Say you have two things, a political ideology and a hobby. Which one do you think will be attacked more? Obviously, the political ideology regardless of what the political ideology is. This is even more true if said political ideology is totalitarian like feminism is. If a hobby gets attacked even 1% as much as a non-totalitarian political ideology (much less a totalitarian political ideology), there is something wrong with the people attacking said hobby.
My impression from this discussion is that the people who are most angry at what Amanda wrote (and rightly so), only are bothered by attacks on nerds, but don’t object to dehumanizing attacks on feminists. In fact, posts containing such attacks are often praised.
That’s because another name for nerds would be hobbyists because what defines “nerd” among other things is their hobbies such as comics, video games, etc. Feminists are believers in a totalitarian political ideology. Any reasonable person would object to attacks on nerds but not feminists. And what does Ampersand consider examples of “dehumanizing attacks on feminists”?
I’ve also seen a bunch of blog posts responding to the response to Comment #171 by savaging feminists in general – Scott Alexander’s post, of course, but also a bunch like this one (sample quote: “Remember you are voting for the biggest entitlement princess, not necessarily the most evil woman or the most violent woman or the most insane woman or the biggest whore”) or this one, which talks about “feminist toxic trash” and is also viciously mean to Scott Aaronson (but highly praises Scott Alexander’s essay). The essay Scott recommended in #554 describes feminists as “digging trenches of resentment with shovels of hatred in order to launch volleys of degrading and dehumanizing bile towards anyone who dares think for themselves.” She doesn’t say “some” feminists, and her essay explicitly says she’s talking about all feminism, not just tumblr feminism.
Ampersand uses my standard reminder in every Entitlement Princess of the Month post as evidence of a “dehumanizing attack on feminists” but that has several obvious problems especially in that that statement doesn’t even speak about anyone in particular much less feminists. The only way that could be stretched to mean an attack of feminists is if one woman = all women = feminists, and even then it makes no sense. As for the second and third examples (here is the link for “the essay Scott recommended in #554”), they are the types of things people say about totalitarian political ideologies. Similar things are said about Nazism and Communism for good reason. No one would buy a Nazi trying to say, “not all Nazis are like that” or a Communist trying to say, “not all Communists are like that” so any reasonable person would not accept Ampersand trying to pull the same trick with respect to feminism.
This whole thing is an example of why feminism is a totalitarian political ideology. Feminists believe that the “personal is political”. In other words, nothing is separate from politics so to feminists nerds are not hobbyists but a political faction. Feminists view gamers the same way which is why we ended up with #GamerGate. Reality is much different. A hobby is not a political ideology.