If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   "If a husband threatens to murder his wife with a gun, that's her problem, not the cops'." Was this from: A) Elliot Rodger's manifesto B) some MRA douche-blogger or C) "Reverend" Pat Robertson   (rawstory.com) divider line 306
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

8205 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jun 2014 at 5:02 PM (19 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



306 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-11 06:46:45 PM  

Spad31: Airquote "Reverend" for Sharpton and Jackson too. They're equally douchey.


True

At least Robertson hasn't killed Jews or led lynch mobs like Sharpton.
 
2014-06-11 06:47:55 PM  
img.fark.net

Must be a shop. Not a single fedora or neckbeard.
 
2014-06-11 06:49:38 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Here's a picture of the submitter:

[thepigmancometh.com image 200x266]

Feminists think they have a monopoly on discussions about gender inequality.

Example one: Make False claims about what Men's Rights are about.

They also have been known to pull fire alarms to prevent anyone from discussing gender equality.


Every "MRA" I've ever spoke too also has a creepy fetish for cartoon Ponies from a show meant for little girls. Somebody please explain this to me.
 
2014-06-11 06:50:55 PM  
media.tumblr.com

images.huffingtonpost.com
 
2014-06-11 06:51:11 PM  

Elegy: soporific: Because People in power are Stupid: Example one: Make False claims about what Men's Rights are about.

If you want to know what MRA is all about, this article paints a pretty clear picture.

Oh god, you just dropped an atom bomb on this debate. Bar none, the single most authoritative source in academia today is cracked.com. How can anyone refute that.

Except the fact the Men's Rights isn't an internet fad - been around since the feminist movement kicked off in fact. And the fact that Eliot Rogers had no connection to even the douchebaggiest MRA sites.

[i.imgur.com image 460x364]

LazyMedia: The dumbest thing about MRAs is that they think family courts are rigged against fathers who want custody because of feminist ideology. Family courts have ALWAYS been rigged against custodial fathers, because of patriarchal ideas about gender roles.

Also, to MRAs, all feminists are Andrea Dworkin and a handful of other fringey loons hanging out in academia.

Ahh! A variant on the old "the patriarchy caused this so men have no right to complain" with a good dose of 'dumb men don't realize that it's the patriarchy farkin them over.'

Which makes for good pop social theory but means exactly shiat for the individual men caught up in the family court system.


Well as long as no TRUE Scotsman is into the pickup artist scene, or the anti-pickup artist scene, or hangs out slagging women on MRA websites, then I guess they're OK. You want to help fathers get custody in family court, fine. Seems like that would be a Father's Rights movement, and it would have absolutely nothing to say about feminism, unlike 99 percent of the pro-MRA posts on here. Most of the guys I see biatching about family court are just mad that they have to pay child support for kids they don't want.
 
2014-06-11 06:54:00 PM  
When did Fark become the love child of Tumblr and Jezebel? I mean I hate reddit too (why I read Fark instead), but Jesus.
 
2014-06-11 06:54:01 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-06-11 06:54:02 PM  

DrBenway:

Whiners of any ilk are generally a pain in the ass, or hadn't you noticed? You're not special. You're not being singled out. You're whining and, this being Fark, you are being mocked for it. Deal with it.



i.imgur.com
Please cite where I have whined about anything in this thread. Should be easy.
 
2014-06-11 06:54:18 PM  

trotsky: Every "MRA" I've ever spoke too also has a creepy fetish for cartoon Ponies from a show meant for little girls. Somebody please explain this to me.


Much as I love shiatting on bronies, it's just the Reddit zeitgeist effect.
 
2014-06-11 06:55:28 PM  

Empty H: timujin: Elegy: timujin: You realize that by taking my point that what this gue has written in this thread makes him come off as someone with a fetish for victimization and write what you do, you're actually doing the same thing, right?  Making it seem like everything is about you and that you're the "real victim" here?

He's not talking about inequality, he's taking a joke and making himself a martyr.  Thing is, the joke should only be offensive to "MRA douche-bloggers".  Are you one?  If not, why be offended?  Are you suggesting there are no such people?  Every group has assholes.  If you don't realize that, you haven't been on Fark long enough.

Ah, yes, the old "stop playing the victim card" canard.

Which was precisely my point. Your entire argument thus far has boiled down to "suck it up and be tough, you're men, quit whining you crybabies."

Way to reinforce those patriarchal gender roles. I guess you want men to be in touch with their feelings and discuss them openly, at least until they say something you don't like. In which case, they need to suck it up and be tough because manly men are strong and don't cry and whine about things.

Got it.

No, my entire argument can be boiled down to "don't go looking for ways to be offended".

It's like this.  If someone kicks you in the shin, complain about the pain.  If someone kicks someone else in the shin, don't.

So you agree with Pat Robertson? Daddy was kicking mama in the shin and she should complain about it, not me.


Did I say if someone kicks someone in the shin don't say, "hey, don't kick people in the shin"? No, I said don't complain about the pain.  The headline was about "douche-bloggers".  Unless you or the other dude are "douche-bloggers" there's no reason for you to take offense at the headline.  Are you a "douche-blogger"?
 
2014-06-11 06:56:13 PM  

Elegy: DrBenway:

Whiners of any ilk are generally a pain in the ass, or hadn't you noticed? You're not special. You're not being singled out. You're whining and, this being Fark, you are being mocked for it. Deal with it.


[i.imgur.com image 500x320]
Please cite where I have whined about anything in this thread. Should be easy.


To be fair, you were white-knighting a whiner, not actually whining. But Jesus, HE was whining.
 
2014-06-11 06:56:44 PM  

OneTimed: When did Fark become the love child of Tumblr and Jezebel? I mean I hate reddit too (why I read Fark instead), but Jesus.


January 20th, 2009.
 
2014-06-11 07:02:34 PM  

Spad31: Airquote "Reverend" for Sharpton and Jackson too. They're equally douchey.


Douchey, yes.
Equally so, no.

Wait, are both sides bad?
 
2014-06-11 07:02:55 PM  

LazyMedia: Well as long as no TRUE Scotsman is into the pickup artist scene, or the anti-pickup artist scene, or hangs out slagging women on MRA websites


So Eliot Rogers  not having any connection to MRA or their causes or concerns  got on a website and said mean things about women and in your mind that make him a MRA.   Well seeing you got your genders studies degree from Cracked.com I can understand why you might think that.  In that great leap of logic I made a comment on a website for lesbians , I must be a lesbian then ,, as I guy I am okay with though
 
2014-06-11 07:03:12 PM  

RoyBatty: An adult woman and a child witness a man threatening them with a gun. A phone is nearby.

Who here thinks the child should call the police?
Who here thinks the adult woman should call the police?

The man is no longer threatening the adult woman and the child with a gun. A phone is nearby.

Who here thinks the child should call the police?
Who here thinks the adult woman should call the police?

Who is abusing the child?
[ ] the man threatening the child and adult woman woman?
[ ] the adult woman who will not call the police to protect her child?
[ ] the farkers demanding the child call the police to protect the adult woman?


This is remarkably addle-brained, even for you. Good job. There are so many influencing variables and qualifiers that can be attached to your scenarios that it is little more than a pointless exercise in "look how stupid I am."
 
2014-06-11 07:05:35 PM  

skinink: So according to Pat, who should have called the cops at the Copacabana?


Lola.
 
2014-06-11 07:06:34 PM  
Is this the thread where we all insult one another?
 
2014-06-11 07:07:51 PM  

timujin: Empty H: timujin: Elegy: timujin: You realize that by taking my point that what this gue has written in this thread makes him come off as someone with a fetish for victimization and write what you do, you're actually doing the same thing, right?  Making it seem like everything is about you and that you're the "real victim" here?

He's not talking about inequality, he's taking a joke and making himself a martyr.  Thing is, the joke should only be offensive to "MRA douche-bloggers".  Are you one?  If not, why be offended?  Are you suggesting there are no such people?  Every group has assholes.  If you don't realize that, you haven't been on Fark long enough.

Ah, yes, the old "stop playing the victim card" canard.

Which was precisely my point. Your entire argument thus far has boiled down to "suck it up and be tough, you're men, quit whining you crybabies."

Way to reinforce those patriarchal gender roles. I guess you want men to be in touch with their feelings and discuss them openly, at least until they say something you don't like. In which case, they need to suck it up and be tough because manly men are strong and don't cry and whine about things.

Got it.

No, my entire argument can be boiled down to "don't go looking for ways to be offended".

It's like this.  If someone kicks you in the shin, complain about the pain.  If someone kicks someone else in the shin, don't.

So you agree with Pat Robertson? Daddy was kicking mama in the shin and she should complain about it, not me.

Did I say if someone kicks someone in the shin don't say, "hey, don't kick people in the shin"? No, I said don't complain about the pain.  The headline was about "douche-bloggers".  Unless you or the other dude are "douche-bloggers" there's no reason for you to take offense at the headline.  Are you a "douche-blogger"?


Really? I try to point out how your argument is invalid and you insinuate that I am a "douche-blogger". Out of all the ways you could have responded you chose that one. That is really sad.

I actually wasn't on either side of the argument but just wanted to point out that your argument of "If someone kicks you in the shin, complain about the pain.  If someone kicks someone else in the shin, don't." makes no sense. But I am sure you already know that. Your attack on me shows that you know it doesn't make any sense.

I wasn't attacking you or your position, I was trying to give you a chance to say it a different way.
 
2014-06-11 07:07:59 PM  

fusillade762: Is this the thread where we all insult one another?


Are you new here? To the internet I mean.
 
2014-06-11 07:09:01 PM  

freewill: HideAndGoFarkYourself: When you're staring at somebody waving a gun at your mother in anger, you call the police.  You don't HOPE that your dad decides not to kill your mom that day, then talk to your mom later and get her to call the police.  If mom was interested in the police being called, she'd have done it, or she's so terrified of her husband that she's not going to call regardless of how scared little Timmy is.  The time for a family discussion is after daddy gets out of rehab, or mommy gets a divorce.  It's a lot easier to counsel a kid that calling the police was the right thing, and that he ultimately may have saved a life, than it is to counsel a kid that his inaction was part of the reason his mommy got killed in front of him.

I was assuming that Robertson was not responding to a situation that was occurring in real-time. As in, I didn't think his father was pointing the gun at his mother while Robertson was giving the kid instructions, so it was not, in fact, an emergency at that very moment. I do agree that in the moment, calling 911 is the right thing to do.

Robertson was pretty clear with the kid that his father is going to kill his mother eventually and something has to be done.

tiamet4: Also, he should not be asking his mom to "talk to his dad about getting help".  He should be asking his mom to get him the hell out of this situation.

I can agree with this completely. If "help" is limited to asking him to please stop and see a therapist, then Robertson's answer is certainly wrong. LIke I said, I understand how it could be read that way, but I read it as "you need to tell her this isn't OK and to do something, she knows what that means".

When I hear "help" in the context of a violent psycho, I hear "Baker Act".

/ Alternately, "shoot him first, mom."


So, the lesson to the kid is that it's not his responsibility to report criminal behavior?  I agree, the mom SHOULD be the one reporting it.  That it's happened more than once is pretty clear evidence that mom isn't going to be reporting it.  If the kid doesn't wanna watch daddy redecorate the walls in whatever color mommy's brain is, he needs to call the police.  That should have been the message Robertson gave.  "If mom isn't going to report it to the police after it happens, and is unable to report it when it's happening, you need to call the police to make sure you and mommy are safe."
 
2014-06-11 07:09:02 PM  
Son, if your father threatens your mother with a gun, it's because she's not sucking his dick long and hard enough, or she's fat, or she has a stinky pussy. Whatever you do, don't bust your dad
 
2014-06-11 07:09:15 PM  
Well in the moment is it her problem. Later it turns in to part of te job of the police but it's still not their problem, it's work.
 
2014-06-11 07:09:30 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Here's a picture of the submitter:

[thepigmancometh.com image 200x266]

Feminists think they have a monopoly on discussions about gender inequality.

Example one: Make False claims about what Men's Rights are about.


Your lies are tiresome.  Try some new material.
 
2014-06-11 07:09:38 PM  

fusillade762: Is this the thread where we all insult one another?


And even when we aren't trying to insult people they are still insulted.
 
2014-06-11 07:10:37 PM  
Me:

web.mit.edu

This thread:

web.mit.edu
web.mit.edu

This is almost as much fun as the old Dickwolf threads.
 
2014-06-11 07:11:46 PM  
Because People in power are Stupid:[www.evilmilk.com image 380x251]

The feminist on the left isn't bashing MRA at every chance.
The feminist on the right bashes MRA every chance she gets.

See the difference?


I take it back.  You've found a new way to make me laugh.  Bravo.
 
2014-06-11 07:11:51 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: You sound afraid of women.


This says quite the opposite.

LazyMedia: Well as long as no TRUE Scotsman is into the pickup artist scene, or the anti-pickup artist scene, or hangs out slagging women on MRA websites, then I guess they're OK. You want to help fathers get custody in family court, fine. Seems like that would be a Father's Rights movement, and it would have absolutely nothing to say about feminism, unlike 99 percent of the pro-MRA posts on here. Most of the guys I see biatching about family court are just mad that they have to pay child support for kids they don't want.


Sadly, there is a father's rights movement. Just as sadly, they've been lumped into the MRA movement by people like you, people like you who then tell them to stop whining and being misogynists after the courts farked them over.

There's also quite a bit more inequality than just family courts out there that the feminist movement - despite the claims that the feminist movement is there for men and women - have largely ignored over the past two decades. This, of course, doesn't even touch on the more general response of 'you have no right to comment on feminism because you are a man, sit down and shut up and quit whining' that this thread has so thoughtfully exhibited.

When you marginalize a group of people and tell them their concerns are irrelevant and not valid concerns, is it any surprise they go off and form their own little radicalized groups? It's how you get Islamic radicalized Islamic terrorists in the Middle East, and it's how you get radicalized MRAs on the internet.

And yeah, there are a lot of douchebag MRAs out there. Lot of douchebag radfems too. Please tell me how that contributes to the factual truth of the claims made by either?
 
2014-06-11 07:12:42 PM  

DrBenway: RoyBatty: An adult woman and a child witness a man threatening them with a gun. A phone is nearby.

Who here thinks the child should call the police?
Who here thinks the adult woman should call the police?

The man is no longer threatening the adult woman and the child with a gun. A phone is nearby.

Who here thinks the child should call the police?
Who here thinks the adult woman should call the police?

Who is abusing the child?
[ ] the man threatening the child and adult woman woman?
[ ] the adult woman who will not call the police to protect her child?
[ ] the farkers demanding the child call the police to protect the adult woman?

This is remarkably addle-brained, even for you. Good job. There are so many influencing variables and qualifiers that can be attached to your scenarios that it is little more than a pointless exercise in "look how stupid I am."


Don't let me stop you. You're on a roll. Keep with it.
 
2014-06-11 07:13:37 PM  

timujin: Elegy: timujin: If you're trying to make those who support it seem like victimized crybabies, you've succeeded.

That's right. Talking about any inequality you face makes you sound like a victimized, whiny crybaby.

Toughen up men. Just suck it up and take it. You don't need to voice your opinion when you see something you think is unfair. You're a man. Be a man. Be tough.

Just suck it up, you crybaby.

You realize that by taking my point that what this gue has written in this thread makes him come off as someone with a fetish for victimization and write what you do, you're actually doing the same thing, right?  Making it seem like everything is about you and that you're the "real victim" here?

He's not talking about inequality, he's taking a joke and making himself a martyr.  Thing is, the joke should only be offensive to "MRA douche-bloggers".  Are you one?  If not, why be offended?  Are you suggesting there are no such people?  Every group has assholes.  If you don't realize that, you haven't been on Fark long enough.


No.

If you were a black man, and there were to appear a headline including the phrase "negro gangbangers", would you not be somewhat annoyed at the co-location of a highly negative adjective with a perfectly benign one? It's a deliberately insulting conflation.
 
2014-06-11 07:14:16 PM  
Hmm not sure who I hate more: this old douchbag con artist of a "reverend" or that late and not so great Phelps bastard from the Westoboro Baptist Lunatics. What ever, they're all the same.
 
2014-06-11 07:17:51 PM  

LazyMedia: Elegy: soporific: Because People in power are Stupid: Example one: Make False claims about what Men's Rights are about.

If you want to know what MRA is all about, this article paints a pretty clear picture.

Oh god, you just dropped an atom bomb on this debate. Bar none, the single most authoritative source in academia today is cracked.com. How can anyone refute that.

Except the fact the Men's Rights isn't an internet fad - been around since the feminist movement kicked off in fact. And the fact that Eliot Rogers had no connection to even the douchebaggiest MRA sites.

[i.imgur.com image 460x364]

LazyMedia: The dumbest thing about MRAs is that they think family courts are rigged against fathers who want custody because of feminist ideology. Family courts have ALWAYS been rigged against custodial fathers, because of patriarchal ideas about gender roles.

Also, to MRAs, all feminists are Andrea Dworkin and a handful of other fringey loons hanging out in academia.

Ahh! A variant on the old "the patriarchy caused this so men have no right to complain" with a good dose of 'dumb men don't realize that it's the patriarchy farkin them over.'

Which makes for good pop social theory but means exactly shiat for the individual men caught up in the family court system.

Well as long as no TRUE Scotsman is into the pickup artist scene, or the anti-pickup artist scene, or hangs out slagging women on MRA websites, then I guess they're OK. You want to help fathers get custody in family court, fine. Seems like that would be a Father's Rights movement, and it would have absolutely nothing to say about feminism, unlike 99 percent of the pro-MRA posts on here. Most of the guys I see biatching about family court are just mad that they have to pay child support for kids they don't want.


And honestly, the language that guys use when they complain about how unfair the courts and their big bad ex-wives are treating them leads me to believe that there is nuance in those situations that the judge can clearly see that those men simply don't want to admit.

/frankly, it makes me feel relieved that those men in particular don't have children under their care
 
2014-06-11 07:19:46 PM  
Why doesn't this farking old twat douche just hurry up and farking die already.
 
2014-06-11 07:21:13 PM  

gamergirl23: Mikey1969: gamergirl23: Not to defend this douche, but he said it's something the mother should deal with, not the children, and that something needed to be done about the father, at least implying that the mother should be the one to call the cops.

Yeah, you know what? It's OK for the kid to call the cops, especially if the father is threatening the mother at that time. Jesus, to listen to you and Pat, the kid should step up in the middle of the altercation to give Mommy the phone so that SHE can dial 911.

Also, you haven't known people who end up in destructive co-dependent relationships, have you?

You may have wanted to keep reading a few posts after that.


Why? Did it turn out th at someone else was posting as you and supporting Pat? That sux, you should probably log out when you walk away from the computer if that's an issue.
 
2014-06-11 07:21:21 PM  

LazyMedia: Elegy: DrBenway:

Whiners of any ilk are generally a pain in the ass, or hadn't you noticed? You're not special. You're not being singled out. You're whining and, this being Fark, you are being mocked for it. Deal with it.


[i.imgur.com image 500x320]
Please cite where I have whined about anything in this thread. Should be easy.

To be fair, you were white-knighting a whiner, not actually whining. But Jesus, HE was whining.


Yeah, but his white-knighting was more-than-a-little-bit tinged with passive-aggressive whining. Resorting to that sort of defensiveness is not an endearing quality.
 
2014-06-11 07:22:42 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: LazyMedia: Elegy: soporific: Because People in power are Stupid: Example one: Make False claims about what Men's Rights are about.

If you want to know what MRA is all about, this article paints a pretty clear picture.

Oh god, you just dropped an atom bomb on this debate. Bar none, the single most authoritative source in academia today is cracked.com. How can anyone refute that.

Except the fact the Men's Rights isn't an internet fad - been around since the feminist movement kicked off in fact. And the fact that Eliot Rogers had no connection to even the douchebaggiest MRA sites.

[i.imgur.com image 460x364]

LazyMedia: The dumbest thing about MRAs is that they think family courts are rigged against fathers who want custody because of feminist ideology. Family courts have ALWAYS been rigged against custodial fathers, because of patriarchal ideas about gender roles.

Also, to MRAs, all feminists are Andrea Dworkin and a handful of other fringey loons hanging out in academia.

Ahh! A variant on the old "the patriarchy caused this so men have no right to complain" with a good dose of 'dumb men don't realize that it's the patriarchy farkin them over.'

Which makes for good pop social theory but means exactly shiat for the individual men caught up in the family court system.

Well as long as no TRUE Scotsman is into the pickup artist scene, or the anti-pickup artist scene, or hangs out slagging women on MRA websites, then I guess they're OK. You want to help fathers get custody in family court, fine. Seems like that would be a Father's Rights movement, and it would have absolutely nothing to say about feminism, unlike 99 percent of the pro-MRA posts on here. Most of the guys I see biatching about family court are just mad that they have to pay child support for kids they don't want.

And honestly, the language that guys use when they complain about how unfair the courts and their big bad ex-wives are treating them leads me to believe that there is nuance in those situations that the judge can clearly see that those men simply don't want to admit.

/frankly, it makes me feel relieved that those men in particular don't have children under their care


So you base the ability to childcare on "language" people use. Change the sex on your statement and read it again. It sounds pretty funny.

MRA haters are just as funny to listen to as actual MRA's.
 
2014-06-11 07:23:30 PM  

freewill: HideAndGoFarkYourself: When you're staring at somebody waving a gun at your mother in anger, you call the police.  You don't HOPE that your dad decides not to kill your mom that day, then talk to your mom later and get her to call the police.  If mom was interested in the police being called, she'd have done it, or she's so terrified of her husband that she's not going to call regardless of how scared little Timmy is.  The time for a family discussion is after daddy gets out of rehab, or mommy gets a divorce.  It's a lot easier to counsel a kid that calling the police was the right thing, and that he ultimately may have saved a life, than it is to counsel a kid that his inaction was part of the reason his mommy got killed in front of him.

I was assuming that Robertson was not responding to a situation that was occurring in real-time. As in, I didn't think his father was pointing the gun at his mother while Robertson was giving the kid instructions, so it was not, in fact, an emergency at that very moment. I do agree that in the moment, calling 911 is the right thing to do.

Robertson was pretty clear with the kid that his father is going to kill his mother eventually and something has to be done.

tiamet4: Also, he should not be asking his mom to "talk to his dad about getting help".  He should be asking his mom to get him the hell out of this situation.

I can agree with this completely. If "help" is limited to asking him to please stop and see a therapist, then Robertson's answer is certainly wrong. LIke I said, I understand how it could be read that way, but I read it as "you need to tell her this isn't OK and to do something, she knows what that means".

When I hear "help" in the context of a violent psycho, I hear "Baker Act".

/ Alternately, "shoot him first, mom."


Okay.  Well that is reasonable.
 
2014-06-11 07:24:47 PM  

Mikey1969: gamergirl23: Mikey1969: gamergirl23: Not to defend this douche, but he said it's something the mother should deal with, not the children, and that something needed to be done about the father, at least implying that the mother should be the one to call the cops.

Yeah, you know what? It's OK for the kid to call the cops, especially if the father is threatening the mother at that time. Jesus, to listen to you and Pat, the kid should step up in the middle of the altercation to give Mommy the phone so that SHE can dial 911.

Also, you haven't known people who end up in destructive co-dependent relationships, have you?

You may have wanted to keep reading a few posts after that.

Why? Did it turn out th at someone else was posting as you and supporting Pat? That sux, you should probably log out when you walk away from the computer if that's an issue.


Pretty sure she was talking about this:

"Oh no, I'm all in favor of the kids calling the cops and putting that psycho away, but I dislike misleading headlines.  There are plenty of reasons Pat Robertson's an asshole without doing that."
 
2014-06-11 07:25:42 PM  

unchellmatt: This is almost as much fun as the old Dickwolf threads.


I must have missed those.
 
2014-06-11 07:25:45 PM  

fusillade762: jst3p: A thread with gun issues and gender equality issues. This could be epic, it's already chalk full of doucebags.

Chalk? And this is the second time in as many days that I've seen someone use "doucebags".


The latter was a typo, the former was ignorance. I will not make that mistake again. Thanks!
 
2014-06-11 07:27:40 PM  

fusillade762: unchellmatt: This is almost as much fun as the old Dickwolf threads.

I must have missed those.


I think we are better people for missing those.
 
2014-06-11 07:28:42 PM  

Empty H: Did I say if someone kicks someone in the shin don't say, "hey, don't kick people in the shin"? No, I said don't complain about the pain. The headline was about "douche-bloggers". Unless you or the other dude are "douche-bloggers" there's no reason for you to take offense at the headline. Are you a "douche-blogger"?

Really? I try to point out how your argument is invalid and you insinuate that I am a "douche-blogger". Out of all the ways you could have responded you chose that one. That is really sad.

I actually wasn't on either side of the argument but just wanted to point out that your argument of "If someone kicks you in the shin, complain about the pain. If someone kicks someone else in the shin, don't." makes no sense. But I am sure you already know that. Your attack on me shows that you know it doesn't make any sense.

I wasn't attacking you or your position, I was trying to give you a chance to say it a different way.


No, I did not insinuate anything, I asked you a question.   I assumed the answer to the question would be "no, I'm not a douche-blogger", which means that the headline wasn't about you.  That was my point.  If the guy who was all up in arms about the headline isn't a "douche-blogger" then he doesn't have a reason to be offended by it.  I am not sure how you failed to comprehend that.

The earlier comment about shins was made to evoke the same meaning. "If it's not about you, why are you taking offense?" restated metaphorically as "If you weren't the one kicked in the shins, why are you complaining about the pain?"
 
2014-06-11 07:32:50 PM  

aagrajag: I can show you some genuinely nutty, misandrist feminists, but to paint all feminists as such would be wrong and bigoted, and people would be perfectly justified to call it out as such.

So why is it acceptable to denigrate the advocates of the other group, then excuse it with a Rush Limbaugh-esque "It's just a joke! Lighten up, guy!"?



Well, there's a limit to how much I know about the whole MRA thing.  For the most part I just ignore them.  So perhaps someone who knows more can comment, or maybe even someone who considers himself (or herself) and MRA can comment without coming across as having a seizure while posting.  But to take a stab at it, there are two reasons.

First, because "MRA" is a self-applied label.  You can post what you think about women's rights and other people will label you a feminist (or not a feminist) based on their criteria of what makes someone feminist (or not).  Of course you CAN label yourself a feminist (and many people do), but you may well find that other people assign you the title whether or not you want it or think it's fair.  Whereas, with MRAs, so far as I know nobody every tells a guy, "Hey, you must be an MRA!" or "What are you, some kind of MRA?"  You take it upon yourself.  That makes it more of a personal choice to identify with the group, which increases your responsibility for being associated with that group, and entitles other people to make judgments about you based on your association with that group, moreso than with some other ideologies, such as feminism.

(Of course I could be wrong about this, but you'd have to demonstrate it by giving an example of someone who was labeled a MRA without ever claiming the title himself first.)

Second, MRA has a pretty tight focus, whereas "feminism" is a broad category.  There are many different "waves" of feminism, with any number of issues that they disgree on.  Pornography is one example: there are some feminists who think porn is inherently misogynistic or anti-women, and on the other hand, there are "sex-positive" feminists who think porn is empowering.  And because it's such a broad field, it's very hard to say much about feminists as a whole that it's a grossly unfair stereotype.

The same is much less true, so far as I know, about MRAs because of their narrower focus.  There seem to be a few key ideas that all MRAs agree on, and because anyone who doesn't subscribe to those doctrines doesn't get to count himself (or herself) as an MRA, it's fair to hold all MRAs accountable for those specific points.
 
2014-06-11 07:34:03 PM  

unchellmatt: Me:

[web.mit.edu image 330x182]

This thread:

[web.mit.edu image 841x692]
[web.mit.edu image 625x468]

This is almost as much fun as the old Dickwolf threads.


You're a half black half white child molester with a Peter Pan complex?
img.fark.net
 
2014-06-11 07:34:52 PM  

timujin: Empty H: Did I say if someone kicks someone in the shin don't say, "hey, don't kick people in the shin"? No, I said don't complain about the pain. The headline was about "douche-bloggers". Unless you or the other dude are "douche-bloggers" there's no reason for you to take offense at the headline. Are you a "douche-blogger"?

Really? I try to point out how your argument is invalid and you insinuate that I am a "douche-blogger". Out of all the ways you could have responded you chose that one. That is really sad.

I actually wasn't on either side of the argument but just wanted to point out that your argument of "If someone kicks you in the shin, complain about the pain. If someone kicks someone else in the shin, don't." makes no sense. But I am sure you already know that. Your attack on me shows that you know it doesn't make any sense.

I wasn't attacking you or your position, I was trying to give you a chance to say it a different way.

No, I did not insinuate anything, I asked you a question.   I assumed the answer to the question would be "no, I'm not a douche-blogger", which means that the headline wasn't about you.  That was my point.  If the guy who was all up in arms about the headline isn't a "douche-blogger" then he doesn't have a reason to be offended by it.  I am not sure how you failed to comprehend that.

The earlier comment about shins was made to evoke the same meaning. "If it's not about you, why are you taking offense?" restated metaphorically as "If you weren't the one kicked in the shins, why are you complaining about the pain?"


In response to your first paragraph:

...Anyway.

In response to your second paragraph:

When someone else is in pain it is common human empathy to feel that pain and want to do something about it. Your assertion that your shin analogy had relevance to this topic is incorrect. I had assumed you meant something else and was wanting to understand what you were actually trying to say.
 
2014-06-11 07:36:35 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: I've actually read quite a bit of Womynist literature.


I'm reminded of the exchange from A Fish Called Wanda.

"MRA's don't read feminist literature!"
"Yes, they do, BPIPAS.  They just don't understand it."
 
2014-06-11 07:40:57 PM  

jst3p: Empty H: Can we get the legal representative of the Feminist and the legal representative of the MRA in this thread please. I don't really know what is going on.

Here is a funny "debate" between a feminist and an aspiring MRA

[i.imgur.com image 850x615]


Holy shiatballs.
 
2014-06-11 07:41:36 PM  

Empty H: Mikey1969: gamergirl23: Mikey1969: gamergirl23: Not to defend this douche, but he said it's something the mother should deal with, not the children, and that something needed to be done about the father, at least implying that the mother should be the one to call the cops.

Yeah, you know what? It's OK for the kid to call the cops, especially if the father is threatening the mother at that time. Jesus, to listen to you and Pat, the kid should step up in the middle of the altercation to give Mommy the phone so that SHE can dial 911.

Also, you haven't known people who end up in destructive co-dependent relationships, have you?

You may have wanted to keep reading a few posts after that.

Why? Did it turn out th at someone else was posting as you and supporting Pat? That sux, you should probably log out when you walk away from the computer if that's an issue.

Pretty sure she was talking about this:

"Oh no, I'm all in favor of the kids calling the cops and putting that psycho away, but I dislike misleading headlines.  There are plenty of reasons Pat Robertson's an asshole without doing that."


Maybe Mikey thinks that counts as supporting Pat? You know, if you can't criticize 100% of what someone does or says, then you must support them 100%, everything is a complete dichotomy, us vs. them, go team, rah rah rah!
 
2014-06-11 07:43:06 PM  

spamdog: Where the hell did all these guys come from, anyway? What did they do before this MRA stuff blew up?


Before, their privilege and opinions were unchallenged.  99% of society at least passively supported their thoughts and feelings.

Now people are actually calling them out on their bullshiat, and they don't like it.
 
2014-06-11 07:44:02 PM  

Theaetetus: Empty H: Mikey1969: gamergirl23: Mikey1969: gamergirl23: Not to defend this douche, but he said it's something the mother should deal with, not the children, and that something needed to be done about the father, at least implying that the mother should be the one to call the cops.

Yeah, you know what? It's OK for the kid to call the cops, especially if the father is threatening the mother at that time. Jesus, to listen to you and Pat, the kid should step up in the middle of the altercation to give Mommy the phone so that SHE can dial 911.

Also, you haven't known people who end up in destructive co-dependent relationships, have you?

You may have wanted to keep reading a few posts after that.

Why? Did it turn out th at someone else was posting as you and supporting Pat? That sux, you should probably log out when you walk away from the computer if that's an issue.

Pretty sure she was talking about this:

"Oh no, I'm all in favor of the kids calling the cops and putting that psycho away, but I dislike misleading headlines.  There are plenty of reasons Pat Robertson's an asshole without doing that."

Maybe Mikey thinks that counts as supporting Pat? You know, if you can't criticize 100% of what someone does or says, then you must support them 100%, everything is a complete dichotomy, us vs. them, go team, rah rah rah!


I try to think that people just get caught up in an argument and miss some stuff. I have hope for people.
 
2014-06-11 07:45:04 PM  

Empty H: timujin: Empty H: Did I say if someone kicks someone in the shin don't say, "hey, don't kick people in the shin"? No, I said don't complain about the pain. The headline was about "douche-bloggers". Unless you or the other dude are "douche-bloggers" there's no reason for you to take offense at the headline. Are you a "douche-blogger"?

Really? I try to point out how your argument is invalid and you insinuate that I am a "douche-blogger". Out of all the ways you could have responded you chose that one. That is really sad.

I actually wasn't on either side of the argument but just wanted to point out that your argument of "If someone kicks you in the shin, complain about the pain. If someone kicks someone else in the shin, don't." makes no sense. But I am sure you already know that. Your attack on me shows that you know it doesn't make any sense.

I wasn't attacking you or your position, I was trying to give you a chance to say it a different way.

No, I did not insinuate anything, I asked you a question.   I assumed the answer to the question would be "no, I'm not a douche-blogger", which means that the headline wasn't about you.  That was my point.  If the guy who was all up in arms about the headline isn't a "douche-blogger" then he doesn't have a reason to be offended by it.  I am not sure how you failed to comprehend that.

The earlier comment about shins was made to evoke the same meaning. "If it's not about you, why are you taking offense?" restated metaphorically as "If you weren't the one kicked in the shins, why are you complaining about the pain?"

In response to your first paragraph:

...Anyway.

In response to your second paragraph:

When someone else is in pain it is common human empathy to feel that pain and want to do something about it. Your assertion that your shin analogy had relevance to this topic is incorrect. I had assumed you meant something else and was wanting to understand what you were actually trying to say.


So your contention is that if you see someone kicked in the shin, then you personally feel pain?  To quote, well, you, "...Anyway."

Fine, I won't bother with metaphor, I'll simply restate.  The headline was about "MRA douche-bloggers", not even in whole, but only as part of a larger joke.  Dude #1 took serious offense and then came into the thread and made a big scene about how MRA's were being persecuted by feminists.  I pointed out that he was overreacting and he ramped up his "I'm the victim here" posts.  Dude #2 got involved and I pointed out, using a metaphor, that if the headline wasn't about Dude #1, then he shouldn't be acting offended by it.  You stuck your nose into the middle of a conversation because you didn't understand what I was talking about.  My analogy had relevance to the discussion I was having with Dude #2, not to the contents of the link the headline referred to.
 
Displayed 50 of 306 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report