Arms and the Men’s Rights Movement
Democracy is not a First-Person Shooter
Good news, ladies and manginas: Apparently some MRAs don’t think it’s time to go out and start shooting people. At least not quite yet.
Some background: In recent days numerous MRAs have taken up the cause of a man named Thomas Ball – who burned himself to death outside a courthouse in Keane, New Hampshire in a protest against what he saw as unfair treatment in family court. Ferdinand Bardamu of In Male Fide has declared him “a martyr for the cause of men’s rights, a casualty of feminism’s stripping one half of the population of their humanity.”
Before killing himself, Ball wrote a long manifesto outlining his grievances and suggesting that the time had come for men “to start burning down police stations and courthouses,” describing the inhabitants of such buildings as “[c]ollaborators who are no different than the Vichy of France or the Quislings of Norway during the Second World War … So burn them out. “ (He offered specific advice on how best to do this, including tips on how to select the proper bottles to use for Molotov cocktails.)
All this has inspired some in the MRA to start talking ominously about violence. On The Spearhead, W.F. Price has responded to this talk with a piece suggesting that the time isn’t quite right for the MRAs of the world to take up armed struggle. Not just yet, anyway. As he puts it:
It is never a good idea to pick up a gun and start shooting to address some vaguely defined injustice — that is savagery. Before the American Revolution, for example, patriots took pains to spell out a long list of grievances that justified rebellion. …
We have to make our own lists, air our grievances, and give the state the opportunity to redress them. … Before anyone resorts to the same methods the state uses against us, we must put every reasonable effort into working with the law and the political system we have. Because this effort is still in its infancy, any calls for armed resistance are entirely premature and counterproductive, and shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Obviously, the flip side of this argument for delay is a justification for killing people if these “grievances” aren’t dealt with in the way that those in the MRA would like. Price’s reference to the American Revolution is an interesting one, because of course the central issue of that struggle was, you know, taxation without representation. The colonists couldn’t vote out the king if they didn’t like his policies. In case anyone has forgotten: we actually do have the vote now, which was kind of the whole point in the first place.
Of course, many of Price’s readers are a bit more impatient than he is. In a comment that drew (last I checked) more than 40 upvotes and only two dissenting downvote, Taqman took issue with Price’s call to delay the armed struggle:
Tell that to men who are facing imminent imprisonment for failure to pay child support.
They don’t have the luxury of time and can’t wait a couple of decades for the manginas of the world to wake up and decide that a gentlemanly form of armed resistance is now acceptable.
The ironically named Firepower, meanwhile, took a little swipe at Ball’s own actions, but didn’t challenge his advice for the rest of the men of the world:
What IS crazy is having to point out that setting YOURSELF on fire is a ridiculous way to “win” anything.
Set your enemies on fire. To even have to remind this questions the long term chances of victory for such a pathetic lot.
Jean Valjean suggested that political action was pointless — due to all those damned women who vote:
No amount of “stoic logic” will make politicians see our point of view.
Politicians are in the business of getting re-elected rather than the business of good governance. So long as women are the majority there will only be tyranny of the majority.
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) — you knew we were getting to him, right? — expressed his profound disappointment that more Spearheaders weren’t willing to embrace a violent solution:
Gee you guys are whimps and tiptoe around the ‘use of force’ like freaking ballet dancers. Are you so scared to speak about this when it is CLEAR the guvment LOVES using force against you and lots of other people too?
And he made the argument personal, explicitly denouncing, by name, the judge he claimed had “criminally abused” him with his rulings:
Judge [name redacted’s] life is now in my hands. He lives by my consent and my consent alone. …
And, like Ball, he declared judges to be essentially treasonous:
These judges pretended to be your servants. They are evil, evil people who deserve the kind of treatment reserved for those who commit treason.
There is more to Nolan’s comment(s) than that, but to get into it would require going down the rabbit-hole into his particular brand of crackpottery, which seems to involve him setting up his own courts to try judges he doesn’t like. (I frankly don’t understand his belief system and don’t care to.)
Now, it should be noted that a few Spearheaders actually objected to Nolan’s violent talk. But the last I checked, the comment I just quoted had more upvotes than downvotes. W.F. Price took more flak for suggesting men wait a little longer before taking up arms than Nolan did for, well, you saw what he wrote. That tells you a lot about The Spearhead, I think.
EDIT: Added quote from Ferdinand Bardamu; removed similar quote from The Spearhead.
Posted on June 22, 2011, in antifeminism, crackpottery, evil women, MGTOW, misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, the spearhead, threats, victimhood, violence against men/women. Bookmark the permalink. 771 Comments.
if you try to say that striking someone hard enough to draw blood isn’t violent, you are either delusional; or dishonest, take your pick
I tend to go with dishonest, but I’ve got a nasty suspicious mind.
You still don’t get it:
Insisting something is abuse, in the face of someone who is clearly capable of understanding the term – while you are incapable of understanding lifestyles beyond your own – will not make you correct. I grew up in a rough neighborhood where people lived rough, big deal. Just because you may have been sheltered from violence doesn’t mean everyone who wasn’t either desires it or finds it beneficial to themselves or (and I mean this) to you. You would be losers where I come from, which is probably why you’re insisting others should be sheltered as you have been.
My mother hit me and I’ve never hurt anyone. My wife had never been hit and she killed three people. Hmmm. One could gather that a childhood without clear limits leads to a sense of entitlement that can be harmful to others.
There’s also this “honest sympathy as condescension” trope. Offering sympathy for something that never happened – when you’re told it didn’t happen – is bullshit and (again) an insult. Maybe, if as a child, you had been busted in the mouth for trying that shit, you would be less likely to try that it as adults, don’t you think? The part I love is, if you actually got what such behavior deserved – which is a punch in the mouth – you’d call the cops to maintain the right to be such an asshole. It’s a sweet little racket. The funny part is you thinking nobody notices. I mean listen to this nonsense:
“o_O He’s very combative… o_o;
Esp since I just assumed being hit by a wooden board w/ nails must have been v painful”
Yes, it was painful, but guess what? It was SUPPOSED to be painful, you silly nit. And yes, I’m combative, what am I supposed to be – a fucking girl? Lay down and let you sooth my brow with your lying? Go play with your fucking “magic cards” and leave adult concerns to adults.
I have noticed that none of your replies deal with your many lies I’ve outlined. You will deal with everything else, laying out multiple distractions, but criticism of yourselves is not addressed even once. It’s just more insanity that abuse is how you define it and you alone. Here’s another one: Thomas Ball is now my “hero”. That’s your estimation, not mine. To me he is merely a man, like millions of others, who have to put up with the same bullshit – including what’s on this thread, large and small. Nothing more. I have friends just like him, who want to see their kids, but the apparatus in front of them is unwieldy. Listen to yourselves:
“He hit his daughter, enough to draw blood. She was four years old. Even if one accepts that physical punishment can be reasonable; it’s not good practice to engage in that level of violent response [and if you try to say that striking someone hard enough to draw blood isn't violent, you are either delsional; or dishonest, take your pick].”
1) He split his daughter’s lip with a slap – not a “hit”. You also made up drawing blood out of whole cloth. There was no mention of blood. That is a lie. You made matters worse, purely from your twisted imagination, to advance your non-existent argument. You are delusional. Multiply such delusion by the numbers merely on this thread and you’re an army of idiots. Why must anyone else pay for that?
The bottom line is you are liars. You lie to others. You lie to yourselves. And you are trying to get the world to conform to your lies.
Sorry, Ladies (and Manginas) but that ain’t gonna happen. Here’s a list of my pertinent points for you to address, if you’re women enough:
1) You lie constantly.
2) You only care about insults when directed at yourselves, when you have demonstrated you’re more than capable of delivering them – which makes me wonder why you’d bring it up at all. Just talk, Dummies.
3) You are beyond condescending. Why, you are so condescending I don’t even know what the word would be, and I’m pretty good with words. Fine – you’re just a bunch of narcissistic bitches. Sorry, but that’s the best that I can do.
4) You worship at the alter of the irrational, with NewAge at the center of your twisted beliefs. Everybody who bought “The Secret” raise your hands! Great what wishful thinking did to the ecomony, isn’t it? “Hope and Change”.
5) You are devoid of (or simply incapable of) self-criticism, and apparently incapable of true self-examination, which is surely a sign of deficient mental health. It’s no wonder you engage in cheap histronics without a basis in fact. Again – you:
“People who talk, are generally more bluff and bluster than actual bully-boys (sort of like the people who tell you, right up front how great they are in the sack).”
If this is so, then why are there so many feminist laws to restrain us?
You couldn’t make sense if you tried.
Ah, yes, I guess she had one of those new-fangled lips that don’t bleed when you split them open. Also slaps aren’t hits. Got it.
I’m at a loss as to why anyone should bother responding to your criticism when your posts are this disconnected from reality. You just redefine words in order to make people look wrong in your estimation so what’s the point?
Oh – and one more thing – I was thinking about this line again, and I think it explains you perfectly:
““People who talk, are generally more bluff and bluster than actual bully-boys”
In your world, people don’t hit, so of course you can lie, be condescending, irrational, etc. – you have no restraints on your behavior – which is the way you want it. You scream “abuse” at anything that could get in your way.
Well, where I come from, men and women are more than capable of defending themselves – with their fists if necessary – so they are a bit more circumspect when it comes to “talk” than any of you are being here. If you lie, become condescending, irrational, etc., you will pay a price for it – and no one is going to call the cops to twist reality to your twisted ends. There is right and wrong. There is also integrity. Which is something this conversation reveals you are sorely lacking.
In a just world, you would be profoundly ashamed.
Plymouth,
“Ah, yes, I guess she had one of those new-fangled lips that don’t bleed when you split them open. Also slaps aren’t hits. Got it.”
No, what you’ve “got” is an assumption, with no facts to back it up – there was no mention of blood. (You are an American, aren’t you? Then didn’t you learn that, when you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME?) I have been in fights, both as an adult and a child, and a hit in the lip – even an intentionally violent attack – doesn’t always lead to blood.
I repeat: you lie as though it’s a compulsion.
“In a just world, you would be profoundly ashamed.”
Oh, wow, you’re right! You’ve convinced me. I’m totally ashamed right now.
I love this one:
“You just redefine words,…”
Like turning any physical interaction into “abuse” isn’t redefining words? Maybe you should look up “projection” and then take my advice and focus on looking within yourself for flaws.
They seem to be on display pretty clearly.
Snowy,
“Oh, wow, you’re right! You’ve convinced me. I’m totally ashamed right now.”
You see? More of the kind of talk that, in a situation where no one will hit you, you can get away with it. If we were face-to-face, there would be no way you’d say such a thing – you would have to engage with the reality of what I’m saying, just as men do with each other. What did your compatriot say?
““People who talk, are generally more bluff and bluster”
Speak for yourselves, because you definitely have no relationship to the rest of us.
_split_ lip, as in the skin is split. Split skin bleeds.
If we can’t even agree on basic definitions of words like “hit” and “split” I just don’t see a productive conversation happening. There’s way too much ground to cover before even beginning to discuss actual _issues_.
“You see? More of the kind of talk that, in a situation where no one will hit you, you can get away with it. If we were face-to-face, there would be no way you’d say such a thing – you would have to engage with the reality of what I’m saying, just as men do with each other.”
Actually, I’m pretty sure I would say the same thing if we were face-to-face. What are you gonna do about it?
You know, Cracker, with a little work you can turn your life story into a really killer version of the four Yorkshiremen sketch. Your creative talents are wasted on blog trolling.
“_split_ lip, as in the skin is split. Split skin bleeds.”
It does not – I cut myself yesterday at work. Guess what? No blood.
Do you even understand what the word “assumption” means? Here, let me help you:
assumption (əˈsʌmpʃən)
— n
1. the act of taking something for granted or something that is taken for granted
2. an assuming of power or possession of something
3. arrogance; presumption
4. logic Compare axiom a statement that is used as the premise of a particular argument but may not be otherwise accepted
ooooh, “arrogance” – that’s not good.
Snowy,
“Actually, I’m pretty sure I would say the same thing if we were face-to-face. What are you gonna do about it?”
Snowy, dear, I’m a military vet from South Central, Los Angeles. I seriously doubt it. But, as someone said, it’s the internet – keep dreaming.
Johnny Pez – who I’ll guess is a mangina – enters the room, calling me “Cracker.”
Boy, you guys are GOOD.
Is anyone going to address your lies, or is it going to be more like this?
Crack Emcee: You still don’t get it:
Oh, I get it. You are a whiney little shit.
Words have meanings. The problem with you is that you want the meanings to change.
Personally, I don’t care if you’ve hit anyone. I’m not going to take you at your word that you’ve not hurt anyone.
I get a lot more, because how you express yourself is pretty telling. I have a pretty good idea why you refuse to admit that what your mother did was abuse. It’s not how you want to see yourself. People who were (or are) being abused are victims. They are weak. You are not weak, after all you have told us so. In your worldview people who admit to be being abused are weak. That would be intolerable.
What else do we know of you, from how you express yourself… Again, you are insecure. You are also not as self-aware as you think. You make claims which are contradicted by the internal evidence of your words. Take, for example, the one about your being good with words. It’s not so. If “narcissistic bitches and manginas” is all you can think to say in the face of the lies and libels you think we have committed. If insisting that words have meanings other than they meanings they have is being good with words, if ignoring arguments, and then inisisting you have refuted us on all points, if that is what you think being good with words is…? Well those words, they don’t mean what you think they mean.
You might, for example, have called us, silly, slack-witted, hysterical harpies. Perhaps you could have really played with words and said we were a hymenopterical hornets nest, rallying to the least perceived threat of reason with an echoing buzz of unthinking denial; the women because they need to defend the indefensible, and the men because they are so scared of seeing the truth and realising what a base lie they have accepted as true; in exchange for the meagre scraps of tolerance and occasional illusion of freedom the feminist culture allows them to pretend they have, they have sold their birthrights for, not even a mess of pottage, but rather the occasional lay.
You could have said something like that, but you didn’t. You had to resort to insults that aren’t even original. We could see that sort of banal trope on any MGTOW/PUA/MRA echo-chamber we care to look at.
You pretend it doesn’t bother you, but it does.
So go back to playing with the other boys; the ones who stroke your ego with platitudinous plauditst you can pretend are plausible. Stick to your sandbox, where you can tell the world how much funnier, and wittier, and better than everyone else you are.
But remember, we see your for what are. A bully-boy who comes in with insults, and threats, and thinks that’s not being combative. Someone who thinks that being hit by someone who was doing it, “whenever she felt like it” and with the intent of causing pain wasn’t being abusive. Someone who ignores the actual criticisms of his arguments, and then says he wasn’t properly replied too.
In short, a braggart, an idiot, and a fool; who returns to his folly, like a dog to his vomit.
“I cut myself yesterday at work. Guess what? No blood.”
Are you dead? Are you a zombie? (No offense to zombie rotten mcdonald) Because if you are then the decay of your brain tissue might explain a lot here.
“Snowy, dear, I’m a military vet from South Central, Los Angeles. I seriously doubt it. But, as someone said, it’s the internet – keep dreaming.”
You know that I’m a guy, right? Or did you think I was one of those delicate ladies who you seem to enjoy threatening on the internet?
Cracker, I originally though you were going to be a simple drive-by troll, but you’ve really put a lot of effort into this. I salute you. Keep it up, and you may earn yourself a place in Ami’s “Magyc: the Gendering” deck, which is high praise indeed.
BTW, I prefer the term “fellowpian”.
Now it’s gone from “split” to “cut”. Still not seeing a productive conversation here. Don’t feel like arguing the basic definitions of words with someone who keeps changing them.
Crack Emcee Oh – and one more thing – I was thinking about this line again, and I think it explains you perfectly:
““People who talk, are generally more bluff and bluster than actual bully-boys”
In your world, people don’t hit, so of course you can lie, be condescending, irrational, etc. – you have no restraints on your behavior – which is the way you want it. You scream “abuse” at anything that could get in your way.
Son… this is where the rubber meets the road, and your lack of wits comes back to haunt you.
I am the one who said that. You think you know my world, because I post here. A few minutes with google would have told you “my world” is one where hitting people is common. Where shooting people is par for the course. Where violence is part of the actual job description.
Sixteen years in the Army. As an interrogator. I’m retired (medically) combat vet. I know from violence. I grew up in East LA. I’ve known from violence a long time. I know all about hitting. I’ve had people swing at me for things I’ve said. It goes with the territory. But I’ve had a lot more look at me, and get sniffy, and butt-hurt, and make like they were going to hit me. and then slink away; than have screwed their courage to the sticking point and actually done it.
So go on, keep up the ranting. It’s the internet, you don’t have to look at me, face to face, and actually cope with me. If we were face to face, I’d say the same thing. You are a fool, and an idiot, and if I were you I’d be embarrassed to have such half-assed logic, and pathetic whining coming out of my mouth, so I’d hide behind a pseudonym too.
Johhny Pez: He’s got a blog; it’s precious. Sadly, this seems to be his best game he’s bringing to the party.
Pecunium,
“Personally, I don’t care if you’ve hit anyone. I’m not going to take you at your word that you’ve not hurt anyone.”
You guys are interesting. A simple Google search would tell you who I am, but, I guess, you all are too slow to try that one. You’d rather assume, since that seems to be the modus operandi around here.
“Take, for example, the one about your being good with words. It’s not so. If “narcissistic bitches and manginas” is all you can think to say in the face of the lies and libels you think we have committed.”
Um, I referred – specifically – to the condescension on this thread when I said “narcissistic bitches. Not the “lies and libels”. Manginas is the term used in the post. Which is harder for you: reading or comprehending?
Snowy,
“Are you dead? Are you a zombie?”
No, I am proof you don’t know what you’re talking about, which could be construed as “your worst nightmare.”
Johnny Pez (my new pal),
“Cracker, I originally though you were going to be a simple drive-by troll, but you’ve really put a lot of effort into this.”
Not really. Coffee, computer, idiots. Viola!
Plymouth,
“Now it’s gone from “split” to “cut”. Still not seeing a productive conversation here.”
No, because you all must have blood! There must be blood! Damn it, no one said there was blood, but blood there must be! Otherwise your whole proposition falls apart.
Anything but addressing the lies and assumptions you’ve already told and made.
Pecunium,
“I’d hide behind a pseudonym too.”
I’m not hiding – I’m a known quantity. The Crack Emcee is a “stage name,” you ditz.
What is “Pecunium” by comparison? I repeat:
Ever heard of “projection”?
Crack… I went to your blogs. The one you decided was a cell, when Blogger made people click through a warning, the the one you are pathetically grateful to Ann Althouse for supporting.
I don’t see any link to your real name. I don’t see any photos of you. I don’t see anything about you, personally. I see a lot of economiums, from fellow travellers, but so what. And yeah, I’ve heard of projection. I’ve also seen a lot of, “Yes, you are, but what am I” in other contexts.
You said people here had lied, and libelled your mother. You said you’d challenge them duels if you could. Then the best of your clever repartee was something NWOslave could have come up with, and less witty than things MRAL has said.
You made excuses for a guy who didn’t have the courage to do what (little) needed to be done to see his daughter. You think being cut doesn’t bleed, a split lip isn’t violent and that being hit with boards is the act of a doting mother; whom no one could fairly call abusive.
Well, your insistence that she wasn’t, reads just like the people who told you your wife wasn’t a bad person.
Face the facts man, be an adult. Or don’t. It’s no skin off my nose that you want to hide from one truth while you parade on about “New Age” evils and the horrors of Obama. Your delusions, your problems.
Hah! You have coffee? Luxury! I have to drink a cup of lukewarm water with bits of brown crayon sprinkled in!
crayon…. Shit… I’m re-using yesterday’s dirt.
We used to DREAM about brown crayons.
Pecunium,
“Crack… I went to your blogs. The one you decided was a cell, when Blogger made people click through a warning, the the one you are pathetically grateful to Ann Althouse for supporting.
I don’t see any link to your real name. I don’t see any photos of you.”
Wow – you can’t read and you’re blind. You can’t see the photo there? How did you ever get into the military with those deficiencies? And, in order to discover my real name, you could click the bio, or – as I said – go to Google. There it is on the fourth link down:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=the+crack+emcee&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Please, as a fellow vet, I have to ask you to stop looking so dumb.
It matters to me.
My mother also hit me, emcee, and it was abuse. Your mother’s actions were also abuse. Ball’s actions were also abuse. Stop trying to normalize violence against children. The fact that abuse is sadly common does not make it okay.
This is a good one:
“you are pathetically grateful to Ann Althouse for supporting.”
Before, I had a problem with lots of women, now it’s pathetic women support me.
Like I said, you guys couldn’t make sense if you tried.
Crack… read that again… it wasn’t her I called pathetic. I said you, were pathetically grateful.
As to your feeling badly about my being a vet…. the feeling is reciprocal, suck it up and drive on.
darksidecat,
“My mother also hit me, emcee, and it was abuse. Your mother’s actions were also abuse. Ball’s actions were also abuse. Stop trying to normalize violence against children. The fact that abuse is sadly common does not make it okay.”
Repeating that does not make it so. I am grateful to my mother for what she did. She raised a better man than most. Actually, she raised several good men. Out of 20 of the guys I grew up with, there are 4 left – 3 raised by her. (Maybe if Anthony Weiner had been hit, he wouldn’t have turned out to be such a shit, you know?)
Why can’t you guys deal with the idea you’re a bunch of doctrinaire pussies, demanding the rest of us be like you because it means your nonsense goes unchallenged, whether it makes sense or not?
That admission would make life so much easier.
Jesus, Pec, you’re dumb:
I never said you called her pathetic – I said “it’s pathetic women support me”. Another lie.
Are you still claiming there’s no photo there? Another lie.
Like I said, it’s like a compulsion around here. You all are simply incapable of telling the truth.
Another one is not addressing the topics. C’mon, Pec, tell me there’s no photo on my blog again or admit you lied.
Somebody here is going to admit to being a liar – I came to win.
I would suggest you guys drop it at this point.
All I see is an argument. No discussion. No exchange of viewpoints. And the argument has degenerated to the “Is so” and “no you” stage.
I do not see how either side could even “agree to disagree” by now.
Crack… I didn’t poke around enough to figure out that your handle is a stage name too. My error. Then again, I’d didn’t pretend to know your background from your posts here. I never said anything about where you grew up, or what, “your world” was, or wasn’t like.
So, Mr. Dixon… you were in the Navy. What was your rate? Did you pull a 4 and out, or extend a bit. I mean this was the 80s, Reagan was spending money on the military like a sailor on leave. Lots of room in there.
But I understand, being in the service isn’t something everyone can hack. But since you are so proud of your hitch, using it to try and show people how tough, and manly you are with your time in the service (Snowy, dear, I’m a military vet from South Central, Los Angeles.) perhaps you’d care to share your exploits, tell us what deeds of personal valor you did.
You must have some, right? Because it’s part of the credentials you tied to wave in our faces…
Or not. I know lots of vets who posture. Who make veiled references to being in, and let the implications people have about it try to cover what was, for most people, esp. in peacetime, just a job; one that comes with room, board and clothing.
And before you get your knickers in a twist yes, I know that being on shipboard is a pain in the ass, and there are hazards that come, just from being in the Navy (since that’s what you did), but really, esp. in the early 80s, being a seaman wasn’t all that special; certainly not in the, “living where violence is common” dept.
Then again… when were you in the Navy?
o_O
He came to win… xD I’m amused XD
so he shows up, insults everybody… some ppl are v nice to him, even if he believes it’s misplaced… he insults everybody again… every person who tries to engage w/ him he responds w/ insults.. you’re an idiot, you’re stupid… or childish xD and you’re not addressing his points! which are… that we’re idiots, and can’t be engaged w/ xD
i think this is another troll that’s dancing in the end zone while everybody else is playing hockey xD
He’s in over the line… he’s not waiting..
xD
and yus I believe I will continue to destroy the world w/ my new age ttlly not related to tarot evil hate cards of Magyc doom xD
Dixon… I didn’t say anything about her being pathetic. I said you were, “pathetically grateful”
The pathetic modifies grateful, which is a quality of yours. This is the sort of things which makes me say you aren’t all that good with language.
@AndrewV yeah that’s what I see too xD it’s not like nebody’s going to convince nebody else to change their definition of abuse.. .also now it’s just everybody calling each other a liar xD
Dixon… I didn’t say it wasn’t there, I said I didn’t see it.
So, no, you can’t make me admit to something I didn’t say.
Now… how long were you in the Navy? What was your rate? How much sea-duty did you pull?
@The Crack Emcee:
“Somebody here is going to admit to being a liar – I came to win.”
You’ve already lost. I’ve been following along here, and this is the only stuff I’ve seen that is you making an actual point, and not violently leaping on other posters for not reading your mind after you communicate badly.
1) Thomas Ball’s daughter was not abused. You were hit consistantly as a child, and that certainly wasn’t abuse (and anyone who says otherwise is a liar), so therefore she wasn’t abused.
2) We are invested in “new age culture” as evidenced by mentioning yoga and creating magic cards.
3) We have no right to complain about feminist issues, because your wife killed three people and you fared badly during the ordeal.
4) One female author has come to the conclusion that men actually have it worse than wome, so therefore it is true.
5) Feminism only exists because men allow it, and since men are opressed by feminist policies, men will soon put an end to feminism.
So yeah.. To paraphrase yourself, “saying you weren’t abused doesn’t make it so.” Worse, saying that violence against children isn’t abuse it to normalize violence against children, which you seem to think is just dandy. Nobody here is “invested in new age culture,” and the yoga that some posters do probably has no more relevence to new agey woo than magic cards do. Playing the victim game does nothing to prove your point; sure, you went through terrible stuff with your wife, but to say that therefore women shouldn’t complain about systematic mistreatment in society is just plain retarded. A lot of women here have shared stories about being raped and or assaulted. Does this make them right, and make you wrong?
You can find individual women who think MRAs are exactly correct, and you can find men who think Feminism is a noble cause (I am one). So what? You can find people who swear up and down they’ve been abducted by aliens. Doesn’t make them right. We provide evidence for our claims, you provide bluster. Finally, in terms of feminism only existing because men allow it, citation woefully needed. If I say that the movement would have never started if men controlled its outcome, you would counter by saying that some men wanted women to have equal rights. This would play into your narrative without you ever having to prove it true in the first place, like how creationists say everything is evidence of a creator, though they never prove the existance of a creator in the first place. So first, prove your claim.
This conversation has gone downhill, with you making vauge statements, then tearing the throat out of posters who dain to disagree or contradict you. That’s not winning an argument, that’s getting wrapped up in a pointless debate about what was said, not what is.
@AndrewV and Ami:
Well, I can try, anyway. Consider this a last ditch effort to combat a troll. *shrug*
And what are the details of your wife again? She killed three people? When was this?
Dammit, now I”ve got “In the Navy” stuck in my head.
And was it your actual mother, or your foster mother who was beating you?
Speedlines, it could be worse. I’ve seen some that would be worse, and recently.
In the MRAvy!
Since his condition is that he’s not leaving till he “wins” and I dun think nebody’s going to agree w/ his definition of “not abuse”.. I suspect this is going to end w/ him declaring victory or that he’s proven what dumb clods we are, and then flouncing xD
Pec,
Crack… I didn’t poke around enough to figure out that your handle is a stage name too. My error.
Wow – the first concession on the entire thread and it’s between two vets. Gawd, I love people with integrity. Good job, Pec. You didn’t address saying I had no photo, but whatever. You’re trying.
As far as the rest, sorry, but you are the one hiding behind a handle – not me – so feeding you information that you want to possibly beat me over the head with would be silly. (Just like feminism!) I’ll take your concession as my trophy, thanks.
Dixon… I didn’t say anything about her being pathetic. I said you were, “pathetically grateful”
Really? Ann Althouse is a feminist Democrat who voted for Obama and has roughly 800,000 visitors to her blog a day. I get a significant bit of her runoff, and we enjoy each other’s company because we’re both free speech advocates who insist on integrity. I have raked her over the coals countless times, as I’m doing you all here, but she handles it like an adult – not in the bullshit, cowardly, and deceptive manner you guys engage in. And, yes, I am grateful for her support. If that’s “pathetic” then I want to know what your claim not to have seen my photo on my blog is.
Ami,
“so he shows up, insults everybody… some ppl are v nice to him,…”
Lying about my mother, and condescending to me, is not being “nice.” You are cruel beyond belief, partially because of how you go about it: you think you have plausible deniability, which – with most idiots – you probably do. But I’m unique – I demand accountability, and will hold you to what you say. You are not “nice,” you are insulting and cruel, which is how I found this blog to begin with:
The cruelty that exists here was pointed out to me by others.
I guess they’re all crazy.
Ami Angelwings: Cruel Beyond Belief xD (fact or fiction)
sry i have to add “Fact or Fiction” after I say “beyond belief” every time just cuz of that stupid show in the 90s xD
tho now I do get it… since even to the feminists here, I’ve been giving hugs and sympathy for trauma they’ve shared.. I’ve apparently been cruel to everybody O_O;;
Ami Angelwings: Vile Cruel Demon of Evil Cat Land
Concession.. not really.
Funny thing… that, Integrity.. You said I was stupid, clueless, etc. because when I looked at your blog I didn’t click through to other places (and avatars…. anyone can use anything as an avatar), and so I was a sorry excuse for a vet.
You could have done the same for me. The link is right there on my handle, and that handle is what I use most places.. It links to a lot more details about me than are on your blog.
So, we have a disparity of integrity… but hey… keep telling yourself how you “won”.
Wait… wait.. so ppl are actually pointing out to you how cruel, specifically *I* am? :D
rly? :D
like do they go “omfg Manboobz was bad before but have you seen this awful Ami chick, she’s like queen bee alpha evil bitch face of doom! she’s like every cheerleader you hated in high school ROLLED INTO ONE! she’s sarah palin, hilary clinton, the borg queen, the T-X and dark phoenix put into a blender w/ a sprinkling of lindsay lohan in for good measure!” ? :D
like do the MRAs rly point to me and go *POINT* AMI IS THE VILEST OF THE VILE ON THAT SITE AND THAT’S SAYING A LOT!? Have you SEEN her cards!? xD
@Pecunium, yus he’s not rly clicking on our handles to find out about us either xD
tho if i’m being cruel here, it means my entire blog is filled w/ just pure cruelty… so that might be like looking into hell xD.
“Ami Angelwings: Vile Cruel Demon of Evil Cat Land”
I think you need to make another card.
Ami,
tho now I do get it… since even to the feminists here, I’ve been giving hugs and sympathy for trauma they’ve shared.. I’ve apparently been cruel to everybody</i.
Changing the subject, to how you've engaged others, doesn't change shit about how our interaction went down. Why can't you guys stay on point? Is everything a dodge, a lie, or another opportunity to change the subject? Where's Plymouth? Can't tolerate being held to the issues? So, ZOOM, she's gone, baby, gone! You guys have no – NO – integrity.
Pec,
You could have done the same for me. The link is right there on my handle, and that handle is what I use most places.. It links to a lot more details about me than are on your blog.
Did I question your service? Did I suggest you were less than you stated? Then why would I be look you up? You’re back to making no sense, Pec. I really don’t think this is a healthy environment for you:
Like Ami, with her “magic cards,” you guys live a life of delusion.
But, in case you haven’t noticed, I’m really into breaking that shit.
Like Ami, with her “magic cards,” you guys live a life of delusion.
XDDDD
rly? like you’re not being sarcastic right? you believe this? :D
If so… I want to know more XDDD srsly :3
(& apparently I changed the topic by being on topic XD but then that’s what a CRUEL PERSON DOES XDDDD )
Ami,
“yus he’s not rly clicking on our handles to find out about us either”
Same question to you: why would I? It is the crowd here who claimed I’m all talk, I’m not what I seemed, I’m a bluffer – whatever. I called you liars.
Now that it’s been proven that I’m a real person who stands by his words, you have to look for new angles – anything but admit you’re liars.
Shit, at this point, if I were to look up your profiles, I would have no reason to trust them because you’ve proven yourselves to be such liars here. I, on the other hand, am exactly as I’ve presented myself, and have been for years:
Get used to it.
Dixon: You made assumptions about our lives; Said we didn’t know about violence, etc. Said I wouldn’t be willing to say the things I’d said in real life. Here, I’ll help you out…
Oh – and one more thing – I was thinking about this line again, and I think it explains you perfectly:
““People who talk, are generally more bluff and bluster than actual bully-boys”
In your world, people don’t hit, so of course you can lie, be condescending, irrational, etc. – you have no restraints on your behavior – which is the way you want it. You scream “abuse” at anything that could get in your way.
You didn’t take any time to see if the person (i.e. me) who said that might have some ideas about the things you said weren’t “in [my] world.”
I am asking questions about the things you’ve said. You graduated high school in 1980. You say you graduated from San Francisco City College in ’84. So you are boasting about a 2×6, and talking about how much time you spent “seeing the world”, so your rate, and the time you spent on WesPac, or MedPac is relevant.
Also… I can’t find any references to your being married. Makes me wonder.
You say you’re mother raised you, but your public biographies say were you were taken in by foster parents. I was just wondering which of those two was the one who wasn’t abusing you when she administered beatings, ‘when she felt like it”, with boards and suchlike.
Just trying to put the pieces together.
But Dixon: I did click on your profile. You made fun of me because I didn’t do it as thoroughly as you thought I ought.
But you didn’t have the integrity to return the favor, even that much. You didn’t have the “drive to win” to do it a little better than I did (to late now) and show me up.
So you are whistling in the dark, because the thing is, you (nor we) get to declare victory, the other people who look at it will judge one set of actions, and words, against the other, and make a judgement. They are the referees and umpires.
I’m not really worried about the objective observers. I’ve got a pretty good idea of how the two sides of the actual arguments (as opposed to the rhetorical posturing) play out.
In the meanwhile, carry on.
I’m a lying liar who lies AND I’m cruel xDD This gets better and better xD
Also he ttlly dodged Kirby xD
I need to go or I’ll be late for a shopping date xD But plz elaborate on what you meant about me and my cards :D Your obsession w/ them rly intrigues me, and I want to know more :D (do you want to know more? *clicks yes*) :3 I’ll be back to read it :D (or am I lying? :O )
Geez, I thought this thread was dead.
The Crack Emcee: Sorry that I read the story about your mother’s behavior as you saying “Now THAT’s abuse.” You didn’t say that you were abused as a child, and I shouldn’t have assumed that you needed sympathy for your story. However, regardless of your situation and how you feel about it, I can’t support an adult hitting small children in the face for any reason. But that’s just me. And also the law.
Sorry also if I misunderstood the point you were trying to make by bringing up your murderer wife and her female friends who supported her. I still don’t quite understand the point you were trying to make with that detail-light story, but I don’t need to, I guess.
Re. this quote: “My wife had never been hit and she killed three people. Hmmm. One could gather that a childhood without clear limits leads to a sense of entitlement that can be harmful to others. ”
What makes you assume that hitting a child is the only way for a parent to establish clear limits or raise a child without a harmful sense of entitlement? My parents taught me to respect other people, and I was never hit — in the face, anyway. (I got the occasional spanking.) But I’ve met many men in prison who were (what they identify as) abused as young children, presumably for “valid” reasons. Cigarette burns for asking questions. Lashes with a belt for not going to bed when asked. Now, the last time I made an assumption, you didn’t like it. But I gotta say that to me it looks like one can’t draw the clear line you’re trying to draw between extremely harsh punishment of a child and that child’s grasp of clear limits as an adult.
Pec,
You didn’t take any time to see if the person (i.e. me) who said that might have some ideas about the things you said weren’t “in [my] world.”
Again – why should I? That’s a cute trick you play there, switching between “our,” “we,” and “I” when it suits you:
Dixon: You made assumptions about our lives; Said we didn’t know about violence, etc. Said I wouldn’t be willing to say the things I’d said in real life. Here, I’ll help you out…
You’re sure to get me that way, that’s for sure. I mean, little ol’ me can’t be expected to do a search for every profile I encounter in this group pile-on of a clusterfuck, can I? So you’ve got me: I didn’t look for you, I didn’t look for Ami, I didn’t look for Plymouth, or Pez – but you, alone, did look for me and then claimed there was no info – including no photo – you gonna be a lawyer when you grow up? Because you’re GOOD. That Pec, boy, he’s a regular Perry Mason, that guy.
I am asking questions about the things you’ve said. You graduated high school in 1980. You say you graduated from San Francisco City College in ’84. So you are boasting about a 2×6, and talking about how much time you spent “seeing the world”, so your rate, and the time you spent on WesPac, or MedPac is relevant.
Ha-ha! Man, you guys LOVE to live off of your assumptions. I am a well-known artist/musician, as well as a vet, so when I say I’ve “seen the world,” I’m not just talking about a 4 year stint in the military.
Also… I can’t find any references to your being married. Makes me wonder.
And you’ve GOT TO HAVE IT, don’t you? Anything but deal with the issues of this thread. You know now I’m not a liar, you know I don’t hide behind a handle, but somehow, you will try to get the information you think will bring me down, right? Now even my marriage is questionable?
Dude, you’re a vet – you’re supposed to be better than this.
Just trying to put the pieces together.
You lie. I’ve engaged in enough of these dialogues to know what you’re up to – this is an attack to try and cover for your own lack of integrity and the wrong-headed assumptions you and the other idiots here tried to project onto me. Don’t bullshit me, dude. Keep it simple, stupid, huh?
But Dixon: I did click on your profile. You made fun of me because I didn’t do it as thoroughly as you thought I ought.
But you didn’t have the integrity to return the favor, even that much.
for the last time – I’m not questioning your service, your marriage, none of that. It is you who decided I hide behind a handle, etc. I’m serious, this place isn’t healthy for you, because you’re not dealing from the top of the deck, which – again – is exactly what I heard about this joint. As a vet, you’re supposed to be better.
One more thing:
if you were “just trying to get the story straight,” you would get out of that stupid defensive crouch, stop trying to find dirt to attack me with, stop questioning what I’m telling you (since it all seems to check out when you do find it) and just ask me something without a challenge behind it. many of you have lied to me, insulted me – whatever you can – while I am here, alone, taking you all on.
If you, Pec, are different, as a fellow vet, then why don’t you act like it?
That’s how normal, non-crazy or deceptive people go about things.
@Crack:
You should probably look at my previous post, where I actually try to get the story straight. You don’t seem to interested in that, just attacking others. Amazing.. Its like you aren’t really being honest here!
Now, kirbywarp, that’s just unpossible! No troll has ever been dishonest! I know for a fact because they all tell me so.
@Crack:
“stop questioning what I’m telling you… and just ask me something”
And you wonder why we don’t take you seriously…
You have this wild hair up your ass that 1: I’m not playing fairly. I made a statement, you tried t apply it t everyone. That’s the switch. I’m just trying to keep your attacks aimed at the rightful targets. No one else here said you were more bluff than action.
And 2: Being a vet doesn’t make anyone a paragon. I’ve treated you at least as well as you’ve treated anyone here. Specifically, you accused me of not knowing what violence was. Of not living in a world where people respond to being offended by hitting people. I told you that was wrong. I looked at your blog. I didn’t bring the things I saw there to this discussion. I limited to what you said here. I looked at it to see what sort of things you write. I was trying to see if this was some specific hot-button topic.
And I didn’t see much to impress me. No clever turns of phrase, no real insights. What I saw was more of the same. Also, to be honest, what I saw was some dishonest use of quotation. You imply (by juxtaposition) that the people talking about your music, are talking about your blogging.
It’s your biography here that I look at when talking about your naval time.
He maintained contact with his dad, though, and the two connected strongly through music; the only “modern” musician the elder Dixon had any time for was Frank Zappa. After getting a G.E.D. from Grant High School, in North Hollywood, Dixon joined the U.S. Navy and traveled the world before attending San Francisco City College for a few years, and settling into the city as a struggling artist and political agitator.
Traveled the world before attending San Francisco City College for a few years.
That bio is only a couple of words different from the LAWeekly article seven years before:
The Crack Emcee was born Louis Troy Dixon 37 years ago in Los Angeles. His mom, from a wealthy Negro family in Chicago, broke it off with Charlie Mingus in order to hook up with Troy’s dad, Alvin Troy Dixon, a drummer with various L.A. jazz bands in the ’50s and ’60s. The couple divorced when Troy was 2, and he lived with his father for a few years — with Maya Angelou as his baby sitter and jazz great Eubie Blake as a frequent visitor to the home. Eventually, Troy was taken in by a foster family, and grew up on 78th and Western in South-Central; Ice T lived half a block away. He maintained contact with his dad, though, and the two connected strongly through music; the only “modern” musician the elder Dixon had any time for was Frank Zappa. After graduating from Grant High School in North Hollywood, Dixon fils attended San Francisco City College for a few years before dropping out and settling into the city as a struggling artist and political agitator. He eventually went on to work with industrial agitators Consolidated and Franti’s cult band the Beatnigs.
So, you spent, “a few years” and dropped out., but your facebook page says you graduated in ’84. It’s a two year school, and you’ve said you traveled the world before you went there. You graduated from Grant in 1980.
So you spent a few years between 1980, and 1984 at San Francisco City; before you graduated, or you dropped out. In that time you also joined the Navy and traveled the world.
It’s not that I want think you a liar, it’s just that what you’re saying has some anomalies. As an interrogator I was trained (and trained others) to spot anomalies. Now I’m just trying to clear them up.
So, was it the mother who divorced your father who was beating you? Or the foster parent? How long were you in the Navy (and where did you go). Did you graduate SFC, or not? How long is “a few years”.
Why hasn’t your wife been mentioned in any of the readily findable information on you? When did these three killings take place?
I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you used it all up by telling us things that don’t match other things.
Bee,
The Crack Emcee: Sorry that I read the story about your mother’s behavior as you saying “Now THAT’s abuse.” You didn’t say that you were abused as a child, and I shouldn’t have assumed that you needed sympathy for your story. However, regardless of your situation and how you feel about it, I can’t support an adult hitting small children in the face for any reason. But that’s just me. And also the law.
Another concession – I’m starting to like you guys! – and one of the points of me being here is to say the law should be changed. Kids belong to parents – not the state, not feminism, and not you, no matter how you feel about hitting children. They are not yours.
What makes you assume that hitting a child is the only way for a parent to establish clear limits or raise a child without a harmful sense of entitlement?
Do you see what you did there? It’s in the words “the only way” – which I never said. A parent should have the right to bring up their child without the rest of you sticking your noses in. You guys have already made enough wrong assumptions, just on this thread, that the point why you should butt out couldn’t be clearer. It’s not your place, you don’t know what’s going on, and your values aren’t others. You can’t be right in this – yet you support and impose laws that enshrines such behavior as mandatory – and then attack and smear anyone who says “No” – including even the dead. Yeah, you should be so proud.
I’m not attacking you now, Bee, but only trying to make the point:
There’s nothing “good” about this. The guys you mention in prison are not the norm and guess what? They’re in prison, so of course it’s Mom and Dad’s fault. It can’t be theirs, right? Guess what? Most of them “didn’t do it” either. You buying that?
I respect your concessions, and thank you for them. I want the all-elusive “common ground” as much as you do, but I will not be toyed with. That’s what I’m known for online, and – just as I have my detractors – I have many, many supporters and friends. I hope we can get closer from here, and want you to know I will do my part when we speak, to remember the honesty you’ve come at me with here.
Take care – it’s a jungle out there,…
I could be wrong now
but I don’t think so!
Cause it’s a jungle out there
it’s a jungle out there
duh duh da da!!!
Wow, did you write that song? You really are a musical genius!
Crack
It’s a bit of a stretch for you to accuse people here of dishonesty, when you’re accusing your wife, [NAME REMOVED --DF], and the guy she seems to have left you for, [NAME REMOVED --DF], of the murder of three people, without volunteering the rather crucial information that this is your belief, which may or may not have merit, rather than a substantive fact backed up by criminal proceedings, or even disciplinary proceedings for medical malpractise. That would be the normal, non-deceptive way of broaching things.
Now I’m not saying that you’re wrong – it’s quite possible that they may be responsible for deaths due to their pseudo-scientific quackery, but it’s going to take much, much more than just your say-so.
Crack: There’s nothing “good” about this. The guys you mention in prison are not the norm and guess what? They’re in prison, so of course it’s Mom and Dad’s fault. It can’t be theirs, right?
So why is it that Ball isn’t to blame for what happened. That’s what you said at the beginning, this wasn’t his fault.
He hit his daughter, her lip was split, and from then on out he quit.
That’s what he did. It’s kind of embarrassing, he did 21 years in the Army, but he wasn’t willing to own up to his actions. He could have done the counseling. He could have faked it, mumbled the magic words and been back with his kids.
He could have been honest, and looked at the situation and evaluated the merits of hitting a four year old for acting like a four year old. He didn’t. He let his wife down. He let his kids down. He let himself down.
If you look at my earlier comments about this, I’ve said he got a slightly raw deal. He shouldn’t have been charged with DV. I don’t know that being charged with child abuse (or endangerment) would have been better, but he was wrongly charged.
He did commit battery. If some slaps someone else, that’s a crime. If you’re not in a place where people are, “looking in their beer” when a fight breaks out, you are going to have to explain to the cops.
If you hit someone else’s kid, and split their lip, you are going to be talking to the cops. If a babysitter is putting the kids to bed, and splits their lip, they are going to be talking to the cops.
Ball isn’t special. He should have been talking to the cops.
But you don’t think so. You want to make excuses, and say, “it wasn’t abuse”. The only way that flies if if one’s own children are somehow not protected from parents doing what would be a crime if anyone else did it.
That’s not right.
Pec,
You are comparing what I’ve said directly, to an online bio, to what reporters write – which do you think is more accurate? You’ve got the broad outline of my life, so – if you’re not just continuing to try and jack me – why is any of it so important to you? (And must I separate quotes about my music from the rest of my endeavors? Why? It’s my fucking blog.) I owe you nothing. But, but, but,…I am not an asshole (as you seem intent on being) so here’s when my wife’s murders were finally discovered – almost 3 years after I knew about the first one – and the authorities asked for my help:
http://themachoresponse.blogspot.com/2008/10/i-was-married-to-murderess.html
And here’s when it started breaking into the news.
Satisfied?
Dan: thanks.