Calling you hater based on this post is just using the argument of the article to make a point. That's like saying: "this statement is true" and anyone who disagrees with that, is a <fill in>.

Is a hater akin to a criticaster? Like a critic without substance? And a fanboy a fan without substance? Then the burden of proof to prove a lack of substance is with the person who starts to use the word "fanboy" or "hater". As such definitions are essentially ad hominem (and no, you being attacked personally does not warranty an equal ad hominem).

The pun is that "fanboy" encapsulates "not a man" (boy). Of course the archetypal fanboy or hater is kind of a weakman (if not quite a strawman), but that's the point; it's a model. He's pointing out that in that model, the "boy" is very relevant and indicative.

If he were discussing the word "fangirl", he'd probably say "not a woman" instead, but I think that would result in more flak ("as a mam, who are you to judge if a woman is a real woman or not?").

I feel like a lot of the posts in this thread are missing what he's actually trying to say here.

yeah I caught that as well. "less than men" is a pretty good tell that this is going to be pure wankery. I appreciate his lisp books (I've told him so, publicly, in a room of about 2k people) but this is laughable. Of a piece with the "I wouldn't hire women who might have children, if I could get away with it" take.