But don't do half a job quoting someone; if in your original comment on the subject contained the words "and I know immediately afterwards she disclaims the obvious interpretation of this sentence, but that is clearly an out-of-character statement for her and probably does not reflect her true view, given all the other things she's said," then we would not be having this conversation.

Okay, fair point. I thought it was obvious why the next sentence should carry so little weight, but even so, I should have explained that that was the reason for the exclusion.

ETA: I've added a clarifier to the initial comment.

I find radical feminism quite hypocritical, assuming I understand it.

Brief intro:

Radical feminism, simply put, is isomorphic to radical marxism. Where the marxist would interpret virtually anything as an instance of "class warfare", the radical feminist would interpret virtually anything as an instance of "oppression by the patriarchy". The "patriarchy", in this sense, is that complex web of behaviors and assumptions that, on the whole, radical feminists believe was constructed by men to keep women down.

There is a charitable interpretation of the "patriarchy" that suggests that it was not created specifically by men, and it is not intended to keep women down, but then "patriarchy" is a bad name. Radical feminist works usually make more internal sense if you just read it as though "patriarchy" referred to an illuminati-like organization with immense power hell-bent on subjugating women using insidious methods like making the Washington Monument look phallic.

While there are still quite a few radical feminists alive and kicking, their views are largely discredited and a serious thinker should be embarrassed to use their arguments.

The Wikipedia article does a decent job of summarizing different movements in feminism. (For reference, when I put on my "feminist" hat, I'm a "liberal feminist". Note that "Liberal" here is used in the same sense as in "Classical Liberal" or "Liberty")

Yes, I do feel personally injured. I'm told all my life what is proper behavior around women and what is not, while, right in front of my face, men flout these rules (as best I understand them) and are, for lack of a better term, rewarded by those women.

I cannot interpret advice, of the type Alicorn has given, any more charitably than "I'm trying to clean the gene pool of any man submissive and stupid enough to actually follow this advice in the real world." To the extent that Alicorn is sincere and honest, she is an extreme outlier, and is asking for special treatment that cannot be justified by preferences of women in general.

To see why it would be special treatment, please refer to my previous comment, which may have the side effect of demonstrating my humanity. It details how I, like Alicorn, experience a negative physical reaction from PUA threads, but, unlike Alicorn, see this as a failing I need to overcome, rather than a reason to demand suppression of a topic.

This sounds to me to be the statement of someone who feels personally injured.

Btw, how is that different from Alicorn feeling 'personally injured' (or offended) by us having PUA discussions on LW? Can't SilasBerta feel offended by any attempts to censor the topic?

Said much more diplomatically than mine. Good job.

Wha?

I most certainly do not believe that "people who are consistently victimized and dehumanized by the current power structure should accept it without question or complaint".

What I believe is that the feminist ideology I referred to is:

1) Misdirected. To the extent that there is oppression, it is by very high status men, not men as such. As Scott Adams put it, the Vice President doesn't ask for my advise when deciding who to bomb.

2) Wrong. As revealed by their actions, women in general do not want men to act per (most of) the dictates of feminism, even if, as is unlikely, feminists do.

I'm not going to bring this topic in the justification for these positions, but suffice to say, my beliefs are nothing remotely like what you have attributed to me, and I have said nothing that gives you such a basis for believing so.

to demand that people who are consistently victimized and dehumanized by the current power structure should accept it without question or complaint.

I think that equating hurt feelings to victimization and dehumanization is to trivialize actual violence... and in addition, it rewards playing "more victimized than thou" games.

Her clarification was in the very next sentence of what you quoted, and it directly contradicted what you said.

And my point is that her disavowal (did I use too obscure of a word?) of that belief counts for nothing, when the rest of her actions say the opposite. That was the whole point of my comment about how people can say whatever they way, but that doesn't make it true. And truth was the issue, not what someone can assert in a sheepish backpedal.

It's nearly as bad as if you said "I'm not saying that blacks are inferior to whites" and I quoted you out of context as saying "blacks are inferior to whites".

No, it's like if I wrote book saying, "It would be much better if America didn't have any blacks. Lynchings of blacks are, in a philosophical sense, an act of liberation."

And then rumors went around saying that I think blanks should be lynched, and I responded to them by saying,

"Certainly, tossing a rope around a black person's neck is a great idea. Of couse, I wouldn't advocate lynching blacks. But we have to remember the need for racial purity."

And then someone posting on Less Wrong, that hey, SB's views weren't really misrepresented, because look at what he said even when defending himself, "Certainly, tossing a rope around a black person's neck is a great idea ..."

And then you vigorously protesting that, "But look at the next sentence! Doesn't that void everything else he's ever written?"