Here’s the entirety of a recent post by an MRA who calls himself Snark:
Uh, dude, I think you’ve confused “feminists” with “Daleks.”
Our new friend Fidelbogen thought this was such a brilliant idea he devoted a post to it himself, declaring:
Such economy, such concision. …
Really now, we wouldn’t go far wrong to make our rhetoric revolve around this above all, and very little more. The saying is deceptively simple, for it goes deep and reaches into many corners.
It puts them on the spot, and nails them there.
I knew Fidelbogen was a bit of a pompous doofus, but this is a whole new level of stupidity for him. I don’t even know what to say about something this idiotic.
Also, check out the comments to Snark’s piece. There’s something about potatoes you kind of have to see to believe.
“When feminists tell me feminism did not influence my aunt’s behavior, I think it is because feminists do not believe feminism or feminists can ever do anything harmful or wrong.”
You’re right, Toysoldier! Feminism never, ever critiques itself on gender, race, class, or sexuality issues! 😛
Shorter Toysoldier: Words mean what I want them to mean, and you are all poopyheads to tell me different.
Holy crap, arguing with Toysoldier is exercise in futility at its finest.
Seriously, bro. Stop trolling feminist blogs and do something useful instead.
Or at least try to educate yourself on the issues you are discussing.
Until then:
Pecunium: I believe Snowy is male. Setting that aside, I have actually gone out of my way not to ask anyone to prove a negative. I even stated before that feminists here are essentially trying to prove a negative. However, since snowy — on his own — argued that feminism cannot cause x,y, or z, it is fair to ask how snowy reached that conclusion. My argument does not mean feminism never causes people to do good things, only that it can also cause people to do bad things. And you really ought to stop projecting your own actions onto others.
Hershele Ostropoler: I love how you posted that right under you quoting me clearly not doing that. Kollege and Bostonian called me a “coward and liar” several pages back. Now, please address my question.
Snowy: There was a link in that comment. It links to a post that lists examples of feminist biases. Now, please answer my question.
CassandraSays, katz, KathleenB: Yes, yes, I know you got:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq60_Wxx5T0]
On second thought, you are probably just thinking this about me:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX_Z886_Ato&feature=related]
…
Yeah, I’m done. Really. Toysolider, now you’re just reaching different levels of pettiness. If you were in Debate Club, you would be out on your ass in no time flat.
Uh oh. Kollege has had enough. And now he’s acting like a bully, so he tries to push and pull me, but he knows that he can’t fool me so he’s mad. He has no choice but to scream and raise his voice up at me cuz it annoys him to see that I ain’t scared. Dude, you ain’t no motherfucking:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvRXbRP2QDQ]
If he were in any class that dealt with fact, he’d be on his ass for consistently faking his own reality. He’s a singularity of ignorance and hate.
Ah! You’re right Hershele. His link is to his own blog where he goes on about Mary Kay Letourneau hosting a “Hot For Teacher” night at a bar that is somehow the fault of feminism. http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2009/05/24/standards-and-such/
Yeah, no. Nice try Toysoldier.
Also, Justin Timberlake? Eminem? Who’s next?
And that is why I do not hate feminists. Feminists spent 15 pages diving to such depths of pettiness that you would think they were hunting for sunken treasure. Yet when I return their insults, I am being petty. How could I hate a group this prone to irony?
You say you don’t hate us as if we care that you don’t.
Ahhh nuuuuuu why are you still beating me!!!
Toysoldier: Your argument (such as it is) is that feminism causes anything you want it to cause. Your challenge (and not to just Snowy) is that we prove to you (who have said we cannot be trusted, are relentless, will stop at nothing, etc.), that it’s not so.
In your own words it’s impossible to do that. You won’t believe us, no matter what facts, studies, declarations, etc. we find, or make.
You don’t mean what you say, the only thing which might be acceptable to you is abject agreement with you.
As I said, you lie.
TS fails to read or understand. Film at 11.
Music nao though.
Y’know, I look at this seemingly endless back-and-forth and I ask myself: What’s more likely? That feminism somehow, insidiously, exerted a malign influence over a person, to the point where they became an abuser and a rapist, or that an abusive rapist was dishonest about her motivations, and used feminism as pretext for something she would have done anyway.
Personally, I’m more inclined to believe the obvious truth that abusers lie, to their victims, and to themselves.
“Y’know, I look at this seemingly endless back-and-forth and I ask myself: What’s more likely? That feminism somehow, insidiously, exerted a malign influence over a person, to the point where they became an abuser and a rapist, or that an abusive rapist was dishonest about her motivations, and used feminism as pretext for something she would have done anyway.”
The former choice is what TS was arguing for all along…somehow. Really, even when he shared his abuse, that experience alone answers neither question, something that ToySoldier doesn’t realize (or seem to really care about, frankly).
@Shora
“Feminism does not preach violence.”
I gave you this link yesterday, go to link titled “the 18 page message” to get a pdf file of “the law.” Read it. This was written by feminist Russlynn Ali, a woman in a position of immense power. It was signed into law by pro-feminist Obama. It was endorsed by Joe-VAWA-Biden.
http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/popup/news/2011/04/04/education_department_civil_rights_office_clarifies_colleges_sexual_harassment_obligations_title_ix
The police investigation does not constitute the outcome of the investigation or the filing of charges.
Police investigations are NOT determinative of whether sexual harrassment violates Title IX.
Schools should instruct their own law enforcement units.
Grievance procedures that us the, ‘clear and convincing standard’ are NOT equitable with Title IX.
Allowing an alleged perpetrator to question an alleged victim may be intimidating and traumatic.
Third party accusation.
How would you like to face “judgement” knowing you’re facing a trained, hostile judge/jury, the evidence which consists of a womans word is gathered by a police force which is above the need for evidence, your innocense must be proven, the fact is merely the word of a woman who you can’t question, is anonymous, and might even be a third party? This is the most violent abuse of power ever concieved. Read it. It is the outcome of a pure hate movement.
————————
“Feminism does preach equality.”
Womens only charities.
Womens only State agencies in health, education, employment, quota’s, every realm of society.
Women only corporate entities in all of the above.
Total promotion of everything any woman does in the MSM.
Where is this equality you speak of?
————————-
“When we say that the MRM can lead to violence and inspire violent behavior in people, it is because that is what the vast majority of the MRM talks about, preaches, discusses, jacks off too, whatever. If you have proof of otherwise, please, show me.
When we tell you that feminism is not what made your aunt a shitty person, it is because that very shittineess is some of the very basic feminist ideals of what not to do. Seek consent, respect others bodies, do not abuse; these things form the very foundation of feminism.”
How is it that the violence toy soldier endured wasn’t due to being instilled by feminism, yet violence against any woman is due to the MRM?
Which is worse? The use of State violence, usurping of every basic right, privilege in every realm of society, or an individual man harming an individual woman?
Since women with their guiding light of feminism have enthusiastically enacted every single one of these laws, you don’t get to say it’s patriarchy.
————————
Read the link I gave you and tell me this isn’t a police State guided by feminism. Read it. This is your law. Do you think men will love women for having every right abolished?
I honestly think his only real goal in any of this is to plod on relentlessly until everyone else gives up on the discussion. That way he can claim that feminists won’t debate him because they’re afraid of the awful truth he’s somehow privy to. It’s not about debate, it’s not about the truth, it’s about getting the last word.
@Dracula-
That’s why I stopped so long ago.
@Dracula
” I honestly think his only real goal in any of this is to plod on relentlessly until everyone else gives up on the discussion. That way he can claim that feminists won’t debate him because they’re afraid of the awful truth he’s somehow privy to. It’s not about debate, it’s not about the truth, it’s about getting the last word.”
I gave the citation all of you scream for. What’s to debate? The truth is written down as feminist law. Anyone of you can get the file and read it. There is no guesswork, no strawman, no ad homenim.
A mans guilt is assumed, he must prove his innocense.
No facts are needed to prosecute a man.
A man cannot face his accuser.
A third party can be the accuser.
There is a trained police force that doesn’t need evidence, or abide by police evidence.
The jury is coached and permanent.
The judge is coached and handpicked.
The only possible debate, since this is now the law you endorsed, is, do you believe this is equitable?
Not talking about you.
NWO: Shockingly enough, in common reality, that’s not what the law says. your ‘i reject your reality and substitute my own’ game is just as stupid as Toysoldier’s. And even more pointless, which is saying something.
NWO, it would REALLY help if YOU read what the fuck you posted. In the other thread, there was already a take down of your critique of Title IX, which, surprise, surfuckingprise, DOES NOT state what you claim it does.
You wanna be a tinfoil hat wearing, rage-filled asshole? That’s fine, just know what you’re doing before showing your ass for the umpteenth time. Having it handed to you has got to be getting old.
The delusion is strong in this one.
Well, Owly thinks that arresting people is not due process. If you accept his wrong premises he’s totally right!
There’s something really funny to me about the fact that even when attempting to one-up people via YouTube links Toy Soldier’s argument is still an “I know you are but what am I”.
(The U2 clip)