>
 |
| Please, no monologuing. |
I have added a few new comment guidelines, and clarified one of the old ones. Please read. I think these will help to curtail some of the derailing that goes on in the comments here, and will help those who want to have actual substantive discussions.
As anyone who comments here knows, I like to be as hands-off as possible with comment moderation, and I don’t censor people for disagreeing with me. But I will be more aggressive in the future in dealing with those who seem more interested in disrupting or monologuing than discussing, and those who repeatedly misrepresent what others say.
>What about the litany of false allegations and insinuations about abuse and rape thats directed against the politically incorrect group David?
>Well I hope this new moderation policy will also apply for comments from feminists against MRAs.One of them was calling me recently 'liar, full of shit, hypocrite' …
>So feminsts not "winning" enough arguments so time to change the rules again, eh David?Random Brother
>David, out of innocent curiosity how many feminist comments have you deleted? I can't help but notice that feminists will often post personal attacks, but your eyes seem to have a disease of some sort – you miss them!Additionally, you claim that posters can't put "words in other people's mouths." Are you aware that you very selectively screen out what you choose to represent the entire Men's Rights Movement, filtering anything which does not fit your feminist paradigm?I'd really appreciate if you didn't just make some petty excuse like "I complained about one comment, we're beyond done, etc." The problem with the feminist movement is that it's so closed and private to any form of open, unbiased discussion. That conduct is much of what fuels a lot of the vitriol against feminism and its beneficiaries, the results benefiting nobody.
>I don't delete many posts. The vast majority of those I HAVE deleted have been spam posts from one person containing the word "cunt." Beyond that I have only deleted a small number of posts containing offensive personal attacks and/or slurs. And one today that was an attack based on a blatant falsehood. As of right now, there are 2696 comments on my blog, most of them, I believe, from MRAs. Aside from the dozens of comments from the spammer I mentioned, and a couple of special cases (Paul Elam, who has banned me on his blog, and one other blogger who has reposted things of mine without permission), I have deleted perhaps a dozen comments in all. You can calculate the percentage yourself. Most of the deleted posts contained the words "cunt" and/or "faggot," or other slurs, and/or obscene, vicious personal attacks. Not just personal attacks. I generally let those stand, regardless of who posts them, so long as they are not obscene, vicious, full of slurs, etc. So far none of the dozen non-spam comments I've deleted have come from feminists. Why? Because no feminist here has ever posted anything as obscene or vicious as the comments I have deleted. I have WARNED feminists and anti-feminists alike about personal attacks and other things that could get their comments deleted, and in most cases people have backed off and I haven't had to delete anything.
>Just to clarify: I have deleted ONE comment from Elam. The comments he posted here before he banned from his blog still stand. (He, meanwhile, puts all the comments he doesn't like on a special "feminists and manginas" page.)
>David, where do you stand on the women here that keep falling back on false allegations about rape and/or abuse?
>@Yohan You've called me several names, including a pathological liar. It's not a slur if it's true, isn't that what you said to me? And you have been hypocritical and delibrately lied.Also, the previous comment policy clearly stated that calling someone out on their BS e.g. an idiot, liar, etc. was okay, as long as you didn't call them a fag or cunt or otherwise. In fact, the new comment policy doesn't seem to have revoked this either. Delibrate misrepresentation of what someone has said is wholely different than direct quotations that illustrate hypocrisy and lying…..IOW, you want to be able to dish it out, but can't take any of it yourself…. In that case, you can always go back to MGTOW and the spearhead and other MPA sites where your beliefs and comments won't be challenged instead of trolling this particular feminist blog.@DavidI always try to follow the comment policy and will continue to do so with the new rules. 🙂
>See now Tec thinks she is exempt on being modded for using allegations about rape and abuse as her default argument and will be protected from being called out when she is telling lies about people.
>Yohan, calling someone "full of shit" or "hypocrite" or "liar" is harsh rhetoric, but I'm not going to delete comments for that. You can call people "full of shit" or "hypocrite" or "liar" if you want.Indeed, if I were to delete every comment in which someone called someone else a liar, I'd have to delete the comment from Eoghan immediately before yours. That said, if someone says "you lied about this specific thing," and their claim about what you said is clearly factually incorrect, I'll delete those comments. (I won't go back and delete past comments, but anything in the future along these lines I will.)I can't fact-check every comment everyone makes on this blog. But if someone makes a specific claim about something you've said that you can show (or that I can see) is demonstrably false, tell me about it, and I will delete the comment. (I'm not going to go back and delete old comments, but this applies to anything posted since I changed the comment policy.) And of course if someone escalates beyond basic rhetorical stuff like "full of shit" into harsh, nasty personal attacks, I will delete those comments too. Eoghan: I'm not going to fact-check every comment. If in the future you can cite specific claims made by feminists here about SOMETHING SOMEONE ELSE HERE SAID that are false, I will delete those comments. General statements about MRAs, feminists, etc don't count. People are free to make generalizations about groups of people. You are as well, and you certainly do it often enough.
>Eoghan: you say "Tec thinks she is exempt on being modded for using allegations about rape and abuse as her default argument and will be protected from being called out when she is telling lies about people." Give me specific examples. Your comment makes a specific claim about what she said, and if you can't beck it up, guess what — YOUR COMMENT falls afoul of the new guidelines. I won't delete it, but any comments you make along these lines in the future about a specific person will be deleted, unless you can cite specific examples of them doing that.This of course applies to anyone (feminists too) if they make this kind of claim about a specific person without backing it up with specific evidence.
>TEC: @Yohan You've called me several names, including a pathological liar. It's not a slur if it's true, isn't that what you said to me? No, I did never say that. Maybe Eoghan? I am YOHAN, a different person, and I said several times I do not know, who is Eoghan.
>David, tec routinely insinuates that other posters are pro rape and abuse, its all over the board.A problem with your policy here is that the first port of call for many feminists in debates with mens rights people is to allege and insinuate that they are pro abuse, pro rape and have an irrational desire to control women under the threat of violence, this new policy of yours has been generated by my response to a feminist publishing her beliefs about american men wanting to control foreign women, for example. In order for you run this fairly, you will have to mod feminists more than the mens rights people as the mens rights people have a different debating style.Miranda yesterday for example, here argument with me was based on misrepresenting and it devolved into her making allegations of abuse, claims that women were hiding because of harassment, sexual slurs and comments about physical appearance, and its still up.
>Eoghan, I'm not going to dig up old posts of Tec's. If you want to continue making these claims about her, YOU have to provide specific evidence. Same with Miranda. Did she make these claims about specific commenters here? Give me links to the comments.
>YohanI called Tec a pathological liar for repeatedly re framing others comments and misrepresenting them as pro abuse, pro rape, rape apology and so on.
>David here is some of miranda's contribution from yesterday,http://manboobz.blogspot.com/2010/11/women-are-part-one.html
>Eoghan, Miranda did not make specific claims about anyone who posts here. She made generalizations about MRAs. You make generalizations about feminists all the time, and I don't delete those comments. One exception: Miranda made a sort of obnoxious personal comment about Natasha, in response to a sort of obnoxious personal comment about her from Natasha. Neither of the comments were quite obnoxious enough for me to delete. In the future, you need to cite SPECIFIC POSTS to prove your point. I'm not going to go through whole threads only to discover that your complaint had no merit to it.
>Also, Eoghan, if you want to continue attacking Tec and/or other feminists who comment here, you need to provide specific examples of her and/or other feminists commenting here doing what you say she/they has/have said.If you don't I'm simply going to delete any future comments about feminists' alleged "false allegations about rape," as you've made your point about 7 million times already and your comments are basically devolving into spam.
>I'm sorry the blog has to be moderated, but hopefully, it will cut down on the deliberate harassment some posters enjoy dishing out. I think that Eoghan needs to start his own blog that he can have control over so he will stop trying to control yours.
>Miranda—> Obnoxious.Wow, that's the first time anyone's ever used that word in conjunction with me or my behavior. LOL.Eoghan, sadly you guys are smart enough to hide behind the computer using fake personas. Otherwise I'd love to cite specifically the things you've said on the forums. (Unless of course, you go by "Eoghan" on all the forums, in which case maybe I should go back and grab some of the comments YOU'VE made so that you can then try to justify those the same as you justfiy all behavior by MRA's.) If it were one or two people making disgusting comments about women, as you guys insist it is, it would be one thing. But the hate is all over the boards, and it is right there for all to see, and sadly for you guys, most people are as disgusted by it as I am.
>How's it going David? You doing okay? Life good bro? So. . .blog not quite working out the way you expected now is it? Before this all began, you were probably sitting back thinking, Dave old boy, if I made a blog that totally disses MRA's feminists would find me so hot! They'd be all over me! I'll just dis some of these losers and oh man, jackpot with the ladies!Look at you now. Ah, David, going downhill already are you? You know what your mistake was Davey? Well first you got too big for your backside. You challenged Paul Elam and well. . .OUCH, MAN OUCH. It wasn't so much he crushed you under his heel, more like he literally tore you apart atom from atom. Then even worse a flood of MRA's came to your site and started figuratively slapping you and the fems around. Kind of hard to be a white knightt when you spend most of your time on the ground bleeding from the mouth. So then you wise up and make everyone register to close the gates some and save your bruised backside from the MRA'S who were stooge slapping you all over your site. Good call. Unfortunately, not all of the MRA's left and the ones that remain are still kicking the crud out of your "Oh mah gawd luk at teh M R A'zzzzz, aren't dey stupids gurlfrend!" posts. So now you have to once again change policy. You know Davey, if your pro feminism arguments were so strong, they might be able to stand on their own. Nonetheless, you have to change the policy and it stinks of desperation. To that I say HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! A shame you can't develop your own sense of justice without needing a woman to pat you on the head.You know you're eventually going to have to ban us like the coward you are, right? That or make so many rules (ones that you may threaten feminists with but only actually enforce on MRA'S) that the conversation from MRA'S is so limited (this is what your trying to do now) that the only possible outcome is MRA'S looking bad and feminists looking good. Which honestly is how most feminists operate.So, Davey, go for it! Make some more changes. Keep whitling away and whitling away until you can salvage some dignity, with a tainted "victory" over the "evil patriarchy." Maybe some fem will even find you hot and pat you on the head. And if you get that then it's all worthwhile, eh David?Good boy! Good boy! Good boy!Random Brother
>I love how MRA's think they're "winning" with the stuff they write on this blog.
>@ChristineI define winning an argument, if that's what you're getting at, as a systematic and acceptable refutation of a statement or claim which the unbiased observer would find convincing. I agree, it shouldn't just be hosted on some feminists blog which is insures its permanency will be volatile, but some of the MRAs have sites or even just online personae to advertise. This is kind of a training ground for us to sharpen our rhetoric and debate.I'm sorry if all that went over your head. It is a response but it's more addressed to the other MRAs and the unbiased observers on this site than to you.
>@YohanI could have sworn it was you, and I'm not going to go back through your posts, but yeah, you're names are very similar for me so apologies if it wasn't you who called me a pathelogical liar. You have said something along the lines of it's not a slur if it's true and I have pointed out specific quotations that you wrote and denied existing and/or reading…@EoghanIf you post something that is pro-rape or pro-abuse, then yeah, I'm gonna point it out as being such but that's all I've ever done. So yeah, like David said, if you have the posts to prove what you say, then show them. @BishopYeah, David has torn to shreds every BS argument you MPAs have come up with, with quite a bit of style… Also, gotta love how the only way a guy could be a feminist – i.e. think of women as human beings – would be in order to get sex (of course, because women only give sex, not for their own sexual gratification, but to control men.) *eye rolls Out of curiousity, does everything a man does boil down to sex? Or is that just a consequence of the Two Rules of Desire meme? Of course, if you think women are human beings or that men are human beings, you don't believe BS like the Two Rules of Desire…
>should be your names