>>7296523But if the majority of "Epicureans" are tumlbrites ranting about dribble then are "Epicureans" not tumblrites ranting about dribble? Sure, there may very well be 10 followers of Epicurus who quietly go about their business, but for the most part most people who love Epicurus are the 10,000,000 loud landwhales.
So yes, when I say "Gosh do I hate those Epicureans", I am technically incorrect because I don't actually hate the followers of Epicurus but rather the people who rant about dribble, but when 99.99% of the people who encourage Epicureanism are dribble ranters, and 99.99% of the people who you interact with that discuss Epicureanism are dribble ranters, does that not mean that it is just obtusely autistic to say "But they aren't real Epicureans!" because I'm not at all talking about Epicureans, but dribble ranters?
More specifically, yeah, there's tons of women who take inspiration from Wollstonecraft and Sanger. But the majority of "Feminists" (Or, at least, the ones you and I both know OP is talking about) are the misandrist legbeards like Germaine Greer and Andrea Dworkin. So aren't you (And I) being needlessly autistic by dancing around the definition of Feminist when we know OP isn't talking about Sanger, but Dworkin? You can call it whatever you like but OP isn't interested in the thought process of the logical female who considers her actions, he wants to know the inner workings of the loonies (By whatever name you, I, or whoever wants to call them).
