That’s not what happened:

“The feminists”?
First, I cannot even find the link that you claim indicated men are not necesary.
If there is such an article, the honest approach would be to discover whether those making the claim were really part of a feminist movement or whether they were a bunch of loonies with whom the majority of women would have no association or desire to have an association. (One of the most notable aspects of your posts is the way in which you find the furthest outliers among some women’s beliefs and claim that they are “feminism” as though it was a monolithic organization. This is rather like quoting Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken and declaring that “this is what white men think.”)

Second, while there may have actually been a link such as you describe, you post was connected by quote links to a discussion of whether women needed men to protect them from wild animals (or other men), with no references to this link you claim was posted. So your actual post was still irrelevant to the discussion in which it was posted.

It’s also striking to me how often his posts are about things that didn’t actually happen. He keeps bringing up hypothetical situations (a world without men, how feminists would react if the genders in Amy Schumer’s story were reversed), works of fiction (the death of the Leonardo DiCaprio character in Titanic), and incidents that he’s either misremembered or totally imagined (this new claim about how he was replying to a link in which “the feminists” declared men unnecessary).

I guess reality has failed to provide him with sufficient evidence to support his position.

In one of his many recent threads on feminism (isn’t everyone glad he has a new hobby?) he posted a link to a “debate” between four feminists on the idea (paraphrased) “Are men obsolete?” The debate is behind a paywall, as is the transcript, but there are four commentaries on it which are all quite interesting and paint a picture of a debate that is trying to be witty, interesting, and also deal with big issues in an entertaining way. Viewers of the debate then voted on which side was stronger. The “yes” side won the debate.

LinusK, who seems to struggle with nuance, sarcasm, and humor (see previous threads for excellent examples), and who also does not appear to get that “winning” debates is not about convincing anyone but about structuring and presenting your arguments well (and that you don’t need to agree with a person in the slightest to feel they “won” a debate), has decided that this debate is iron-clad evidence that feminists think men are obsolete.

Was this it?

If so, note that it’s not even that over half of voters awarded the win to the “yes” side–it’s just that the “yes” side gained votes as compared to prior to the debate.

So when he said he was responding to a link that someone else posted in this thread, he was thinking of a link that he had posted in a different thread?

Wow. That’s…really something.

I hadn’t read the thread that jsgoddess is referring to, but I just did a search and it looks like this is it: Black men as “canaries in the coal mine”.

While this isn’t obvious from the thread title, much of the OP is about the “Be it resolved: Men are obsolete” debate and a video Karen Straughan made in response. So this wasn’t something LinusK mentioned in passing, it was the subject of a thread that he started less than a month ago. Skimming that thread now, it looks like everyone who replied to LinusK’s question about whether men are obsolete either said no or that the question didn’t even make sense to them. But in his mind this somehow transformed into someone in this thread arguing that men are obsolete.

This exchange from the other thread also seems to have been the basis for his “if all men suddenly disappeared” post in this thread:

The big difference is that Shodan was obviously making a joke when he said that women needed men to kill bugs for them, while in this thread LinusK’s remark about women freaking out about roaches was apparently intended to be taken seriously.

I knew that LinusK had become a one-trick pony on the subject of the evils of feminism, but this is getting into Twilight Zone territory. He just keeps repeating the same things over and over again, regardless of what other people are actually saying and seemingly without remembering that this has happened before.

It’s also not true that “the feminists decided” that men are obsolete – feminists argued both sides of the debate, and the winner was decided by audience vote. But once again, LinusK has refused to let pesky reality get in the way of his beliefs.

Imagine a thread in which blacks, Jews, gays, whoever, were spoken of the way LinusK speaks of women. Would anyone actually engage such nonsense? This isn’t fighting ignorance, it’s showcasing it.

I’m still shocked from when he claimed women have such pea-sized brains they could never drive trucks. Wasn’t that awful?

If that is the link in question, that is really sad. The Pro side was so obviously done tongue-in-cheek, (while still making serious points), that no person paying attention could believe they were serious.

Then, as noted, there is the point that the debate was “won,” not by the overall vote, but by how many people showed a change of position following the debate. 56% still voted that men were necessary. The “Winning side” moved the “obsolete” numbers from 16% to 44%, so they won the contest, but only LinusK appears to have come away with the truly odd, (and utterly unsupported), belief that “feminists” voted that “men were obsolete.”

Your posts in this thread lead me to believe that. And I’m not the first person to point this out to you.

You keep making sweeping statements about “feminists”, and broad brush that anyone who identifies as a feminist speaks for all feminists, and you provide quotes as proof of the opinions and goals of all feminists. If feminists here say these quotes do not speak for all feminists, you still fault feminism for not being “coherent”. In your own words:

So, feminism doesn’t get a free pass for its “incoherence”, according to you. Karen Straughan says pretty much the same thing, when asked about using a broad brush to describe feminism:

So, using your (and Karen’s) logic and broad brush, all anti-feminists are responsible for the opinions and views of any other anti-feminist as well. Are you with me so far?

Let’s use the example of Paul Elam. Elam is not just another anti-feminist. He is one of the most, if not the most, prominent figures in the anti-feminist MRA movement. He is basically the founder of the movement. Karen Straughan knows him well, as do the other popular MRA and feMRA activists.

Here is a sampling of Elam’s views and activities:

If we use your logic, Paul Elam’s views are what anti-feminism is about. We can all use his postions when we speak of anti-feminists and men’s rights groups. If you claim to be an anti-feminist, he embodies what you think, and what your goals are. If you disagree with anything he says, it just shows the incoherence of the movement, and you don’t get a free pass for that. As Karen Straughan would say: The dogshit still stinks.

Wow, anti-feminists are pretty nasty characters. And since we can criticize the whole gang based on the actions of a few prominent members - yeah, camille, I would say the dog shit DOES stink.

Linusk I was wondering if you would care to join us on [thread=762870]this thread[/thread]? There have been some interesting points raised and we would like your input.

What’s striking to me, is that I make logical coherent arguments, backed by dozens of links to actual data, and so many of the responses are shaming tactics, misrepresentations of what I’ve said, personal attacks and people talking around me, as if I wasn’t there.

It’s like talking to 7th graders. (And I don’t mean everyone - I mean the people who are doing it.)

What it shows is that you’re not interested in having a real debate, but in silencing people who disagree with you.

I realize some people use SDMB as a virtual social club. In a social club, if someone crashes your party and starts talking about ideas that make you uncomfortable, you get to ask him to leave. But “Great Debates” is not that place.

I don’t think most of your arguments are very logical, and some of them are not coherent (in my opinion). Many of the responses have been logical and coherent (again, in my opinion), and you have ignored most of these, choosing to focus on the personal ones.

It’s sad that you think this is what you’ve been doing.

You have posted a few rational statements supported by facts.
You have posted rather more weird observations supported by nonsense or “supported” by evidence that actually contradicts your statements.
(You have also claimed that statements made in other threads had been made in this thread in order to rationalize some of your odd claims.)
You have routinely and persistently ignored the factual destruction of your arguments to defend your more emotional claims, refusing to acknowledge documented errors in your hypothesis or presentation.
Most importantly, you persist in lumping every extreme position ever taken by anyone proclaiming to be a feminist, (or anyone whom you declare to be a feminist), and have treated all of them as mainstream feminist thinking in a straw man attack with no substance, rending your OP as nonsense.

Going back to your OP, you made a claim that there was a “biological” origin for the supposed patriarchy. You have utterly failed to actually support that thesis, (what you posted does not), or to reply to factual challenges to your assertion.

There have been posters who have resorted to"shaming." You are more likely to address them than you are to actually acknowledge your errors.

I see no evidence in any of your posts that you have come here to for the purpose of making a logical coherent argument. Your OP and subsequent posts are merely a polemic.

You wander in with a poorly assembled collection of unsupported assertions and then whine that you are not treated fairly. Piffle.

Sturgeon’s Revelation certainly covers the stuff that passes for debate in this forum, but you are a leading agent for the reason that is true.

[my bolding]

To be fair, I was in my mid-20s before I learned that ‘its’ is in the same class as ‘his’ and ‘hers’, not requiring an apostrophe. Irrelevant to the topic, I suppose, but it’s [<correct usage] not like this is in any sense a serious ‘debate’ any more - it’s just ‘partisans’ sniping at each other, eh? His, yours…and mine? I’m not sure I can claim any, but I’m not his any more than I’m yours.

“any more”

I am fairly good at spelling and grammar. I am a horrible typist and my new tablet inserts “corrections” that I miss because I am unused to the feature… It is good to have you display the fact that your primary interest is nitpicking without regard to the topic of the thread.