Men’s Rights Redditor: “I advocate the removal of judges, politicians, and other government agents who violate the Constitution by any means necessary.” [UPDATED]
Men’s Rights subreddit regular Demonspawn (remember him?) is back again with some deliberately vague but definitely threatening talk about judges and politicians:
Not a lot of “plausible deniability” here, though I am sure various MRAs will try to excuse this as not being what it obviously is: a threat of violence against judges, politicians and others who work for the government.
He’s done this before; I wrote about it here.
And while we’re on the topic of Demonspawn, here’s a little followup comment of his from the thread we discussed the other day. It’s a giant wall of text, I know, but it contains gems like: “When women mouth off to men and get their faces bashed in, they’ll know equality.” At least this comment of his got as many downvotes as upvotes.
I’m banned from the Men’s Rights subreddit, of course, but Demonspawn, despite repeatedly violating the subreddit’s rules about posting comments advocating violence, continues to post away. See his comment history for more lovely thoughts on, among other things, why women are parasites who don’t deserve the vote.
Posted on August 5, 2012, in antifeminism, evil women, misogyny, MRA, reddit, terrorism, threats, woman's suffrage, your time will come. Bookmark the permalink. 680 Comments.
@ Polliwog: I love it!
“Sir, we’ve found another person using our agency’s acronym on the Internet.”
“Is it another James Bond fan site?”
“I’m afraid so, sir.”
“Damn you Felix Leitner! Keep looking.”
“Uh, sir… Are you aware that there are literally thousands of anti-US and anti-government websites that proudly and explicitly proclaim their purpose? Couldn’t we, you know, keep tabs on some of them?”
“That hardly counts as spying, now, does it Agent Johnson?”
“Sorry sir. Don’t know what came over me.”
@Ugh –
I know this must be hard for you to grasp, so allow me to reiterate. what I’ve said before:
Yes, I think Western hegemony is soon to collapse.
Yes, I think feminism contributes/(ed) to that.
and yet, despite that likely consequence – I have NOT, and do NOT, and will NOT argue, as you do – that “women should have fewer rights”.
I’m using the classical understanding of “rights” here, as in the right to vote, the right to work, the right to bodily autonomy etc. etc.
These are rights EVERYONE should have. Therefore I do NOT advocate taking them away from anyone.
Joecakes, I want you to come clean for me, is it lizards?
So chicken little is going to reinforce his claims that everyone had to fight, and that I don’t understand history by invoking ‘feudalism’ (Which was really not a thing), and not only that, is going to invoke the people who were obligated to be militarily protected in that thing that sort of didn’t exist much at all…
Naval practices are a totally different kettle of fish, and navies traditionally make up much fewer warm bodies than armies.
A dude talking about feudalism as if it’s a thing is going to tell me this. Excuse me while I go have a wicked laugh.
@Joe
So you only think that women, by selfishly having rights, have doomed us all.
And here I was thinking you were a misogynist or something. Obviously believing that treating half the human race will lead to Soviet invasion is a completley normal and in no way influenced by hate point of view.
yo you know when reactionaries like you try to arbitrarily redefine words, nobody is fooled by it, right?
@Joe
You also never answered me earlier. Have you written to your conspiracy sites to express the same amount of anger at them lying to you in the first place that you;ve expressed t me for pointing out the lies?
‘i have a bunch of dubious, one-sided history that flatters my preconceived beliefs and you had better surrender to that. dammit, why is everyone laughing at me SOMEONE WITH A PENIS IS TALKING!”
SirStupidName? I shall consider myself ‘zinged’. I guess.
Honestly, though I wasn’t really expecting you to argue with the other fellow. After all, with MRAs its not really what you’re arguing that matters, is it? Not so much as who you’re arguing with. Thank you for proving this to my satisfaction.
@aworldanonymous – Wow. Your spectacular naievty would be touching, if it weren’t something shared by so many – which makes it dangerous, for everyone, because it allows those very sociopathic fucks to continue doing what they do. Here’s another book you should read: “McMafia” by Mischa Glenny.
@Sharculese – I proved the funding in previous threads with links. Not my fault if you have a goldfish’ memory. :p
@aworldanonymous – you should also read “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy” by Greg Palast
@Rutee – it’s you who started going on and on about “fighting” I have repeatedly pointed out that men are expected to sacrifice themselves outside war too. You’re playing the same game as Ugh, trying to shift the frame and nit pick. Oh, and failing.
i recall you huffily declaring a bunch of stuff
nobody is impressed by your whiny conspiracy theories, kiddo
BAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWW
these goalposts are so heavy and difficult to move
WAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH
@Rutee – “‘feudalism’ (Which was really not a thing)”
Ahahahahahhahhahhaahaaaaaaa!!! You are so full of shit it’s unreal! What next?
Oh, sorry, you wanted me to pretend this was a thing. Women have worked for profit for millenia, they just didn’t get to control the profit, so you can’t mean working. You can’t mean ‘dangerous jobs’ because it’s only a brief window where women weren’t doing those as well, and in that brief window, workplace fatality has dropped considerably…
You don’t actually read a lot of history books, nor primary sources, nor talk to a lot of historians, do you?
@sharc
He proved that Steinem was ex-CIA, and that the Rockefeller foundation funded some feminist scholars (also some anti-globablization scholars, but Joe wouldn’t know about that because it doesn’t help sell gold and guns to idiots).
If you accept on faith that Steinem was instructed by the CIA after she quit, and that she was in fact not one but EVERY 1960s feminist, and that the Rockefeller foundation is actually a bank, then THE CONSPIRACY MUST BE TRUE.
It’s just like how Orwell was anti-Marxist, if you ignore everything he said about abolishing private property and implementing Trotskyist rule of the proletariat. MAKES PERFECT SENSE.
Yeah, Joe, keep telling me that I’m naive for not being blindly cynical, meanwhile I’ll be over here with the books written by real economists and political theorists, ok?
@Sharculese – oh, I’m fucking sorry, did you miss the post where I LINKED DIRECTLY TO THE EVIDENCE? Do you want me to come round to your house and type in “Gloria Steinem” into google for you?*
(*This is sarcasm, I will not actually do this)
@SirKnobend – whatthefuckever. What power has anyone calling themselves “incel” ever held?
@ Joe. So, you’re arguing with people who you think have power?
@aworldanonymous – that’s right, keep your mind tightly shut. Only read works funded by those who hold power. That couldn’t POSSIBLY lead you to a false belief that those who hold power are lovely sweet people. Your wilful ignorance is sickening.
Holy shit Joe, you know that Google exists?
Maybe you can stop repeating obvious lies now that you can type them into the internet to see if they’re true.
@Rutee – Keep that bullshit coming! Lol!
i remember where you got all huffy and insisted what you had was evidence yes
i also remember it being the kind of cut-and-paste connect-the-dots nonsense that only the most gullible and desperate for proof would accept
i’m sorry, did you confuse this with the place where we have to accept the things you declare BECAUSE I SAID SO THAT WHY
this isn’t that place, kiddo
oh thank god is the meltdown finally getting underway? i was getting bored.
@Ugh – “and that the Rockefeller foundation is actually a bank,”
Ahahahaha! You seriously believe that a Foundation established and funded by one of the largest and most powerful banking dynasties on Earth is independent of that dynasty!
I’ve got a bridge for you to buy, pal!
Lolz! You incredible fuckwit!
yep we’re on to the meltdown
Manboobz is for fat and ugly men and women that don’t have a life or a good personality.
If a man reads zero edge and is blogging here he is a bigger loser.
Why do fools think that calling me ‘foolish’ for knowing more than them will work? XD
Hmmm, willful ignorance you say, when one of my favourite books is Bookchin’s Post-Scarcity Anarchism, and my others are Marx’ Communist Manifesto and Proudhon’s essay “Property is theft”, of course I don’t trust the government, hell, Stephen Harper’s an asshole who is wasting Canada’s money on fighter jets we don’t need, and prisons to house the senseless victims of his “war on drugs”, however I do recognize it as the lesser of two evils, would you rather have the sociopaths in direct control of an anarchic society as warlords. Society is strongly on the upturn, sure we have a long way to go, but we’re getting there. Now call me sheeple, you ignorant little fuck.
Blame the Fabians, Joe. Blaming them keeps my Dad happy, why not you? :)
@Sharculese – how long can you keep your fingers in your ears singing lalalalala “I can’t hear you”? Can you hold your breath while you do it?
Oh, nice. I’ve got to go soon, and I was worried I’d miss it.
Feudalism (from Wikipedia)
Feudalism really isn’t a thing.
good ole Google
BAWWWWWW
@Sharculese – the definition of rights I used is widely understood and accepted. Don’t know what “redefinition” you’re banging on about.
nothing is more convincing than the dude who screams that if you wont make all the tenuous, poorly thought out connections he will, it must be because you can’t handle the truth
Noone on Rockefeller’s board, nor the president, has any financial connection to any banks. That the money came from someone who owned a bank in the 1920s is not reflected in any way in the Charter.
Unless you can prove otherwise.
Also, by your logic, these people: http://www.salaambaalaktrust.com/shelters.asp are also part of the global conspiracy to destroy the West, as they were also funded by the Rockefellers.
@Rutee – men are 92% of work related deaths.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_fatality
Way to piss all over that sacrifice by attempting to minimise and diminish it.
Also, pretty hilarious that the guy who thinks all Muslims speak Arabic is calling me gullible.
i’m sure that’s what they tell you on vdare
Oh owly.
The problem isn’t men, it’s women being unable to control their sexuality.
Let’s say this is true, and that a woman who is not “controlling” her sexuality leaves the house lookin all sexay. Either men CAN control their sexuality, which would make her public sexayness not a problem as men’s violent sexual impulses would not be acted upon and everyone just goes about their day, or men CANNOT control their sexuality EITHER, which means that the sexay woman would get raped a lot. Since being outside while wearing clothes doesn’t hurt anyone, but rape does, this means that if anyone’s sexuality is a problem, it is men’s. Therefore, in order to have a peaceful, orderly society, men must be removed from the public sphere, so that women, with their uncontrollable but harmless sexuality, can go about their business, without worrying about men’s uncontrollable and harmful sexuality causing them to be attacked. Please explain to me in detail why this doesn’t make sense to you.
There’s only one reason women dress and act that way.
ORLY? Please tell me more about my motivations! You are clearly the expert here!
Go watch the video again. Tell me the difference between the way every man is dressed and the way that woman is dressed.
She’s wearing women’s clothes. THAT SLUT
She dressed like that to attract sexual attention from men.
lol no
She is unwilling to control her sexuality. Every society it’s always the same. Men try to civilize women but they always fail.
There’s a quote about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I forget what it was. Something about it being very manly, I assume.
@Joe
You know, feminists are the main people pushing for an end to gender discriminatory hiring in the trades.
If it wasn’t a Soviet plot, I’ll bet that would be a great thing for men.
it wouldn’t shock me to find out bircher baby believed that
@Ugh – Your ignorance is astounding! The Rockefellers are a family that “happened to own a bank in the 1920s” in the same way that the Queen of England is someone who “enjoys a modest inheritance, and owns a couple of cottages in the country”, you great bellend!
http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0006.pdf
3.8 out of every 100,000 workers dies on the job. That’s less than 1%. And you’re pretending it’s an unprecedented tragedy that affects every man ever. More men are sexually assaulted than die on the job, and considerably more *women* are sexually assaulted than people die on the job. At least, in the USA. As I said, workplace fatality has dropped considerably in the time after women were removed from dangerous jobs.
@Sharculese – go on then, astound me with YOUR definition of “rights”.
Also this guy: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1951/
SovietAgencyCo hates them some yellow fever.
3.8 per 100k is less than a percent of a percent, actually. It sucks for the dead, but ZOMG INJUSTICE it is not.
no kiddo, we’re talking about you right now. no dodges.
@Joe
At the time the Rockefeller foundation was founded and cut financial and policy ties with John Rockefeller, Rockefeller owned zero banks.
When Rockefeller died, he owned a controlling share of Chase Manhattan, and the Harlem Dunbar private bank. No money from either of these banks ever entered the foundation.
You’re the one claiming this dipshit, by pitting labor against woes.
My point was that fortunately the business I was referring to was subjected to the labor market. Someone actually had a choice. I know, that is awesome, right? Certainly not the picture nation wide, but I like the example. It’s a hope example.
Anyway you’re the one claiming nobody can afford to treat labor in a decent manner. You are the one saying “this must be true everywhere”.
Also, one of the examples you gave was corporate farming, which is disgusting anyway. A couple of things, one if their profits are going to remain the same because they are ahead of things slaughtering ahead of a feed shortage, causing the prices to fluctuate, prove this affect the bottom line. I would also like to know how much government subsidies those animal torturing turds get. You throw out some factoid about mass culling, and suddenly nobody can afford to treat labor a level up from the cows. You have not proved your point, you not only need to consider solipsism, but you also need to look up projection.
Have you any self awareness?
Also, what’s your explanation for how youth shelters in India play into the CONSPIRACY. There is the same amount of “evidence” that they are evil as you presented for feminism.
@Rutee – Nice, you’re trying to make it seem like FIVE AND A HALF THOUSAND deaths as year in the USA is “insignificant”, you heartless asshole!
Also, way to compare being KILLED with sexual assault, but then you HAD to do that, didn’t you? Otherwise how else could you make out that women have it worse? It never crosses your mind that does it that men’s suffering ought to be considered as an issue in and of itself, rather than through a prism of women’s suffering?
Clearly, dead men mean NOTHING to you, at all.
Thanks for perfectly proving my point re. the prevalence of male disposability as a meme! You sure as fuck hold fast to it!
Not a super clear sentence, so let me be clear. In order to prove your point, you need to discuss profits, not practices. In the icky example of corporate farming you gave, I think they’re heavily govt subsidized anyway.
so, we’re definitely into the meltdown now, right?
@Rutee – and 4.8 per 100K is the murder rate in the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide
And men are waaaaay more likely to be murdered than women.
However, feminists like yourself regularly throw up the stat of murder by intimates as you say “ZOMG INJUSTICE”.
Thanks, once more for proving that as far as your concerned MEN’s lives are meaningless compared to womens.
It affects less than .01% of workers, dude. It sucks, but it is not the widespread problem you are pretending it is.
I said it’s bad and actually common.
what, men as a class? No, because men as a class don’t. Your ‘92% of all workplace fatalities’ skims over the fact that those fatalities aren’t an issue for more than 99% of all workers.
If that’s the ‘sacrifice’ that men are expected to make, sign me up.
And we have barking, barking, barking, do I hear frothing? Frothing? Thank you, sir!
They do so in the context of DV, which is considerably more common than murder, and can produce considerably more problems than just that. This is your flagship, and it affects a tiny minority of men.
@Sharculese – I’m not fucking dodging, I used trhe word rights as it’s commonly understood, whereas you were all…
“Ooooh redifinition reactionary adjhdgaskfhgsl fgb” bullshit.
And now YOU are trying to dodge away from THAT being empty meaningless rhetoric. FAIL.
4.8 per 100 k is the annual rate.
3.8 per 100 k is the lifetime likelihood rate.
You’re comparing apples to oranges.
Learn to read.
The USA has over 300.000.000 people, dude. In comparison to that 5.500 deaths are insignificant. Heck, over 30.000 people die in traffic accidents every year, that’s nearly 6 times the number of workplace deaths.
Workplace deaths are related to corporate greed. Not a feminist issue per se, unless you acknowledge the pro-labor Mother Jones feminists. Doing so proves the opposite point, they are against death in the workplace.
Don’t know what deaths in the workplace have to do with anything.
Culturally society is still heavily divided between “men’s work” and “women’s work”. So more men are in those heavy industrial or dangerous positions. There are always women willing to do the same thing, the numbers are smaller due to pressure on them from inside those industries, and cultural pressure in general.
Just a wee example, but should open your mind a bit.
Hey guys are you aware that only one out of every 117 autoerotic asphyxiation fatalities is female?
Let’s all discuss this very important issue which is very important because it predominantly effects men. Otherwise we might be misandrist commie Jew lizard banker secret agents or whatever.
like i said, i’m sure that’s totally how your buddies on vdare tell you the word is used
i’m not sure why you’re getting so worked up about this?
How come that’s a link and not an embed? :(