How to creep out the entire internet, lovelorn banker edition
Try dressing as a nun. Then maybe he'll go away.
Dating can be tough. It can be especially tough if your personality is a mixture of petulance and insecurity. And even tougher if you think you can argue someone who’s not interested in you into a second date with an angry, accusatory, sometimes hilarious, sometimes deeply unsettling 1600-word email. And no, I’m not speaking hypothetically here.
The email in question, written by a young investment banker named Mike to an unfortunate woman named Lauren after one less-than-great date, was posted on Reddit a couple of days ago, and has already gotten a lot of internetty attention, but some of you may not have seen it, so I thought I’d give it a little fisking anyway. Settle in; it’s going to be a long and bumpy ride. (Note: What follows below is most of the email; I’ve cut out a few passages here and there.)
Hi Lauren,
I’m disappointed in you. I’m disappointed that I haven’t gotten a response to my voicemail and text messages.
Well, we’re off to a not-so-good start. Perhaps she is, as they say, just not that into you?
FYI, I suggest that you keep in mind that emails sound more impersonal, harsher, and are easier to misinterpret than in-person or phone communication. After all, people can’t see someone’s body language or tone of voice in an email. I’m not trying to be harsh, patronizing, or insulting in this email. I’m honest and direct by nature, and I’m going to be that way in this email.
Gosh, I wonder why Lauren didn’t get back to him.
By the way, I did a google search, so that’s how I came across your email.
Google-stalking – always a nice touch. There’s no better way to charm a nice lady than by tracking down her personal information online.
I assume that you no longer want to go out with me. (If you do want to go out with me, then you should let me know.) I suggest that you make a sincere apology to me for giving me mixed signals. I feel led on by you.
Uh, what? She’s ignoring you, dude. She doesn’t want to go out with you. Seems to me she’s sending you a pretty unmixed message here.
Should she have responded to your voicemail and/or texts? In an ideal world, perhaps, but she may have sensed that you’d react precisely how you’re reacting now, and didn’t want to have anything more to do with your creepy, entitled bullshit.
And now Mike the banker makes his, er, “case” for why she should go on a second date with him:
Things that happened during our date include, but are not limited to, the following:
-You played with your hair a lot. A woman playing with her hair is a common sign of flirtation. You can even do a google search on it. When a woman plays with her hair, she is preening. I’ve never had a date where a woman played with her hair as much as you did. In addition, it didn’t look like you were playing with your hair out of nervousness.
You were flirting!! Hair-twirling = sex! If you don’t realize it you can google search it!!!
-We had lots of eye contact during our date. On a per-minute basis, I’ve never had as much eye contact during a date as I did with you.
Eye contact is an Indicator of Interest. IOI! IOI! If you didn’t want to bear my children why did you look at me, with your eyes????
-You said, “It was nice to meet you.” at the end of our date. A woman could say this statement as a way to show that she isn’t interested in seeing a man again or she could mean what she said–that it was nice to meet you. The statement, by itself, is inconclusive.
Well, not really. This is what people say to be polite at the end of a disappointing date, when they don’t want to see you again. If she wanted to see you again, she would have said something about making plans for a second date.
-We had a nice conversation over dinner. I don’t think I’m being delusional in saying this statement.
We had a conversation! You did not flee in horror! Therefore you must have my babies!!!
In my opinion, leading someone on (i.e., giving mixed signals) is impolite and immature. It’s bad to do that.
And sending someone who clearly wants nothing to do with you a long, creepy, accusatory tirade is polite?
Normally, I would not be asking for information if a woman and I don’t go out again after a first date. However, in our case, I’m curious because I think our date went well and that there is a lot of potential for a serious relationship.
Dude, you do understand that she has to actually like you too in order for there to be a relationship?
I think we should go out on a second date. In my opinion, our first date was good enough to lead to a second date.
You cannot argue someone into a second date! That’s not how it works.
Why am I writing you? Well, hopefully, we will go out again. Even if we don’t, I gain utility from expressing my thoughts to you.
Gain utility? Really? DATING IS NOT MICROECONOMICS!
In addition, even if you don’t want to go out again, I would like to get feedback as to why you wouldn’t want to go again. Normally, I wouldn’t ask a woman for this type of feedback after a first date, but this is an exception given I think we have a lot of potential.
Well, banker dude. You’re getting some feedback now. All over the internet.
If you don’t want to go again, then apparently you didn’t think our first date was good enough to lead to a second date. Dating or a relationship is not a Hollywood movie. It’s good to keep that in mind. In general, I thought the date went well and was expecting that we would go out on a second date.
So your argument is that she should go out with you, even though she doesn’t want to go out with you, because life isn’t perfect and you’re probably the best she really deserves?
Way to sell yourself, dude.
If you’re not interested in going out again, then I would have preferred if you hadn’t given those mixed signals. I feel led on.
Well, she’s not really responsible for you thinking that every woman who twirls her hair in your presence wants to have your babies.
We have a number of things in common.
Oh dear, sounds like we’ve got another “logical” argument coming up here.
I’ll name a few things: First, we’ve both very intelligent. Second, we both like classical music so much that we go to classical music performances by ourselves. In fact, the number one interest that I would want to have in common with a woman with whom I’m in a relationship is a liking of classical music. I wouldn’t be seriously involved with a woman if she didn’t like classical music. You said that you’re planning to go the NY Philharmonic more often in the future. As I said, I go to the NY Philharmonic often. You’re very busy. It would be very convenient for you to date me because we have the same interests. We already go to classical music performances by ourselves. If we go to classical music performances together, it wouldn’t take any significant additional time on your part.
Um, what?
I have no clever remark to make here, other than that Lauren is probably going to have to avoid going to the Philharmonic ever again, on the off chance she might run into banker Mike.
According to the internet, you’re 33 or 32, so, at least from my point of view, we’re a good match in terms of age.
YOU ARE RIGHT AGE. INTERNET SAYS SO. THEREFORE YOU MUST DATE ME.
I could name more things that we have in common, but I’ll stop here. I don’t understand why you apparently don’t want to go out with me again. We have numerous things in common.
Also, you both require oxygen to live. Lauren, can’t you see that you and banker Mike are soulmates?
I assume that you find me physically attractive. If you didn’t find me physically attractive, then it would have been irrational for you to go out with me in the first place. After all, our first date was not a blind date. You already knew what I looked like before our date.
Banker Mike: You said you wanted feedback. Here is some feedback. She was apparently not horrified by your physical appearance. It may be your horrible personality that needs some work.
Perhaps, you’re unimpressed that I manage my family’s investments and my own investments. Perhaps, you don’t think I have a “real” job. Well, I’ve done very well as an investment manager. I’ve made my parents several millions of dollars. That’s real money. That’s not monopoly money. In my opinion, if I make real money, it’s a real job. Donald Trump’s children work for his company. Do they have “real” jobs? I think so. George Soros’s sons help manage their family investments. Do they have “real” jobs? I think so.
You’re fighting a losing battle here, dude. Just as you cannot argue someone into liking you, you cannot argue someone into being impressed that you manage your parents’ money.
In addition, I’m both a right-brain and left-brain man, given that I’m both an investment manager and a philosopher/writer.
And I’m the Queen of Denmark.
That’s a unique characteristic; most people aren’t like that. I’ve never been as disappointed and sad about having difficulty about getting a second date as I am with you.
Oy. As if this email wasn’t stalkerish enough already.
I’ve gone out with a lot of women in my life. (FYI, I’m not a serial dater. Sometimes, I’ve only gone out with a woman for one date.)
This last bit I have no trouble believing.
I suggest that we continue to go out and see what happens.
I suspect that Lauren has already played out various scenarios in her head already, and that none of them end well.
Needless to say, I find you less appealing now (given that you haven’t returned my messages) than I did at our first date. However, I would be willing to go out with you again. I’m open minded and flexible and am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I wish you would give me the benefit of the doubt too.
So now you’re being noble and “open minded” for trying to pressure a woman who wants nothing to do with you into a second date?
If you don’t want to go out again, in my opinion, you would be making a big mistake, perhaps one of the biggest mistakes in your life.
Now you’re just making my skin crawl.
I spent time, effort, and money meeting you for dinner. Getting back to me in response to my messages would have been a reasonable thing for you to do. In addition, you arrived about 30 minutes late for our date. I’m sure you wouldn’t like it if a man showed up thirty minutes late for a first date with you.
Here’s a solution, dude: How about she never goes on another date with you, ever. Then you won’t ever have to worry about her being late ever again.
If you’re concerned that you will hurt my feelings by providing specific information about why you don’t want to go with me again, well, my feeling are already hurt. I’m sad and disappointed about this situation. If you give information, at least I can understand the situation better. I might even learn something that is beneficial.
I hope you find the feedback that the internet has now provided you to be helpful.
If you don’t want to go out again, that I request that you call me and make a sincere apology for leading me on (i.e., giving me mixed signals).
Now we’re back on this again.
In my opinion, you shouldn’t act that way toward a man and then not go out with him again. It’s bad to play with your hair so much and make so much eye contact if you’re not interested in going out with me again.
Damn you, foul strumpet, and your devious hair-playing ways! Google it! GOOGLE IT!!!
I would like to talk to you on the phone.
I think you’ve pretty much guaranteed that this will never, ever happen.
Even if you don’t want to go out again, I would appreciate it if you give me the courtesy of calling me and talking to me. Yes, you might say things that hurt me, but my feelings are already hurt. Sending me an email response (instead of talking on the phone) would better than no response at all, but I think it would be better to talk on the phone. Email communication has too much potential for misinterpretation, etc.
Not much to misinterpret here, Mike. You’ve made it absolutely crystal clear that you’re an undateable creep.
Let me be serious for a moment. Forget about Lauren. Hell, forget about women in general for a while, and work on yourself. Get some therapy; you can afford it. Work through your bitterness, your petulance, your highly unattractive mixture of entitlement and insecurity. Stop being a “Nice Guy” and learn to be genuinely nice.
And don’t ever, ever, ever write another email like this one.
Posted on December 8, 2011, in creepy, evil women, men who should not ever be with women ever, nice guys, threats. Bookmark the permalink. 1,020 Comments.
‘me and my friends boned like crazy ‘ only seems damaging a) if i assumed everyone arguing with me were all ladies and b) that boning like crazy is objectively wrong. Niether of these assumptions were true fom my end. Of course people having all the consensual fantastic sexytimes they want/can is a good thing. I just think that ‘common experiencre for sex-postive community on feminist blog’ should not be confused for the average experience of a far more general population. I can change my wording to ‘comparatively boning like crazy’ if that helps.
If we accept that 15% of people don’t have any sex before 21, and that another 35% or so will have fewer partners than average, how hard does the rest of the sample set have to work to bring the sample mean to nine different partners? Harder than 9 partners per person. Quite a bit harder. I’d believe it for all age groups inclusive, but just teens? Only if the UK lacks video games, college entrance exams and strict parents.
Or you could just drop “boning like crazy” altogether, since it’s been pointed out that some of the people thus described don’t appreciate it.
Kyso: In retrospect, part of the reason I jumped in reply with my own experiences was because, like Cassandra said, it sounded at teensy bit slut shamey, so I was a little defensive.
But I totally agree with polliwog that the opposite (EVERYONE is having sex!! WOOHOO) is a little virgin shamey.
So I think the moral of the story is “Who cares how much sex everyone else is having? Don’t worry about it, go do you, and be safe.”
SaruGoku: The sample size was 2,000.
regarding the narrative of, “normal”, one of the most common conceptions is (and this seems to be true across all the studies I’ve seen) that everyone else is getting lots, and you aren’t getting any.
By 21 I’d had about a dozen partners. I know that in high school I had more partners than most of my contemporaries. I was also probably having less actual sex than most of the people in my school who were having sex, because women my age weren’t interested in me, so it required being in places where the women who were interested were able to get what they wanted out of it. Which meant that repeat performances were scattered.
I think that for under 21 (and certainly under 18) the situation is going to be much like that, the trade off of regularity will lead to fewer partners, and vice versa.
But I also don’t think that numbers mean much of anything.
You may not havemeant it that way, but sometimes certain turns of phrase have additional implications, which is why it’s important to choose words carefully and to be gracious when someone points out a trickily problematic bit of word usage.
I totally agree that a very large range of experiences in terms of number of partners is normal and awesome and etc. What I specifically object to is some of the language being used. In particular, the “omg you’re so unusual!” comment to Ozy raised my eyebrows.
okay sooo not that it matters at all but by age 21 i probably racked up somewhere around 10 partners but now at 26 probably only 3 or 4 since. I haven’t been in a relationship since high school. I don’t keep strict numbers sorry. but for me personally i got over the hook up stage pretty fast. why does this matter at all though? but yeah i barely ever have sex but my “number” is still somewhere between 10-15. so if someone has a certain number by a certain age it doesn’t mean that it will continue throughout their life. seriously why does anyone care anyways?
this seems appropriate rghit now. i refus to explain myself.
Wow, this guy sounds like my ex-boyfriend.
The next time that you feminists crybaby about rape, spousal abuse, domestic violence, or any other instance of hostility and brutality expressed against women, do the men of this world a favor, and just look over some of your posts right here on manboobz.com!
Even if it IS a man who commits the violent assault, even if HE is responsible for the attack (or is it a counterattack?) against the feminist, and even if he, and NOBODY ELSE is held to blame, I think that some of the posts here, showing how HATEFUL feminists can be, will remind youall of something!
Do feminists deserve being beaten, raped, or killed for their contempt for (possibly) troubled men? No, Could it become understandable, given the venom and bitterness exuded by such hateful “females”? Maybe the poor bastard (otherwise as gentle as a lamb) was simply driven over the edge!
The above is addressed to all of the feminists on this article, but especially to CassandraSays, KathleenB, SaruGoku and zhinxi. Men have feelings too!
Meller, take your rape apologetics and kindly fuck off, you disgrace to humanity.
There’s a reason we say “gentle as a lamb.” It’s because lambs don’t ever attack people. No matter how much they’re provoked. Insult a lamb, it just looks at you. Hit a lamb, it runs away. Take away its mommy, it cries but doesn’t fight. Lambs are gentle because they don’t attack people–not because they only attack people who deserve it.
(There’s probably a hilarious YouTube video disproving this but I’m talking about the archetypal lamb here, okay.)
“I only attack people who give me a reason” isn’t noble at all. It’s meaningless. Every attacker thinks they have a reason.
Sharks only attack when they have a reason. (Maybe the reason only makes sense to the shark, but hey, you should have thought harder about the shark’s feelings.) Maybe you need to start saying “gentle as a shark.”
It’s like Jesus always said: If someone slaps you on the cheek, beat, rape, and kill them.
Meller, i don’t know if you know this, but calling discussions about rape and violence against someone’s body “crybabying” is actually pretty much the definition of hateful.
Good people are good people all of the time, even when they are angry. No “gentle lamb” is going to rape or abuse because they just can’t handle a women not being meek and subservient all the time.
And yes, we know men have feelings. You go on and on about your feelings, after all, and act as if your feelings are the same as all men. However, it’s clear you don’t give a flying fuck at the moon about women’s feelings, or indeed any feelings but your own.
Decent people know that rape and abuse is never excusable, ever. Guess what that makes you?
Meller, stop making excuses for abuse. It make you look even nastier and creepier than you already are.
To those who ask:
Yes, if the FED were abolished, private banks would tend to keep 100% gold reserves on their deposits. They would be afraid of bank runs (very serious if the government doesn’t bail you out)!
There were indeed bank failures before the Fed, but only because laws prohibiting embezzlement, fraud, and counterfeiting were never properly and universally enforced. When a bank lent out gold that wasn’t theirs to lend, issued phony receipts (payable to the bearer on demand as gold) to the borrower, which could never be honored, and listed its liabilities (money put there by depositors (checkbook deposits) or by creditors (time deposits) as assets, the same laws that prohibited such tortfeasance by all other businesses should have, and could have, been enforced!
The repeated acts of FRAUD and failures to enforce long since enacted anti-fraud laws, were the reason why those banks failed, NOT the use of gold.
Theory of Money and Credit
Economic Policy-Thoughts for Today and Tomorrow–Ludwig von Mises
America’s Money Machine–Elgin Groseclose
What Has the Government done to Our Money/Case for 100 % Gold Dollar
Case Against the Fed
Mystery of Banking–Murray N. Rothbard
The Case for Gold–Ron Paul and Lew Lehrman
End the Fed–Ron Paul
Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle–F.A. Hayek
While not a book endorsing a 100% gold standard, Hayek’s essay is a masterpiece in explaining how depreciating value of circulating money (and rise in prices), destructive as that is, really is the LEAST destructive aspects of bank/government fraud of fiat money. The price structure is inevitably badly distorted, people (including banks and gov’t) mistakenly believe that they have more money and credit than they really have,uneconomic and unsound investments are made, and the foundations of the coming depression are inevitably laid!
Economics in One Lesson
Failure of the New Economics
Inflation crisis and How to Resolve it–Henry Hazlitt
Irreplaceable refutations of the most important and influential “money-crank” inflationist of modern times, John Maynard Keynes, written in a clear and understandable style. Even more important today than when Hazlitt first wrote them in 1946, 1960, and 1972 respectively!
These are all available either onllne or at a very reasonable price at http://www.mises.org/store
There are many others, but these will do for starters.
Enjoy!!
Also, this “I don’t think anyone DESERVES rape, but like, if they’re an uppity bitch like YOU i’ll definitely defend the rapist.” has to stop. Don’t be a mealymouthed, disingenuous gasbag on TOP of just being a terrible person; that’s just pathetic.
You, DKM, think rape and abuse is an awesome punishment for women who you deem are not properly soft and fluffy. Pretending anything else at this point is simply absurd
If they keep 100% reserves, then they have nothing to invest with. Historically banks have invested too riskily when unregulated, not too conservatively.
Here I am arguing economics with a guy whose stance on rape is the ol’ Biblical “And if someone forces you to walk with them one mile, beat, rape, and kill them.”
Meller’s post is gaslighting possible justification for misogynistic violence against women (“or is it a counterattack”, “[c]ould it become understandable”, “[m]aybe the poor bastard … was simply driven over the edge”). If someone is beating, raping, or killing another person they are not as gentle as a lamb — there is no “otherwise” about it.
(Yeah, nice job of triggering victims of rape and violence with that post of yours, Dunning-Kruger Man. Real classy.)
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: beat, rape, and kill your enemy.”
-MellerJesus
Fuck discussing Meller’s crappy libertarianism. He’s doing a piss-poor job of joining the Decent Human Beings Club at this stage of the conversation, so he doesn’t get to call the shots.
Meller, you listening? Your libertarian posts are teal deers. It gives me immense pleasure to see you waste your time on off-topic garbage that I will enjoy not reading.
At dawn MellerJesus appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to MellerJesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
And MellerJesus replied: “Stoning sounds good to me–that covers beating and killing–but I’d totally understand if you rape her, too.”
Preeetty sure Meller is a 16 year old kid who just took an economics class.
You run along now, son. Sorry your mom didn’t hug you enough or whatever.
Then Peter came to MellerJesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?”
MellerJesus answered, “No, if he really pisses you off it’s understandable if you rape, beat, and kill him. I’m not saying you should or nothin’, just that I’ll totally understand he had it coming.”
Can you be a bit more precise and tell us what we said so hateful that it would excuse all the violence against women?
Be very precise about the hateful part, please. And be aware that contempt for any rape apologist piece of shit doesn’t count.
No person is responsible for their own rape, and I don’t care if they were dancing naked in the street and yelling insults at everybody.
You can’t upset a man enough to make him rape you. Asserting otherwise make you a misandrist and a misogynist piece of shit, both at the same time.
Holly I <3 you!
You can’t drive a kind, gentle person to rape by being mean to them, Meller. But thanks for illustrating the point that so many feminists have always made about rape being about anger and hatred, not sex. Do you always want to rape, or wish someone would rape, women who piss you off?
Don’t even try to pretend that that’s not what’s going on in your twisted little brain, by the way. We all noticed that your list of women who some man, not me but someone, might feel driven to do something nasty to! Was entirely composed of women who frequently call you out on your sexism.
BTW, complaining about being physically attacked isn’t crybabying, but complaining about the fact that every single woman in the world isn’t willing to change everything about herself to better fit your doll fetish? That’s crybabying.
Meller: Onca again. please explain how you go from ‘hitting is wrong, all the time, no exceptions’ to ‘if you keep pushing men, no one can blame them if they lash out.’Two mutually incompatible ideas that you claim to hold in your head at once – the cognitive dissonance must start to hurt after awhile.
Aughh, Once, not Onca. Y i no type gud?
Hitting everyone all the time should be the default, and it should be up to everyone else to convince you not to hit them! Because that sounds like a totally workable way to run a society! :p
DKM said@9.56am:
“The next time that you feminists crybaby about rape, spousal abuse, domestic violence, or any other instance of hostility and brutality expressed against women, do the men of this world a favor, and just look over some of your posts right here on manboobz.com!”
What is so difficult about this, DKM? You keep on and on making up excuses for rapists and abusers.
“Even if it IS a man who commits the violent assault, even if HE is responsible for the attack (or is it a counterattack?) against the feminist, and even if he, and NOBODY ELSE is held to blame, I think that some of the posts here, showing how HATEFUL feminists can be, will remind youall of something!”
That’s rich considering the hatefulness of some of the MRA websites. You know, stuff like offering rewards for personal information, making jokes about women with terminal illnesses, and the routine misogyny and evincing the desire to hurt and even kill those who disagree with you.
“Do feminists deserve being beaten, raped, or killed for their contempt for (possibly) troubled men? No, Could it become understandable, given the venom and bitterness exuded by such hateful “females”? Maybe the poor bastard (otherwise as gentle as a lamb) was simply driven over the edge!”
Right, so you start off saying that feminists don’t deserve to be beaten raped or killed for being “mouthy” men but it’s totally understandable if they are. You’re contradicting yourself. Saying something is “understandable” in a context such as this is to justify it, but there is no justification. Also being violent is a choice, one can’t be “driven over the edge”, people don’t “just snap”, one decides to give in to violent impulses, so you’re just making excuses and that’s despicable. No amount of lip service to decent behaviour will get you if the hook when you claim that violence is “understandable” if you don’t like the victim.
“The above is addressed to all of the feminists on this article, but especially to CassandraSays, KathleenB, SaruGoku and zhinxi. Men have feelings too!”
Nobody is saying otherwise but that doesn’t justify beating the crap out of someone because you don’t like what they said.
“Yes, if the FED were abolished, private banks would tend to keep 100% gold reserves on their deposits. They would be afraid of bank runs (very serious if the government doesn’t bail you out)!”
Not neccessarily. The Fed is only one part of the problem. The money monopoly is a bigger one. I’ve read all those books. Have you read any of the more modern ones I’ve recommended to you yet? Even Austrian scholarship MOVES ON. We could have both full and fractional reserve banking systems and a variety of commodities and credit and paper/labor systems. Remember when I said that my problem with the Gold Standard was that it was a Standard? My main problem is that people need to be informed fully of the risks and benefits when they go for fractional or full reserve. Fractional includes greater risk but… WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF GREATER INTEREST. It’s not evil. It’s just an option that people can take in a free market.
Why do I even bother. Sometimes you believe another libertarian exists, sometimes you try to explain to me that people would need to buy the produce on my farm. At anyrate, please, please read a book published this century on the matter. I told you, not being a fan of the gold standard and being somewhat “austro-mutualist” without being sure where I stand does not mean I am not famiiar with and dont’ admire Austrian theories, which you seem to reduce to their most stereotypically absurd base, and then throw at people. Come into the 21st Century, Meller. Libertarians write BOOKS in it!
“To those who ask:
Yes, if the FED were abolished, private banks would tend to keep 100% gold reserves on their deposits. They would be afraid of bank runs (very serious if the government doesn’t bail you out)!”
Also, we weren’t asking. We were making fun of you.
How to creep out the entire internet, part 2 – forward them any comment by Meller.
MELLER – “The above is addressed to all of the feminists on this article, but especially to CassandraSays, KathleenB, SaruGoku and zhinxi. Men have feelings too!”
So, okay what have I said that was so hateful that it would cause counterattack. Remember, you earlier said I did not provoke my very real abuse (But other people might have)? Have you changed your mind?
Please quote my manhating statements. Especially those that might provoke counterattack. Citations, or shut up.
“Citations, or shut up.”
+1. A lot.
Notice how, as much as all the feminists here think that you’re scum, none of us are advocating violence against you, or saying that if someone was violent towards you that would be justified? That’s a rather important difference between you and us, Meller. Decent people don’t consider violence to be justified no matter how much someone pisses them off.
You are not a decent person. The more comments you post, the clearer that becomes.
Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Unless something actually upsets you; then beat, rape, and kill.
-MellerJesus
I am in love with Holly’s brain. I want to hug it and kiss it and call it George.
The ‘best’ thing about that letter is the way he won’t shut up about how OMGSMART! he is. “I’m both a right-brain and left-brain man, given that I’m both an investment manager and a philosopher/writer.” Yeah right. I’d be ‘very interested’ to read some of his philosophy.
@DKM: Just give up man. There is no point in debating the commenters here.
They seem to lack the ability to understand your point. I get it and I don’t see the cognitive dissonance they think these two supposedly mutual excursive ideas would cause.
In a perfect world, there would be no murder, rape, assault, etc… and while that is the ideal, utopia, we will never fully snuff those crimes out. Well, as long as humans have the ability to feel emotions.
The bit about understanding why a person might kill or rape is not the same as actually approving that behavior.
To use a murder example:
A husband comes home to find his wife having sex with his best friend. Outraged, he goes into the garage, gets his shotgun and kills both of them.
Now, the wife and best friend don’t deserve to be killed, but one can understand why he might have committed such a heinous crime. The husband should have packed a bag and left the house and divorced her. However, this didn’t happen. He decided to act on those negative emotions instead.
By making the claim that you can understand the rationale and motivation behind the rape, feminists say you are “apologizing” for the rapist. This is not the case with most men saying they can “get why he did it”. We aren’t “apologizing” for it, we just can see why he MIGHT of committed the crime.
Just because I say I can understand why someone committed a crime, that doesn’t mean I approve, accept or otherwise am “apologizing” for that crime. Apparently in “feminist reality” finding out the MO of a crime somehow means you wanted that crime to happen.
Now the trolls are finally talking to each other. Let the games begin!
Popcorn, anyone? I also have mini peanut butter cups if you’re prefer something sweet.
Holly, I think you’re misrepresenting MellerJesus. He would never say “Do not judge”.
If you ever start a cult, I’m in.
Brandon, when someone says “I think rape is bad, and wouldn’t it be such a such a same if it happened to you? Since you do X, that would be understandable” it’s not the same thing as someone saying “let’s try to understand the psychological reason that lead to that act”
Meller also repeatedly said that victims of abuse should change their behavior in order to stop the abuse. (also known as “victim blaming”) When you defend him, you also defend that. Do you agree with that?
Brandon, DKM is not trying to understand rapists or abusers. I believe he’s openly stated many times that women ‘push the buttons’ of their abusers. Not ‘the abusers feel that the women are aggravating them’ no no no. He places it on the women themselves. What the hell is wrong with you?
*such a shame
So, Brandon, you’re talking about a crime of passion in a specific (though hypothetical) situation.
That’s not what Meller’s talking about. He’s talking about how it’s understandable that a man would want to beat or rape feminists. In fact, here’s what he says specifically:
Again, Meller’s not talking about an MO in a specific crime. He’s saying:
1. Feminists hate men or somehow (this is unclear?) cause men to hate them.
He’s also saying, in a roundabout way:
2. DV, assault, and rape victims are feminists, and it’s understandable that in the face of their feminism some man was unable to contain his rage and not physically lash out.
In fact, he also appears to be saying:
3. Men cannot handle divergent points of view from their own and are likely to lash out with any kind of provocation.
I’m just going to go out on a limb here and say that none of those things are true. But it makes total sense, as a non-MRA and a guy who’s jus’ sayin’, that you would agree with the wackiest MRA troll on this blog. Congratulations.
Mellerlogic – Not only do women force men to beat them up by being bitches, they also force their significant others to beat them up by saying nasty things to other, totally different men on blogs. Remember, ladies, your man is always watching, so don’t think you can get out of line just because you’re not talking to him directly. You must be respectful to all men at all times, even the batshit crazy ones on the internet, or it’s the lash for you.
May I, Holly?
15 Then the Feminists went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Keynesians.
“MellerJesus,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of Gold in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to what they are saying.
17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to The New World Order or not?”
18 But MellerJesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a dime and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”
21 “Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s” they replied.
Then he sputtered for a while and turned kind of white, and lo, they worried he had suffered a seizure.
But then, in between twitches he said unto them, “When Ron Paul is elected he will give us SOUND Money!!!! Truly taxation is theft and the constitution was a land grab by bankers but Ron Paul will bring us back to it! If they let him! The Fed will be abolished and Banks will be honest, but then again we cannot KNOW what will happen because NEVER IN HISTORY has a PEACEFUL bloodless (?) Revolution such as this been tried! Will the military stand for truth and justice? Will they side with Ron Paul? I DON’T KNOW AND YOU DON’T EITHER! Yes in the past banks failed, but that wasn’t Ron Paul’s fault. Sure, I want the libertarian states of America but until then, Ron Paul is the only one to give us Gold and to Gold what is Gold’s.”
22 When they heard this, they were confused. So they left him and went away.
23. But he followed and kept talking about it.
24. And talking about it and talking about it. And lo, he had a reading list.
25. And lo, someone said they had read the reading list, and yet they obviously lied, for if they had read the reading list, some of which they had found very interesting, some of which was even by one of their favorite authors, and some of it actually seeming to contradict points the MellerJesus had made, they too would sound like an overexcited, paranoid leprechaun.
26. And lo, he gave them the reading list again.
Does the fact that Meller routinely calls me out by name in his screeds mean I’m one of the cool kids now?
KathleenB – Yes. Yes it does. If you weren’t already. Which you totally were.
Aw, the old toad has vanished. Maybe he’s still busy wanking to the thought of someone – not him of course! – beating up us evil feminists.
zhinxy: W00t!
Meller: You aren’t winning points (rhetorical, nor brownie). By your logic no one (least of all you) should be at all upset about a Valerie Solanas or a Lorena Bobbitt. They were, after all provoked, the one by a system which degraded her, the other by a husband who abused her.
You think rape/abuse is perfectly acceptable; even when you say the rapist/abuser is completely at fault because he must have been driven to it.
Women, of course, aren’t driven to feminism by men who say they deserve to be enslaved, or raped, or kept as property by their husbands; denied an education and trapped in economic inability.
No, those women are merely hateful, and deserve what happens to them.
DKM’s promotion of masturbation as a substitute for dealing with icky women is almost as funny as Brandon’s proud announcement of his plan to be passive-aggressive.
Meller: Yes, if the FED were abolished, private banks would tend to keep 100% gold reserves on their deposits. They would be afraid of bank runs (very serious if the government doesn’t bail you out)!
hahahAHAHAhhahahahhahahha Ooh Lord! Dayummmn! We got us a comedian. Banks routinely failed to have adequate reserves for the money they issued. It’s part of why there is a Fed. With no gov’t there will be no one to write (much less enforce) any sort of laws regulating banks.
Pecunium: When you put it that way, the cognitive dissonance gets louder. How does he stand it?!
Brandon: You either don’t understand his point, or you are a rape/abuse apologist.
Full Stop.
On the eternal question of Brandon – trolling or just stupid? I am currently voting for “a bit of both”.
KathleenB: There is no dissonance. He doesn’t really think women are people. As such he doesn’t think they have rights.
If you consider that he thinks of women as a cattle rancher thinks of cattle, the ones who break fences, don’t suckle their young, are aggressive to the ranch hands, etc. need to be put down.
He’s just upset that he can’t say that in plain language, but it leaks out when you look at the common elements in the things he does write.
Also I’m now picturing Meller as this guy, but surrounded by a bunch of creepy little dolls, which he may hit with his cane if he feels that they were being disrespectful.
Addendum to Pecunium’s point, though generally I agree.
Unlike the cattle rancher, who knows that if he decides to put down some of his cattle he can because he has absolutely power over them, Meller knows that in reality he has no power over most women. This is why, unlike the rancher, he is a very angry person. He feels that he has been deprived of a power that he has a right to have, and to add insult to injury now the cattle are talking back. He can’t actually do anything about this, so dolls and screaming at strangers on the internet about how he would totally understand if the man in their life beat the shit out of them it is.
CassandraSays Why hating on the dolls? Their owner is creepy, their only crime is to be too cute for their own good.
Cassandra: Yeah, I should have made it explicit. It’s in the rage which voices itself as, “when the men regain their rightful place we’ll kill all the women who don’t worship us”, and the, “good master doesn’t beat his dog” comments.
He knows what he wants isn’t going to happen, so he has to dream that in the future, after he’s dead, it will. There will be paradise for some men, somewhere, when the women are all adoring slaves who ask to be beaten so they can show their love and adoration.
I have…issues with dolls. I think it’s the eyes. Not all dolls, but the collectible kind that he loves I find really creepy. I keep thinking they’re going to go all Chuckie on me.
I really do wonder if Meller saw The Stepford Wives during a pivotal point in his life and that’s when the specific shape of his dreams came into being.
“I really do wonder if Meller saw The Stepford Wives during a pivotal point in his life and that’s when the specific shape of his dreams came into being.”
The Stepford Wives must be to MRAs what Fight Club is to clueless douchebags. Wait, maybe I shouldn’t have seperated those things at all.
…I suddenly have a wild idea for a weekend double bill…
I wonder if Meller came out of the theater really excited and tried to talk to other guys about how wonderful it would be to create a town just like that, and then was first confused and then upset when he realized that most men recognized that the movie was supposed to be dystopian, not aspirational.
Whenever he starts babbling about Sweet Old Fashioned Girls and how they will totally be down with his future plans I’m reminded of when the Hachi movie with Richard Gere was about to come out, and the American Kennel Club contacted the filmmakers to express their concern about it possibly inspiring a run on Akitas being adopted. Their concern was that people would go “oh, cute!” and run out and get an Akita, not realizing that despite the fluffiness they’re really not biddable, easily trainable dogs at all, and then end up either abandoning or abusing the dogs when their actual personalities became clear. (Try to get an Akita to fetch and it will just look at you like “you’re joking, right?”.)
That’s what I think of whenever Meller starts babbling about how really women’s true natures are just being suppressed by feminism and actually we want to be fluffy, and if we were just trained right…he has fundamentally misunderstood the true nature of women, and because of that every conclusion he draws based on that misunderstanding is of course going to be nonsensical. I’m concerned about what would happen if he ever got a hold of a woman who he initially deemed to be sufficiently fluffy, and then later her actual personality became apparent.
So Brandon is on board with murders now? That is a total shock. (not really)
Oh and he can totally understand abusers too. Shocking. (not really)