>Ain’t That a Shaming Tactic


There’s something inherently ridiculous about being lambasted for using “shaming tactics” — by someone who has just called you a “mangina.”

A few posts back, as you may recall, I took on an odd little rant on The Spearhead which seemed to suggest that Tea Party nutbag Christine O’Donnell’s 14-year-old comments about the evils of masturbation offered proof of sorts that an evil “pussy cartel” was trying to keep American men from taking matters into their own hands, so to speak. The biggest threat to this diabolical female conspiracy, the author wrote, was “men realizing that their hand will do more for them than a woman will.” 

The problem, of course, is that this is completely ridiculous. I myself have had sex on a number of occasions over the years — I mean, with other people — and I have to say that my hand, despite its obvious convenience and considerable dexterity, really cannot compete with, you know, an actual naked lady.

And so I suggested that any man who thought so little of women might have a hard time getting a date. This evidently sent the author of the piece, the man behind the Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology blog, into such a tailspin of shame that he wrote not one but two blog posts about me. In the first, after calling me a mangina, he insisted that he did in fact have a girlfriend. In a comment, I told him I felt sorry for her. And I do. What kind of woman would want to date a man who prefers the company of Susie Palmer and her five friends? So he wrote yet another post, this one spelling out in detail the evil forms of “shaming language” I had used.

Men’s Rights Activists are obsessed with so-called “shaming language.” Or at least they have been since a document called The Catalogue of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics started making its way around the manosphere; it’s been linked to or posted on virtually every MRA blog or forum at least once.

The Catalogue is basically a list of allegedly unfair debating tactics used by those who think that MRAs are full of shit:

Shaming tactics are emotional devices meant to play on a man’s insecurities and shut down debate.  They are meant to elicit sympathy for women and to demonize men who ask hard questions.

The list spells out 16 different types of “shaming tactics,” from the “Charge of Irascibility” (“You’re bitter!”), to the “Charge of Fanaticism” and the “Charge of Misogyny.”

And it’s true. People do charge MRAs with all of these things. And a lot of the time, they’re guilty as charged. Some MRAs are bitter. Some MRAs are fanatics. Some MRAs are misogynists.

My most grievous crime? I had used the “Threat of Withheld Affection … The Pink Whip,” in which “the target is admonished that his viewpoints or behavior will cause women to reject him as a mate.” I’ll have to plead guilty on that one, since that’s exactly what I did.

In his second blog post, Pro-Male/Anti-Fem added two more counts to the charges against me: that I had accused him of “Preying On Weak/Damaged/Insecure Women” and “Non-Specific ‘Shameful Behavior.'” I’ll plead guilty on the first count, Your Honor, but innocent on the second: I was pretty specific about what I saw as shameful — his idiotic ideas about the “pussy cartel” and the whole hand-better-than-woman nonsense.

The funny thing about the Catalogue is how deadly seriously so many MRAs take it, and how angry they get whenever one of their opponents, tired of fighting a battle of wits against half-wits, pulls one of the “shaming tactics” out of her or his bag in an effort to bring the fruitless discussion to a close.

The irony, of course (and please forgive me if I shout), is that MRAs USE SHAMING TACTICS THEMSELVES ALL THE FUCKING TIME. Just look at the comments on the post of mine that started this whole kerfuffle, posted, presumably, by MRAs who followed the link from Pro-Male/Anti-Fem’s first post. The bravely anonymous first poster starts off the insult parade by saying “just because you’ve let them cut YOUR dick off doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy ours.” (This is a classic example of what the Catalogue calls the “Charge of Invirility.”) After a few more insult-laden comments, we come to this, from another brave Mr. Anonymous:

You don’t understand. Little Ms. David here is just jealous because men will rather use a Fleshlight than give Little Ms. David’s hungry poophole and mouthpussy the gift of their manly, throbbing love rockets. Awwwww. Men are such pigs. Men are so shallow they can’t understand Little Ms. David needs a Real Man™.

But my favorite? This one:

a dickless wonder’s blog, right here. You’re such a girl, with the nonsensical shaming language.

Yep, the Charge of Invirility again. But even better, and I’m afraid I’m going to have to shout again: HE USES SHAMING LANGUAGE AGAINST ME IN THE VERY SAME SENTENCE IN WHICH HE COMPLAINS ABOUT SHAMING LANGUAGE.

Sadly, our anonymous friend is hardly the first MRA to do exactly this. Take a look at this fine fellow over at (irony alert!) Antimisandry.com:

Whenever they try that crap I tell them, “Your hate speech doesn’t work any more.” … Just side step it and call the cunt what she is, a hate monger. She has no answer for that.

Can anyone really be this un-self-aware?

In all my travels around the angry-manosphere — Charge of Irascibility FTW! — I have run across exactly one intelligent response to the Catalogue from an actual MRA: an essay on The Spearhead by the mysterious Zed, a sort of MRM elder statesman. Rather than simply lament the use of shaming language by the evil fems, Zed urges men to respond in kind, and not just with the standard anti-woman cliches.

The wasps will swoop in and start stinging – “loser, you hate women, you live in your mother’s basement, you must have a small penis” until they land one that hits a sore spot and triggers Chuck’s anger.

At this point he will lose his train of thought, and pop off with some terribly imaginative comeback like “bitch” or “whore” or “slut.” Contrary to all the nonsense about “slut shaming”, these terms don’t bother the attack wasps of Team Woman in the slightest. In fact, they are clear signals the wasps have hit their target, accomplished their objective, and reduced poor Chuck to barely articulate profanity.

The solution? MRA’s need to “start honing our rhetoric of ridicule so we can sting our opponents as deeply as they are trying to sting us.”

I second his emotion. “Dickless wonder?” “Mangina?” “Cunt?” You can do better than that. The “Little Ms. David” guy shows some promise, but he lacks finesse. Study the masters of insult: Oscar Wilde. Triumph the Insult Comic Dog. Andrea Dworkin.

And quit whining about “shaming language” like a bunch of damn babies.

That’s The Charge of Hypersensitivity, by the way.

Posted on September 28, 2010, in douchebaggery, MRA, sex. Bookmark the permalink. 70 Comments.

  1. >I understand your point about the irony of using shaming language to criticize shaming language. However, in general, I think criticizing shaming language is perfectly fine.Feminist complain about slut-shaming all the time because they are held to a standard of sexual purity that they don't like.MRAs complain about shaming because it involves being held to a standard of masculinity that they reject.-Jut

  2. >I agree:There's something inherently ridiculous about being lambasted for using "shaming tactics" — by someone who has just called you a "mangina."A reason I don't call myself an MRA – even though I detest feminism and what have you.MRA's seem to engage in male-hatred more than feminists do."mangina" is shaming language.I'd reckon that the other term they use "chivalrist" is also shaming language.

  3. >Mangina does not mean gay or feminine. It means that you cater to women seeking their praise and that you don't respect yourself as a male. Its feminists who use shaming tactics, myths, and PC to prevent political discussion in their so called efforts for equality.Why are feminists getting in the way when people try to resolve the BOY crisis, why do they accuse men of being lazy and not doing their fair share of work when that is not true, why do they continue to purport abuse and domestic violence as a male only thing, why are men shamed for being at the top and shamed for being at the bottom (its as if when they succeed they privileged a-holes and when they fail they are bad by nature…).

  4. >it sounds like you cant get laid except by your rapist mother/sister. don't take out you beta/mangina sexual frustration out on men, you cowardly little slave.

  5. >As David's brother, the utter disconnect between the kinds of things some commenters are calling him and who I know him to be pretty much obliterates any credibility those commenters might otherwise have had.

  6. >Uh, Joe you're not exactly an unbiased source as his brother.

  7. >And the anonymous people calling me a "cunt" and a "mangina" and a "cowardly little slave" ARE unbiased?

  8. >Given what has been said in this thread about, for instance, my mother and sister, my credibility on my family remains well in the lead even after taking the "bias" hit.I'm not that biased, anyway. He is my *older* brother, after all.

  9. >What, don't you get it yet, David?Okay, I am taking pity on you. You're running around in circles on this blog like a pathetic blind lab rat squealing for attention, so I will extend a small mercy.Come closer, let me whisper in your ear.At this very moment you are being introduced to an ugly little secret that kills fascists: namely, that the whole point of shaming language is not to take any sort of moral high ground or discuss logically. It's there to hurt. And it can be used to strike back by the exact same token against whoever used it first, and without mercy.You are very, very privileged, David. You should be soooo grateful, because at least you get to know this. Many other smelly Dworkinwhale-mammothcorpse-licking-Men's Auxiliary-of-SCUM will not be so lucky. Traitors of their own sex (yes, not "gender") like you will find themselves buried under a whole new steaming vocabulary of shaming language, the richness and creativity of which are as yet unfathomed.And this will happen just a few minutes before they — and you with them — are dragged out of their cells and put up against the wall.(I'm speaking metaphorically, of course. The Revolution will totally be televised.)Now please put your gimp mask back on, your brother Joe is coming with his big 12 inch strap-on. I'm sorry. Not sorry for you, sorry for him.

  10. >Sure, I knew you'd want harder.

  11. >@David Futrelle:I appreciate your feedback on my blog (men-factor.blogspot.com). I absolutely loved it!Please feel free to comment on my other writings!To remind you, here is what you commented on:http://men-factor.blogspot.com/2010/06/partially-revised-catalog-of-male.html

  12. >I followed the link you posted on "Yes Means Yes", and find your blog delightful! Following!

  13. >1.your a misogynist – no I'm not I always carry condoms2.you hate all women – not the ones I'm sleeping with, obviously. or can you prove your a woman.3. you have a small dick – look on the bright side your less likely to choke.4. why can't you man up – cause your not that arousing5. you can't get laid – are you kidding, I even get a receipt that says paid in full.6. no woman would want you – good then she'll be wanting a job.There is no glass ceiling only a glass bra

  14. >David, you're the kind of guy who needs his little brother to come to his aid in a flame war. I think you've already shamed yourself more than any shaming language could.

  15. >David ask yourself this.(And do not bother to post the answer because you WILL only lie.)If you thought you could get all the ass you wanted without doing all this would you?You and I both know the real answer.Now that we have established that we move on to the next question. How does the true answer to the first question affect the validity of the premises you use in your arguments and thus the validity of your arguments themselves?We both know the answer here as well.Having established that I have to wonder.How do you feel about yourself selling people out for pussy? A bit like the CEO of a cigarette company perhaps?

  16. >"And quit whining about "shaming language" like a bunch of damn babies. That's The Charge of Hypersensitivity, by the way."So why are you throwing a hissyfit over MRAs showing a distasteful attitude towards ill-behaved women? Using your logic — that we should all suck it up and not complain about being ridiculed — you and the women you're trying to white knight ought to "suck it up".

  17. >I don't call you a mangina, because the word starts with "man," i.e. —-> invirility. I mean, I am a tranny, and I could still kick your ass, in high heels and a dress. Your obsession with MRA's is a bit disconserting. It's like stalking behaviour. But, as a radical tranny masculinist, I enjoy the baiting you do.

  18. >I am a men's activist and I am well aware of the Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics, which you cited in this blog post. I always thought that it was a valuable thing for men's advocates to identify shaming tactics, not because this knowledge arms them with some sort of rhetorical billy club but rather because it helps them to avoid becoming flustered in a debate. It helps them to stay on whatever logical point they're trying to make.Shame is not meant to encourage logical discussion; rather, it exists for the purpose of self-introspection. For a man, shame can have value if it helps him to determine if his words and deeds are in harmony with his morals. But when someone tries to manipulate you into backing down or getting flustered, then they're not concerned for your inner moral harmony. That's why for any man, having awareness of anti-male shaming tactics can be valuable, because it helps you to sidestep irrelevant and manipulative distractions and instead stay on point.Should men's advocates use shaming tactics? They do have a utility, if mocking the target is the objective. But just how useful can they be to a men's advocate who is trying to make legitimize, justifiable arguments? A man who has a legitimate gripe, yet expresses it by hurling names or insults, lacks the words to effectively express what is on his mind. Which leads me to comment on the overall purpose of this very blog entitled "man boobz." Is not the entire blog an attempt to fluster men who otherwise have legitimate points to make about the injustices that they have noticed or experienced? If such injustices exist, then how will they be addressed if the entire movement that wants to right them is delegitimized, having its entire essence unjustly equated with that of its radicals and cranks? You, the owner of this blog, might tell yourself that you're merely trying to purge this minority of cranks (through mockery) from an otherwise legitimate cause. Or you may actually believe that men's advocates have absolutely no legitimate points whatsoever, a premise that I reject. Needless to say, derision of a just movement and/or blindness to its just aims are not exactly valuable assets to men nor to mankind.

  19. >Wow, you certainly have attracted some (ahem) *charming* trolls. Regardless, I quite enjoyed this take down. Your commentors really are making your point for you; it's almost cute how they still think their hackneyed insults have power when the whole point of the post was how ridiculous the language and the insecurities behind it is.Stay irreverent.

  20. There is a difference between a legitimate position which may or not incorporate shaming tactics and an argument that is based entirely upon them. The fundamental point, which you missed entirely, is that shaming tactics are used in the absence of a cogent argument, they circumvent the process of propositional reasoning. To miss this is to miss the point entirely. An insulting term such as “mangina” is not necessarily a shaming tactic because it is derogatory, by that defenition any and all insults would be, by defenition, shaming tactics. There is an objective defenition of what “mangina” means and even though I am not a fan of the term as it is somewhat crude, it is used as a descriptive term which can be supported with empirical evidence. In other words the person in question is most likely displaying said behaviour and the term is based on an observation. Shaming tactics, however, have no basis in objective reality and are entirely projections, the actual behaviour of the male being shamed has no bearing on the accusation levelled. This discrepancy is the fundamental distinction you have failed to address just as you have failed to address the fact that shaming tactics are real and the perceived hypocrisy of a few individuals does not change this. That’s the point, evading propositional reasoning. I’m looking forward to some shaming tactics of an adolescent and infantile nature, please hold nothing back, I know you have nothing else to fall back on.

  21. Is it a “shaming tactic” to point out that you’ve just left a comment on a totally dead thread from 2010? If it is a shaming tactic, what color is it?

  22. Also, please supply the “objective definition” of the word that the MRM made up: mangina, as well as any citations you have proving that it is “objective.” Please hold nothing back. Thanks in advance.

  23. Keevo: “Pompous twit” has an “objective definition” as well, and can be supported with empirical evidence as well — for example, your comment above.

  24. Keevo – right off the bat, claiming that there exists feminist “shaming tactics” just confirms that MRAs/the MRM is comprised entirely of paranoid, conspiracy theorists.

    MRAs are obsessed with shaming tactics for the same reasons that the overwhelming majority of MRAs remain anonymous – on some level, they are embarrassed.

    I believe now, as I have believed since I first chanced upon the MRM, that for most MRAs, the MRM and the “war” with (what they claim is) feminism is like a bizarre quasi real-life version of World of Warcraft.

  25. Does WOW have Drow? If so I want to be a Drow, since I assume they’ll have cool outfits.

  26. Keevo, you have no idea what ‘shaming’ actually means. You can take an actual verifiable fact and shame someone for it. There is often evidence to support that they did whatever it is you’re shaming them for. Where it gets dodgey is the bit where you imply/say there is something morally/ethically wrong with the thing they did. If there is no evidence that the thing they did is actually immoral, then it’s a shaming tactic. When the thing is actually immoral, then it’s no longer a tactic.

  27. @Keevo: Shame on you!

    You claim that it’s possible to present empirical evidence to support the objective definition of “mangina.”

    And then you blow it totally off–not a single shred of empirical evidence, and no objective definition.

    Well? Put up, or shut up!

    (I just love how the regulars here see a comment on an old post and come right on over to snicker (or even see a totally unfamiliar titles in the TOP POSTS and…come right over to snicker)).

  28. The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

    Zombie MRAs are usually worth a snicker.

  29. ithiliana: It’s one of the wonders of the “recent posts” list. I wish it were longer, since a busy thread can let a “last worder” slip one in.

    Meller keeps trying.

  30. Oh dear. More childish than I expected, pretentious too, no surprise there. Just like schoolyard bullies. A mangina is a colloquiallism for a man who effectively betrays other men to curry favour with women (at least that is their intention anyway). Michael Moore, Hugo Schwyzer (I’m not sure if that’s the correct spelling of his name) and most leftist or “progressive” males fit tihis description perfectly, along with innumerable others, try the “Good Men Project” for example. “Stupid White Men” is a perfect example, plenty of men male bash regardless of their political orientation. Calling me a pompous twit is exactly the kind of presonalising I expected, it’s an admission of not having an argument. I’ll admit my observation was a little wordy so I’ll simplify it. Just because shaming tactics are basically insults does not mean that insults are automatically shaming tactics, that’s a classic logical fallacy. You’re confusing shaming tactics with generic insults. At “Man Woman Myth” someone was told he was not welcome because he used shaming tactics, will you take this FACT into account? Of course not. I know exactly what shaming means, it is a tactic intended to play on insecurity to generate feelings of inadequacy and by defenition has no basis in reality as it is a mind game and inherently manipulative. Like calling us zombies, that’s what I call lacking self awareness. One day you will all grow up. Eventually. Until the keep calling me names, even telling you I know you will do it in advance doesn’t stop you, that’s desperation, bullshit fascinates me and you are all full of it.

  31. I am so glad you are back. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Do you have a blog?

  32. Actually mangina isn’t a colloquialism, it’s jargon. In order to be a colloquialism it would need to be known and sometimes used by most native English speakers – in reality it’s a term only used by MRAs, and when you use it most English speakers have no idea what you’re talking about. From the relevant Wiki…

    “Slang refers to informal (and often transient) lexical items used by a specific social group, for instance teenagers, soldiers, prisoners, or surfers. Slang is not considered the same as colloquial (speech), which is informal, relaxed speech used on occasion by any speaker; this might include contractions such as you’re, as well as colloquialisms. A colloquialism is a lexical item used in informal speech; whilst the broadest sense of the term colloquialism might include slangism, its narrow sense does not. Slangisms are often used in colloquial speech but not all colloquialisms are slangisms. One method of distinguishing between a slangism and a colloquialism is to ask whether most native speakers know the word (and use it); if they do, it is a colloquialism. However, the problem is that this is not a discrete, quantized system but a continuum. Although the majority of slangisms are ephemeral and often supplanted by new ones, some gain non-slang colloquial status (e.g. English silly – cf. German selig ‘blessed’, Middle High German sælde ‘bliss, luck’, and Zelda, a Middle Eastern female first name) and even formal status (e.g. English mob).”[4]

    Distinction from jargon

    Jargon is terminology that is especially defined in relationship to a specific activity, profession or group. The term refers to the language used by people who work in a particular area or who have a common interest. Much like slang, it is a kind of short-hand used to express ideas that are frequently discussed between members of a group, though it can also be developed deliberately using chosen terms.[5] Whilst a standard term may be given a more precise or unique usage amongst practitioners of relevant disciplines, it is often reported that jargon is a barrier to communication for those people unfamiliar with the respective field.

  33. CassandraSays, you stop shaming Skeevo right now! You are a shameless hussy-feminist, and a tea drinker to boot!

  34. Keevo: Which is it… a word with an “objective” definition, or a colloquialism?

    Give us a link to the dude who was told to pack it in because of the shaming tactics.

    Compare this post;l with quotations and links, to the vague preces you are tossing out.

    No one here has actually called you names. There has been characterisation (pompous twit), which you have gone out of your way to live up to, but no one has (no matter how great the temptation) called you a douchecanoe, or a waste of carbon, or a lackluster lily-livered herring-breathed garlic eater.

  35. Pecunium, you too, stop shaming Scurvy, you mangina! You cape-loving feminists are so MEAN.

  36. The only reason I drink tea is to shame those who prefer coffee. Because I’m a feminist, and we’re just bitchy that way.

  37. I knew you would eventually admit it, Ms. Says. I bet the CIA funded your tea drinking initially, and now VAWA and Title IX take money from mens’ homeless shelters so that you can have your expensive teas. Don’t try to deny it.

    Peevo, please come back to explain why “pompous twit” is totally verboten but “mangina” is totes okay. My feeble lady-brain isn’t up to the task.

  38. cloudiah: It’s an accuracy issue. Women accusing random men of being a pompous twit is meant to demean them, and implies they are affected, and effete: it’s an effort to make them feel shame by “unmanning” them.

    Mangina isn’t like that at all. It accurately describes a man who has forsaken his rightful place in the world, and abnegated his responsibilities to his fellow men. He has, for the sake of avoiding the shaming language of women given up his masculinity.

  39. reginaldgriswold

    Determining if someone is a mangina seems to involve mind-reading, since I doubt any of the manginas Peevo listed have come out and stated that they do what they do to curry favor with women. And this is somehow a legitimate position, or a legitimate descriptor of a person? Make it rain bullshit, dude.

  40. Pe(r)cunium, I am glad you finally admit that “mangina” is an accurate description of the white knights here. (You did admit that, right?)

    reginaldgriswold, back to the reeducation camps with you! “Dude” is the absolute WORST of the shaming words! :-P Also, you think it is okay to listen to manginas? Manginae? What is the etymology of this word so that I can know how to make it plural????

  41. reginaldgriswold

    I thought creep was the worst! Forgive me my dude sins!

  42. Steelepole, my lord and master, has informed me that dude is the new worst. Creep is so 2011.

    Pompous twit is, of course, and I digress, and heretofore, and WTF is up with MRAs and their bad writing, the worstest, which is even worse than the worst.

    I miss Steele.

  43. Clearly dude is a worster word than creep. Vile, in fact.

    (Maybe he has a new imaginary girlfriend?)

  44. The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

    a man who effectively betrays other men to curry favour with women

    So, Skeevo, you think men’s interests are all the same, and that they are automatically opposed to women’s interests, to the point where “currying favour” (let me guess – liking women and seeing us as actual human beings) with women means “betraying” men? And just what is this betrayal, pray? Not keeping women down? Not wanting to be part of your non-movement which is all about abuse apologetics and ownership of other humans? Funny, it’s always women MRAs accuse of having a hive mind, and yet here you are suggesting that’s exactly what men have – or should have, since those who disagree with you are traitors of some sort.


  45. I ploughed through Keevo’s verbiage and extracted this nugget:

    I know exactly what shaming means, it is a tactic intended to play on insecurity to generate feelings of inadequacy and by defenition has no basis in reality as it is a mind game and inherently manipulative.

    That’s not true at all. Creep shaming has an overwhelming basis in reality. So does virgin shaming and small-penis shaming.

    In all cases they draw on something unquestionably present in reality (a demonstrable physical or behavioral trait) and attach shame to it with reference to something that’s also present in reality (widespread social attitudes regarding creepy behavior, the undesirability of being a virgin, and penis size).

    They might well be manipulative mind games, but to say that “by definition” (whose? citation please) they have “no basis in reality” is clearly nonsense.

  46. All this talk of currying has made me hungry for Indian food.

    Which reminds me:

    Keevo, when MRAs call me fat is this shaming language?

    What about when they depict me as an enormously fat, self-flagellating “mangina”

    I’m pretty sure “mangina” there isn’t being used as a neutral descriptive term.

    Also, I’m pretty sure it’s not a real word that means anything to anyone outside the MRM. (And insofar as it does, it means something totally different than what you guys say it means.)

  47. Is there a word for men who curry favour with women without betraying men?

  48. Is there a word for men who curry chicken and deliver it to my apartment at 2:30 in the morning? Or, even better, a phone number?

  49. I could curry you some chicken, but you’d have to come to California to collect it.

    @ Magpie

    No. Being nice to women is a betrayal of men. Also, many of the men who believe this seem to be divorced. I’m sure that’s just a coincidence, though.

  50. I like how he listed two men and one website as prime examples of ‘manginas’, yet one man most feminists hate because he tried to kill his ex-girlfriend (and compared it to killing a dog) and refuses to see the problem, and the other is a rape-apologist. The website has about one contributor I can tolerate (Ozy) but I generally refuse to read because of it being, you know, a hotbed of whiny ‘Nice Guy’ MRAs.

    Keep fucking that chicken.

  51. I didn’t mean I can only just tolerate Ozy, I meant zie could make the website tolerable. I like Ozy.

  52. curry flavoured women, yum

  53. The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

    Is that a curried chicken he’s fucking?

  54. Attention pompous wannabe-intellectual trolls, this is what’s known as a run-on sentence, it makes you look like a fucking idiot, try using a full point every now and then, kthxbye

  55. Pathetic. Talk about a hive mind. Over zealous conspicuous conformity to groupthink is the greatest form of cowardice, the desperate approval seeking is so obvious. I am not a wannabe-intellectual, I’m the real deal, unlike you insecure adolescents and it’s not me who comes off like a fucking idiot. I usually edit and format comments for brevity and clarity but was so astounded at the levels of bullshit here that I skipped my usual practice of doing so because of the urgent need to tell the truth and stir you up a bit.
    I concede the distinction regarding slang,etc (see what I just did there? I admitted something, it’s not that hard but it requires character and maturity, something lacking here) but mark my words, “mangina” will be common parlance soon enough, just wait and see. I’ll also admit my original comment was a bit verbose, see, I did it again, I conceded something in a manner uncannily resembling that of an adult.
    I used to lecture on the topic of groupthink at a university, that’s hardly a wannabe-intellectual is it, but I digress. One aspect of groupthink is failing to question each other, none of you interjected and corrected each other in the interests of integrity of fairness, something that actually happens at MRA websites. Where did I say “pompous twit” is verboten? or that mangina is okay? I merely pointed out that it generally has some basis in the behaviour of the person so accused which I’ve already explained.
    My point is that shaming tactics are used irrespective of having a basis in reality or not, it doesn’t make any difference to their being used, saying someone has a small dick or whatever is generally irrelevant or unquantified. The classic leftist tactic of piling one delusion and projection on top of another so it becomes exhausting and futile to attempt to reason with is more than evident here so I won’t get caught up in any of this hair splitting. You’re all doing a great job of that. Calling you fat is not shaming language, neither is pointing out this is an old post and as to which colour it is, it’s a pleasant shade of kalahari brown with a hint of mauve, rather pleasant actually. Notice how I haven’t sunk to a juvenile level? Continue with the childishness, it amuses me no end. Truth hurts, it really does.

  56. *tries to finish Keevo’s post and passes out from boredom*

  57. Attention Kiki, I’m pretty sure that technically this is a comma splice, I think run-on sentences don’t even have commas, Ithiliana can probably set us straight.

  58. When a real intellectual realizes that they’ve been verbose to the point of boring people they don’t immediately repeat the same mistake.

  59. Somebody remind me to make an AVFM poster of Keevo’s latest comment rendered in the Wingdings font.

  60. reginaldgriswold

    Ooooh, a university lecturer! We always have such educated trolls who can never seem to write worth a damn.

    This whole discussion of shaming tactics has me second guessing what “shaming” really is, though. I’ve always understood, contextually, that shaming is basically taking some aspect of a person (including aspects that are legal and don’t have moral value) and turning it into a normative judgement against them. This is true, no?

  61. Keevo comes to a site devoted to mockery. Skeevo wonders why the discourse isn’t sufficiently intellectual. Pervo is outraged that people here mock him, rather than taking him seriously.

    Rest of us: “It does what it says on the label.”

  62. Keevo:

    Notice how I haven’t sunk to a juvenile level?

    I haven’t, funnily enough. Largely because your latest wall of text is riddled with unsupporting boasting, snidely passive-aggressive digs and foul-mouthed insults.

    Which is why it’s being treated with the contempt it deserves.

    Still, with your massive intellect (hmm, where have I seen that before?), I’m sure you can rise above it all (ditto).

  63. Keevo asserts we don’t question each other
    when any fool sees that we do.
    Keevo suggests that he’s quite educated —
    his writing suggests that’s not true.
    Keevo says that he won’t sink to our level
    from his vantage point far below
    Keevo declares that he understands shaming
    then demonstrates that it ain’t so

    “So many words, how could it not be so?”
    Asks the delusional, sad little Keevo.

  64. I think Keevo is Pell, the pomposity and appeals to authority are very similar.

  65. Keevo: Is there an actual thought here?

    Pathetic. Talk about a hive mind. Over zealous conspicuous conformity to groupthink is the greatest form of cowardice, the desperate approval seeking is so obvious.

    From whom, and why, are we seeking this approval? What are the inviolable tenets which make us a hive mind (and, for extra credit, how does your slavish devotion to the talking points of the MRM deviate from hive-mindedness?).

    Can you string together an argument which is more than tendentious talking points and overused insult (come on… surely a “real deal” intellectual could find some line of attack which hasn’t been used before. At the very least you could try to got for one which wasn’t in the top five for frequency).

    I usually edit and format comments for brevity and clarity but was so astounded at the levels of bullshit here that I skipped my usual practice of doing so because of the urgent need to tell the truth and stir you up a bit.

    Good luck with that.

    Lets give it a rundown. You, “usually edit and format for clarity and brevity”.

    This topic however was so pressing that you couldn’t do that.

    I suppose it’s because the arguments were coming so fast and thick your replies might have become confused and muddled; since you aren’t dealing with the other genii of the Manoshpere, but rather with the foolish sorts of ladybrainz and manginas who critisize it?

    Seems a bit odd, what with the thread being more than two years old, a tad moribund and only one page of comments, but if it was moving to fast for you, I understand.

    I used to lecture on the topic of groupthink at a university,

    You don’t say.


    that’s hardly a wannabe-intellectual is it

    I don’t know what to call this… argument from specious authority, I think. Non-sequitur, to be sure.

    I concede the distinction regarding slang,etc (see what I just did there? I admitted something, it’s not that hard but it requires character and maturity, something lacking here) but mark my words, “mangina” will be common parlance soon enough, just wait and see. I’ll also admit my original comment was a bit verbose, see, I did it again, I conceded something in a manner uncannily resembling that of an adult.

    Not really. 1: You didn’t really concede anything. You allowed as you’d made an error in term, without addressing the attacks on your argument (that “mangina” has an, “objective definition”), and doubled-down on it’s utility by arguing it will be in “common parlance” any minute now.

    As to the admission of verbosity: it’s not news to us. Since we have to assume you are no longer in the paroxysm of ecstasy which prompted your first post, it follows this one was edited for the aforementioned clarity and brevity, for which we can only thank you/†.

    Where did I say “pompous twit” is verboten? or that mangina is okay?

    Ah… we come to the meat of the matter Where did I say “pompous twit” is verboten? or that mangina is okay?

    You said it here: Calling me a pompous twit is exactly the kind of presonalising I expected, it’s an admission of not having an argument

    When you claimed that calling you a pompous twit was admitting to having no argument you were ruling it out of bounds. On the basis that you are logically consistent, we must assume you wouldn’t to that (I know it’s a little hard to accept, but bear with me here), and so your use of “mangina” is in some way trenchant, where Dave’s calling you a pompous twit isn’t. It’s basic rhetoric.

    I merely pointed out that it generally has some basis in the behaviour of the person so accused which I’ve already explained.

    That needs some fleshing out. A predicate would be nice. An explication of how calling you a pompous twist (so far not a refutable presumption, but I suspect all the evidence isn’t in. It’s possible Dave was wrong; erring on the side of kindness) is different in substance from your (so far unsupported§) allegation of manginadom.

    The classic leftist tactic of piling one delusion and projection on top of another so it becomes exhausting and futile to attempt to reason with is more than evident here so I won’t get caught up in any of this hair splitting.

    Instead you will make the claim in a backhanded aside, and not need to defend it; while spending 401 words to do the very thing you decry.

    † I’m a tolerant man, I’ll settle for paragraph breaks

    § A working definition would be a step in this direction. So we can all agree with what it is we are arguing. It’s a classic tactic of the goal-post shifter to pretend “Everyone knows” what a term means.

  66. Myoo: It’s possible…. I alluded to that in my comment above. If it is, he’s getting a little better, learning to mix it up some, engage in some intro/understatement.

    Weak tea, but better.

  67. @Katz and Kivi:

    ’m pretty sure that technically this is a comma splice, I think run-on sentences don’t even have commas,.

    Run-on sentences are two or more independent clauses (meaning each could stand on its own as a sentence) that are joined by conjunctions which need a comma before them, OR to be replaced with a semi-colon); commas splices are two or more independent clauses that are joined by commas which need a conjunction after them, OR to be replaced by a semi-colon.

    Or, in either case, to have one or more of the independent clauses made into a dependent clause, or, as Kivi says, to have a period used (instead of conjunction or comma).

    But both share the same problem–and are sometimes seen as more of an error instead of stylistic choice in US standard English (not true of all World Englishes).

  68. he classic leftist tactic of piling one delusion and projection on top of another so it becomes exhausting and futile to attempt to reason with is more than evident here so I won’t get caught up in any of this hair splitting.

    Leftist classic tactic?

    *looks at your posts*

    **collapses in snarky laffter in my plate of carrots*

    Good one, dude.

  69. ithiliana: It could be worse… keevo could be in a class you were teaching.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 15,512 other followers

%d bloggers like this: