rationalskepticism.org

Cito di Pense wrote:

Forty Two wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:You might have to face the fact that anything you don't have to pay to read may have little value as currency in an argument,

Yet, almost every source cited on this forum comes from sources you don't have to pay to read. Do we automatically discount all citations from non-pay sources as click bait? If not, then what is the metric to be used?

I didn't say we automatically discount everything we read for free. I said that whatever you're reading for free may have little value in an argument. I'll give you a few guesses about why that is.

That's a statement applicable to any source which can be read for free. Of course a source "may" have little value. Or, it may have great value, because the ideas expressed are valid and backed up by reason. Also, discussion of the issue raised in given publications may be valuable in and of itself.

However, stating that some sources may have little value is not of much use until you apply it to a given situation. Apply that principle to the sources in the OP. Are you saying the sources or articles in the OP have little value? If so, what metric are you using to determine that they have little value? Why?

Cito di Pense wrote:
In answer to your questions about the Jezebel article (or whatever you quoted in your OP), it's pretty obvious from the way it's written that it's intended as click-bait.

Perhaps. In a way, all online articles are "click bait." Advertising is paid on traffic, and clicks are recorded to show traffic to a site. So, any web publication that charges advertising based on traffic has an incentive to increase clicks. However, that doesn't say anything about the substance of the article or its arguments, does it? Couldn't it be click-bait AND a good argument?

Also, does it have to be a good, non-click-bait, article to be discussed calmly and respectfully here? Why not just discuss the substance? If everyone agrees that the substance of the article is bollocks, then it'll be a short discussion, won't it?

By discussing the "is it clickbait" issue, people avoid opining on the actual argument made in the articles. I wonder if that's purposeful.

Cito di Pense wrote:

It's pretty obviously intended to irritate people who have a particular (mistaken) view of feminism.

What makes you think these articles have anything to do with feminism? You asked me above if I thought that any commentary on a sexist cultural issue had to be about feminism, and I of course answered "no" of course it doesn't. Maybe this doesn't. it's written by avowed feminists, and the artlcles do appear to link the issue to feminism in terms of feminism's battle for equality. The allegation is that this is an oppression of women -- women don't get to have clothes with pockets, and it's sexist culture that compels them to wear pocketless clothing. The article in Jezebel even criticize men for not reacting with enough interest and enthusiasm when a woman exclaims that she has found clothing with pockets.

so, maybe the article has to do with feminism, maybe it doesn't.

But, do you think The Atlantic Monthly published this article for the purpose of driving clickbait traffic -- appealing to people who have a mistaken view of feminism?

And, what's the mistaken view? Is it the view that feminists often claim things like clothes and pockets are sexist? Is that "mistaken?" Or, could it be that many feminists really do raise these kinds of issues, and that's unpalatable to some people because it helps foster a bad image of feminism as sometimes creating issues of sexism where there aren't any?

Remember, these are feminists writing these articles. Saying "those aren't real feminists espousing real feminist views" is only persuasive if you actually demonstrate that they aren't real feminists and that feminism doesn't hold or support these views in general.

Cito di Pense wrote:

I'll grant you that a certain amount of material that gets quoted here in posts is merely due to somebody getting a little exercised about something that somebody else did or said that ended up getting a line or two in the news. Because, I have to tell you, bro, getting exercised about the kind of stuff you quoted in your OP is quite normal around here. Instead of being a response to click-bait about religious fundamentalism using a straw man caricature of atheism, it's a response to click-bait using a straw man caricature of feminism. The spanner in the works is that you're not really exercised about that, or you'd spend more effort discussing why you (personally) are. Why would you act like you want people to think you have a (mistaken) view of feminism that you do not, in fact, adopt?

I don't act like I want people to think I have a mistaken view of feminism.

However, if you or anyone else thinks I have a mistaken view of feminism, i'd love to know what you think my view of feminism is and how it is mistaken?

Do the writers of the articles I linked to in the OP have a mistaken view of feminism?

And, again, can't the issues in the OP be discussed without reference to feminism? I think you implied earlier it could. So, let's discuss the issues in the OP.