Categories
antifeminism douchebaggery manginas MGTOW misandry misogyny MRA oppressed men paul elam threats violence against men/women

>If you don’t agree with me, angry dudes will kick your ass

>

Anyone who’s seen Taxi Driver will remember Travis Bickle’s late night soliloquy on the “whores, skunk pussies, buggers, queens, fairies, dopers, [and] junkies” he saw every night driving his cab. “Someday,” he told himself, “a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets.”

Of course — SPOILER ALERT! — what he really meant by “a real rain” coming was that he, Travis Bickle, would lose his shit and start shooting people.

Bickle wasn’t the only one to mix his predictions with a heaping helping of threat. Those who predict the end of the world at the hand of gods or men or some vague terrible cataclysm are all too often rooting (secretly or openly) for the civilization-destroyers they are ostensibly warning against. We saw this the other day amongst those MGTOWers who are now talking giddily about how complete economic collapse will serve to put foolish women and their “mangina” pals in their proper place.

And we see it again and again in the Men’s Rights movement, when MRAs sternly warn their detractors that if people don’t start listening to them, and pronto, the men of the world will rise up and, well,  kick the shit out of everyone who opposes them. This is a warning only in the sense that a mafioso telling someone that, if he doesn’t pay what he owes, his legs just might possibly get broken, is a warning; by all reasonable definitions, it is a threat. As opposed to the leg-breaking, the threats of these MRAS aren’t very specific threats, but they’re threats of violence nonetheless.

I ran across one recent example of this sort of “warning” in the comments to Paul Elam’s piece on misandry — or at least what he labels misandry — in the Good Men Project’s package on the Men’s Rights movement. (My own contribution to the debate is here.) Here’s “Factory,” responding to another commenter who pointed out that some of his wording in an earlier comment had been awfully violent:

Who said I was interested in proving I wasn’t violent?

In point of fact, I continually warn people that if these issues are not MEANINGFULLY addressed, and soon, there will be a LOT of violence (see: Middle East) that we MRAs won’t be able to stop.

And frankly, if it comes to that, society (and all the women in it along with the men) flat out DESERVES whatever is coming.

Your hubris as a movement is causing a lot of men to be angry. You all vastly underestimate both the anger, and the ubiquitous nature of this anger.

We MRAs do nothing except act as weather vane and map. That’s why we have no central authority, or funding, or organization of any kind. We are average guys mad enough to stand up like we do. There are a LOT more guys that are just as mad, but content to let others lead.

And there are a growing number of men that take Feminist (and ‘official’) dismissal of mens issues as indication that ONLY violent revolution will lead to change.

And speaking for myself, if it ever comes to violence, I will stand aside, and feel bad while all manner of nasty things are done…but I won’t lift a FINGER to stop it.

Just like people like you are doing right now.

Notice the not-so-subtle, and rather thoroughly bungled, rhetorical sleight of hand here. Factory paints the violence as something he won’t indulge in (but won’t stop) — forgetting that in the very first sentence he admitted that he was himself violent. He refers to MRAs as little more than a “weather vane” for male emotion — but somehow later in the paragraph they are leading things. He claims that he will “feel bad while all manner of nasty things are done,” but this is only after stating in no uncertain terms that he thinks “society … flat out DESERVES whatever is coming.”

So, yeah, this is as much a “warning” as the hypothetical mafioso’s reference to broken legs.

Naturally, Elam himself stepped up to second Factory’s emotion, declaring that “[m]en, when disenfranchised and pushed to the edge, have frequently become violent.”

On his own site, Elam has been much more frankly threatening. Recently, telling off one commenter who had the temerity to actually question the gospel according to Elam, he finished off a long rant about male anger with this:

I would not suggest that treating half the population, the stronger half at that, with too much continuing disregard is a very good idea.

Thinking they will never come out swinging is a stupid, stupid way to go.

This kind of logic might best be called the Appeal to an Ass-kicking. The structure of this argument could be broken down as follows:

1) Source A says that p is true
2) If you don’t agree that p is true, Source A (or perhaps some other dudes) will do you bodily harm.
3) Therefore, you’d better fucking agree that p is true.

This is probably the oldest and crudest form of logic there is, and one that is popular amongst many animals as well. (My cat is a master of it, at least when p = “you will give me treats now.”)

Perhaps the best way to respond to it is the way that the commenter calling herself fannie responded to Factory on the Good Men Project:

You’re arguing that men are going to be so angry they’re not going to be able to control their rage and are therefore going to start inflicting mass amounts of violence upon others.

I’m not sure a feminist could be more defamatory of men than you are being.

MRAs sure are misandrist.

I, and feminists like me, think men are better than that.

Me too.

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.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

109 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Alex_P
9 years ago

>And what makes them think that men would take their side? I'm a weight-lifting feminist male, and chances are good I could kick the shit out of these shut-ins.Also, gotta dig how the Middle East is about Men's Rights. Keep thinking that, guys.

Pam
Pam
9 years ago

>Perhaps the best way to respond to it is the way that the commenter calling herself fannie responded to Factory on the Good Men ProjectI enjoyed Elam's response to the above… here is a portion of that brief response:"And Annie, you might want to consult at least one history book. Men, when disenfranchised and pushed to the edge, have frequently become violent."First, he has to address her by a name other than the name that she has chosen (wow, what a needling he's giving her!).Then he comes up with a very good reason why we really should question why the majority of positions of authority are given to men … if they don't get their own way, they will resort to violence.And what, when women are disenfranchised and pushed to the edge we should just roll over and take it as the "natural order of things"? Oh, that's right, women have NEVER been disenfranchised, marginalized and pushed to the edge, we just got caught in the grips of some kind of mass hysteria that made us believe that we haven't always been hyperprivileged.

Cold
9 years ago

>Oh my fucking science, you are really grasping at straws now. While your general description of argumentum ad bacculum is correct, "p" is supposed to be some kind of assertion like "the sun is bigger than the moon".This is argumentum ad bacculum:1) Biff says that the sun is bigger than the moon.2) If you don't agree that the sun is bigger than the moon, Biff will kick your ass.3) Therefore, you'd better fucking agree that the sun is bigger than the moon.This, however, is NOT argumentum ad bacculum:1) MRAs want you to stop treating men as second-class citizens.2) If you don't stop, a bunch of MRAs will make you stop through the use of violent force.3) Therefore, you'd better fucking stop treating men as second-class citizens.Notice that the "p" is not an assertion at all; it's a demand. Really, I shouldn't even have to explain this to someone who graduated from college. You should go back to your alma mater and demand a refund. Unless, of course, you already knew this and were being deliberately dishonest, which wouldn't surprise me at all.

Captain Bathrobe
9 years ago

>Note the pervasive sense of victimization, the scapegoating of a particular (historically oppressed) group, and the belief in the regenerative powers of violence. Sorry for the Godwin, but they would resemble brownshirts if they, you know, actually did anything. Inb4 some clever person types "Oh yeah? Well, that's what feminists do!"

Cold
9 years ago

>Inb4 X has no bearing on the truth of X.

Captain Bathrobe
9 years ago

>Oh, that's right, women have NEVER been disenfranchised, marginalized and pushed to the edge, we just got caught in the grips of some kind of mass hysteria that made us believe that we haven't always been hyperprivileged. Pam, I think that's a fair summation, non-ironically, of what they believe.

Captain Bathrobe
9 years ago

>Evidence has a bearing on the truth of X, and evidence is what I've never seen satisfactorily presented to back up outrageous claims like "men are treated like second class citizens."

Cold
9 years ago

>BTW, since most people here are Americans, what makes the brownshirts different from the Continental Army and the supporting militias? Is it their methods or is it the ends they sought(independence from the UK vs. punishing Jews for imagined malfeasance)?

Cold
9 years ago

>Inb4 is not evidence. It can be accompanied by evidence, but you provided none and appeal to ignorance does not qualify as evidence.

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>Did you just try to conflate the founding fathers (who were indeed rebelling against people who would not listen to them) with people who were slaughtering others for their religious beliefs?

Cold
9 years ago

>No, what I did was ask a question for the sake of clarification, but I can see how to your feeble mind it looked like I was trying to conflate the two.

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>Why on earth would you even think of such a thing if you were not trying to get us to view one as the other?

Captain Bathrobe
9 years ago

>I believe that the brownshirts imagined themselves to be liberators of their Fatherland. This does not, however, make them any less the pawns of fascism.FWIW, I believe aims and methods both matter–and so does context. It's a complicated business comparing American Revolutionaries with Brown Shirts. For one thing, the Brown Shirts, like the MRAs of today, had access to democratic institutions–and indeed they used thuggish methods to attain power through nominally democratic means. The MRAs of today haven't been able to gain much through the democratic process, so some are advocating the use of violence in preference to democracy. Sorry, but that sets off some alarm bells for me…or it would, if I thought that many of you would act on it.As for the Continental Army and militias, I'm not inclined to defend their methods or their commitment to democracy, as both were highly questionable, in my understanding.

Captain Bathrobe
9 years ago

>Inb4 is an internet meme used to signify: I have anticipated your response, so don't imagine that it's the least bit original or clever. It proves nothing, of course, nor was it intended to prove anything. It's intent is to deflect wise guys who think they're pulling a big "gotcha!" when in fact they're being boring and predictable.

thevagrantsvoice
9 years ago

>Cold, you do know that the appeal to force doesn't make a demand much more legitimate than an assertion, right? Take this historical example, for instance:1) KKKers demand non-whites to stop voting, swimming in our swimming pools, and generally acting like they're our equals.2) If you don't stop, a bunch of sheetheads will make you stop through the use of violent force.3) Therefore, you'd better fucking stop acting as if you're equal to whites.As you know, this sort of thing didn't really work out too well for the cross-burners. What makes you think you MRAs will do better?

Hide and Seek
9 years ago

>Hmmm, I think some movement needs to re-watch Disney's The Sword in the Stone. There is some moral which can be applied here to everyone's edification . . .

magdelyn
9 years ago

>I love Travis Bickle. Very complex character. Is he a former Marine suffering from PTSD? Is the last scene a dream sequence as he lay dying? He is a nobody that wants to be somebody. And there are a lot of nobodies in this world.

Amnesia
9 years ago

>Dear Factory and other MRAs like him,We do not negotiate with terrorists.Love,FeminismP.S. Cut it out with the passive-aggressive crap, you're not fooling anyone.

Alex_P
9 years ago

>"1) MRAs want you to stop treating men as second-class citizens.2) If you don't stop, a bunch of MRAs will make you stop through the use of violent force.3) Therefore, you'd better fucking stop treating men as second-class citizens."Second-class citizens implies that some are first class citizens. If the men are second class, the women are first class, no? So why is it that men earn more, are less likely to be raped, etc?That's the thing, MRAs. You're imagining a problem that isn't there. Yes, some men are subject to rape and violence, and yes there have been cases of discrimination. But to pretend that men as an entire group are somehow oppressed is just ludicrous and beneath contempt.

Lady Victoria von Syrus

>A threat is still a threat, no matter how justified you feel in making it. I am curious, exactly how would this violence be implemented? Would you start shooting up aerobics classes or college classes? Would you shoot doctors who primarily treat women? Would you firebomb women's clinics? Would you shoot female politicians? Would you just load up a truck full of explosives and detonate it outside government buildings? Or would it be more personal – just beating up or raping the women closest to you or her children? Or targeting women like sex workers for violence and murder? Considering that all of this has already happened, and that women and feminists aren't yet cowed (and in fact, are even more angry), I'd have to say your strategy sucks.

Pam
Pam
9 years ago

>@ Captain Bathrobe,That truly is my impression of what they believe to be true.

Captain Bathrobe
9 years ago

>@Pam,Yeah, it reads like hyperbole, but it's actually no exaggeration, as many here have said exactly that, almost verbatim.

Cold
9 years ago

>Lady Victoria von Syrus, you just broke the Golden Rule again, as well as your own advice on how to be liked and how to be a "good person", by making baseless strawman arguments against MRAs. I KNOW you wouldn't want MRAs doing the same to you. I'm not even going to address those strawmen, I'm just going to tell you that they are a big part of why we don't like you. Moving on…

CallMeLightning
9 years ago

>Obvious troll is obvious. Don't feed the trolls people. Their minds aren't complex enough to listen to any sort of reasoning. They're a waste of your time.

Cold
9 years ago

>Some of you seem to be in the dark about the fundamental basis for law and government, so I'm going to generously give you a crash course in it. Consider the following argument:1) We want you to do X.2) If you don't do X, we will do violent action Y against you.3) Therefore, you'd better fucking do X.You can make up your own mind about how "legitimate" this argument is, but if you are intellectually honest then you must regard it as being equally legitimate no matter what gets plugged in for X and Y.Now, consider the following permutation of the above:1) We want you to not steal from others.2) If you steal from others, we will throw you into a dungeon where you will languish for a set period of time. If you are a man, you may be raped and possible contract HIV and die, and this will happen while prison guards turn their backs and smirk.3) Therefore, you'd better fucking not steal from others.As far as I know every country's government makes this argument and we all take it for granted. Note that the concusion is "you'd better fucking not steal from others", not "you'd better fucking agree with us that stealing is wrong. The latter would be a logical fallacy, but the former is simply a demand backed by force. ALL governments operate like this, although the manner in which they are organized and the number of people who get a say in how the force is used varies greatly.Furthermore, all laws that you feminists like are backed by this same argument. You cannot defend the legitimacy of those laws while simultaneously condemning the MRAs for demanding changes under threat of possible violence down the road without being a complete hypocrite.Inb4 any inane arguments about how democracy makes the argument more legitimate, if you are an American then your very democratic system of government derives itself from the following argument made by the founding fathers to the UK:1) We want you to fuck off and let us institute our own system of government.2) If you don't fuck off and let us institute our own system of government, then the Continental Army and supporting militia will fucking slaughter you.3) Therefore, you'd better fucking let us institute our own system of government.If you are not an American, well, the story of how your own country's democratic system came about probably isn't that different.

thevagrantsvoice
9 years ago

>Perhaps you're right, Cold. In that case, though, it seems to me the people on the feminist side are the ones who have more force at their disposal. The most folks like Cold or MRAs like him will be able to do is shoot up a few people (inb4 "LIBEL!" "LIIIIBEEEEELLLLL"), like Sodini and Lepine did. On the other hand, the feminists and the government they supposedly control have the police, the army, etc. etc. etc. at their beck and call. If I had to choose one or the other I'd be pretty dumb to choose the underdog.So really, why should the threat of violence from you people be that much of a deterrent for the feminists? Considering all the resources they have at their disposal, if it came to blows they'd be the ones who'd probably win.

percyprune
9 years ago

>Cold, men are not second-class citizens, except in your imagination and the fevered minds of your cohorts. An assertion that men are second-class is a reactionary response to some loss of male privilege. These sorts of things reinforce my view that MRAs/MGTOW is a reactionary movement.As with many reactionary movements of the past, it is not hard to find members making threats of violence in defence of privilege. David has highlighted some intimidatory statements that MRAs will stop feminism through violence. They are, boiled down to their essence, terrorism.I do not think that serves your cause in the slightest.

Captain Bathrobe
9 years ago

>@Cold:What a silly argument.

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>Sounds like Cold is getting a little heated up.The US started out a bit on the dubious side (whoever heard of declaring independence and that whole taxation without representation? Since when?!) However-the retaliation was not "we will slaughter you." If that was the case, every person who supported the British government would have been slaughtered. They were not so the idea that the Continental Congress was bucking to slaughter everyone who opposed them is a logical fail based on what happened. There were retaliatory actions before, during and after the war but no wholesale or even moderate slaughter. According to this the highest number of British casualties for any battle was 600 out of 6,000. That is 10% and so hardly the number of deaths one would expect from a "slaughter."As examples go, yours is not great Cold.

Cold
9 years ago

>If that was the case, every person who supported the British government would have been slaughtered.I was obviously talking about British soldiers, not civilian loyalists. I'm used to talking to people of a much higher intellectual caliber than you so I apologize for not being sufficiently specific.@Captain BathrobeI hate to break it to you, but "What a silly argument" does absolutely nothing to refute anything I said. I realize this is troubling news for you since you clearly lack the ability to offer anything better, but it is nonetheless a wholly inadequate response.

Cold
9 years ago

>Cold, men are not second-class citizens, except in your imagination and the fevered minds of your cohorts. An assertion that men are second-class is a reactionary response to some loss of male privilege. These sorts of things reinforce my view that MRAs/MGTOW is a reactionary movement.Save your progressive/reactionary dichotomy for you fellow brainwashed simpletons; it will gain you no traction with me. Whether or not men actually are second class citizens isn't even germane to the discussion at hand since it is about the logical structure of an argument, not the acceptability of the premises used in said argument.

Captain Bathrobe
9 years ago

>I dunno, there may be something in what Cold says. By his logic, if I rob a bank tomorrow, I can inform the teller that my use of violence is legitimate–after all, the founding fathers did it! The government does it all the time! All violence is the same, right? I'm sure the FBI will understand.All governments–democracy or dictatorship–use the threat of violence to enforce laws and maintain order. That's what us grown-ups call "self-evident." Unlike a dictatorship, however, any democratic government worth the name derives its powers, however imperfectly, from the consent of the governed. Any use of violence in overthrowing a democratic government must therefore meet a very high standard to be considered at all legitimate. The vast majority of the time, this standard is not met; yet every terrorist, every tinhorn dictator, every military junta claims their actions are justified by some higher purpose, even the preservation of democracy itself. It's all bullshit, and threats of violence by certain elements of the MRM are in a similar vein: self serving and ultimately self-defeating.Seriously, Cold, this is high school civics here! I mean, I'm just embarrassed for you at this point. The fact that you seem to think you've schooled us all…well, it would be kinder just to leave it there.

Captain Bathrobe
9 years ago

>As I said, yours is a very, very silly argument.

Lady Victoria von Syrus

>Actually, Cold is partially right. Part of the basis of government is a monopoly on force. Police officers and military personnel are granted the ability to use force to achieve their ends (though, of course, only to certain degrees – police brutality, the excessive use of force, is still illegal). Dispensations on using force are also given private citizens – such as in self defense. But by and large, the government doesn't want you using force to get your way – that's their purview. It's also not the *only* goal or aim of government, but there you go. Regarding the assertion that my argument is strawman – it's actually not. Many MRAs, including Paul Elam, have indirectly or directly threatened violence and force as a backlash against feminism. I put forth several instances of violence which have already occurred. Sodini and Lepine are the most direct examples, but, if as MRAs claim, the government is also run by feminists, then I feel I can include the Oklahoma City bombing and the Giffords shooting as government targets. And many women are abused or raped by relatives or intimate partners – if it's not to keep them in line and drive the point home that their body does not really belong to them, then please, Cold, enlighten me- what's the real reason behind domestic assault, child abuse, molestation and rape? To say nothing of the violence against sex workers, which largely goes unreported until they find her bruised body in a shallow grave somewhere.But, for the sake of this argument, let's assume that none of the violence I reference in my earlier comment was part of Elam's predicted backlash. In that case, what form *will* this violence against feminism take?

Cold
9 years ago

>Perhaps you're right, Cold. In that case, though, it seems to me the people on the feminist side are the ones who have more force at their disposal.Who make up most of the police and military personnel, not to mention 100% of the ones who get sent into bullet hell? I consider each male police officer and soldier to be a potential ally, and I treat them as such unless given good reason not to.

Cold
9 years ago

>As I said, yours is a very, very silly argument.As I said, that does absolutely nothing to refute anything I say. All you are doing is demonstrating your vapidity.

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>Wait, Cold, do you actually think that things are going to come down to some sort of actual, literal gender war? Would you support male policemen and military personnel in shooting feminists, or women, or "manginas" or whoever it is you see as your enemy?

Cold
9 years ago

>Many MRAs, including Paul Elam, have indirectly or directly threatened violence and force as a backlash against feminism.I don't believe Paul Elam did so; you will have to use quotations from him to convince me of that. Even if he did, so what? How does that make him any worse than the government and the feminist efforts to influence the government? Whether you shoot someone yourself or get a police officer or soldier to do it for you, you are still responsible for that bullet.The specific acts of violence you described in your loaded questions are strawmen unless you can prove that real MRAs advocated them.I put forth several instances of violence which have already occurred. Sodini and Lepine are the most direct examplesSodini and Lepine are not MRAs and never identified as such. Sodini didn't even identify himself as being anti-feminist. You are grasping at straws again. I might as well use Valerie Solanas as a direct example of feminist violence, and unlike Sodini and Lepine she is lionized by many feminists.Cold, enlighten me- what's the real reason behind domestic assault, child abuse, molestation and rape?Maybe you should ask that question of domestic assaulters, child abusers, molesters, and rapists. I am none of those things and I lack both the power to read minds and the intellectual dishonestly to pretend that I have that power, so I can't help you.But, for the sake of this argument, let's assume that none of the violence I reference in my earlier comment was part of Elam's predicted backlash. In that case, what form *will* this violence against feminism take?It wouldn't be violence against feminism; it would be violence against the agents of male oppression. Even if I knew exactly what form it would take, I wouldn't tell you for the same reason that the US military doesn't disclose its battle plans to its enemies.One other thing, do you know which violent reactionary said the following?Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.HINT: He was the 35th president of the United States.

girlscientist
9 years ago

>@Cold: Except that during work hours, police officers are supposed to uphold the law, not their penis.

Cold
9 years ago

>No, I don't think it will come down to a literal gender war. I think, if pushed to do it, MRAs will collapse the economy through deliberate refusal to contribute to it and then push for a favorable change of government in the ensuing chaos. My only point about the police and military is that I regard most individual officers and soldiers as potential allies.

Cold
9 years ago

>@girlscientist:You're twisted.

Cold
9 years ago

>I dunno, there may be something in what Cold says. By his logic, if I rob a bank tomorrow, I can inform the teller that my use of violence is legitimate–after all, the founding fathers did it! The government does it all the time! All violence is the same, right? I'm sure the FBI will understand.The point went over your head. If you rob a bank tomorrow, you will be presenting the following argument to the bank teller:1) I want you to hand over all the money.2) If you don't hand over all the money, I will kill you with this gun.3) Therefore, you'd better fucking hand over the money.The US government, which includes the FBI, uses this argument against you:1) We don't want you robbing banks.2) If you rob a bank then we will throw you in jail where the prison guards will turn their backs and smirk while you get raped, contract HIV, and die.3) Therefore, you'd better fucking not rob any banks.Now, pay really close attention here and grind what few brain cells you have really hard, because here comes the point that you missed the first time:Both of those arguments use the same logical structure and are therefore equally legitimate. Claiming otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Captain Bathrobe
9 years ago

>As I said, yours is a very, very silly argument.As I said, that does absolutely nothing to refute anything I say. All you are doing is demonstrating your vapidity. And you continue to demonstrate your silliness by cherry picking that comment and acting as if that's all I had to say on the subject. Whatever; I suppose that's all you've got, and I shouldn't expect any better. You disappoint me, Cold. I was hoping for something a bit more challenging. Oh well, free entertainment is never a bad thing. Well, the kids get up early, so it's off to bed for me. I'll check back tomorrow to see if you deign to respond in good faith to what I actually wrote. I won't get my hopes up, though.

Cold
9 years ago

>And you continue to demonstrate your silliness by cherry picking that comment and acting as if that's all I had to say on the subject.Your other comment showed up first in my browser for some reason.

Captain Bathrobe
9 years ago

>Both of those arguments use the same logical structure and are therefore equally legitimate. Claiming otherwise is intellectually dishonest. Ah, we cross posted. Standing alone, they are equivalent. But you ignore staggering amounts of context–namely, that the FBI derives its legitimacy from upholding the laws of a democratically elected civilian government, whereas a bank robber does not. To ignore this context is asinine–and very, very, very silly. You miss the forest for the trees here, my dear Cold. And now, truly, to bed.

Cold
9 years ago

>No, I didn't ignore that context, it simply isn't germane to the argument in question. Do you think the bank robber cares whether that argument is made by an elected government, an unelected dictatorship, or an organized crime syndicate to whom the bank paid protection money? The argument works the same no matter who makes it as long as the threat of force is credible.

thevagrantsvoice
9 years ago

>Who make up most of the police and military personnel, not to mention 100% of the ones who get sent into bullet hell? I consider each male police officer and soldier to be a potential ally, and I treat them as such unless given good reason not to. Spoilers: "potential allies" aren't quite the same thing as "actual allies." Until masses of cops and Marines join the Men's Rights Movement (they obviously haven't—if they had, you people would have won already), it's safe to say that if you want to threaten the rest of us into acceding to your demands, we'd be better served to stand with the side that actually has the guns behind them (i.e the feminists and their government) as opposed to the side that just says they'll have them someday.

Cold
9 years ago

>Unlike a dictatorship, however, any democratic government worth the name derives its powers, however imperfectly, from the consent of the governed.The "however imperfectly" makes this statement true, but also rather pointless. By your argument the Democratic People's Republic of Korea lives up to its name because it has the consent of the governed. Specifically, it has the consent of the communist party and of the military who express their consent by using their guns to keep that government in power instead of overthrowing it. Sure, this is just a tiny slice of the total number of people governed, the bulk of whom might resent their government if allowed to speak freely about it, but they nonetheless have the consent of the governed, however imperfectly.Any use of violence in overthrowing a democratic government must therefore meet a very high standard to be considered at all legitimate.No, it only has to be successful in order to be legitimate. Iran used to have a democratic government and it was violently overthrown. I don't recall anyone who ran afoul of the new regime managing to get out of trouble by saying "actually the law I broke isn't legitimate because the 1953 coup wasn't up to my high standards." In the real world, might makes right.every terrorist, every tinhorn dictator, every military junta claims their actions are justified by some higher purpose, even the preservation of democracy itself.Most people don't abide by the laws of their government because they buy whatever line the government uses to claim legitimacy. They abide by them because that argument I pointed out earlier is an incredibly convincing one. It's also probably one of the oldest arguments in human history. That argument is the real source of legitimacy no matter how many lofty, subjective ideals anyone uses to dress it up.threats of violence by certain elements of the MRM are in a similar vein: self serving and ultimately self-defeating.Yes, they are self-serving just as much as the threats used by feminists("promote more women or we will sic the government on you" is a violent threat). Only time will tell if it ends up being self-defeating.

Cold
9 years ago

>VagrantsVoice, do you actually have anything substantial to say, or are you only interested in making snide remarks on other people's points?

evilwhitemalempire
9 years ago

>This blog of your's is like a guy roaming about the pre civil war southern countryside warning black plantation workers of the evils of abolitionism. You approach these men, their backs permanently bent from years of picking cotton, their hands blistered and bruised, scars on their backs, many with families torn from them at auction, and you say to them."Listen to me! Those abolitionists are TERRIBLE people who do the work of Satan! And the WORST part is…. (gasp) (gasp)…..(pant) (pant)…..Oh it's so terrible I feel I'm going to faint just telling!…. (gasp) (pant)…. Here is the WORST of it! They… (gasp) (pant)… advocate….(gasp)… the murder…. of ….. YOUR MASTERS!!!!! "Isn't that just terrible?"-silence from the crowd-"WELL?!" "ISN'T IT?!?!?!"Is this blog of yours a warning to men to stay away from MRA/anti-fems ('cause we all low life scum) or an advertisement?

1 2 3