Search Results for a voice for men
Propaganda of the Shirt
Over on A Voice for Men, the regulars are trying to figure out the best way to defeat the feminist menace. One commenter, Raven01, has a ingenious suggestion: t-shirts with weird, crude sexual messages!
I’m sure that’ll do it, fellas. Good work!
Fellas who want to get the attention of the very women that Mr. Raven01 wants to repel might consider picking up a t-shirt on the Man Boobz Zazzle store. 1Also suitable for women and genderqueer folks of the feminist persuasion.
Just one quick question: What’s an “innie plumb?” I can only assume this is some sort of reference to a
JohnTheOther channels Hugo Schwyzer in this disquisition on pseudo-mystical spooge
Sorry to return so quickly to the fetid mind of MRA blabologist JohnTheOther, but, well, you’ll see why I have.
Here is Mr. TheOther in AskReddit, responding to the question “Women of Reddit, how do you feel about cumshots?” (No, he is not strictly speaking a “woman of Reddit,” not like that’s going to stop him.) Enjoy the irony of the A Voice for Men second banana rehashing, apparently with utter sincerity, an argument once set forth, rather infamously, by a feminist fellow named Hugo Schwyzer. And enjoy the also-very-special response from fellow MRA SuicideBanana, whom we met earlier in the week.
I know Mr. TheOther is concerned about people “quote mining” comments, and presenting them out of context, but in this case, there is no further context. His comment, which I have presented unedited in screenshot form, isn’t in response to any other comment; it’s simply an answer to the question I alluded to above. Mr. TheOther does respond to SuicideBanana’s remarks about him being an advocate and facilitator of violence, as you can see if you clicky click here, but sheds no more light on the issue of porno cumshots as a “pseudo-mystical representation of the sexuality of the viewer.”
Working in the quote mine, going down down
“I’ve found another incredibly dopey statement from JohnTheOther!”
So our blabby friend JohnTheOther has an especially blabby piece up on A Voice for Men at the moment. Its ostensible subject: the pure eeeevil of unnamed anti-MRAs who misrepresent the World’s Greatest 21st Century Human Rights Movement – the Men’s Rights Movement, that is – through the eeevil practice of “quote mining.”
I didn’t read the whole thing. Mr. TheOther is not what you’d call an efficient writer. Here are a few quotes mined from the article more or less at random that I think will give you a good idea of his, um, style:
Biology, or indeed, evolutionary theory is not really the topic of this discussion, rather it is provided here as example of a rhetorical practice increasingly common among opponents of a small but growing human rights movement. …
The developing practice in opposition to human rights, of quote-mining goes beyond pathetic, into the realm of craven, futile depravity. …
However, it seems that no matter how many times it is explained that a thing formed from (bad) ideas – an ideology, and a group of people, identifiable by sex, are two distinct things, gender ideologues continue to conflate them. …
I don’t know if any of this makes any more sense in context, as I didn’t read the context. Let’s continue:
A year ago, I wrote an article focusing on the necessary public repudiation of violence, and the responsibility of open opposition to those who advocated or promoted a climate of acceptable violence, including those who openly advocate murder, such as a group of swedish feminists, and eugenics advocates on the squalid radical-hub. Statements from my original piece were quoted by at least one amoral zombie, and reframed to present my view as one which called for violence.
Of course, the author of those yellow pixels might not have realized that the original article, along with it’s unambiguous opposition to violence was posted on a site with substantially higher traffic than his own. The craven and stupid dishonesty of the quote-miner was apparent to all but a few, blinded by their own ideological goggles.
Oh, wait, I think those last two paragraphs were supposed to be about me. And I think they were supposed to refer to this post of mine, which took a look at a post of his that defended A Voice for Men’s “outing” of a group of Swedish feminists that the AVFM crew had decided, on the basis of a brief video promoting a theatrical production, were “murder advocates.” His post contained the following (unedited) paragraphs.
That’s right manboob, identifying a group of self-declared murder advocates to the public is more important than protecting those murder advocates from the consequences of advocating murder.
In the truth-is-fiction world of Futrelle’s mind, the men’s right advocates calling for public identification of a hate organization have been transmogrified into promoters of violence.
And what if they get killed David? What if rather than be arrested – as promoters of hate, and public advocates of murder, what if these depraved and murderous female supremacists come to harm at the hands of a citizen. If that happens, it will mean that a society’s system of law, designed to prevent hate organizations, and to allow redress of grievance through non violent due process is gone, wiped out by your ideology of violence and hate. That’s what you’re defending, David.
In my post, I quoted the final paragraph; here I have included the two preceding grafs to give it a bit more, what’s that word, context.
Of course, a couple of paragraphs by themselves are still kind of “out of context” I guess. Since I am pretty sure no one would like it if I simply pasted in the entire post from JtO here, I will instead direct you to his original post, here. You may make of it what you wish. I rather doubt that you will see it as a clearheaded treatise of nonviolence. Especially with that line: “And what if they get killed David?” (Which you can read in context above, or, again, in his original post. Let me link to it a sixth time here, just to make sure you know how to find his original words in context. Oops, that’s seven times now)
Interesting that a master debater of Mr. TheOther’s caliber somehow forgot to provide even one link to the controversy he was referring to, so people might be able to see for themselves what had happened, and judge his claims accordingly. I wonder why that might be?
I’ll skip the next bit in Mr. TheOther’s latest post, in which Mr.TheOther suggests that an opponent of his might have taken a quote of his out of context in a way that makes him look racist and homophobic. But since he offers no links to the actual discussion, there’s no way of judging whether this particular quote-mining claim is true. (Perhaps this discussion on the Men’s Rights subreddit could shed some light on it?)
In any case, if we put this particular discussion in a broader, er, context, there is certainly ample evidence of homophobia amongst the A Voice for Men crowd, as I have pointed out here and here. (Protip: If you want to convince people you are not homophobic, you should probably not feature a video mocking “lesbo-bos” in the sidebar of the site you help to run.)
Anyway, this next bit of his definitely has something or other to do with me:
Bottom feeding quote miners indulging in snarky feats of futrelian deceit likely do win rhetorical brownie points, at least when seen through their own ideological goggles. But they are cementing their own a public persona which will wear about as comfortably as klan robes do at a NAACP meeting. The altered landscape this movement is building is not someday, it is now, and it is coming faster all the time.
Uh, dude, my last name has two L’s in it. It should be “Futrellian deceit.” If you’re going to turn my name into a slur, at least spell it correctly.
For individuals in opposition to human rights of men and boys now, whether through lying, repetition of old, false dogmas, or the craven tactic of mis-represented and mis-attributed meaning, the comfort of a formerly one-sided monologue is over. The public squirming we see in attempts to render MRA voices silent or apologetic will escalate before it abates. But that’s okay.
Hey, Mr. TheOther. If you really want to prove my “futrelian” or even my “Futrellian” deceit, how about this: provide specific examples of me taking something you or some other MRA has written out of context in a way that distorts its meaning.
For your convenience, you can find all the Man Boobz posts that reference you here and here.
And for anyone who now has the song “Working In the Coal Mine” stuck in their head, here’s the Lee Dorsey original:
Return of the Sexy Robot Ladies, Part Two: Electric Boogaloo
Our glorious future
The sexy robot ladies are back! Not so much in real life, where they are still more scary than sexy, but in the fervid imagination of dudes who hate real ladies. Like Eric here, on The Spearhead:
When I first came to the MRM, there was a story in the news about a Japanese robotics engineer who had made a female android. It really wasn’t much more than a fairly realistic-looking doll; although there was quite a bit of discussion at the time for the potential to improve on the design. The main thing was that it’s invention caused a fury from the feminists. Even at that early stage in my MRA days, I could see the reason: for the first time women were looking the very real possibility that they could become expendable.
Well, “expendable” only if you view women as little more than support systems for their vaginas.
Personally, I’m more into foreign girls than virtual sex. But the same principle applies: as long as there are alternatives to feminists, the feminists are expendable. They don’t have the power to convert every woman on the planet; and even if they could they can’t stop men from building robots.
Please, build those robots, and lock yourselves away with them forever, and leave the rest of us alone.
Elsewhere in the same thread on The Spearhead we get some examples of why it’s a problem when Men Who Really Should Be Going Their Own way … don’t. A fellow calling himself Rmaxd apparently suggested that men who feel themselves to have been mistreated by the courts should: “Lynch a judge as you would any traitor or dictator.”
His comment was deleted, and heavily criticized — apparently for not being circumspect enough in his threatening language. After all, our dear friend JeremiahMRA got mostly upvotes on The Spearhead for a similarly threatening remark just the other day. And elsewhere in the very same thread as Rmaxd’s now-deleted comment we find a fellow called freebird suggesting that men who have allegedly suffered because of women should
share this pain with those inflicting it.
cue up “blood on the plow”
Meanwhile, again in the same thread, a commenter called walking in hell brings up the example of Thomas Ball, the MRA who self-immolated on the steps of a Keene, New Hampshire courthouse a year ago in hopes that his dramatic death would inspire other men to (quite literally) burn down police stations and courthouses using Molotov cocktails. (You can read Ball’s manifesto, complete with its call for MRA terrorism though without the specific instructions on how to make effective Molotov cocktails, on A Voice for Men, in its “activism” section; search the page for “burn” to go directly to his advocacy of terrorism.) Walking in hell also thinks family court judges should be “punished” for their alleged “crimes,” by which he means denying some fathers visitation.
[R]esponsibility for such heinous crimes against children can behold an individual to a special kind of punishment.
We see the nervous squirming by judges in the Australia case marked by the judge issuing an apology. We also see nervous squirming in the UK with the evildoers trying to issue fake political gestures to angry people.
The evildoers must smell something besides fire and brimstone. The sooner they get to the fire and brimstone, the better off children and fathers will be.
Apparently this vaguely threatening language was vague enough to pass muster on The Spearhead; this comment got more than a dozen upvotes.
The sooner you fuckers build those sexbots you like to talk about so much, the better for all of us.
Paul Elam: Call the Doctor!
Don’t go to THIS doctor, though. He does not seem very dedicated to his work.
Is there anything in the world that Paul Elam can’t blame on feminism? Apparently not.
In his latest post on A Voice for Men, Elam reports on a number of health problems he’s been dealing with – or not dealing with – for years. You see, despite chronic troubles with his gall bladder and with his breathing – which led to many ER visits over many years – Elam refused to get his gall bladder removed, or to give up smoking. For a while, he confesses, he was alternating puffs of cigarettes with hits from his Albuterol inhaler. But after numerous health scares, he reports, he’s finally dealing with his underlying issues, getting his gall bladder removed and weaning himself off the cigarettes.
I’m not going to mock him for any of this. Lots of people – especially men – have trouble pushing themselves to get the medical help they need. I’m one of them: the last time I went to the dentist it was because one of my teeth had gotten so rotten that a chunk of it broke off. There are a lot of mostly not-very good reasons I procrastinate about getting proper treatment for my health reasons, from simple denial to lack of funds. (Though, as I have sadly learned, waiting to go to the dentist until your teeth start breaking apart in your mouth does not actually save you money in the long run.)
Lots of guys won’t go to doctors because, as guys, they’ve been raised to believe they should grin and bear whatever pain they face. That’s one of the reasons feminists tend to criticize traditional notions of masculinity.
But for Elam, the problem is … feminism:
We live in a misandric culture, and often times, when we are scared enough or motivated by some other powerful force, we find that the root of the hatred is in the mirror staring back at us and mocking.
We men are raised with a sense of shame for having any needs. We are told, in fact, that we already have everything, and largely don’t deserve even the most basic of our needs for dignity, respect and love. If you look around in medical literature long enough, you will even see them shaming us for not going to the doctor more. Feminists have even used our tendency to neglect ourselves as a good reason to go full steam ahead with the unabashedly pro-female Obamacare.
This last charge is based on an almost completely delusional misreading of Obama’s health care legislation by our dear friend Antony Zarat. Elam continues:
And you can watch many men nod their heads in agreement with this crap. Sure, some of it is just the typical effects of feminist ideology on the brains of obsequious men, but there is something else at play here.
Can you guess what’s coming here? Yep, you got it, the motherfucking Titanic.
What made men willing to stand on the decks of sinking ships where their betters were loaded onto lifeboats? What makes men OK with being singled out for selective service? When is the last time you heard an average man point out to a woman who is whining that her great grandmother could not vote, that even today, unless a man signs an agreement with the government to use his body as cannon fodder, that he still won’t be allowed to vote?
Never mind that “women and children first” has never been official policy, nor even widely practiced. Never mind that feminists,while generally opposed to the draft, have lobbied for women as well as men to be subject to the same requirement to register for the draft. Never mind that the draft has been dead for decades. And never mind that exactly none of this is the fault of feminism.
We often have to point out to morons that being anti-feminist is not the same thing as being anti-woman. I think we would do well to remember from time to time that misandry is often not something done to us, but something we do to ourselves.
It is a monster that can live in any one of us, and often does. I have been doing battle with my own for a while. 25 years of consideration, soul searching and bucking the system and I am just now figuring out to go see a doctor when I have a problem.
Elam, dude: Despite your overweening narcissism, I have no trouble believing that on some level you hate yourself. Narcissism is often driven by insecurity, and no one who responds to even mild criticism with the level of rage that you do could be anything other than deeply insecure. But what you feel isn’t “misandry,” and feminists aren’t to blame. All that rage isn’t healthy for you. You should really get it checked out. And I’m not even joking.
Here’s Sleater-Kinney with “Call the Doctor,” though really only the title of the song is appropriate to the situation here.
ShitRedditSays has an Art Attack
Oh, ShitRedditSays! Not only are SRSers fighting the good fight against bigotry and assyness and general shitlordery on Reddit, but they also manage to come up with some of the best and most hilarious faux-propaganda graphics you’re likely to run across online, many of which are gathered together on the SRS FArtistry tumblr blog.
SRS being a bit of a circlejerk, the graphics are mainly designed to amuse other SRSers, and are full of in-jokes and references to the ridiculous reputation SRS has amongst Redditors at large as being the home to humorless man-hating Dworkinite feminazis eager to oppress helpless Straight White Males. By pelting them with dildoes.
Here, for example, is a lovely drawing illustrating how many Redditors actually see the unending battle between SRS (represented here by surly angels armed with purple dildoes) and the upstanding free-speech defenders of Reddit.
Other SRS graphics play on old propaganda tropes:
Still others are just excuses to make in-jokes. (For some reason, SRSers like to refer to dogs as “dags.”)
It’s interesting to see the contrast between SRS FArt and the, er, art generated by MRAs online. Here, for example, is a graphic taken from the Artistry Against Misandry site, a collection of “art” and “music” and even “poetry” from angry, art-, music- and poetry-challenged MRAs. AAM is heavily promoted on A Voice for Men; heck, Paul Elam recently sent them $100 of his own (supporters’) money to fight the (allegedly) good fight.
This hilarious piece of WTFery, if you haven’t figured it out already, is evidently supposed to be a picture of me. Or possibly Michael Moore. Whoever it’s supposed to be, I cackled with glee when I first saw it yesterday. (For future reference, I don’t own either a baseball cap or that particular kind of flogger.)
I will be exploring the vast artistic richness (sarcasm) of Artistry Against Misandry in several upcoming posts.
And after that I will highlight some of the magnificent art (not sarcasm) produced by some of Man Boobz’ own.
In the meantime, enjoy this one last bit of SRS FArtistry, which might be suitable for desktop wallpaper:
Banned in the MRA!
Well, I have been banned from the Men’s Rights subreddit, evidently for mentioning The Spearhead too often. And also, apparently, because of Lorena Bobbit? Honesty, I’m not sure I fully understand why I’m banned; I am pretty sure I haven’t breached any of the tenets of Reddiquette in any of my comments in r/mr. See if you can figure it out:
I’m also banned from A Voice for Men. And Toysoldier. Not sure about The Spearhead. I don’t think so, but there’s not really much point posting somewhere where all dissenting commenters (and most women) are downvoted so thoroughly that you have to click a special link to even see them. I might or might not be able to comment on other MRA blogs, I don’t know.
But honestly, the only Men’s Rights forum I really have (or had) any reason or desire to comment in is the Men’s Rights subreddit, because for all of its faults it’s really the only MRA forum of any size that’s not completely overrun with misogynists and fanatics. The only one where there is even a chance of holding any kind of substantive discussions with MRAs online. And Ig has shut that door, at least for me.
(There are of course many other places to discuss things with MRAs online, like, you know, here, and NSWATM, and so on, but these places aren’t run by MRAs.)
I asked Ig if he would also ban the guy who wished me liver cancer earlier today. I have not heard back from him yet.
EDITED TO ADD: Ig has gotten back to me. He recommends that I “go to hell.” Meanwhile, the liver-cancer wisher has reaffirmed his desire that I “catch” cancer.
Elsewhere in r/mr, another fellow describes me as “an accumulation of grunge far worse than any of the quotes you mine.” Which doesn’t make a lot of sense, but at least has a spark of originality to it.
Seen one feminist, seen them all.
Feminists are all exactly the same.
So our dear friend Fidelbogen, self-declared Counter-Feminist Agent of Change and the wannabe philosopher-king of the Men’s Rights movement, has written an exceedingly dull and verbose post for A Voice for Men rehashing the whole Agent-Orange-RadFemHub-thing. Now, it’s a lovely, slightly too-hot Sunday afternoon here at Man Boobz headquarters, so naturally I didn’t do much more than lightly skim the whole thing. But I did notice this interesting little “argument” part way through.
Apparently Fidelbogen has concluded that it’s perfectly fine for critics of feminism to completely ignore the ideas of most feminists and focus only on the dogmas of the most radical of RadFems:
We should lay to rest the silly notion that such feminists as these are only “fringe radicals” or “extremists”, and that we mustn’t judge the entire movement by them. My question is, why shouldn’t we judge the entire movement by them? Compared to them, what do the moderate feminists really add up to? Anything much? What does a heap of feathers amount to, compared to a cannon ball? What really fuels feminism, anyway? Is it driven relentlessly forward by mellowness and grooviness — by fun, fluffy, happy feelings? Or does it run, let us say, on pure hate, pure spite, pure malevolence, pure malignancy? Well, you get the idea: darker emotions?
That weird choice of alternatives at the end is pretty much a textbook example of a “false dichotomy.” You would think that someone with a brain as big as Fidelbogen’s would be able to recognize and avoid such an elementary logical fallacy.
Fidelbogen continues:
Say what you will, but I am partial to the old maxim that happy people don’t make history. And which is more, I’ve got some experience with feminists; I have studied them, as chaps like me will do, and I have logged a few years in this trade. And I can attest that feminists are all alike. Monolithic, you might say. They vary in superficialities, but under all those sheathing layers lies the high-conductive cable core on which the feminist message travels. It is the same message every time. Every feminist I have ever personally encountered, or been informed of, differs from the radfems we are now studying only in the strength of the underlying signal. One way or another, let them veil it ever so artfully, the message never skips a beat: “Men are the problem. . . men are the problem . . . men are the problem.”
Dude, “projection” ain’t just a river in Egypt.
Elam: Take My Male Privilege, Please!
Paul Elam, head ranter at A Voice for Men, has a new video out called “You want privilege? You got it!” The thesis: if women really did have the so-called privileges that men have, they’d hate it and want men to take them all back. Because all of these so-called privileges are really giant burdens. Or, as Elam puts it, somewhat more melodramatically, these privileges have “begun to more resemble an anchor around your neck than the helm of a great ship that everyone tells you that you are captaining.”
Here’s the video.
Well, all right, that’s not really Paul Elam. But that little clip does capture pretty well the tone of his latest post, which is indeed about how male privilege is really a terrible burden.
I mean, this is his opener:
I swear by everything holy that the next time I hear some fembot caterwaul about “male privilege,” I am going to find something to break, turn it into shards, and drag the broken pieces across my chest just to distract me from the pain of their increasing stupidity. Just picture me like Martin Sheen, collapsed in a heap of bloody, tearful insanity on the floor of a cheap hotel in Saigon.
Heck, compared to that, Mr. McDuck’s reaction to the news about his “ice cream” was, if anything, rather restrained.
The rest of Elam’s post is, as is typical for him, a rather trite recitation of a number of standard Men’s Rights talking points about male “disposability” written in some of the most ridiculously overblown prose ever seen outside of an Ayn Rand novel.
Elam complains that he hasn’t seen much benefit from his privileges:
Mind you I still don’t know what that privilege is. One time when I was young and very poor I was late on my light bill. I showed the electric company my balls, but they cut my power off anyway. …
Yeah, as someone who’s also had his power cut off, I’m pretty sure they do that with everyone. I’m also pretty sure that no feminist has ever or will ever argue that male privilege means you won’t get your power cut off for nonpayment.
Here’s Elam addressing women as if they’ve traded place with men:
With your privilege comes the right to work on crab boats, drive trucks, work on electric lines, walk into burning buildings and sink into the bowels of the earth digging out coal and other things people find useful.
Apparently having greater occupational choices is scary and bad.
When a ship goes down, or any other life threatening disaster strikes, you have two choices. Be a real woman and die, or treat your life like it has value and have the world shit on you as a coward who refused to perish on cue. There is also the possibility of third option, either die from the disaster so that men can live, or have another woman blow a fucking hole in your face with a pistol because you tried to save yourself.
Yeah, I believe we may have addressed this earlier. Oh, but there’s more:
Like noticing the emperor has no clothes, it may hit you one day when you decide not to offer your seat to a man; when the stares at you from all around seem to come down people’s noses. …
You must learn not to say a word. Not to anyone else, not even to yourself. You must learn to see flames, coal dust, icy saltwater, death and sacrifice for the trappings of power that the world around you thinks them to be.
Says a dude typing out his manifestos on an expensive laptop he conned nagged his followers into buying for him.
And you must be willing to hang your head in shame over that power, even as the world chews you up, spits you out, and gets ready to take its turn with your daughter.
Elam’s rousing conclusion:
So, that is it, ladies. You want my privilege, it is yours. I will gladly hand it over to you this very minute. I am just waiting for you to meet the pre-requisites of disposibilty and an utter lack of self-value. I am waiting for you to woman up to the job, take off your fucking make up and be ready to bleed, blah blah blah look at me I’m mad!
I paraphrased a little at the end there. But, yes, the world champion at seeing male “disposability” everywhere did in fact misspell the word “disposability.” That was all him. And so, believe it or not, is the following:
I, like a Jew gone weary of being called a chosen one, am completely ready for anyone else, and in particular, you, to be chosen.
Personally, I have had about all the privilege I can stand.
Yep. He went there.
Also, I don’t know if you all knew this, but when women serve in the military these days it’s “like a day care camp for them.”
Also, not to pat myself on the back or anything, but my headline is much better than his. Maybe he should get me to write all the headlines on A Voice for Angry Duck Plutocrats Men.
Discuss.
JohntheOther: I totally didn’t lie about Rebecca Watson, Take Two
Totally not a liar. Whatever is coming out of his mouth here, it most definitely is not a bunch of lying lies.
Hey, you remember that thing the other day, when A Voice for Men’s second banana JohntheOther said some awful things about evil feminist atheist Rebecca Watson because she made a joke at a conference and he didn’t realize it was a joke?
And then he said he didn’t realize it was a joke, even though she explicitly revealed it was a joke in the video of hers he said he watched ? And so then he tried to pretend explain that he hadn’t watched the whole video, even though he had clearly downloaded the whole thing and incorporated parts of it in his video?
Well, now it turns out that some of the parts of her video he used in his video, well, they included the bit where she revealed the joke. Only – OOPS! – John just happened to edit that part out.
Unsophisticated folks might conclude from this that JohntheOther is a lying liar who lies about his lies. And that maybe he should henceforth be known as JohntheLiar.
But no. Apparently, as JoththetotallynotaLiar explains in a new video, he was just so, so convinced that Rebecca was a mean evil sociopath that he just didn’t realize what she was saying! He basically thought she was babbling nonsense, making a complete non-sequitur, so he cut it out of his video.
I mean, a feminist making a joke? Instead of being a mean evil sociopath? Beep Boop does not compute! His complete inability to understand the words that were coming out of her mouth? That was just good old confirmation bias at work, he explains in the video.That’s his actual explanation: he’s not a liar, just someone — to phrase it a bit more bluntly than he is willing to — who is so blinded by his own ideology that he cannot tell that a joke is a joke, even when someone announces that it is a joke.
He goes on to explain that it would be “illogical” to conclude that he is a liar because, come on, who would lie so blatantly, knowing that they would be caught?
And then he eats a baby.
Oops! My bad! I watched the video again, and it turns out he does not in fact eat a baby. Instead, at this point in the video, he apologizes to Watson for calling her a sociopath. I blame confirmation bias for causing me to misinterpret the video at this point. The apology seemed like a total non-sequitur to me, so naturally I saw it as him eating a baby.
In reality, what happens is that he apologizes to Watson, and then he eats a baby.
Here’s the video.
Oops! Mea culpa! Here’s the video, for reals:
EDITED TO ADD: It turns out that after eating the baby apologizing to Watson for calling her a sociopath in the video, John told one of the commenters that he still thinks she’s a sociopath. So his apology wasn’t really much of an apology after all, was it? It wasn’t even a “sorry if you were offended” fauxpology. Since he was apologizing for saying something that he still believes and that he went on to repeat, it’s really more of a liepology.
