zlacker

Someone should coin an analogue to Godwin, where linking to the Geek Feminism Wiki is seen as an instant loss of credibility.

The wiki is hugely anecdotal beyond all reason, poorly written, often incoherent and their editorial guidelines clearly show that they have virtually no standard as long as the content fits under a vaguely feminist or social justice-oriented perspective.

(http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Meta:Editorial_guidelines)

Their "vision of intersectional feminism" is postmodernism gone wrong.

>>vezzy-+(OP)
Well now you're making an ad hominem fallacy. Can you please read the actual pages I linked and tell me why you disagree with their arguments or why the arguments they are debunking don't apply to what you wrote?

>>ilyane+F
An ad hominem is an attack on the messenger. The poster merely gave reasons why the credibility of said link shouldn't be taken at face value.

>>ilyane+F
Ad hominem? Hardly. It's funny if you link to articles about "silencing tactics" and then falsely invoke an ad hominem fallacy.

Pointing out bad and illegitimate sources is not an ad hominem.

In any event, your first article isn't even relevant to the original poster.

The second doesn't even address any argument, it just moves the goalposts into an issue of patriarchal values and how all women are (ostensibly) inherently oppressed from conception.

>>stelon+n1
"Credibility"? It's an argument. You either agree with it or you don't.

That was most certainly an ad hominem. It was an attempt to counter a point by attacking the messenger, not the argument. Textbook, really.

>>vezzy-+(OP)
Godwin's Law doesn't say anything about credibility. It just states the probability of a Nazi reference approaches 1, but many people incorrectly use it to attack the credibility of a statement.

That said, the Geek Feminism Wiki is a specific website which can be shown to be credible or not.