In a previous post, I wrote:
The conundrum: discrimination based on moral judgement is anathema to rational belief but absolutely necessary for rationality to exist.
The entirety of feminism relies on this logical loophole. “Being a misogynist bigot” is the inverse of “Being Fair” which is equivalent to “being nonjudgmental” is equivalent to “being non-opinionated” is equivalent to “not challenging the the opposition.” Hence if you challenge any part of feminism, you prove that you are bigoted. To a feminist woman, disagreeing with her on just one belief must mean that you are bigoted toward her and toward all women in general.
Another logical fallacy employed by feminists is that by supporting men, you condemn women. There is an implicit discrimination in creating male institutions, so that if you are interested in helping boys, you must be discriminating against helping girls. A statement like “men run society smoothly, therefore we need to help raise boys to become men” is a feminist confirmation that you must hate women.
Feminists attack moral people for discriminating against immorality. Feminists see this discrimination as a belief that the moral person is actually immoral for making that discrimination.
Let me introduce you to a logical truth: standing idly by and failing to act on your morals definitely proves that you actually do not believe in those professed morals. This is not a logical fallacy or a personal attack like most logical fallacies. This is truth. In the video, the man in the blue polo shirt takes the role of orbiting protector, standing by to keep other men from intervening while “protecting” the girl. He does nothing to stop her immoral behavior. If a moral man stands up to this girl and the orbiting protector intervenes, it is an implicit attack on the moral man’s beliefs, as if his judgement is bigoted and misogynist.