Please welcome Lloygic to shedding of the ego
9:24 am – Autopsy report begins. Subject is small in stature; fully extended would stand at around 4 ft in height. However the shape of body and musculature indicates that this creature was continuously hunched over. The limbs are spindly, proportionally longer than a human’s. The arms terminate in three hooked, gleaming claws, the legs are more akin to a wolf’s hind legs and also terminate in similar claws. The beast’s pallid skin hangs loosely over its body. The head of the creature is oversized to accommodate the wide maw filled with razor sharp teeth. The creature has no eyes, the only sense organs noticeably visible appear to be puckered ear holes on the side of its head and nostril slits sitting above the mouth. Subject is an ad hominem argument known colloquially as “the SATF Smear.”
Subject appears to have been a scrapper. Abrasions dot the creatures body like pockmarks all in varying states of scabbing. Scar tissue is equally prevalent across the body. All of these minor injuries are dwarfed by the vicious holes punched through the center of the chest and head. Wounds are similar in scope, both appear to have a front entry point producing an explosive exit on the reverse of the specimen. Injuries appear to be consistent with the usage of high-powered logical hollowpoints fired using a focused reasoning sniper rifle. The shot to the chest appears to be what killed this beast, the head shot appears to have been insurance. Time of death, April 20th, at approximately 10pm PST. Recording ends.
Barbarossa recently tackled the anti-feminist dust-up with MGTOW, ending a long-time absence from producing content on youtube with a well presented takedown of the “Same as the Feminists” (SATF) smear tactic. His video ideally puts down a tiresome dismissal tactic from anti-MGTOW idealogues within the manosphere, but given the nature of the internet and the fact that bad ideas seem to propagate themselves amongst dull minds, I predict that MGTOW will be facing the SATF smear with some regularity going forward.
Therefore, this article is being presented to thoroughly dig into the flesh of this argumentation tactic and reveal its secrets so that future MGTOW will be able to negate, deflect, or even possibly turn this argument back upon those who would use it against MGTOW. Barbarossa did mention that he would like to see us playfully tearing apart each other’s arguments in order to strengthen both our critical and argument crafting skills. I say why not use such tactics against the weapons used by the ideological masses to defame us?
A critical analysis of the inner workings of this argument shall begin now.
9:37 am – Recording resumes. The argument’s body is hunched, indicating that this creature was continuously on all fours. The compressed nature of its body shape is not unlike a spring, allowing for lightning fast attacks. This could explain why stories of this argument are often from those that have recently been in tight, close-quartered emotional engagements.
The lack of eyes and withered sense organs represent a creature used to pouncing on its prey within close quarters. One could assume that a gifted sense of smell would allow this creature to track its prey by scent, but the withered nature of its limbs and body reveal this beast to be an opportunity hunter, not an endurance hunter. If this argument were forced into a wide open dialogue, it would be easily outmaneuvered or destroyed. Recording ends.
The first thing to realize with the SATF smear is that it’s currently being deployed reflexively by anti‑feminists. This means that you can be hit with a smear at the tail end of an argument, in an off-hand comment on a non-MGTOW stream, or even randomly in either a PM or on the street. There is no amount of preparing that you can do against this tactic, it’s lightning fast and in your face.
The strength of this attack as a tactic is to wait for your opponent to be off-balance or emotionally riled up and then deploy for maximum effect. We will see very few well-constructed SATF smears due to the fact that they can then be avoided, or reviewed, analyzed, and debunked with brutal efficiency (a la Barbarossa’s video). Instead, this attack will be thrown at MGTOW to equal effect by both popular anti-feminists and anonymous shitposting trolls.
Avoiding this pest will not be possible I’m afraid. But what of the danger presented by this argument? Is that something to worry about?
9:46 am – Recording resumes. At first glance, the mouth full of razor-sharp, needle thin teeth inspires dread. Upon closer inspection though, the jaw strength on this creature appears to be as equally withered as its limbs. It would appear that this argument is only capable of damaging soft, fleshy targets. The lightest amount of ideological armor would appear to prevent harm.
The three claws at the end of the long spindly limbs appear threatening but on closer inspection don’t appear to be intended for rending their opponent. Thick and clumsy, these appear to be capable of only bruising exposed skin. Even if these claws were sharp, the lack of musculature on the arms and legs would limit the damage to only shallow cuts. What purpose do these claws fill then? They’re dull, clumsy, and have limited force behind them. Their hooked nature seems to indicate that they’re for climbing, but the only purchase that they could gain on a person would be on those already dressed in their own ideological armor.
That’s unusual, how could this argument even be considered a threat? In practice, it can only attach itself to ideologically armored opponents, negating the use of its teeth. Or it can only bite ideologically unarmored opponents, but it would first need to grasp an opponent that it can’t attach to. How curious, it would appear as though the only threat this argument poses is to those willing to panic. Recording ends.
For the argumentative denizens of the internet, accomplishments are generally measured in hurt feelings and the group consensus of how “pwned” someone is. While most of the arguments we deal with as MGTOW will be based on the nature of people and society and the facts that back those claims up, we will always face people trying to establish their online cred through savagely destroying us in debates, on comment threads, and in their own personal strawman videos. The SATF smear is an excellent tool for those focused on short-sighted emotional victories.
When deployed against someone without a strong adherence to an ideology the SATF smear serves as an assault on their personal character. The person using the attack is saying that the target personally embodies the behaviour of feminists. As this slur is thrown by anti-feminists, that means all the negative traits of feminism including but not limited to: being crazy, controlling, unreasonable, emotional, illogical, corrupt, hateful, etc.. But that alone limits its effectiveness; can an individual be the same as an ideology? No. Can they be as bad as all the members of that ideology? Barely, and only under the most broad definition. This means that when used against individuals this insult can be avoided as easily as it would be to portray a positive behaviour. Evidence of a sense of humor, for example, would immediately demolish the SATF smear as a personal attack.
When the target is against someone with a strong identification as a MGTOW, the smear sticks to the individual, as they are then turned into the on-hand spokesman for all MGTOW to defend the off-hand accusation. The potential for hurt feelings evaporates as the attack no longer applies to the individual, but is likely replaced by indignation as the entire essence of that person’s beliefs are challenged with the numerous crimes of feminism. There is still no “true” damage being delivered though. Indignation barely registers as hurt feelings, and an accusation is not a constructive criticism. We know that MGTOW isn’t widely liked, and people of small consequence will talk ill of it. It’s human nature to talk ill of something you cannot or refuse to understand. So what then is the purpose of the attack?
Consider where this attack came from; anti-feminists. Consider again what the accusation is; that the target group is the same as the feminists. If we were to do some algebraic swapping of terms, what would we think if a group of “anti-black” racists developed a smear tactic that their opponents were “the same as the blacks?” Or “anti-jew” groups and the invective “same as the jews.” Or “anti-creation” atheists and the attack “same as the creationists.” Are you starting to see where I’m going with this? The smear tactic itself isn’t intended as a constructive criticism. It’s a tribalistic othering tactic used by a collective to identify and dismiss threats. Much like the point and scream tactic of pod people from Invasion of the Body Snatchers, anti-feminists identifying people as feminists is ideological virtue signalling.
Therefore, the second thing to recognize about the SATF smear is that it’s virtue signalling masquerading as an argument. The damage we face from the SATF smear is not due to the accusation itself, but rather the social othering levelled against us by those who would use it. So how do we fight this?
10:11 am – Recording resumes. The skin seems loose on this creature, almost stretchy at key points. The lack of connection between the outer layer of skin and the core body underneath, the fascia, musculature and bones, appears to allow it to maneuver and possibly even fight back when caught in a death grip. This appears to be a defensive mechanism, if someone were faced by this argument and managed to clamp down on it, the slippery nature of its flesh would allow it to still writhe against their grip. The beast’s teeth and claws would still be mobile, still a threat, even after sustaining a hard smack down.Recording ends.
When faced with the slur that MGTOW behave exactly like feminists, the reaction of most will be to disprove the claim. This is the wrong approach to take. Consider the smear again.
Same. As. The. Feminists.
Same means that there are no consequential ideological differences between the accused group and feminists. As this term is slung by anti-feminists, it is as I said before all of the negative connotations of the feminist ideology.
Feminists. Humor me for a moment and try to define feminism. Do you see the problem? What definition of feminism are we to use? The dictionary definition presented by naïve young starlets trying to put their communications degree to use by creating a “What Feminism Means to Me” video? Or is feminism instead the trans-exclusionary feminism popularized by Julie Bindel? Or maybe the trans-supportive feminists? Or maybe the sex negative feminists who believe that all penetrative sex involving a penis is rape? Or would it instead be the sex positive feminists extolling the virtues of self-discovery?
This is what makes the SATF smear so sneaky and effective. Feminism is itself undefinable and self-contradictory. To treat this as an argument is to then take on the impossible task of unifying feminism under one coherent explanatory banner. And once you’ve completed that impossible task and have received your Nobel prize in the Humanities, you then have to show how MGTOW and feminism differ.
What the SATF smear is then is a stealth kafka trap, an insult masqueraded as an argument to inspire you to fight with it so that the anti-feminist responsible for slinging it at you can sit back and collect high fives from their peers.
However, in knowing the nature of the smear itself, you can now turn it around on those attempting to use it. Challenge them with “Define your terms”, explain how they’re virtue signaling, reveal how the smear is a kafka trap. In short, showing how their collectivist tactics are right in line with the SJWs and feminists they so despise should be enough to cause their attempts at “pwnage” to turn on them, ideally tearing their face off in the process.
10:37 am – Recording resumes. Surficial review complete. Now commencing with internal autopsy. Beginning with Y-incision at shoulders in towards torso and then straight down torso to waist. Skin appears resistant, but succumbs to scalpel without much effort. Cutting down torso now, bones comprising rib cage seem thinner than expected, although that may be due to the creatures need fo- OH MY GOD *sound of scalpel clattering to autopsy table* Recording ends.
(to be continued)