Talk:Robert Fisher (New Hampshire politician)

Recent additions

The Daily Beat is not a reliable secondary source as per WP:SOURCES, this is also a violation of WP:NOR and WP:BLP. I've asked for semi-protection so that the edit warring will be dealt with.

--2607:FEA8:5A40:758:D10C:4B27:2263:370 (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain why you consider it to be unreliable? I don't have much experience with The Daily Beast. --ChiveFungi (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

RS discussions about the Daily Beast do not seem to have rejected it as unreliable. Instead, the consensus has generally been that because DB works as an aggregator, publisher, and journal of opinion, it mostly falls into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Context_matters (e.g. "As others have stated; the Daily Beast meets RS, but speculative opinion peices are speculative opinion pieces regardless of where they occur." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_39#The_Daily_Beast_as_a_source)

Where citations have been rejected, the rejections have been on a case-by-case basis, usually because the piece in question was opinion. (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_132#EPA_lawyer_quotation_from_Daily_Beast, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_93#The_Daily_Beast)

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_140#The_Daily_Beast

http://www.thedailybeast.com/company/community-policy.html

In addition, Robert Fisher seems to be admit making statements using the pk_atheist handle on Reddit here (http://www.wmur.com/article/state-lawmaker-admits-saying-some-injudicious-things-about-women/9562347), acknowledging authorship, though claiming that the Reddit quotes were taken out of context.

It seems likely that there will be more clarification of this sort in coming days, as a number of news outlets are covering the story, at which point there will be a wider variety of sources. cshirky (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

"Misogynistic"

"Misognistic" means "strongly prejudiced against women". "Sexist" on the other hand means "relating to or characterized by prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex".

I still think it would be more neutral to just say that TRP is widely viewed as misogynistic (among those who have even heard of it), and/or that TRP has unconventional views about the nature of women and relations between the sexes. But to say that they're "sexist" might be an okay compromise.

Thing is, if they're prejudiced, it's more like they're prejudiced about women than against them, except in certain areas of competence in which they say men are superior. But is that a strong prejudice? Are there some examples of such prejudice that anyone would like to point to? Compy book (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"Unconventional views on women" is too euphemistic. "Sexist" is fine with me. VQuakr (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The distinction between "sexist" and "misogynistic" is subjective and somewhat arbitrary. Being prejudiced about vs. against is highly debatable, subjective, and original research. We are citing the Daily Beast, which uses the term misogyny to describe the forum, but it's not alone in using this term.[1][2][3][4] Describing the forum as misogynistic isn't the same as saying he's a misogynist, nor is it the same as saying his comments have been misogynistic. That may seem pedantic, but it's an important distinction as long as we make it a clear distinction. If Fisher disputes this description as it applies to himself, we should explain his perspective.

Also, this specific term is about a relatively large forum, not a person. We should be cautious of BLP issues of course, but as WP:BLPGROUP says, this shouldn't be treated as identical. Grayfell (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

We should use "Sexist". The Red Pill has terrible views on how both men and women should act. DoggySoup (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

My concern was more with the NPOV aspect rather than the BLP aspect of the situation. (Although one could possibly argue that there are BLP implications in saying/implying that he posted misogynistic stuff, I'm not a big fan of Wikipedia's BLP policy, which I think is often (mis)used to whitewash biographies to the point of turning them into puff pieces, so I'm disinclined to invoke it.)

You may want to weigh in at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Calling_people.2C_movements.2C_and_viewpoints_.22misogynistic.22, a thread that I started because this issue has arisen on a few different pages. The consensus so far seems to be on the side of attributing the claim of misogyny to a source rather than making it in Wikipedia's voice. If we're going to do that, then I guess we could say that the posts were "widely viewed" as misogynistic since, as you point out, that's what a lot of the sources are saying. Or we could give the names of those who are saying that.

I guess like the phrase "male chauvinist," the word "sexist" is also going out of style, and now the new buzzword is "misogynistic," which used to be reserved for actual hatred of women. Compy book (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

If misogyny really has developed a new meaning, so be it, but in this case the conventional meaning also applies.

I'm wary of the "widely viewed as" approach. It has its place when terms are truly loaded, but often it's used to undermine neutrality by misrepresenting sources. It's extremely vague, and leaves it wide open to the reader's own biases. Everything in a Wikipedia article should be based on reliable sources. If we have to list every source that describes this as misogynistic, we're missing the bigger picture, and if we lump them together as one "widely", we're not sufficiently explaining why this isn't just left as a statement of fact, since everything else is. We should reflect sources in plain language whenever possible. If a chorus of sources is saying that the red pill is misogynistic, why are we implying that they might be wrong? That's what this does, it implies that this is subjective or unverifiable, but why? If we're going to treat this like a subjective opinion, but "sexist" as a fact, we should be able to explain exactly why this is different, and I don't think that's possible. The statements made by the red pill demonstrate a clear and specific hatred of women, as supported by sources. Wikipedia should not make this evaluation ourselves, but sources are willing to make it for us, and this is an accurate description. This evaluation is no different from "sexist" in that regard.

This article from The Guardian includes an interview with a /r/theredpill mod, and he uses a rhetorical trick that reveals a lot about why this term is important. "Let’s say there’s a guy who just says “I hate women” – I think that’s textbook misogyny. We let them say that. Because there’s nowhere else for a man to blow off steam." He's admitting that misogyny is present, for one thing, but there's something else about this line. He is defining the word misogyny on his own terms, and he's doing so by making it as simple and narrow as possible. It's not "textbook" misogyny, it's "dictionary" misogyny. Any decent textbook would explain that misogyny is as much about actions and attitudes as it is about declaring a specific hatred of women. A textbook definition of misogyny would cover a substantial amount of content posted to theredpill. It isn't just posted to theredpill, either, it's supported by the community, as stated by the mod.

So we have "Morpheus Manfred" acknowledging that misogynists are there "to blow of steam" and multiple other sources saying that the site is misogynistic. How is this a subjective label at this point? Where do we draw the line and say that "misogynist" is an accurate description? Is anybody actually contesting it?

It sounds like we're in agreement about BLP. I just wanted to make that clear, since it's such a common issue.

I agree what the theredpill's views are terrible for men as well, but would like to see sources on that point. Grayfell (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm making a change of "known for its misogynistic views" to "known for the misogynistic statements that the subreddit's admins allow its members to make there". The reason is that I think there's a bit more nuance to the situation, based on what you describe above, than the subreddit itself being misogynistic.

People say a lot of stuff when they're blowing off steam that doesn't reflect how they usually think or feel. Red pillers say that there are stages of unplugging, including an anger stage. When someone new to the red pill is expressing a lot of anger, they usually think, "Oh, this guy is just going through the anger stage, so let me give him a chance to work through this and arrive at the other side, rather than trying to argue with him that he's going too far."

Just because someone is expressing misogyny doesn't make them a misogynist. In the workplace, I've sometimes overheard women chitchatting about relationships and saying stuff like, "You can't depend on men" or "Men turn into assholes once you move in with them." I don't really think of them as misandrists. They're just expressing some generalizations based on what they've observed. If they want to conclude that men are undependable and that it's not a good idea to live with them, that's on them, and they can live with the consequences. These are mostly older women who are jaded from bad experiences, and since I wasn't there when all that stuff they're describing happened, and since blame is a matter of interpretation anyway, I can't really jump in and say, "No, you were the one who messed up those relationships."

A lot of this stuff is just interpretation. When they say, "Men turn into assholes," what's an "asshole"? Oh, he doesn't pick up his socks? Sometimes two people can look at the same behavior, and to one person, it's a big deal, and to the other person, it isn't. It's the same way with these "misogynists". They'll say that a woman was dishonorable for breaking a lease and getting a divorce, when in her mind, she was totally justified. They'll notice that they've observed a certain pattern of behavior in women, and then make a generalization based on that, and come to a conclusion about when, if ever, it's a good idea to get into a committed relationship with a woman. The more objective ones will say, "Women aren't good or bad; they just are what they are. You learn the limitations of what women have to offer, and deal with them accordingly." That seems to me to be just a matter of practicality.

If someone wants to say on TRP, "I hate women," yeah, that's misogyny, but I don't think that the site as a whole is dominated by that sentiment, because a lot of the site is also devoted to gaming women. So they obviously like women in some capacity or another. And a lot of them are talking about how to make a relationship work. So either they don't hate women, or they're finding a benefit to dealing with people they hate.

I dunno, you may be right, but let's invite more consensus, and hopefully someone will make a bold edit if needed. Compy book (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if 1,000 "reliable sources" express an opinion; it's still an opinion.

I'm going to reach out to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism and

We've gotten so far off-course from discussing this article. This article needs to be supported by sources which specifically discuss Robert Fisher, or "Morpheus Manfred" if we accept that they are the same person, which seems undeniable at this point. Personal expertise in this topic doesn't matter unless it can be backed up by reliable sources. The changes you made imply that theredpill as a forum allowed misogynist content to be included in a general sense, but that's not actually what I was saying, nor is it what the source was saying. It was quoting Fisher himself in saying that misogyny is present and permitted on the site by him, specifically, as in, Robert Fisher said that he allowed misogyny on the forum with his full knowledge and blessing. If "blowing off steam" is not a real defense. Misogyny still counts if the poster is really angry, especially when it gets upvoted and validated. By presenting this as a generic thing, it's misrepresenting the entire controversy. If /r/TheRedPill's own article ever gets written (I would wait on that, btw) this could be researched and presented with more nuance, but only with sources, and you haven't presented any sources at all. As it stands, it's not neutral to present it as a generic thing.

Here's a list:

1. /r/theredpill contains misogynistic content.
2. Fisher, as admin, was tacitly supportive of this misogynistic content.
3. Sources specifically and repeatedly describe /r/theredpill's misogyny as a central, defining trait.

I maintain that sources specifically support each of these statements. I would also add that sources specifically demonstrate that he contributed to this content himself with "All Women Lie About Rape", SlutQuest, bragging about installing hidden cameras to record sex, etc, but that's not even what's being said. The article is saying that theredpill is known for misogynist content. Is that wrong? The article isn't saying he's a misogynist as a person, but theredpill does contain a lot of misogynistic content, and that's not an opinion.

Calling something an opinion doesn't make it an opinion. Saying something uncomfortable or using strong words doesn't make something an opinion.

"Gaming" women has nothing to do with liking them. Do muggers have to like their victims? Game tries (very badly) to reduce relationships to win/lose transactions and childish power-plays. It's absurd to say that you must like someone in order to want something from them. Grayfell (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

In my mind, "sexism" is more likely to describe unintentional discrimination due to common social biases, while "misogyny" is more likely to describe intentional discrimination fueled by actual hostility towards women, although both terms can and do overlap. /r/theredpill seems to pretty clearly fall under the later definition, so I would favor using "misogynistic" over "sexist". "Misogynistic" also seems to be the term most commonly used in the sources. I agree that the media loves to use exaggerated and sensational descriptions, but in this case it seems to just be calling a spade a spade. As to whether we should put disclaimers on it or not (such as "widely viewed"), I'll leave that for the rest of you to decide. Kaldari (talk) 06:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Some views from TRP about misogyny

List of WP:UGC forum posts.

I cringe whenever I gaze upon "misogyny": "The vast majority of guys here do not have contempt for all women, which misogyny means. If we hated women then we wouldn't be posting on a sub that is largely geared towards giving them what they want." Reduce your misogyny by being manly: "Manly men like and appreciate women. They treat women like people. It’s the white knights and the womanized losers that make up the large majority of misogynists." How Blue Pill thinking turned me into a misogynist: "Blue Pill thinking made me subconsciously misogynistic, digesting the Red Pill and understanding AWALT made me love women again" The true definition of the word 'misogynist' when used in a social context: "Misogynist /məˈsäjənəst/ noun - (when called by a woman) - Anyone no longer naive enough to be exploited by women. (Alternatively, when called by another man) - Anyone in competition for the same women." Misogyny is a blue pill ideology. TRP merely tolerates it as part of the transformation.: "Our detractors frame us as misogynistic pigs because many of those who post here express misogynistic ideas. We merely tolerate those ideas. We know that the outside world has bred many men who are angry for being lied to about the true nature of women, but now that they are here they can shed those ideas through self improvement and better understanding of women. Men come here and lose pre-existing misogynistic thoughts, not develop them." Zvan's Law (What cries of “Misogyny” say about feminism): "It is a thought-terminating cliché" Misogyny: Don't hate nature, hate nurture.: "It's been postulated numerous times by the ignorant that TRP is misogynistic. In truth TRP merely explains the true nature of male-female interaction so that people can make informed decisions regarding the opposite sex and attain a higher quality of life." Is a side effect of swallowing TRP misogyny?: "Most misogyny stems from misunderstanding the true nature of women." Addressing claims of misogyny: "For reference it's not misogynist to tell the truth." TIL, Red pill is not misogynist, It actually helps people be more of what a hamster craves, in order to flourish.: "I was very misogynistic BEFORE I found this sub." TechCrunch groups TheRedPill with Stormfront as a "misogynist hate site": "The hilarious thing is, this sub gets bad-mouthed, people go to see what's all about, starts reading some posts and holy shit, something clicks, they start to realize why it was their fault they were friend zoned that one time, why their crush keeps dating "assholes" but don't doesn't even sees him as a male, why despite being so nice and selfless people keep walking over them, or for some older guys why his fiancee or wife just up and completely ruined his life. And they see how much of this is within their control to take responsibility instead of blaming women about it (but oh wait, this is supposed to be a misogynist sub)." TRP is only called misogynist because the positive aspects of females have already been hammered into the mainstream, leaving “The Untold Truth” to be just negative aspects of females: "The Red Pill is interested in The Truth specifically, 'The Untold Truth™'." True Misogynists are Blue Pillers gone Black Pill. True "Hate" is a byproduct of the Black Pill.: "When a blue piller does not get his desired result of a disney fantasy, he increases his chances of going black and turning into a 'true misogynist'." White knight misogyny: "Don't you strip from them their right to choose who they find attractive, just because it isn't you, you misogynist creep."

Wow, 14 different impeccably argued proofs of TRP's philogyny. I think we're done here. Compy book (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

None of that is usable for this article. Forum posts are WP:UGC and using that to make a claim about the forum as a whole is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Grayfell (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)