarianism is.  I don't think private actors can be authoritarian (towards one another, that is).

Yes, we clearly do have a disagreement here. I'm going with the definition of the word as described by Oxford, Cambridge and Merriam-Webster. You're trying to use something else which is currently unspecified.

For convenience, the definitions I'm referencing are as follows:

1. Favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom:
the transition from an authoritarian to a democratic regime

1.1 Showing a lack of concern for the wishes or opinions of others; dictatorial:
he had an authoritarian and at times belligerent manner

: expecting or requiring people to obey rules or laws
: not allowing personal freedom
: of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority <had authoritarian parents>
: of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people <an authoritarian regime>

demanding that people obey completely and refusing to allow them freedom to act as they wish:
an authoritarian regime/government/ruler
His manner is extremely authoritarian.

In particular, our disagreement appears to stem from the fact that you (needlessly, in my view) restrict the definition of authoritarian beliefs to require an underlying regime and/or the need for enforcement of authority. The words doesn't necessarily mean that, and any belief that others should submit to a particular group's views are generally authoritarian regardless of their power to actually realise those beliefs.

Surely they can support authoritarian action by the state, but expressing opinions about voluntary actions by private folks isn't what I understand as authoritarianism.  To keep using the emoji example, advocating a legal ban on white emoji would be an authoritarian position.  Advocating that people stop using white emoji, or even advocating that emoji makers (is that a thing?) stop making them, isn't an authoritarian position to me.  Any advocacy that people act or be or think a certain way isn't authoritarianism to me unless you're advocating the use of force against them.

I do believe you're misusing the word here, but at least now I understand why you'd disagree with my assessment.

I don't think libertarianism or authoritarianism make much sense outside of the context of state action.

Well, again, the definitions of "libertarian" from the three dictionaries I picked¹ include things like "someone who believes that people should have complete freedom of thought and action", and "a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action". It's entirely your prerogative to choose which meanings of words you'll acknowledge and/or use, but it's probably worth knowing that many will use these words differently to you.

¹ - before you accuse me of selective bias or what-not again: I picked the three dictionaries that I consider to be the most reputable. I did also have a quick glance at Collins, thefreedictionary.com and dictionary.com and found them more or less in agreement with what I'm saying, but I didn't think they're quite as worthy of bringing up at length because they're generally less used. I'm sure if you look hard enough you might find a dictionary that does disagree with me, but I failed to produce one. As such, I'm not claiming that this is proof of a consensus, but it is at the very least some fairly strong evidence.

5307

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Confederate Flag in the Mississippi State flag

« on: June 24, 2015, 06:38:13 PM »

I thought that I had demonstrated that the historic meaning of the flag has not had time to change.  Here is a great proof that the meaning hasn't changed and the the people waving it know it.



The people that brandish this flag have to attach an addendum to qualify that they don't think that their symbol means what you think it means.

No, they have to use the addendum because you keep trying to shove your opinion down their throat. Much like atheists have to keep using addenda about how their stance doesn't mean they hate god, but that they simply lack the belief in deities, or how Gamergaters keep having to say "Actually, it's about ethics in video games journalism", or how (some) feminists feel the need to point out that they don't hate men. Regardless of the validity of any of these claims, the reason they have to keep making them is that their opposition keeps trying to force a certain narrative on them instead of letting them represent their own views.

Personally, I'd argue that those who fly the flag are likely to know better what message they're trying to send when they fly it than you do (n.b. I do assume that you don't fly the Confederate flag. I don't think that's too controversial an assumption). They were even kind enough to write it out for you in a fancy red-and-blue font, so you don't have to guess.

I agree some of the meanings behind the symbol of the Confederacy has changed, but the salient meanings of hate and slavery have not.  This symbol still means these things.  If it didn't, then no one would care that it's on a flag.  However, as it stands, the Confederate flag means many hateful things that a state should not be endorsing; whether implicitly or not.

In saying that, you're saying that those who think the flag is racist are right, while those who say it's not are wrong. To justify this, you use the fact that some people claim it's racist. That's not on.

To continue with our Nazi analogy, members in the KKK will occasionally use the swastika to convey a meaning of white supremacy.  They don't attach the political and economical issues associated with the Nazi party that created our contemporary meaning for the swastika, but again, the salient points of white supremacy are still there.  So while the meaning of the symbol has changed, it still represents more or less the same thing.  Likewise, if the meaning of the Confederate flag had changed, there would be no reason to attach a caveat about heritage.

You just said it's possible to use a well-known symbol to mean something else than what it originally meant (swastika as white supremacy rather than swastika as Nazis). That, to me, sounds like an attack on your argument, not a defence of it.

5308

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Confederate Flag in the Mississippi State flag

« on: June 24, 2015, 12:19:16 PM »

The only reason to bring up the flag's historical meaning would be to claim that that meaning still holds. In other words, that by flying the flag the state is identifying itself with whatever bad things you think the flag used to mean.

If we agree that the flag is not used in that context in this case, then it's clear that the meaning has changed.

5309

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Is mainstream feminism/social justice authoritarian?

« on: June 24, 2015, 08:58:56 AM »

Because I don't accept the premise of the question. It isn't 'more' or 'less'important, they're two facets of the same problem - gender inequality and rigid gender roles that feminism tries to tackle.

You don't accept the premise of the questions and yet you restate the premise as your actual belief right after saying that...

Are you sure you read my post before replying?

5310

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Confederate Flag in the Mississippi State flag

« on: June 24, 2015, 02:08:07 AM »

The Mississippi flag was not repurposing the Confederate flag, it was "piggy-backing" on its preexisting symbolism.

From my perspective, the only way you could make this relevant is if you argued that Mississippi currently upholds that old symbolism, but your posts don't read like that's an implication you're trying to make.

5311

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Confederate Flag in the Mississippi State flag

« on: June 24, 2015, 12:42:43 AM »

However, these concepts apply to all symbols.  Southerners in the United States in the mid to late 1800's cultivated a very specific meaning for the flag that became the symbol of their movement; namely, pro slavery.  So, if you have ideals that don't match with this symbol, then using it will be a very poor way to communicate your stance on issues.  It would be like someone opening up a charity with a swastika symbol.  They can talk all they want about heritage, history, or how they have different ideals, but people are going to see that symbol and think one thing.

So, when a State has a symbol on its symbol -- a flag on a flag in this case -- they are saying that their ideals align with the ideals of that symbol.  They can talk all they want about heritage, history, or how they have different ideals, but people are going to see that symbol and think one thing.

The meaning of symbols also changes over time. The swasitka is a good example - it's rather quite much older than the Third Reich, and quite clearly did not always mean "Nazi beliefs". I don't think it's fair to say that since the Confederate flag had racist connotations 200 years ago (if it did, rather), then it must always carry these connotations. The phrase "heritage, not hate" is thrown around quite frequently when it comes to this flag, and, frankly, I don't see the reason to believe that the actually racist supporters of the flag are the majority of all its supporters.

5312

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Confederate Flag in the Mississippi State flag

« on: June 23, 2015, 08:24:58 PM »

Yeah, fair enough.

5313

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Confederate Flag in the Mississippi State flag

« on: June 23, 2015, 07:35:26 PM »

No.

Then I think it's fair to say that they have no idea what they're doing. They're sinking immense amounts of money and man-hours into something that brings no results.

More on the OP's actual subject, while I won't delve into my views on racism (I'm sure anyone can guess what I'd say anyway), I'd like to point out that banning symbols is a very ineffective and often counter-productive measure. Poland currently has a ban on the swastika and the hammer and sickle (except for justifiable uses, which are frankly sensible). In practice, all this ban means is that history enthusiasts need to seek approval when they want to host educational events, some people continue using the swastika to voice their support for hateful policies, others use similar-but-different symbols¹, and others (me) are given citations for wearing a hammer-and-sickle belt buckle (which I admittedly did/do to be w0w so edgy, so fair enough).

What this doesn't address is the actual culture of hate which may or may not be connoted with these symbols. It's an empty, meaningless measure which at best results in giving the symbol a "taboo" or "let's stick it to the man" taste that some people enjoy. And, lo and behold, Confederate flag sales are already skyrocketing following the national debate. How unpredictable.

¹ - Example: One of Poland's most radical nationalist parties, Narodowe Odrodzenie Polski (The National Rebirth of Poland) uses symbols like this:



together with such wonderful slogans as "Naziści? Jesteśmy gorsi!" ("Nazis? We're worse than that!")

5314

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Confederate Flag in the Mississippi State flag

« on: June 23, 2015, 07:20:15 PM »

The feds raid drug operations all the time.  What don't they "know" what to do?

Are you disputing the extreme inefficiency and futility of "the war on drugs"?

5315

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Is mainstream feminism/social justice authoritarian?

« on: June 23, 2015, 02:30:13 PM »

My argument was that they're two sides o the same coin. A lot of the problems with men could be alleviated, if not solved entirely, by ditching this idea that men must always be seen to be 'strong' and hypermasculine.

Agreed, but that's such a small part of it.

As for the specific example of boys' education in that Torygraph article, it mentions that "In the first stage of the study researchers presented 238 boys and girls aged four to 10 with a range of scenarios related to behaviour or performance, such as “this child really wants to learn and do well at school”. " but we're not told what the other scenarios were (nor does it give us a means to find the study.) I'll bet my bottom dollar that some of the other scenarios were along the lines of 'this child wants to be sporty', 'this child wants to be artistic', 'this child wants to be naughty' it would be interesting to see whether those expectations also fell along traditional gender lines.

Instead of answering my question of whether or not the issue is "less" important, you went out of your way to do your best to dismiss it. This answers my question better than any "yes" ever could.

5316

Flat Earth Media / Re: Latest Discoveries in Astronomy: Globe Theory of Earth Refuted, Orlando Ferguson

« on: June 23, 2015, 01:06:37 AM »

Please send me an email address for you and I'll send them your way, as it looks like they are bigger files than I can attach on the board system. Thanks!

Done.

5317

Flat Earth Media / Re: Latest Discoveries in Astronomy: Globe Theory of Earth Refuted, Orlando Ferguson

« on: June 22, 2015, 07:13:41 PM »

No, Ferguson's map is actually NOT common at all, though there are images of it on the internet.

My apologies. All I meant to say is that it's commonly known, due to there being multiple digital copies. My personal interest is in the spread of information - if it's widely available in any form, I call it "common". Sorry if I offended.

The book I have is even more rare, and does not exist on the internet at all.

That's precisely why I asked for it. I'd be happy to include it in our Library so it can spread.

Do you want to pm me some instructions on how to get it into your library? Thanks!

It's currently maintained by Parsifal and me. If you send the file my way, I'll be happy to include it.

Ok, I just looked at your library list.

Perhaps you could create a separate Orlando Ferguson section for the two books of his?

That's certainly something we could do. I hope to have a serious look at the Library soon, bringing some additions that were contributed a while ago. Could do this at the same time.

5318

Flat Earth Media / Re: Latest Discoveries in Astronomy: Globe Theory of Earth Refuted, Orlando Ferguson

« on: June 22, 2015, 05:14:37 PM »

Hi Stacy,

The map you provided is rather quite common. The book, on the other hand, would be a very interesting asset. Would you perhaps be able to digitise it so that we could provide an electronic copy in our Library?

5319

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Is mainstream feminism/social justice authoritarian?

« on: June 22, 2015, 05:02:51 PM »

That's precisely what I'm talking about. We teach boys that showing emotion is un-manly, that asking for help is 'weak,' that if they're facing problems they should just 'man up,' that if you're physically weak in any area then you "[throw/kick/punch/drive/whatever] like a girl." We applaud girls who go into traditionally masculine roles, but we mock and deride men who go into traditionally female roles. This expectation on men to be masculine results in violence, substance abuse, and suicide when they can't live up to these ideals.

That's not what the article I linked to is talking about. This is talking about boys being told over and over again that they're dumber than girls, which eventually leads to them performing worse since they stop trying to compete.

Part of feminism is about saying that there's nothing weak about being a woman, that femininity isn't lesser than masculinity. A feminist movement that lets women into work accepts stay-at-home dads and house-husbands, it accepts women who "wear the trousers in a relationship."

That's all cool, but it has nothing to do with the boys' issue I asked about. Really, I'm quite happy about the good parts of feminism. It's great that at least some of the inequalities between genders are being looked at. It's just that it's so extremely one-sided. Your response exemplifies that well.

5320

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Is mainstream feminism/social justice authoritarian?

« on: June 22, 2015, 05:00:10 PM »

lol how magnanimous of you.¹

Okay. I guess that's that for giving you the benefit of the doubt. You're obviously not interested in that.

¹Ok for real you do the exact same thing all the time.  I'll give you an example from the OP: the article from Thought Catalog is obviously satire.  Like really really obviously satire.  It's actually making fun of Bahar Mustafa.  And yet you chose to use it as an example as a genuine belief.  Why?  Because you are.....intellectually dishonest?!?!?!?! *gasp*.  No.  It's probably just that it's really terrible satire, and it would be easy to think that it was genuine if you just read the headline/nut graph and moved on.

The Thought Catalog article is indeed satirical, but that doesn't make it less relevant in any way. It illustrates the point I'm trying to make rather well. You seem to grill me for restricting my set of examples too strongly while simultaneously advocating that I restrict it more. Could you please choose one façade to hide behind and stick to it?

This is simply an instance of brevity intersecting poor word choice. I think your set of articles is narrowly restrained because it's a tiny and non-random sample of the population of feminist thought.

Of course it's non-random. As specified previously, I'm targeting a specific sub-group of feminists. If you think it's 2small4u, I can happily keep posting links.

There is not very much diversity of source material.  26% of the links in the OP come the Guardian alone.

And most of them come from independent contributors who don't have a long-standing connection with the Guardian. Your point? How does the choice of platform affect the validity and diversity of their claims?

Also, part of the reason I chose the Guardian as one of my more prominent examples is because it's a feminist source. I thought it would be better to take the mainstream feminists' word for what mainstream feminism is instead of linking you to a bunch of Daily Mail articles. I'm happy to diversify it even more if that's what you're after.

The rest are also news/opinion sources. You don't consider academic works, literature, public policy research and writing, art, polling data, etc.

Yes, I don't consider things which are out of scope for this discussion. If you'd like to bring them in, please, provide examples. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but shouting in my ear about how I'm terrible and wrong won't do that. Show me the evidence you'd like me to see. Show, don't tell.

I'm sure you would agree that the population of feminist thought extends far beyond TIME's readership.

Yes, hence my continuous insistence on differentiating between mainstream feminism (or your Tea Party) and feminism as a whole (or libertarians as a whole). No matter how hard you try to ignore it, I'll keep correcting you on that.

Using TIME as an example, I did a search of their opinion pieces for the term "feminism."  Sorted by relevance, here are a bunch of headlines that come up:

Sorry, Camille Paglia: Feminism Is the Best Thing That Ever Happened to Men
Flawless: 5 Lessons in Modern Feminism From Beyoncé
Viewpoint: Pro-Life and Feminism Aren’t Mutually Exclusive
It’s a Man’s World, and It Always Will Be
How Feminism Begat Intensive Mothering
Let’s Face It: Michelle Obama Is a Feminist Cop Out

Yes, it's a very diverse set of opinions about one subject. I'd count that as an asset rather than a negative factor. From my view, a platform that's willing to discuss all points of view is far superior to an echo chamber.

All of the opinion pieces definitely have the quality of generating interest through forceful opinions on controversial topics, not meek thoughts on topics of general agreement.  That's what I mean about sample bias/selection bias/constrained sources.

Could you name some examples of those "meek thoughts or topics of general agreement"?

I don't think a handful of opinion pieces represents an adequate sample of the population of feminist thought (or people who call themselves feminists).

Mainstream feminists - those with an actual impact on the political debate. But okay, if this is not an adequate sample, then what is? Again, show me the evidence you'd like me to see, don't just whine about it.

But the biggest selection bias is in the literal selection of articles.  Looking at the TIME search of "feminism," I'm seeing lots of opinion pieces that take the view that feminism is authoritarian/unnecessary/whathaveyou.  The OP is, literally, a list of opinion pieces that support your argument culled from a larger list of opinion pieces with many that don't.

Right, it seems that you misunderstood my intent. These opinion pieces aren't about feminism. They're opinion pieces by feminists about what should be done. They're not authoritarian because they said "we're (not) authoritarian", but because they directly and explicitly propose or engage in actions which are authoritarian.

Articles where feminists talk about how feminism is great are not particularly relevant to this discussion. What actually matters here is their actions, not words. What they advocate for and what they do is what will ultimately determine how outsiders see them.

Another good example of this is the first link in the OP about white emojis.  You have to take at face value that she's being completely genuine and not just trying to advocate an intentionally controversial position because that gets more readers.  She doesn't have to be making it up, just sensationalizing it.  For instance, maybe she is of the totally reasonable opinion that if more white people voluntarily chose to represent themselves with black emoji, then it would be beneficial to their overall outlook on whatever blah blah.  Nothing authoritarian about that.  But which do you think is more likely to draw readers to an opinion piece in a news magazine: "Let's Get Rid of White Emojis," or...literally anything else?

I agree that modern media have a lot of problems of their own. Unfortunately, it's difficult for me to believe that they're suddenly not serious about this when they were serious about things like: giving money to women in academia because they're women, offering preferential entry requirements to women willing to enter academia, or institutionalising the relevance of one's genitals when being elected to positions. With that precedent in place: yes, it's possible that everything they wrote is just hilarious banter and/or a provocation. It's just very unlikely when you consider reality.

Whether or not it's mainstream is what's at issue.  I'm still not seeing good evidence that what you're describing is the mainstream opinion among people who call themselves feminists.  You've established beyond a doubt that such radicals exist, but not that their ideology is dominant.

Okay, that's fine. If you have a counter-argument, please present it. I asked multiple times now to be shown this "other" feminism. I'm really eager to see it, because if it does exist, I might get involved again. If you think expecting to be able to see this "other" feminism is an unfair expectation, could you please explain why that is? How can I believe in something if I can't experience it?

I also take issue with your use of the word 'authoritarian.'  Most of the opinion pieces you posted describe private actors and private actions.  Only a couple of them are even about matters of public policy.

That's entirely irrelevant. A person can express left-wing or right-wing views without discussing public policy. A person can also express libertarian or authoritarian views without discussing public policy.

Emma Watson tweeting things you think are annoying isn't authoritarianism.

I didn't know the United Nations is now Twitter. But yes, her expressing authoritarian views on Twitter (I don't know if she did - you seem to be of the opinion that she did) would imply that she holds authoritarian views. Either that or she's part of your "literally everyone is joking!" dream.