>
 |
| Spearhead readers: Not actually as cool as Fonzie. |
When sites enable users to upvote and downvote comments and posts, the rationale is generally that it improves discussion and filters out trolls. In practice, this is almost never the case; instead, the up and down arrows offer the majority a way to reward those who simply rehash the party line and punish those who dare suggest anything even remotely challenging. This punishment is accentuated on sites on which dissenters who are downvoted beyond a certain threshold see their comments literally vanish, unless readers click a special link to make them visible again.
We’ve seen in the past the sorts of things that get massively upvoted on The Spearhead. A comment suggesting that “a woman’s vagina/body is her one and only asset” got, at last count, 58 upvotes and only 4 downvotes. Comments suggesting that women are “parasites,” “dumb as bricks,” incapable of logic or empathy each got dozens of upvotes and only a handful of downvotes, as did comments suggesting that women should never have been given the right to vote. Heck, one recent comment suggesting that Daniel Hernandez was “a traitor to men” for helping to save Gabrielle Giffords’ life got twice as many upvotes as downvotes. (As I pointed out in a recent post, there were actually a number of comments in that vein; they all got more upvotes than downvotes)
So if these sorts of comments get upvoted, the question arises: what sort of horrible, beyond-the-pale nuttiness actually invites downvotes on the site? Well, in a recent guest posting there, someone calling himself Big Daddy From Cincinnati offered some (not really very good) internet dating advice for the misogynist masses. Along the way he opined that “women are amoral creatures, flakes, and they will reject you for anything, everything, nothing, the phase of the moon, or who knows what. They will lead you on and waste your time … . ”
While most commenters seemed to agree with this characterization of the ladies, one anonymous gal suggested instead that:
Yep, you can practically hear the Spearhead guys furiously downvoting that bit of heresy. What an outlandish opinion, clearly the work of an evil, misandrist troll! Probably a lesbian, too. I mean, what kind of crazy man-hating monster would she have to be not to be utterly smitten by the Spearhead men?
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
>I've seen the up/downvote system work in some cases, but you have to have a good commentariat for that to be successful. Salt Lake Tribune used to do this; I wonder why they stopped.
>This is the problem with parents and teachers who tell their children, 'You're perfect just the way you are.' The get surprised and pissed off when they find out that they actually have to do things like be nice to people and have social skills and care about what other people want in order to have friends and get dates.
>I think it's more of an terrible fear of failure. If they don't try very hard and don't even attempt to make genuine connections with the people they date then it's not their fault when it doesn't work out. In fact, they said from the beginning that they knew it would not work out, so every bad experience just confirms their view of the world. It's like they are choosing to fail because succeeding is scary. God-damn it, Dave, I don't want to feel sorry for these motherfuckers; look what you've gone and done.
>I don't feel sorry for them, Hide and Seek. Having another person desire intimacy with you is a privilege, and it has to be earned. At the same time, it's really not that hard to earn it. If they can't do the minimum necessary to get into someone's pants, they would do the gene pool a huge favor by never reproducing.
>I don't know, Amused, I'm not convinced that it is that black and white. A lot of those gentlemen seem to really want fulfilling relationships but are going about finding them in a way that almost ensures they won't succeed.They made me think of this Ben Franklin quote: "Love anything and your heart will be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact you must give it to no one, not even an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements. Lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket, safe, dark, motionless, airless, it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. To love is to be vulnerable." 🙁
>But I'm totally ambivalent about empathizing with people who hate me. That's bullshit.
>Hide and Seek, this song sums it up for me:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVLFlkehGuU
>Their problems go way beyond a simple fear of failure. These are an entitled group of men whining about women having basic rights and freedoms and their idea of a decent woman is one who will obey and cater to them. I don't feel sorry for them.
>"Having another person desire intimacy with you is a privilege, and it has to be earned. At the same time, it's really not that hard to earn it."If you're a woman. If you're a man, "earning" intimacy can be a life or death proposition.
>I don't know, you have to fight hate with love, otherwise, what are you doing?Or so my aging hippie parents told me. I should give 'em a call.
>Deezee, I've read that Baumeeister piece, but I'm not going to go through the whole thing to see why intimacy for a man is a "life or death proposition" and isn't for women. So why don't you just explain your logic here.
>" For women throughout history (and prehistory), the odds of reproducing have been pretty good. Later in this talk we will ponder things like, why was it so rare for a hundred women to get together and build a ship and sail off to explore unknown regions, whereas men have fairly regularly done such things? But taking chances like that would be stupid, from the perspective of a biological organism seeking to reproduce. They might drown or be killed by savages or catch a disease. For women, the optimal thing to do is go along with the crowd, be nice, play it safe. The odds are good that men will come along and offer sex and you’ll be able to have babies. All that matters is choosing the best offer. We’re descended from women who played it safe. For men, the outlook was radically different. If you go along with the crowd and play it safe, the odds are you won’t have children. Most men who ever lived did not have descendants who are alive today. Their lines were dead ends. Hence it was necessary to take chances, try new things, be creative, explore other possibilities. Sailing off into the unknown may be risky, and you might drown or be killed or whatever, but then again if you stay home you won’t reproduce anyway. We’re most descended from the type of men who made the risky voyage and managed to come back rich. In that case he would finally get a good chance to pass on his genes. We’re descended from men who took chances (and were lucky)."
>I don't think its a bad thing to find ourselves feeling empathy for our enemies. One of the great failings of the MRA movement is it's utter lack of anything even remotely resembling empathy for someone who is not also an MRA. By coming to empathize with those we oppose, we will be able to understand them. And through understanding them, we will be able to counter them.
>I like how Big Daddy provides the proverbial lament:"Do NOT take online dates out to dinner. Some girls use online dating that to get beta chumps to buy them dinner and have an audience for their babbling on the nights when they are not getting fucked bowlegged by that scamp of an itinerant alpha male in their life…Buying dinner also brands you as a beta-backup-plan when she can no longer attract the alpha attention and pounding that she will never tell you that she craves, or when Mr. Rogue Alpha and his magic hoo-hoo-dilly are out of town for the weekend."and then right on the heels of that, offers the timely advice of why to meet the girl for coffee at, say, a bookstore:"If the girl who shows up is much more fat or fugly than you anticipated, you can duck behind the shelves and casually exit the establishment without having to spend any time on a Date from Hell. Much better to go home and skin it back yourself than to waste time talking in public to a chick who you would be embarrassed to have your buddies know that you boned."Yeah, my heart bleeds for these guys.
>Dave – how come none of the whacky zany comments you pull from no-name forums with no-name nics like "nightranger37" aren't also trolls on those forums and blogs?Lemme guess – you'll get back to me on that.For all we know – all the wacky comments you keep pulling from dead threads on forums are – YOU.Funny – when I click on the links to see the forums you talk about – I can't – as I am not a member of any of them…Yet – neither you are any of your feminist minions have pointed that out… (complained about not being able to view the links because they are not members)…This tells me that you – and the feminists who post here – MUST be members on those forums.Wisdom and logic -sucks don't it.It would not surprise me if this message didn't go through like almost all my others.
>Deezee, we discussed this issue before. The reason for this is basically that high-status men had sex with — which in many cases means that they raped — a lot of women. Ghengis Khan's DNA is literally everywhere. It's not like women in male-dominated cultures had a lot of choice. And what is "life and death" about not spreading one's DNA far and wide? I'm not planning on having any kids. Neither are a lot of women I know. Big fucking deal. I suppose in genetic terms this means "death" but in real-world terms it means, uh, I don't want kids, and I don't have any. Seems like I'm actually getting what I want. Yay birth control!
>To Christine WE:They have no problems approaching women and they are not afraid of being rejected (They don't suffer from Social Anxiety/Social Phobia/Shyness). They believe they are entitled to women and because women don't want them, they hate women. That's the reason many of these guys try to become PUA, they believe they will be able to trick women.
>"how come none of the whacky zany comments you pull from no-name forums with no-name nics like "nightranger37" aren't also trolls on those forums and blogs?"Many of those I quote have posted literally thousands of posts on these forums — all of which are highly trafficked forums. I've never met a troll that dedicated. And their comments are responded to favorably by other posters there. And elsewhere: If you go back to the Mousetrap Vagina post, I added a bit at the end about how Nightstorm's comments had gotten lavish praise on MarkyMark's blog. Is MarkyMark a troll? Don't think so.That positive response, after all, is the whole point of this post: the crazy shit is upvoted by DOZENS of people on The Spearhead, which by the way is one of the most highly trafficked sites in the "manosphere" and doesn't require you to register in order to see comments. You can go and check each one mentioned in this post if you want. The post I screencapped has picked up 20 more downvotes since I screencapped it, and only 6 more upvotes.
>I've been hanging out on OK Cupid lately and I can see some of these guys on the path to MRA-dom right before my very eyes. And it really does start with a very basic sense of entitlement — I've done this thing that women are supposed to find attractive, why aren't they rewarding me? (their self-provided answer is normally a variation of "because women are stupid and incapable of reaching the logical conclusion that they should reward me.")The comment sections of the Journals on OKC are dominated by "misandrist trolls" (a guy posted a journal just today dedicated to them by that name), who are pretty good at pointing out this sense of entitlement and other attitudinal errors that stand in the way of making a decent match. It's amazing how little the guys get it. These are men who one would think are not so far gone that they're beyond the reach of an intervention. But after watching several of these encounters, I'm starting to think the tipping point is much earlier than I previously thought. And yes, I find it very difficult to feel sorry for them. The cure for their misery is right in front of them but they refuse to take it.
>You just evaded the question:How come none of your minions have complained about not being able to view the forum threads – because they are not members.Clearly – they are members – and hence – trolls.A troll that is devoted?I am guessing that the womyn here that are so eager to "mock" these posts are in fact the ones leaving such posts.Are they also the ones pointing them out to you Dave?And how on Earth do you find the time to browse those forums with so many damned topics and replies and whatnot – and you come up with that one gem – like finding a needle in a haystack.My Aunt's Hat.I am seeing through this now.FRAUD.Clearly – you and your followers are members on those forums – and leaving those comments yourselves – that is how you find them so readily.I am going to expose you as the fraud you are.Perhaps get some of those forum runners to block your IP or IP's.If there is any douchebaggery in those circles – I think I know now where it is coming from.
>ScareCrow, I just made my first ever visit to Spearhead. I'm about 20 comments deep on that internet dating article. If you are to be believed, then 19 out of 20 of those comments are actually trolls. You are seriously fucking deluded.
>*hands out popcorn for when Scarecrow finds the smoking gun to David's supposed trolling*I would suggest holding our breath but we would all pass out before he did.
>Nice try Sophia. You and I both know I am not talking about the spearhead.I am talking about the really zany comments from the forums that you need to be a member in order to view the threads.Nice try.FAIL.You too Elizabeth.FAIL.
>P.S. Sophia X – profile not available.Elizabeth – bogus AOL link.Nice try.FAIL
>Scarecrow: Honestly, I don't think many people actually click on the links in my articles. Indeed, looking back through my old postings to prepare this post, I noticed a couple of the links were broken (blogger sometimes randomly adds a "blogger.com" url in front of the urls I try to post), and no one mentioned that. As for finding these "needles in a haystack," well, these crazy comments are EVERYWHERE on these sites. It's more like finding one of 1000 giant metal spikes in a small haystack. Link me to any random recent article on The Spearhead, and I guarantee you I can find you some crazy misgogyny in the comments there. Also, sometimes I use a forum's search functions to find posts on certain topics. OMG!