About these ads

A Voice for Men responds to Jaclyn Friedman’s takedown of the Men’s Rights movement with fart, fat, rape jokes

So A Voice for Men has finally responded to Jaclyn Friedman’s masterful takedown of the Men’s Rights movement:

No, sorry, my mistake. AVFM didn’t respond to her article by farting. It responded with an article accusing her of farting. No, really.

In an article with the fart-referencing title “Gone with Jaclyn’s wind,” AVFM “Honey Badger” Diana Davison tries to rebut Friedman with some really, really strained fart metaphors:

In Jaclyn’s habitat, there is a foul and ominous odour beneath the sheets. Since, according to her, the MHRM are all dogs, it is easiest just to blame the stench on them.

Ho ho!

Davison then takes the argument underground:

There are many canards in the coal mine of Jaclyn’s article about the MHRM that quite quickly die of gas.

Wait, so now Jaclyn is farting carbon monoxide?

And one more toot:

The next trouser trumpet is her insistence that the MHRM is an attack of men against women … .

The fart metaphors, strained though they are, turn out to be the most coherent parts of Davison’s little rant. As far as I can figure it, her main complaints about Friedman’s piece are that:

  1. Friedman calls the Manosphere the Manosphere, even though there are a handful of women involved in it.
  2. Friedman “silenced” her by not linking to Davison’s last dumb piece about her in AVFM, and by (gasp!) blocking her on Twitter.
  3. Friedman doesn’t enjoy it when AVFM commenters make rape jokes about her.

Speaking of commenters, the comments to Davison’s article are of course a joy to behold.

Paul Elam gets “firsties” with a long comment lauding Davison and further attacking Friedman. Elam picks up on the whole fart thing, describing Friedman as an “orally flatulent windbag” before launching into his version of their encounter in New York during the filming of the 20/20 piece which could eventually air sometime this millennium.

His biggest complaint about her? That she (allegedly) told him to shut his fucking piehole — not in those words, of course — and nobody puts Pauley in a corner tells Pauly to shut his fucking piehole

Before you read this, I encourage you to reacquaint yourself (if necessary) with the psychological concept of projection. And to remember that Elam is very fond of telling other people to shut up. He’s quick to banhammer dissenters in his comments section, quick to toss AVFM contributors overboard when they disagree with him, and one time he actually tried to start up his own version of a Men’s Rights subreddit where he could ban whoever he wanted.

Anyhoo, with that in mind, let’s read what he had to say about Friedman:

I tell you one thing for sure, what I saw of her emotionally shined through the brightest at one particular moment. She had said about three times that the conversation we were having was over. And then of course she re-engaged in that conversation repeatedly.

The last time she said it was over, she tried to issue it like an edict…”I said this conversation is over!”

I told her that she did not instruct me to do anything.

And that is when I saw it. Pure, raw hatred on her face. She did her best to stare a hole in me, and she had the look of someone who was quite used to doing that sort of thing and having it work.

After all her histrionic bullshit about me inspiring mass murder and poor widdle defenseless wimmins having to turn to the FBI and go into some sort of rape culture protection program because of the things I had written, the thing that got her the most, that really tuned on the faucets of anger, was that she could not tell me to shut up and have me comply — or even give a fuck.

I would bet the farm that moment was her in a nutshell.

And it fits. With all the bragging she has done about her big old smelly electronic clit and how she and her friends have bullied their non compliant sisters to the sidelines; with her crusade to censor people at facebook; her blocking Diana Davison on twitter for daring to stand up as a woman who opposed her sick ideology, the true Jacklyn Friedman, the personality disordered control freak with a huge chip on her shoulder, didn’t care about any goddam cause.

She just wants to tell people what to do.

Fuck that and fuck you, Jacklyn Friedman. If someone told you that you ever had a prayer of running shit in the MHRM, they lied to you.

Oh boy. Where to even start with this feast of revealing bullshittery? Perhaps the massive projection about the “pure raw hatred on her face” and Friedman “having the look of someone who was quite used to doing that sort of thing and having it work?”

Here’s a screenshot from a video of Elam’s in which he discussed this very encounter with Friedman. What word would you use to describe that look? (Hint: The word I would use starts with H and ends with E and is “hate.”)

paulelamlilderangPNN

And then that bit about Friedman wanting to “run shit in the MHRM?” Woah. I’m pretty sure she’d rather chew her own toes off than hang out with you guys for any length of time, even if she were running the show.

Somehow I think Paul’s anger on this point is directed at, well, every other MRA who might possibly challenge HIS supreme authority in “running shit” in the “MHRM.”

And, oh, that bit about Friedman’s “smelly electronic clit?” Smelly clit?! Uh, how do I put this delicately? When there is an odor issue in that, er, general area of a cis woman, the clit is not actually the source of it.  Paul, you’ve been married, what, four times? Do you somehow still not have a basic understanding of the standard-issue cis lady bits?

And now I’ve got an image stuck in my head of Elam’s hatey face in the general vicinity of some poor woman’s vagina, and I’ve officially ruined my lunch.

I’m not going to bother with the rest of the comments. It’s AVFM. There are rape jokes. There are fat jokes. There are multiple uses of the word “cunt.”

What a magnificent “Human Rights Movement” we have here.

About these ads

Posted on October 30, 2013, in a voice for men, antifeminism, are these guys 12 years old?, entitled babies, evil fat fatties, FemRAs, I am making a joke, mantrum, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, paul elam, rape culture, rape jokes, the c-word, vaginas and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 200 Comments.

  1. “How long of a prison sentence would be worth not being raped.”

    I read this about 20 times before I understood what they were getting at. *puke*

  2. The utilitarian logic only makes any kind of sense if you assume that nobody deserves any kind of punishment. They’re acting like punishing people for crimes they commit is exactly the same as some kind of Omelas-like arrangement where we randomly imprison innocent people and somehow then rapes magically don’t happen.

  3. katz: Exactly–crimes should be punished with enough severity to deter the criminal, not to make some sort of artificial ‘balance’ for the victim.

  4. I’m starting to think that it’s a core misogynist belief that caring about more than one thing is like trying to pat your head and rub your stomach at the same time – sure, some people can do it, but it’s unfair to expect most people to be able to!

    I’m pretty sure that expecting men to care about anything at all is MISAAAAAANDRY.

  5. @Freemage

    Or, even if we decided to try something besides a deterrence model of justice system, at least some kind of ‘protection for the rest of society’ factor in there. Because that’s something we ought to be thinking about too.

  6. Athywren — re: religion as abuse

    I’d classify the sort of thing you seem to mean as emotional abuse, which, being neither “better” nor “worse” than sexual abuse, solves this problem completely, no?

    (I can’t look at quote marks and question marks without triple checking currently, WP’s comments.php is fucking with my brain!)

  7. @Argenti
    Yes. That’s pretty much my position – it’s all abuse, it’s all bad, and it all needs to stop. I was just trying to argue that what Dawkins said wasn’t necessarily complete shit… even if he is getting good at that. I do seem to remember him clarifying it, so that his argument was essentially just “really bad abuse is worse than mild abuse.” But I might have imagined that…

  8. I should probably clarify – I don’t think all religious upbringing is abuse, just the tormenty stuff.

  9. HB: Oh, absolutely. I don’t like payback models, but I’m all about deterrence and prevention. So, yes, I feel that pederasts, who have VERY high recidivism rates, should be kept in some form of institutionalized setting pretty much permanently. This doesn’t have to be ‘prison’, exactly–I’d like to see a lot of people, not just pederasts, placed in therapeutic settings where they might be able to get some degree of relief from their personal demons. Unfortunately, we’re still caught in the trend where sticking them all in a big concrete warehouse for a few years and expecting them to become more socialized is somehow expected to work.

  10. Really bad abuse is worse than mild abuse? Wow, that’s so profound! Well done, Mr Dawkins.

    I wonder if it’s occurred to him that someone could argue that their abusive religious upbringing wasn’t that bad a thing because they haven’t suffered any lasting harm in exactly the same way he tried to argue that child abuse isn’t that big a deal because it happened to him and he doesn’t feel like it did him any real harm.

  11. The oppression olympics aspect is part of why that was so annoying: You couldn’t possibly just say “abuse is bad,” no, if you’re going to talk about abuse you must talk about which types of abuse are worse than others (presumably so you can tell people who suffered less-bad abuse to STFU).

  12. Also, there’s a sneaky element of ‘sexual abuse as it happened to me wasn’t a big deal (so it shouldn’t be a big deal to anybody else, just get OVER it).’ The second half is rarely said out loud; and if you give him a charitable reading it tends to disappear.

    The problem is that with everything else he says and does (“Dear Muslima”) it’s really hard to give him a charitable reading.

  13. Given his frequent moments of misogyny I kind of wondered if part of his point was that he and his classmates just got over it because they were boys, unlike those whining women.

    Which if true would once again prove that misogynists are far more of a danger to the wellbeing of male victims than feminists could ever be.

  14. Fair points there… even assuming he really did make that clarification, that’s still a fairly pointless and unhelpful statement. I guess I was too busy thinking about how religion doesn’t excuse abuse to notice how asinine the whole thing was. And, yeah… “Dear Muslima.” Because the correct response to any attempt to discuss serious problems in our society is “first world problems.” Offensive both because those problems are serious ones, but also because it assumes that people in the rest of the world don’t have all the same petty insignificant problems that we do, on top of their own serious ones.

  15. the first 5 mins of Up are some of the best movies ever. and i can totally pat my head and rub my stomach, or vice versa if that’s what it is… *T3s is making SittieKitty a loopykitty so hopefully this made sense*

  16. Katelisa:

    I’m not particularly actively religious, but Dawkins makes me want to go to church every day just to annoy him.

    You haz ALL THE WIN.

  17. On using “delusional” as a term for not-atheists: apart from the ableism, it suggests that people who have religious or spiritual beliefs are caught up in their little fantasies and have never analysed or wondered about them or (gasp!) come to a rational conclusion about what to believe.

    Dawkins and sexual abuse: definitely count me among those who sees a subtext of it being nothing to whine about in his reminiscings about what happened to him. Also, does he bother with the distinction Athywren mentioned with religious upbringing? Not everyone who had one was raised in a fire-and-brimstone household, or a saccharine you’re-the-centre-of-Jesus’-world one (or any Christian one, for that matter). Given his fondness for getting all nostalgic about how lovely Anglican churches and services are, he seems to be a tad conflicted – or confused – about religion altogether. Not that that’s news; it’s been pointed out often enough that he’s pretty ignorant about it (and just look at the conflation of all Muslims into scary brown people who cut bits off women in Dear Muslima).

  18. So… having had my ox gored, and a small bit of misreasoning in it…

    I am a theist (of sorts).

    I am not delusional. I know that my theism is based on an unprovable.

    As to any specific atheist being better than me… it remains to be seen.

    Taking my relgious upbringing into account (it shapes my worldview, and some of the core principles of moral justice) isn’t really relevant to my, “goodness” (see, for example, Richard Dawkins, and TAA).

    My goodness (at anything) is measured by how well I do it.

    If the argument is atheists are better thinkers than I am, because they have come to the “correct” conclusion about deity; that remains to be seen.

    Because the existence/non-existence of God(s) is an unprovable. The evidence can be seen as preponderant against, but all it would take is one burning bush to falsify it (which is complicated by the sapience of any deity. For example I never saw, “Carlos the Jackal”, but I have it on pretty good authority he existed. He had his reasons for wanting me to think he wasn’t who he was, and for not being seen to do anything directly).

    There are many theists who have a sincere belief they have seen some sort of “burning bush”. For them the atheist position has been falsified. I may think them mistaken (even, given some of the things touted as “proof” [say, The Virgin Mary on a piece of toast] delusional), but I am not the one who had to weigh those momments when they felt they apprehended the presence of the divine.

    What all this is about is, in a word, tolerance.

    To borrow from someone else, “by their fruits shall you know them”.

  19. Carp: I had an infelicitous usage: (it shapes my worldview, and some of the core principles of moral justice), should read,

    (it shapes my worldview, and some of the core principles of moral justice for me)

    I was not trying to say (as so many bad theists do) that absent religion there can be no morality (because that is arrant nonsense).

  20. Because the existence/non-existence of God(s) is an unprovable. The evidence can be seen as preponderant against, but all it would take is one burning bush to falsify it (which is complicated by the sapience of any deity. For example I never saw, “Carlos the Jackal”, but I have it on pretty good authority he existed. He had his reasons for wanting me to think he wasn’t who he was, and for not being seen to do anything directly).

    There are many theists who have a sincere belief they have seen some sort of “burning bush”. For them the atheist position has been falsified. I may think them mistaken (even, given some of the things touted as “proof” [say, The Virgin Mary on a piece of toast] delusional), but I am not the one who had to weigh those momments when they felt they apprehended the presence of the divine.

    I really like this, pecunium. The personal moment, the thing that can cause a shift, big or small, in one’s thinking. Things that someone else may write off as coincidence, or misinterpretation, or delusion, or not knowing about some physical phenomenon. Things, for that matter, the person experiencing them may very well consider … and in the end, decide no, it’s none of those things. It’s too easy to overlook the emotional significance or just the experience itself, the moment, when one’s an outsider.

    I’ve had a few of those moments: nothing like proof, nothing that couldn’t be dismissed, but still, things that happened. (NB this isn’t about God but MrSerf.) If anything, the sudden burst of emotion that doesn’t feel like it’s mine is the strongest evidence of all.

    Sorry about all the italics, but I needed to emphasise those bits!

  21. I’m a non-theist because I disagree with the epistemic justifications for belief in gods. But I don’t think that theists are delusional or irrational at all; they simply have different justifications for their faith. I never confront theists because I’m completely apathetic about people believing in gods – it just doesn’t matter to me at all. The only theists I ever bother to confront are the ones who are pushy and bigoted, but their problem isn’t their theism – it’s their shitty beliefs.

  22. Exactly, Ally. Neither theism nor atheism is any sort of predictor about whether someone’s going to be a Fifty Shades of Bigotry type or a decent person.

  23. Honestly, all I really care about is whether or not someone is a decent human being.

  24. It’s not linked to intelligence either. I’m not exactly a huge fan of the Catholic church but I have to say, I’ve never encountered (or even heard about) a stupid Jesuit.

    (Mr C, who was raised Catholic, calls them the Pope’s CIA.)

  25. Honestly, all I really care about is whether or not someone is a decent human being.

    Seconded.

  26. I’m going to pipe up for us agnostics.

    I’m an agnostic because I don’t personally believe in any specific supernatural goings on but I value what spirituality brings to the human experience. I’m an agnostic because I have a soft spot for mystics like William Blake because I respect the attempt to reach the transcendental or inscrutable. I’m a skeptic because I’m comfortable with doubt and I’m wary of empowered true believers who clearly aren’t comfortable with doubt.

    And, yes, being a decent human being trumps everything.

  27. He has serial killer eyes. Perfect for Halloween!

  28. Re: agnosticism…

    I think I’m agnostic? Idk. I like, don’t really think that god is real but they might be? And it doesn’t really matter if they are or not? But I still like going to the kind of church I went to as a kid, (at least ones where the preacher isn’t a homophobic dickbag) and see some value in praying.

    I have no clue what this counts as.

  29. Fade, you can think about it this way:

    Agnosticism is really just the opposite of gnosticism. By themselves, the terms don’t mean much because they basically concern the certainty of belief in some concept. To be agnostic is to not really know for sure if something is true; to be gnostic is to have certainty that something is true.

    What most people call “agnosticism” is really just agnostic atheism. That’s close to your position: you don’t think there’s a reason to believe that gods exist, but you aren’t entirely sure. The alternatives are gnostic atheism, which is basically the position that it is absolutely true that no gods exist; gnostic theism, the idea that at least some god(s) definitely exist without a doubt; and agnostic theism, defined by belief in gods that isn’t certain.

    Yet because you qualify your position with “it doesn’t really matter if they are or not,” I would say you are best described as an apatheist – someone who not only lacks belief in gods, but also doesn’t care about the existence of gods. Whether you still like going to church doesn’t, in my view, have any bearing on your views on the existence of gods. It’s entirely possible to like some religious things despite being non-religious.

    I hope I wasn’t too long-winded there!

  30. @ally

    Wow.

    That is a lot of information *absorbs information* So, um, thanks. It was not too long winded at all!

  31. If the argument is atheists are better thinkers than I am, because they have come to the “correct” conclusion about deity; that remains to be seen.

    Even if we are right, it proves nothing about our ability to think rationally. I’d argue that most arguments that go beyond deism make far too many assumptions, and even those that reach deism assume too much, but how many atheist arguments fall into the same pits? Too many atheists forget the central lesson of skepticism: None of us are really rational. If we’re right, it’s not because of some intellectual superiority on our part.

    I was not trying to say (as so many bad theists do) that absent religion there can be no morality (because that is arrant nonsense).

    Good, ‘cuz thems fightin’ words! :P

    I think I’m agnostic? Idk. I like, don’t really think that god is real but they might be? And it doesn’t really matter if they are or not? But I still like going to the kind of church I went to as a kid, (at least ones where the preacher isn’t a homophobic dickbag) and see some value in praying.

    I have no clue what this counts as.

    If you don’t know, then you’re an agnostic. If you don’t believe, that’s atheism. And if you don’t care, then that’s ignosticism.
    It’s possible to be all three, since they refer to different issues. The idea that you only get to have one of those labels is silly, and it really bothers me that there are atheists who’ll define atheism as absolute and insistent certainty that God doesn’t exist, because that’s so laughably ignorant (not least because it ignores the vast list of gods that people have believed in, as well as all the other possible gods that nobody has thought of, in favour of the version of a particular god they grew up with).

    Personally, I’m a fairly strongly convinced (though still agnostic) atheist regarding gods that care whether we believe in them and have the ability to guide those of us who care about the truth, and totally agnostic (though still an atheist) toward most of the rest.
    I don’t care what anyone else believes, so long as they’re not trying to cure “the gay” or justify oppression with it. Like you guys, I’m far more interested in whether someone’s a decent person than whether they agree with me on metaphysics.
    I know enough to know that I know very little, that I have been wrong about many things, and continue to be wrong about things that I don’t yet know I’m wrong about. So I’m not going to pretend that I can hold myself up as smarter-than-thou, I’m just not going to believe the things that other people believe unless they can show me why I should.
    In short, vive la scepticisme!

  32. And if you don’t care, then that’s ignosticism.

    I don’t mean to be too nitpicky, but that’s apatheism, not ignosticism. I’m an ignostic, but my position is very different from that of an apatheist: I basically believe that it’s incoherent to make any assumptions about gods (including assumptions about existence) that have not been coherently defined. For instance, if I find god X to be incoherently defined, then I won’t have any belief or even disbelief in that god – I’ll just not talk about that god. After all, why talk about something that hasn’t really been defined coherently? It would make as much sense as talking about globberygook, which has no definition. In a nutshell, you could say that an ignostic non-theist is an agnostic atheist with an extra standard for belief in gods.

    The wiki entry is pretty helpful, too:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

  33. @Ally thanks! I’d never heard the term ignostic before. Describes me perfectly. :)

  34. “Good, ‘cuz thems fightin’ words!”

    He wouldn’t, he knows it’d mean that epic fight if we ever really got into it. More importantly, the idea of pecunium declaring me immoral because I don’t share his religious beliefs is actually making me chuckle. (I realize you were joking, but the idea of him calling me immoral over that is just to funny not to mention!)

    …amoral?

    Oh! Grammar question. Please fix this sentence “it’s more likely to get [to drink] upstairs than in the fridge”? Cuz I said drinken and that isn’t a word? My mother says drank and that’s a proper past tense, which that sentence isn’t. Drunk? It’s more likely to get drunk?

  35. @Ally
    Boy, it sure is a good thing that I didn’t complain about people defining atheism poorly before I made that mistake, isn’t it? :D
    >>
    <<
    *dies a little inside*
    Honestly, the little homunculopodes inside my head told me that ignostic and apatheist were synonyms. I'll have them flogged!

    Oh! Grammar question. Please fix this sentence “it’s more likely to get [to drink] upstairs than in the fridge”? Cuz I said drinken and that isn’t a word? My mother says drank and that’s a proper past tense, which that sentence isn’t. Drunk? It’s more likely to get drunk?

    I’d go with drunk… but then why are you providing alcohol to an apparently inanimate object, and how is it becoming inebriated?
    But, no, seriously, drunk. You will drink it upstairs, since you cannot fit into the fridge to do so, and once the drinking is done, it will have been drunk.

    (And, yeah, while I’m still reserving judgement on the people here who I haven’t interacted with much, I’m pretty much 98.3% sure that nobody here holds those sorts of views on the topic of morality – the site’s code seems to have been interlaced with a jerkicide.)

  36. Argenti – I’d say it’s more likely to be drunk upstairs. Whether that’s grammatically correct or not I’ve no idea, but that’s how I would say it.

  37. Did you drink the drink you drank? Yes, I drank it – it was drunk.

  38. @Argenti -Athywren is correct, it’s drunk.

    It’s written in the passive voice so you use a helping verb and the past participle form of drink. The sentence would sound less odd in the active voice: People are more likely to drink it if it’s upstairs rather than in the fridge. That way it does’t sound like people are in the fridge drinking something.

  39. ACK! “so you are using a helping verb”

  40. Double ACK! Fuck I sorely miss an edit button.

    The first version is better. Ignore my dithering.

  41. Grammar! This is awesome. Y’know, this is why I’m addicted to this site. Math lessons, grammar lessons and recipes. I always learn something new.

    Yeah, I’m a nerd.

    Manboobz. Come for the mocking, stay for the free tutoring!

  42. Argenti Aertheri

    Speaking of edit buttons…LOOK WHAT I FOUND! http://wordpress.org/plugins/wp-ajax-edit-comments/

    You can limit editing to a short time period (as little as a minute) and not allow it at all if the comment has replies! We need to petition David, we can have our typo/error correction without opening the door to troll gaslighting!

    And thanks guys, Athywren’s joke is why it sounded funny, I wasn’t intending to get my vitamin water drunk, but it wasn’t going to be drunk if it was hiding in the back of the fridge.

  43. @Argenti
    If not the ability to edit our posts, we could really do with a preview button so we can check it before posting it.

  44. May I say, I am very glad that the commentariat here is as it is.

    For reasons some will understand I am somewhat reticent to discuss concrete/personal aspect of my religiosty, and had a couple of reservations about speaking up. That it didn’t drift (irrespective of any direct personal issues) into a slagfest is a comfort.

    I also want to thank Cassandra for an indirect compliment: there was a time I considered taking orders as Jesuit.

  45. Pecunium — I thought about mentioning it but figured that was your personal business, but yeah, I got a smile out of that. (And you know I’d defend you if anyone pulled that “you’re religious and thus evil” shit again right? That falls squarely under you do not mess with my friends

    Athywren — I had a dumb. You can’ to stall can’t install plugins if you’re using .com and not .org. I think there is a built in preview plugin but I hate working with .com, I have a thing against not being able to tweak my code.

    Pecunium again — I found WP.org hosting for like $4 a month with domain registration and privacy btw, I’m still up for writing you a theme if you were still interested.

  46. @pecunium

    You considered becoming a soldier in a papal army that’s secretly trying to take over the world society and, with the help of the British Round Table Group, establish a New World Order?

    I kid, Jesuits are da bomb.

  47. Well, he did end up joining one of the largest militaries in the world…and we do call him Sir Pecunium…

    Have you been holding out on me?! Are you in with the Rothchild family? Cuz if so, there’s one I’d like to have words with as I did not steal her boyfriend.

  48. “one of the largest militaries in the world”

    He is a soldier in the Furrinati military?

  49. Kitty in cardboard tank is SOO CUUUUUTE!

    It seems to me there must be a wing of the Furrinati akin to the Jesuits. A “Give me a human at the age of seven and I will give you a lifelong servant” kind of thing.

    Though that pretty much describes the Furrinati generally, come to think of it.

    Echoing Pecunium again: that’s one of the things I like a LOT about this site. Assholism towards others’ religious or non-religious beliefs will get jumped on, and not just by those in the same spectrum of belief. (Obviously this isn’t about trolls using the Godsezwimminareinferior or Rationalitysezwimminareinferior lines.) It’s what makes this the safest blog space I know, despite the sometimes horrific things David posts about. The kindness and humour of this place are also really important for me – stark contrast to some blogs that are on the surface similar (I’ve blocked Pharyngula for those reasons: ugh, just ugh).

  50. Sorry, bit dosed up on sedatives right now, but was lurking a little.

    Everyone, thanks for being lovely the other night.

    @Kitteh, hope your knees are okay, and thank you for the cute pictures you emailed. Love to Louis x

    @Argenti, glad you’re hearing went sort of well, sorry your psych is such a fuckhead. I’m so sorry I’m being such a flake at the moment.

    @pecunium, I always enjoy reading your comments and I like hearing about other people’s beliefs, so I reckon the two together would be a joy to behold.

    I’m agnostic too. Hate all that aggressive atheism. And Dawkins is an asshat misogynist who is clever by virtue of being handed his education on a platter. Bigotry, by it’s very nature, is stupidity!

    Seriously, 416 pages to say “God doesn’t exist, and all theists are poo!” I think somegreybloke said it better than my addled brain can:

    Probably only going to post occasionally for a while, jerk brain isn’t good at composing my usual terrible jokes at the moment and a lot’s happening here, so I’ll leave you all in peace.

    Please forgive grammar etc.

  51. Ophelia, I was going to drop you a line today! BIG hugs from Louis and me (I’d say the kitties too, but you know what kitties are like).

    You’re not a flake. ::wags finger reprovingly::

    I’m agnostic too. Hate all that aggressive atheism. And Dawkins is an asshat misogynist who is clever by virtue of being handed his education on a platter. Bigotry, by it’s very nature, is stupidity!

    Seriously, 416 pages to say “God doesn’t exist, and all theists are poo!”

    Best. Summary. Evah. of Dawkins the poo-flinger.

    Now I must watch that video. :)

  52. That video! ::falls over laughing::

  53. “@Argenti, glad you’re hearing went sort of well, sorry your psych is such a fuckhead. I’m so sorry I’m being such a flake at the moment.”

    Seriously, no worries, I’ve been refreshing my memory on PHP and am currently avoiding working on, well, how this silly little comment form here is coded. Because it’s a bloody fucking nightmare. Oh wordpress…You want to format the date in your posts? Find 11/1/2013 just a bit confusing for an international audience? No problem, here’s how to make it Nov 1st, 2013! Want to change the wording on that paragraph about which tags are allowed in comments? Huh? But that’s a built in function?

    Go google and I basically have to rewrite half the damned form to include Athywren’s idea about using spoiler tags as trigger warning covers. Implementing the tags was easy peasy plugin, five min, mostly picking one I liked. Getting the comment form to say you can use it and how? HEADACHE INDUCING. (Athywren, I love the idea, I’ll blame you for why I’m using Vista, but this headache isn’t your fault)

  54. Spreading evil and headaches and only taking blame for vista? Excellent! MUAHAHA!

    >>
    <<
    That wasn't out loud, was it?
    Speaking of headaches… an old ex-friend of mine once invited me to be his tech support for his website. He took Joomla and some random bits of jawascript from all over the internet, shoved them together, then came to me: "why won't it work?"
    Why? Why do they do it?

    I can't really take credit for the trigger warning thing though – I'm pretty sure I saw another site doing it somewhere.

    Anyways, bed time for me now – 4.24, and I have to be up early "tomorrow" :(
    G'nights, all.

  55. G’night. And that code hell? It’s why I insist on writing my own instead of hacking together bits of code. I want to know what broke and WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS?!?

    Oh, chrome will tell you what line of the PHP it failed on and sorta hint at why. I am in love.

  56. Sorta hint at why means like…expected ) found { — tends to mean, for me, that I have an extra ( floating around (I have really got to remember to clean up better when I switch from function(array()); to function(‘stuff=stuff&this=that’); because no shit function(‘…’)); is going to break.

    (‘…’); looks like some weird emote.

  57. Death&Destruction

    The woman’s “takedown” consists of calling the MRAs hateful and mean without any actual arguments. In fact she actually admits that people don’t sympathize with MRA causes because they sound mean. Is that even rational? Or just hurt feels?

  58. It seems to me that you don’t know how to make an argument, D&D, so you just go around insinuating that other people are irrational and emotional — which isn’t even a new or creative insult. Try harder.

  59. Note to jonatma420: I don;t let through videos posted by trolly MRAs because I don’t want to have to watch them to see if they’re appropriate. So you can keep posting them, and I’ll keep trashing them. Or you can try to actually engage in discussion.

  60. Lmfao god I’m glad I’m no feminist or mra. You guys are both insecure little shits. Have fun crusading for your first world rights while the Muslim tidal wave overtakes and destroys the Western world.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,541 other followers

%d bloggers like this: