Comments

Well, I guess the internet feminist clique needed to make up for the disaster which was #ShoutYourAbortion less than 48 hours before. What's bad is that this hashtag was so poorly defined that even the cover art shilling this article through bots on the tag now is one of the most confusing things I've ever seen., seriously, look.



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPt2yKDUAAATTrQ.png


Is the art showing that Black muscular men abuse people using hashtags?  Is the Red/White man his inner self who is crying, which makes no sense because why would his outer self be bald, muscular and require glasses, when the supposedly inner self has hair and no glasses ?  Why does the man in the background look like a standard Black male caricature?  Are you criticizing black masculinity?  Like seriously, who chose this(more than likely stock photo) to shill as the face of the article?


Then the purpose behind the hashtag itself is intellectually dishonest, not to mention mean-spirited, it was never about starting a conversation(which is always the defacto excuse when a feminist shouts poorly thought-out arguments on the internet and recieves justified backlash), it's exclusively an engineered kafkatrap that would allow the feminist clique to claim victory if not even a single person decided to provide a counterpoint on twitter.


Rather than "starting a conversation" what you created was basically a kafkatrap like this:


Person A: "Your sex/race/ethnicity has a problem and you just don't know it"

Person B: "I take issue with this egregious overgeneralization"

Person A: "You trying to defend your sex/race/gender/ethnicity proves my point, you have this problem!"

Person B: "What?"


This circular logic seems to be behind many of the engineered gender controversies on twitter.


Anyone who wants to know how kafkatraps work, and why they have become the de-facto tool for progressive agenda pushing can read more about them here.



http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/35550/Wendy-McElroy-Beware-of-Kafkatrapping/


Just once it would be nice for these writers to admit that it was never about "starting a conversation" that it was about engineering a controversy to gain hit and push an agenda.