Like Chairman Mao, the MRA blogger Alcuin is a massive douchebag with intellectual pretensions far outstripping his limited brainpower. Also like Mao, Alcuin is perhaps best appreciated in tiny doses. Most of his posts are rambling, pretentious messes; yet many of them contain wonderful little nuggets of anti-wisdom that I feel compelled to share with you all.
Mao had his Little Red Book. Here’s part one of Alcuin’s Little Red-Faced Book. Click on the titles for the full posts.
[A] woman only thinks of her next meal, and which man can provide the best one for her. … Allow them to run organizations and society, and they will destroy everything. … Women are too emotional and self-centered to build civilization.
All Feminists are Doctor’s Daughters:
Feminism, the domain of doctor’s daughters, is for snobs. Men with dirty fingernails are haughtily ignored and dismissed. … Ironic, ain’t it, that feminists can be both perpetual victims and upper-class snobs at the same time, with the same remark and arrogant flick of the hair, as she puts her nose in the air and walks past. … Uppity cunts.
Dare to Struggle, Dare to Backlash:
Because feminism has attacked humans so viciously, injecting its hate-filled venom so deeply into both men and women, the “reaction” will not be a mere rainstorm. Deep, psychotic imbalance such as the type wrought by feminism and by liberals in general will necessitate a fucking shitstorm the likes of which we’ve hardly seen.
Constant rape accusations are ridiculous, given the sexless marriage epidemic. How many bored, asexual women stuck in a sexless marriage would love to be taken?
Modern miseduated western women fear their femininity, fear their natural beauty, and run away from it. … The hags we currently see in western countries resemble a clear-cut, eroded mountain. A contemporary western woman reminds one of the landscape created by the orcs in The Lord of the Rings, ugly and unnatural, a place of evil and sadness.
More to come; Alcuin’s idiocy is a renewable resource.
There is a big difference between Jackson’s reservations and Stalin’s concentration camps. Not the least of which was the exponentially higher death toll. I’m not going to deign such a ridiculous comparison with a response, actually.
Of course, that’s not that to say that Jackson’s policies were good, but if you are that incapable of seeing in shades of grey, well, it’s not worth talking to you.
My grandfather was executed by the Stalin regime. He was an academic who held beliefs that were “contrary to the purposes of Communism,” so the police shot him in the face, while my pregnant grandmother watched. She was sent to a women’s gulag for several years. My father was born and raised there until he was 6 years old. He never got over it, nor did my grandmother.
It was pretty fucking awful, but I can’t imagine how it’s any worse than what the US did to Native Americans or the concentration camps for Asians, during WWII.
Stalin’s death toll was, by some counts, higher than Hitler’s. There are stories of torture and conditions very similar to the Holocaust
I’m not excusing some of the actions of the US government, like the camps during WWII. But let’s not be fucking [***] here.
So, Mr. Al, your point seems to be that because Jackson was responsible for much smaller concentration camps than Stalin, and only 10,000 or so deaths, he’s substantially different from leaders who managed to murder millions of people.
Call me unnuanced, but I do have to say that once you’ve killed more than a couple thousand of your countrymen, you’re an evil fuck who is guilty of much more than bad policymaking and ungreat presidenting.
I just think if you want to compare Stalin’s and Mao’s evilness with Hitler’s you must know what exactly his role in orchestrating the Holocaust was!
While there remains some things that we may never know for certain, we have enough information — and have had, for a while — to determine that yes, Hitler was behind the Holocaust. In fact, we know a great deal more about the Nazi regime than we do about the USSR during the purges (since USSR archives were closed to historians from outside Russia until 1999). Yet I notice not a trace of a demand for “exact certainty” in the case of the Great Purge. Why is that?
Why are you comfortable with greater uncertainty about Mao’s and Stalin’s crimes than you are about the Holocaust, yet keep babbling on, asking us to spare a thought for Hitler?
Why is it that you are far more worried about things Mary Daly, one woman, thought, than about things the Nazi regime, and the many killers within it, did?
Why, when someone here cusses, do you clutch your pearls, whereas the deliberate deaths of about seven million people for no other cause than that they were born members of a hated group motivates not anger on their behalf but concern for the good name of their killers?
Is it because you suck, wholly and irredeemably? I think so.
Call me unnuanced, but I do have to say that once you’ve killed more than a couple thousand of your countrymen, you’re an evil fuck who is guilty of much more than bad policymaking and ungreat presidenting.
Sure, no skin off my nose, I’m no fan of certain US Presidents. But yes, I am calling you un-nuanced. There have been many, many, many policies comparable to Jackson’s, or to the camps to WWII, throughout history. Not so with the various Twentieth Century Dictator Dickheads. Stalin’s death campaigns were not only genocidal on a massive scale, they were not even motivated by altruism. They were a purely selfish attempt to keep power and silence dissent, an attempt that seriously harmed the USSR by robbing it of many political minds. If you think any US figure, any current Western figure, or hell, any current Middle Eastern figure, is comparable to Stalin, you’re a goddamn idiot.
Ah, well if the fact that I said that one killed thousands and one killed millions didn’t tip you off, nothing will; but I’ll say it outright: I’m not saying the two are the same. I’m taking issue with your characterization of Jackson as “not a great president” with a few policies that weren’t good. Anyone who doesn’t know about the Trail of Tears is an undereducated moron, and anyone who would say something like that knowing the history of the Trail of Tears is a callous fool. That’s all.
I think at a certain point it is just “evil fuckhead.” Jackson was an evil fuckhead; Stalin was an evil fuckhead; Hitler was an evil fuckhead; Mao was an evil fuckhead. Is there a purpose to be served in quantifying who’s the evilest? It’s not like the existence of an eviler dude over there makes the first guy less evil.
A “genocidal fuckhead” with bunny rabbit ears?
@Bee: “But other than *that*, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?” comes to mind…
Okay, I was trying to avoid this, but whatever. This is going to make you ultra-PC doods shit your pants, but the difference is that the Native Americans were not citizens of the US. Jackson did not commit atrocities against his own people. To me, that’s the real distinction, and yes, it is quantitatively worse to murder your own citizens. Not that his policies were acceptable, but it’s why I call him a “bad President” as opposed to a tyrant.
And Ozy, I think it is important to quantify levels of “evil fuckhead”. It’s called seeing in shades of grey. Mao was far “better” than Stalin, such as it is, because though he was responsible for countless deaths and seemed to be- from secondhand characterizations- basically a sociopath, he also did a hell of a lot of good for China’s economy and infrastructure. Who knows how many lives Mao’s reforms have indirectly saved? Probably a lot. Maybe even more than they killed. There’s a reason some in China still consider him a national hero. The country would be far less developed today were it not for him.
Stalin was just a fucking douchebag who wanted to retain power at all costs. He did some good, but a. not much, and b. nothing that he couldn’t have done without killing millions.
Even Hitler was morally more sound than Stalin, but of course he’s on a special plane of douchebaggery due to his campaign basically being all about systematic genocide.
Or, I mean, we could take your blanket “evil fuckhead” designation and apply it to Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Andrew Jackson, George Bush, Vladimir Putin, Obama (he smoked weed once, yo), and everyone else who has done questionable things. But we don’t, because that’s dumb.
So MRAL’s real beef with Stalin et al is that they weren’t clever enough to declare the people they murdered noncitizens first. Got it.
I’ll admit the “shooting in the face” thing was purely artistic license on my part. Compared to stuff the Nazis actually did, like the gas chambers, getting shot in the face would be downright humane and respectful.
I hate to say this, but I’d actually consider this a legit distinction. Murdering a person is evil, trying to murder a people is evil squared, and trying to murder your own people is like evil cubed. Jackson was arguably “only” evil squared — which is still really fucking evil, but maybe not Hitler or Stalin evil.
Native Americans were never citizens nor considered citizens. Actually, that was kind of the point, Jackson wanted the land for his people. Thu hes, among other US leaders, basically acted as a conqueror. And I’m not excusing that. But it’s not the same thing as terrorism against one’s subjects.
Nice try, dumbass.
Wait, what? Where were they from then? I mean, “American” is right there in the name “Native American”. Were they citizens of South America or something?
So it was somehow less bad to kill Native Americans because the colonizers didn’t recognize them as citizens, even though they were here first?
Also, I’m with Bee. There comes a point in the career of someone responsible for vast numbers of deaths where the specific numbers are no longer really the point.
MRAL, that is seriously racist. Just saying.
And, sure, you can say “X did Y good things, in addition to being an evil fuckhead”, but that doesn’t change the evil fuckheadery. And I still don’t get what the point of comparing them is. Is there some kind of Evil Fuckhead Contest where the evilest and fuckheadiest gets a fruit basket?
Er, well, no, the US did not recognize the Native Americans as citizens of their own country… nor should they have. That’s just another form of conquest.
I was under the impression that many Native Americans didn’t want to be considered citizens, and preferred to retain sovereignty and deal with the US as a separate nation. (The fact that this was used to oppress them even more was probably not the intended outcome, of course.)
So I’d say that Jackson didn’t have any moral duty to them as their President (so that particular duty wasn’t betrayed) but he had a duty to them as a neighbor and as someone who’d signed treaties and as a human being, all of which duties he failed fucking miserably. So “didn’t technically do it to is own people” is true albeit extremely faint praise.
(Again, actual historians please correct me if I’m wrong.)
MRAL, that is seriously racist.
Whatever. I don’t agree. I just think that if you’re a leader of a group of people, those people should come before other people. And thus, crimes against your own are a special kind of shittiness. It’s like, I think it’s worse for a father to kill his son than for him to kill some guy on the street. And yeah, I’m perfectly willing quantify that, rather than just saying “IT’S ALL EVIL WHAT DOES IT MATTER”.
QFT, so many times over.
@VoIP:
While there remains some things that we may never know for certain, we have enough information — and have had, for a while — to determine that yes, Hitler was behind the Holocaust. In fact, we know a great deal more about the Nazi regime than we do about the USSR during the purges (since USSR archives were closed to historians from outside Russia until 1999). Yet I notice not a trace of a demand for “exact certainty” in the case of the Great Purge. Why is that?
That’s very easy to answer: To compare A and B, you must know a lot about A and B. I don’t say Stalin was evil and Hitler wasn’t, I just say, that we don’t know enough about BOTH of them to compare them. I’m sorry that I just “defended” Hitler. The uncertainty applies to Stalin as well: We really don’t know if he premeditated the Holodomor which would make a huge difference about how we have to view him.
Why is it that you are far more worried about things Mary Daly, one woman, thought, than about things the Nazi regime, and the many killers within it, did?
That’s also very easy to answer. People who today praise Hitler don’t think of themselves as tolerant, liberal people who fight for equality. But people who praise Mary Daly do.
If Mary Daly would just be praised by hate groups I wouldn’t care about her at all.
Why, when someone here cusses, do you clutch your pearls, whereas the deliberate deaths of about seven million people for no other cause than that they were born members of a hated group motivates not anger on their behalf but concern for the good name of their killers?
No, you don’t understand my intentions. I absolutely don’t feel sorry for Hitler because most people think that he was more evil than Stalin. That’s ridiculous. I just think that it’s an interesting question whether such comparisons make sense at all. And I must admit: I think they do not.
Is it because you suck, wholly and irredeemably? I think so.
I’m sorry but you’re full of irrational anger and extremely suspicious. You proved that more than once.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present: A tone troll!
Be quiet, you troll!