Hey, hostile visitors! Do you have an opinion about, for example, Mary Koss’ rape research? Do you want to discuss it even though the topic has not actually come up by itself in any of the threads and none of my recent posts really have much to do with the specifics of anyone’s rape research? Well, from now on you can discuss it here with anyone who wishes to follow you to this thread.
Added bonus: If you continue to try to discuss it in other threads you’ll be banned!
This also applies to future derailers riding hobbyhorses of their own having nothing to do with Koss.
Happy discussing!
Note: If you wish to discuss the topics at hand, you know, topics directly related to my posts and/or to what other people are discussing and that aren’t, you know, personal hobbyhorses of yours that involve long screeds and various things that you’ve probably already cut and pasted into the comments sections of various other websites until you were banned from them for endless derailing and general asswipery, feel free to remain in the original threads.
Hmm…
If you believed this then you would do that. Is that his overarching point? And he’s coming back with how since we don’t do that we don’t believe this?
Genderneutrallanguage is this a correct representation of your aims here?
It seems more like:
You believe X, which is wrong.
If I asked you directly if you believed X, then you would deny believing it.
Thus, to get past your cognitive dissonence, I’ll pretend to believe X’ so you can disprove it.
But X’ is just an extreme form of X, so you’re really deconstructing your own view.
If I do this enough, eventually you’ll catch on.
Which of course all hinges on the truth of the first statement. If the first statement is true… I guess it could be consistent with the rest, but it’d be very strange. If the first statement is false (as in, I do not believe X)… You’ve got the situation we’re in now.
Isn’t this what people do when they’re cornered, though? Make you defend yourself against things you didn’t say? He’s derailing the argument, which is why I didn’t answer the piece of shit.
@archaeoholmes:
Ah but you see, we would actually say it if it weren’t for all that pesky cognitive dissonence.
Plus he thinks he’s being super clever in weaving this trap around us, and he thinks he’s in the position of being able to bestow the honor of “not stupid” upon those who catch a glimpse of his master plan.
So yeah, he’s derailing, but also he’s super smug and annoying. Which means I should respond to him. For… some reason…
Because it’s funnier to poke him than Joe.
As to what fallacy his “plan” is, I got nothing. He’s too far removed from logical argument to be violating logic.
Which is, itself, illogical.
@kirbywarp You and Argenti are doing a brilliant job of taking his stupid incisive comments apart, I probably shouldn’t have interjected. Apologies
Argenti, I believe we’ve found the perfect troll-combatting team! You can do the research, and the math, and the analysis, and I can… try to make sense of their english. And write distracting stories. Sounds good to me! ^_^
“Because it’s funnier to poke him than Joe.”
That’s setting a low bar. 😀
I actually don’t find Joe funny at all. Of all the resident trolls, I think he may be the biggest bore and I hate that about him.
I hate pemra the most because he keeps saying the same thing over and over. It’s so boring.
Hey now, funnier than Joe does not imply that Joe is funny!
kirbywarp — interpreting troll is truly important, for it is impossible to debunk that which makes no fucking sense.
I actually find, on very odd occasions, that PEMRA demonstrates a hint of personality. He appears to exclusively hold repugnant, delusional positions and drones on like whoa. He may be less of a wet blanket than Joe though. I am not down with Joe at all.
Scrapemind in general, PEMRA and Joe are a close call.
There’s also the one who’s not been here lately Dio… not summoning that kraken.
And um, the forgettable and sorta amusing one…
But yeah, Joe and PEMRA.
I kinda want Tamen back, that one was “just” a statistical nightmare.
Yeah to be fair to PEMRA, I’ve yet to go on a swearing rampage at him. Whereas Joe’s seriously pissed me off quite a few times.
Problem here is I suspect it’s PEMRAl
You’re right, Joe’s awful. I think pemra’s retreat into passiveness occasionally, to take the heat off – lensman does this too- really annoying. I hate passive-aggression. Fuck, it’s so hard to choose. I love them all.
I judge them against the dude who talked about displaying his boner to girlchildren and met criticism of this with “STOP BODYSHAMING” or something.
That is gold.
I’m still really confused about that. I burst into laughter when I read it, not because there’s anything funny about exposing yourself to children – there’s not – but because it was absurd as fuck and I was confused and I didn’t know how to respond so I just guffawed.
So absurd you can’t help but laugh, yup, that’s NWO in a nutshell.
Best NWO moment, for me anyways, was when he said he was laughing at me for using “gov’n data”…I was citing the CDC.
But yeah, Joe is terrible. I get the impression, what he lacks in personality, he makes up for in vitriol, which he is certain is righteous indignation, of course, and he will not let go of. In a word, hoggler.
PEMRA is exhausting. It’s the same thing over and over. You sigh, you shake your head, you groan. As you become more frustrated, banging your head against the same damn wall, you let out a shriek of annoyance. You get the impression he may just be really thick though and any inclination to bop him on the head is more likely out of exhaustion moreso than fury over his abhorrent views.
In theory strawception is an interesting idea, but pulling it off would require some serious writing skills. Which Mr men are to women as dogs are to trees does not have.
(Sorry, everyone, but I can’t let go of that comment yet because it was comedy gold.)
All I could think of was dogs peeing on tree trunks when I read it.
“which he is certain is righteous indignation”
Which is why I lost it at him earlier. I have plenty of that to go around and how the fuck dare he! Been nearly 3 years since my ex-FWBs brother killed himself…my mother still refuses to believe it wasn’t an accident (drove his car into something, and I’ll get back to that) — that’s the level of stigma around suicide, people would rather believe it an accident than that anyone “could do that”.
As for his choice of method, this is my issue with discussing “clean” methods in terms of a combination of bloodiness and who cleans up. I can’t imagine that wasn’t bloody, but who cleans up? Car accident means first responders…
Of all the people…that kid was amazing, a mini-me of my ex (or rather “like him, but backwards [insert ear to ear grin here]”)
And fucking Joe wants to use all men who commit suicide to claim that feminists don’t care?! Cll it victim blaming that I wish men were more able to seek help?!
I’m going to launch into swearing and crying, so I’m done here.
Joe, you’re an asshole. And if I didn’t suspect that it’s PEMrAl I’d definitely hate you most.
Cassandra — seriously! And a less stupidly offensive one would’ve been so much easier and actually some what logic. Women/men cats/dogs! A commonly held fail comparison! But no, his mind goes to dogs pissing on trees (for how else are dogs and trees connected?)
As far as the more general issue with men and suicide I’m going to repeat my earlier suggestion to Joe. If that is a problem that MRAs would like to focus on then shouting at feminists isn’t going to fix it. There are other, more productive things that they could be doing instead.