ed note: Oops! just found this in drafts so I finished it up and posted it. It’s a bit out of date but still relevant.
I was going to post this as a comment over on Renegade Evolution but I figure she already takes enough heat for being honest why bring more? Besides, why give away the traffic 
You need some context. In a recent post Ren asked some obvious questions about one of the more “eccentric” of her attackers… someone who calls herself ginmar. Now as anyone who watches the herd might know dear ginmar is one of the “radical feminist” A-Team. Think of her as a poster child for just about every stereotypical “feminazi” comment you ever heard.
In addition to her other charms, ginmar is part of the U.S. Military. Normally this is something I consider a redeeming feature. I like soldiers. I like people who are willing to put their lives on the line for something they believe in. I think it shows a certain strength of character. I tend to cut soldiers a lot of slack by default.
However that slack is…
- Not infinite
- Due not to their simply being soldiers, but because of what that says about them as people until they show me otherwise
- Not enough to prevent me from evaluating them as individuals
In short, her status as a vet simply isn’t enough to keep me from commenting on her motives, theories, tactics or mental state.
Now that the stage is set, let’s look into this comment that attempted to put ginmars “issues” out of the field of fire when they were called into question.
“Folks: Please don’t go there, please don’t go to that fucked up place where we’re slinging “insane” around as a perjorative that’s intended to silence poeple with actual mental illnesses” – r. mildred in the thread
The commenter is asking us to not comment on the obvious (and clinical) mental issues of someone while we evaluate their point of view. In other words let’s not take it into account when someone who is retarded gives us advice about nuclear physics or someone who believes reptilian aliens live among us give us their thoughts on critical thinking.
In the particular case of ginmar discussing her mental issues isn’t even the sort of rhetorical tactic so common on the Internet ( including from ginmar ) so it isn’t even mud “slinging” to mention it. ginmar has serious, deeply entrenched psychological issues that effect her emotional state and ability to separate her own fears from the reality around her. We know this because she has told us so.
Of course you should take the mental capacities and illnesses of the speaker into account when you evaluate what they are saying. That isn’t wrong, and it isn’t “silencing”. It’s common sense.
Sheesh.
No comments yet.