I guess it is time for me to chime in on the Ron Lindsay's comments at 'skeptic' conference for feminists. Basically he said that the 'privilege' argument is a silencing technique, and this is wrong. It is a rhetorical trick used to dismiss an argument or demand for evidence for a claim, when the one using the term 'privilege' can't do so. It's not silencing, it's evasion. It is a hybrid of the ad homenim attack and a claim of special knowledge. After all only a Clear can see your Thetans. Silencing is shouting down those with whom you disagree. It is creating speech codes that define disagreement with the orthodoxy as hate speech. It is vandalizing the posters of the heretics. It is removing their papers from distribution boxes. And a whole slew of other things. That's what he should have said.

I can only guess why he chose to speak in the terms he did. Aaannnd I'm going to do so now. When you are dealing with people whose favorite tool is rhetorical shenanigans, the temptation to give them back some of their own is huge, and I doubt any of us can completely resist it. But it is short sighted to do so. Ultimately it detracts from any future credibility you might have and alienates potential allies. After all, is there a reasonable person who takes Rebecca Watson or P.Z. Meyers seriously left, or are all they have left listening to them nothing but fellow ideologues?

BTW this is why I only listen to and read the MRA's, in spite of the fact that I agree with them on almost every point. Maybe I'll elaborate on that later.