but I argue that equating discussions of PIV and maybe antinatalism with jihadi retribution or the Khmer Rouge or Hitler is misogynistic.
You do that then. I just think its authoritarianism which doesn't really serve women well, in pretty much any form it manifests.
When women think or speak up against patriarchy men perceive this as "literal violence". That is because only men are allowed to be literally violent. And women must not even be allowed to speak.
No one is silencing you. You are just being challenged about extreme views and word salad, which you don't like and because you don't have an adequate response you are restorting to playing the victim - this in a persecution complex.
You've made really quite offensive remarks at times about rape and prostitution which really have minimised them, but this is OK cos it fits your ideology, and we are all just supposed to suck it up and agree?
Er No. Thats not how it works.
You don't get away with that double standard by saying 'wah wah I'm being picked on and silenced'.
If you are going to say those things and continue to stand by them, then people will challenge them if they think they are extreme, offensive and ask you to explain them.
Asking questions is not silencing. This is the process of encouraging critical examination and thought.
This idea that asking questioning is silencing, is an authoritarian / cult like theme btw - which is the point that has been made several times.
You are being engaged with and asked to reason with in debate - which because you've got caught in this rigid mind set makes you feel uncomfortable. Thats your cognitive dissonance kicking in and telling you to shut down as if you face it, you have to think about that cognitive dissonance. Thats what happens if you've been caught up in a ideological cult.
I refer to exhib A:
carm.org/signs-practices-of-a-cult
People trying to engage with you and asking questions is the very opposite of being silenced. You've got an opportunity to share and spread your ideas, promoting them by making a good argument which might not persuade me, but might persuade an onlooker.
Others talking to you actively enables that process.
I have been actively trying to get you out of your bubble of thought and to engage your ideas with others rather than silence you, by making the point that when you regress to certain phrases, people immediately switch off. I'm stated that the ideas behind them, have value and whilst I might not agree with them, its good to debate them.
This is how critical thinking evolves and flourishes.
I have repeatedly said that effective communication and sharing of ideas relies on them being accessable and that we should encourage this to engage with as many people as possible, rather than retreating into self created echo chambers which display a persecution complex as if in a cult.
Its funny - when ideas are shared in this way, it opens up debate - and thats been shown in places on this very thread.
Now, if you want to whine about being a victim thats really up to you, but thats not whats happening. It just smacks to me that your argument crumbles at scrutiny and it just exposes the fundamental cognitive dissonance that a lot of what you are saying holds.