My favorite incoherent MRA blogger at the moment is our dear friend Christian J from the blog What Men Are Saying About Women. In recent days, Dr. J – famed inventor of the MRA two-dot ellipsis – has delivered up some truly inspired prose. I’d like to share some of the highlights (by which I mean lowlights) from a few of his recent posts.
Here he is, attempting to explain the “hookup culture” of the youth of today:
Women dish it up on a platter in line with their feminist education (free love/free sex mentality) to the alphas as they turn them on, the most, in the hope of either pretending to be carefree and casual about it all or they just have a high sex drive that requires servicing on a regular basis. It’s not that difficult..
No, no, not difficult at all.
Here he is talking about, er, pussy power, and somehow stumbling on to the subject of international finance:
The girls ofcourse have been trained to think that they can get away with just about anything as they possess the magic “V” which has a very high trading component as well as a social exchange rate, not unlike the Euro or an open ocean oil exploration license, but the magic “V”is more mobile and comes with it’s own carrier and operator, batteries not included though. Perfect really, when you think about it.
Here’s the opening sentence of a post of his about chivalry, and how feminists all secretly love it:
As feminism gets messier and even more morose, one does have to wonder what efforts those masterminds of insanity will do to cover their obvious and blatant erroneous experiments on human biology.
I don’t know if it’s even possible for me to get messier or more morose.
Here he is waxing poetic about the dreaded mangina:
[N]o one really considers them to be anything but a waste product, whose relevance is yet to be determined. A pretend girlie-man if you like, who wavers between reality and the dream state of their female masters. A neutered sycophant living on a different plain where reality and fantasy mix to form their delusional, ethereal world..
And let’s finish up with this muddled attempt to call feminists a bunch of lying liars:
We have on numerous occasions, demonstrated the continual lying and misinformation that the feminist hegemony consistently wallows in without what they believe is, in any fear of contradiction.
I have no idea if the second half of that sentence is the result of some sort of grievous editing error, or if he actually thought it made some sort of sense. With Christian J, it’s impossible to tell.
Chuckeedee: Given that your vocabulary is limited to about 300 words, tops, I’d say you do write “economically”. Incidentally, which words in that incoherent blurb above are supposed to be “big”? Just curious.
… ahhh, the perfect example of what Ann Coulter meant by liberals going off at a tangent, “babbling about Bush driving a car into a ditch.”
DISCLAIMER – Apologies to the less gifted among us, for my use of big words. I find it more economical to write this way.
Chuckeedee: Actually no, it was a perfect example of pointing out how you are an uneducated vulgarian with about one half-baked thought rolling around in your head. In that, you and Ann Coulter are very much alike, although I think her thesaurus is better than yours.
I know I’m late to the party today, but I just thought I’d chime in that this discussion with Chickeedee seems to fall under all the MRA rules for discourse:
1. Use of unsupported pseudoscience.
2. Random I’m-better-than-thou’ing (without actually being better).
3. Dense, nonsensical word vomits (inability to use concise arguments).
4. Points that can’t be disproven, because they’re never proven, just THINKY THOUGHTS that must be correct because they’ve decided it’s so.
5. Insulting the intelligence of the other participants.
DISCLAIMER – Apologies to the more intelligent among us, sometimes I have to break it down real simple so that the MRAs get it.
AMI-IZED DISCLAIMER: 😉 😀 🙂 😛 😛
I know we’ve heard “Born on third base, thinks he hit a triple” a dozen times, but this is more like “Struck out, thinks he hit a grand slam”.
I am endlessly amused by the idea of a “thought-experiment”.
“Thought-experiment”: the opposite of a real experiment. A real experiment is performed as a way to verify and refine a hypothesis, or quite possibly disprove it. By contrast, a “thought-experiment” involves designing an inane and utterly unrealistic hypothetical scenario as a way to “prove” something that the “thought-experimenter” never subjected to any doubt to begin with, because he wants to believe what he wants to believe, rather than ascertain the truth. A “thought-experiment” is particularly charming in its supreme silliness when accompanied by “well, I know it’s not realistic, but let’s assume it is, for argument’s sake”. Like, for example, the idea that if a prostitute services 100 men, none of those men have sex with any other women — or that they are all willing to be serviced by this prostitute.
Ha! Very funny, and a very apt description of about 30% of our trolls.
Chuckeedee: It matters because I have to live in the devolved culture where thug-spawn impact on my quality of life.
(DISCLAIMER – Apologies to the less gifted among us, for my use of big words. I find it more economical to write this way).
I’m convinced: That was such a demonstration of erudition you eructed onto the screen that it bordered onto an ontological proof.
Refer to my previous comment regarding liberal debating methods. You are simply not interested, and will revert to the textbook methodology exemplified by cap’n badbreath. As badbreath describes it, any compelling argument that is presented will simply amount to pearls to swine.
So… care to to more than just repeat a denial. Yanno, actual facts, arguments, use of reason?
I mean really, Coulter, she of the, “McVeigh’s only mistake was not blowing up the NYT”, and “We need to kill some liberals so they know they can die.” The woman William F. Buckley told was completely out to lunch with her book, “Treason” (about Clinton); this is your exemplar of conservative argumentation?
Katz: he just wants to post words in our presence and feel smart about it.
Plus, the use of “gifted” implies that his BIIIG vocabulary is an innate trait, i.e. intelligence, instead of, oh, say, education. By age five (absent any physiological problems) children have internalized all the grammatical rules (the ACTUAL grammatical rules of how to construct utterances in their native language, not the prescriptivist shit which comes later); from then on, it’s adding vocabulary, learning to write (which takes a shitload longer than learning to speak), etc.
But then he seems to believe in the myffic bell curve, so what can one expect.
So “Disclaimer” has replaced “tropes” and “Fallacy”
Does Chuck just select a word a day and attempt to use it as often as possible regardless of it’s actual meaning?
By contrast, a “thought-experiment” involves designing an inane and utterly unrealistic hypothetical scenario as a way to “prove” something that the “thought-experimenter” never subjected to any doubt to begin with, because he wants to believe what he wants to believe, rather than ascertain the truth.
Remember “There IS NO CONTEXT!”? Classic thought-experiment.
But really, I just wanted to post so I can get into the Disclaimer action.
ZOMBIE DISCLAIMER: BRAAAAIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNS…..
So “Disclaimer” has replaced “tropes” and “Fallacy”
NEVER.
It is a fallacy to believe that Disclaimer can become a trope.
Our trolls are really boring lately. It’s sad when NWO’s the most interesting, and Lord knows he’s one-note to the nth degree.
Chuckeedee reminds me of Big Time, by Peter gabriel.
“I’ll be stretching my mouth to let those big words come right out”
But the only words in the song longer than 2 syllables are “Adventure” and “Amazed” and “Circumstance”.
hellkell: I’d say NWO is more than one note.
More of a giant, ill-conceieved Chord, gotten by smashing both hands, and forehead, on the keys, while dragging one’s feet across the pedals of a pipe organ with random stops pulled.
I think chuckee should post a picture, like TAB, to convince us of his correctness.
Disclaimer:
Pictures are not relevant to this discussion at all.
chuckee:
Okay, but why should anyone but you care? How do they impact on your quality of life anyway?
Casual sex may make life better for many other people, so why should they cater to some whiny, arrogant misogynist on the internet?
Disclaimer: I have no disclaimer.
So chuckeedee is expounding an entirely new MRA theory: there is no “alpha male”, but instead a bunch of horrible zeta(?) males who women will sleep with just because horrible judgement and bad taste are rampant among our species?
You should tell some of our resident MRAs this, Chuckles. They might finally leave us alone.
You still need, I dunno, a link or some such to back up that this actually happens. Anyone done a major study on the objective attractiveness of people men and women are sleeping with in the US? No?
You also seem to be conflating “women who have poor judgement in picking out partners” with “prostitutes”.
NWO– I just saw your post. Thank you very much for your additions to the book. The information that women control 80% of the world’s wealth is still your best contribution in this thread, but I will be including a few of your helpful revisions.
Thanks especially for the confirmation that Cyrillic is the same as the Roman alphabet, just written funny. My Ukrainian friend keeps saying this is wrong, but he’s probably a feminist or a Jew or something. This is why I keep the book, to get the facts right.
Disclaimer: The theory of evolution claims that life came from rocks. It also states that evolution and natural selection don’t occur anymore because rocks are no longer in make-life mode.
Disclaimer: The first war in history was the U.S. invasion of Libya, spearheaded by Hillary Clinton.
Disclaimer: How-to courses on homosexuality are taught in all public schools. This is the only way people become gay.
Disclaimer: There is only one branch of fiction with any literary value: Star Wars expanded-universe novels.
I don’t think chuckeedee has even defined what trait he’s measuring with the “bell curve.” You can’t just stick people arbitrarily on a bell curve; you have to be measuring a particular trait. Intelligence? Conscientiousness? Agreeableness? Neuroticism? Openness to new experience? Extroversion? Physical attractiveness? Fertility? Athletic skill? Artistic skill? Self-awareness? Rationality? Income? Wealth? Education? Status? Popularity? Prestige of profession? Gender-conformity? Some combination of these traits? If it’s the last, which traits and how are you weighting them?
Shenanigans. None of our trolls could possibly be *THAT* stupid.
It matters because I have to live in the devolved culture where thug-spawn impact on my quality of life.
So you are a supporter of full access to birth control for everybody?
I am curious, however, how “thug-spawn” a) are defined; and b) impact your quality of life. Do you have problems getting them off your lawn?
I think I would like to nominate Chuck E for demotion from misogynist to all-around misanthrope. No, I did NOT say misantrope, captian.
DISCLAIMER: Birth control is not devolution.
Captain. arrgh. the troll-stupid is splattering around.