Good news, everyone! The good folks on the RedditorOfTheDay subreddit picked our friend AnnArchist to be Redditor of the Day yesterday. He filled out a little questionnaire for the RedditorOfTheDay folks listing all sorts of fun facts about himself.
In addition to moderating the Men’s Rights subreddit and posting hilarious videos of women getting beaten up to the beatingwomen subreddit, AnnArchist (who is a dude, despite the name) also enjoys: Skyrim, bass fishing, sports talk radio, chicken tacos, and football!
His biggest pet peeve:
People who want to interfere with other people’s happiness.
His biggest worry about Reddit?
I just hope the community doesn’t grow so quickly that we lose the quality debate and discussion that has kept many of the users around reddit for a long time.
Over on ShitRedditSays, fxexular has helpfully catalogued some of AnnArchist’s contribution to the “quality debate and discussion.” Like his considered opinion on one female judge:
I hope someone kills her.
And his opinion of an alleged false rape accuser:
I hope she was harassed. Fuck I hope her house was firebombed. Lets be clear, I really will applaud anyone who does anything to her, be it slash her tires or slash her throat.
You can find even more of these charming nuggets in my post about him here.
In his answers to the RedditorOfTheDay questionnaire, AnnArchist reveals himself to be a truly sensitive soul. Here, he shares a painful moment from his past:
When I was a senior in HS and when my friend and I saw … the plane fly into the twin towers our first reaction was laughter rather than OMG thats a tragedy. Yea, we’re fucked up. I TPed my High School that night. I’m a horrible person.
Oh, and did I mention that he’s the creator, sole moderator, and basically the only contributor to the NSFW4 subreddit, devoted to posting pictures and videos too horrific and offensive to post anywhere else on Reddit?
Godspeed, AnnArchist! Thank you for making the world a better place!
NOTE: This post is almost entirely made up of sarcasm.
Anything that can be looked up on wikipedia in under 10 seconds isn’t *worth* the storage space though. It’s not *relevant* who shot Archduke Franz Ferdinand, or that it was, specifically, Franz Ferdinand that got shot. What’s important is why the shooting happened, what movements and social pressures made it seem a good idea, how the web of alliances that underlay WWI came into existence…
It’s possible memory getting worse may be bad, but it’s certainly not as bad as it could be if we don’t need it.
I’m not sure there’s actually very good evidence of point 2 (You should know better than I that getting used to standardized tests is very important to scoring higher), but we definitely have much better evidence that people are getting smarter than dumber. I mean, I know I’m beating a recently murdered horse here, but it’s not like Shakespeare was highbrow. Shit’s not really very different now than it was then.
Shaenon, apropos nothing, I spent the evening reading through Skin Horse instead of trading in India. I hope you’re happy about ruining my video gaming by distracting me with high quality webcomics 😐
Why would their be cliff notes American Psycho? It’s not a hard read.
Eight hours of your life or so compared sharing your angst online.
Boris said:
Partly a joke, but it’s partly because some MRA dudes are really, really, really literal minded and/or eager to take things out of context and pretend I’m saying the opposite of what I’m really saying. Hence a giant blinking sarcasm tag.
And, David, AND a blinking sarcasm tag is so much more elegant than Scott Adams’ disclaimer:
That shit just ain’t right.
*reads back*
…Is it just me or is MRAL trying to do a performance art of what he thinks feminists are like?
…nah, he’s not that smart. Idiot it is.
Rutee: From what I dimly recall from the long-ago stats class that covered the Flynn effect (a very credible source, I know), the “getting used to standardized tests” explanation isn’t complete, because IQ is still higher, although less so, among people who have never taken a standardized test before. So a lot of it probably comes down to nutrition and infectious diseases. 🙂
I’m a bit miffed that the Internet is making prodigious memory less important, because that’s like my superpower.
That’s a good point too. I think it must also depend on how interested someone is in what they are researching. One would probably remember a piece of information they find interesting or relevant to them than information that is not. Here is one link to the study http://www.geeksugar.com/Internet-Use-Causing-Memory-Loss-18313773
turns out we forget information if we know it’s saved (or have easy access to it) It also explains why I have a million bookmarks for future reference lol.
Ebert’s a snivelling mangina and doesn’t actually say that in so many words, but it’s easy enough to determine if you’re an intelligent critical reader
Truly, an intelligent criticism. I can tell it came from someone with a high IQ.
@MRAL:
You don’t want to watch it? Cool. Me neither, I have a ton of trouble handling violence in movies. It’s just that neither of us can speak directly about the content of the film (or the book, which I haven’t read either.) You can say “I gathered from this review…” or “given that Ebert-FUCK-MANGINA-he’s-a-man-but-the-worst-kind-of-man-because-it’s-like-he’s-a-woman had this to say, I suspect…” but you can’t make specific reference to the content as if you have a clue. And neither can I!
“I don’t think it’s prophetic but it does appear as if people are getting dumber through pure observation…”
Could you elaborate on these observations? I’m honestly curious, because it’s not something I’ve noticed at all (though I may be looking in the wrong places?). I see plenty of examples of people being dumb, but not of them getting dumber over time.
(It’s easy to get discouraged by the Internet, but I don’t think that’s ‘people getting dumber’ so much as increased visibility for dumbness that was already extant.)
Sharculese, If your yardstick is Murakami, few will measure up. Any time I am asked what my favorite books are, The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle is always high on the list.
If any of you are looking for something to read, and are at all interested in listening to some random individual’s advice, you should go pick up The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle, I can’t guarantee that you will like it, but you should almost certainly give it a try.
@Steph
Well personally I’ve noticed people seem to lack a sort of consciousness. We tend to be too consumed by pop culture and entertainment, and with the internet and smartphones it’s much easier to access all of this 24/7. Even if you look at what passes as entertainment these days, movies and TV lack depth or really gripping story lines. Very few movies seem to do this well and many are recycled from other movies (see Avatar for example)
Also maybe I’m not looking hard enough, but what major scientific discoveries have we made recently? where are the great philosophers? how are people striving to better society and the planet we live on? How are we going to focus on living more sustainable lives, because our resources are most likely going to run out soon http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jul/07/research.waste
Its established that our environment is getting worse but asshat conservatives still write global warming as a myth and smartass “edgy” internet commentors deem it all hippy bullshit. I know I may be putting too much emphasis on internet commentors but these are actual people typing these things and when the majority of them are totally asinine, then it really makes you wonder. Again though, I may be looking in the wrong places.
Take for example also one of the most well known “inventions” they’re always talking about in the news. Facebook. How does Facebook improve society? besides having people and employers stalk you? Again I just might not be looking hard enough and I definitely think technology is improving quickly and that’s great, but are we using it to our advantage or to mainly watch cute cat videos or laugh at internet memes and stalk people we knew in highschool? (and don’t get me wrong, I love the first two things) I do think the internet is great because it gives everyone access to information, but what are we doing with this information? how is it being used to benifit humankind?
I just get the overall impression that intellectual pursuits are lost today. Even the shutting down of NASA’s space program is a big issue because the time may eventually come where we have to live on space colonies. Carl Sagan talked about this. Even in terms of social movements, Occupy Wallstreet is great and I support it, but is it really going to have the same positive effects that other social movements had?
I just think that many of us are lost right now. And it’s getting harder to gain clarity because we are bombarded by way too much consumerism, mindless entertainment, ads, modified food, and getting lazy due to our increased reliance on technology. That’s why movies like Idiocracy or even Wall-E hit something in people. I think many of us realize much of this but we’re too stuck to get out.
Quackers: I think that you may be suffering from a certain cognitive bias here. Fact of the matter is, the old days were full of terribly written media and non-intellectuals and asshat conservatives. 🙂
The thing is that, through the filtering effect of time, a LOT of the crap has been sifted out. We don’t have the Elizabethan equivalent of Michael Bay, because no one bothered to keep track of his works; we just have Shakespeare. So people get a falsely positive view of the past and think that we’re getting worse when, if anything, we’re getting better.
I was afraid my post would come across as a bit to “the good ol’ days” sounding. It’s not so much that I think the past was amazing and there were no assholes or non-intelligent people, we have come a long way. I just can’t seem to find the equivalent of any of the great writers or philosophers that existed in the past that do now. For example I’m slowly teaching myself philosophy and there aren’t any modern philosophers I can think of that would be relevant, so I have to look to the past. Also perhaps we are becoming more technologically intelligent, but culturally we are lacking? We do make scientific advances as well but the general population doesn’t seem to regard them as very important thus it’s not exactly mainstream knowledge. Educational pursuits aren’t exactly seen as important either.
The filtering makes sense though, and like I said I may also not be looking hard enough 🙂
@Fatman, The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle is certainly a fantastic book. It could be a bit much if one is not used to Murakami though, I’d imagine. I found A Wild Sheep Chase to be incredibly entertaining, and his short stories are great too, especially those in The Elephant Vanishes. But I guess my recommendation would be Norwegian Wood. It lacks the dream-like fantasy much of his other work has, but I found it as easy to read as a book about depressed people can be. There’s also a recent movie which I haven’t seen yet, but I hear it’s good.
Have you already read 1Q84? I’ve been meaning to get that one.
Indeed. After reading one article too many about how the 1970s was the golden age of British TV comedy, I dug out some actual TV schedules from the time – and rather wished I hadn’t, because the memories of some truly Godawful crap that I’d long since forgotten came flooding right back. And that was by far the majority.
Same with mid-19th century opera. Verdi and Wagner had a certain reputation, but the real colossus was Meyerbeer – tipped then, not least by Wagner, as the the one opera composer certain to resound through the ages. A little earlier, the German musical titans were Spohr and Hummel, not Beethoven.
As for American Psycho, I haven’t read the book but I saw the movie when it came out, half an MRAL lifetime ago, so I can’t remember much in the way of fine detail (though I do remember enjoying it a lot more than I expected to). Mind you, that still makes me more qualified to discuss it than MRAL, so maybe I should.
Quackers, what time period do you point to as the height of human intellectualism? Thirty years ago? Fifty? A century? Who precisely are we now dumber than?
We’ve always had pop culture. Our toys have changed, and we have far more options to waste our free time with, but people themselves have not changed very much. We like humor, and music, and anything to do with sex. These things have been true for centuries. As Ozy pointed out, the garbage parts of popular culture die and are forgotten. We’re living it now, but in a hundred years no one will know who the Kardashians are.
You can’t point to trolls on the internet as proof that people as a whole are dumber. For one thing, it’s an established fact that sock puppets are being used, particularly when politics is involved. Here in Wisconsin, we have a big case coming up that hopefully will pull Scott Walker into it. And one of the women involved was a staffer who was posting pro-Walker comments on message boards while working for the state.
Some of us don’t know who the Kardashians are now.
Or rather, I’m vaguely aware that there’s a group of people with that surname who get featured in the media, but that really is the limit of my knowledge.
“And okay, fine, I haven’t read the book, but I’ve read a detailed Wikipedia summary and the thematic material is phenomenal.”
This is truly… magnificent.
MRAL, dude… you CAN’T make a good critic on a book/movie you have not seen. Reading a wiki article is not like SEEING the product. For once, you have read someone’s INTERPRETATION on the book/movie, not actually what was made.
For instance, I read the book, kind-of-liked the book but I will never, ever re-read it.
The main character is soulless, we don’t know if any of the murders actually happen. (The dude is a bit dumb, so i don’t believe nobody figures out there is a killer on the loose). It’s just a metaphor.
The book was written in time when name dropping those brands was a lot more than it is today and it is a critique of the lack of interest in anything but yourself and your brands and how empty the life is.
Actually, what I really chocked on was the whole “the love of a good woman is going to possibly save him” which for me was a bunch of bollocks and actually should be a reason for MRAL to hate it even more.
I don’t see anything feminist in the book but I don’t see anything paricularly anti-feminist in the book as well. The main character is a psychopath and he hates both men and women. Actually the book is a good portrayel what is fucked with relationships between men and women.
In the movie it’s just more fleshed how insanely ridicolous the main character is (though it is quite obvious in the book as well).
What gives me a pause are the uber-graphic descriptions of violence, both against men and women. Why on Earth did the author think that we needed that in order to get that yes, the main character is a psycho, that is quite unintelligent? No idea, but it was a bit too much.
I wonder how exactly killing women is misandric and how anyone can think it could be misandric but hey… the dude haven’t read the book nor have seen the movie.
Dude, why do you engage in discussions you have no idea what they are about? You make yourself look very… dumb actually. Wikipedia is not terribly accurate and as sure as hell can’t replace interacting with a piece of art as complicated as books/movies.
Hell, everyone interprets it differently.
For me the book and the movie are both criticisms and both paint our main character as a monster and his culture as the reason for it. Fight Clulb is criticism as well about that both ways the characters choose are not, actually, a good idea. And if Ann has read the book, I don’t think he still would have mentioned it as a favorite. There the main character goes to a mental institution, the project never happens…
I’ve never watched the series but it’s impossible to know nothing about them. I’m actually extremely amused by the whole wedding thing. Treating marriage as an arranged business transaction is nothing new. So these two pantomime their way through the bullshit, get millions of dollars, and then put the divorce on hyperdrive to push their profits up even higher. And America loses its shit! “You mean it wasn’t real? You mean it was a crass money-making scheme? Why I never!” The pearl clutching is hilarious.
@Eneya
“I wonder how exactly killing women is misandric and how anyone can think it could be misandric but hey… the dude haven’t read the book nor have seen the movie.”
I think some of them have the impression that showing a man as a villain represents ‘Every Man Ever’ and therefore is always misandry. Or at least that seem to be the common theme for MRAL to go on a tirade of ‘MISANDRYMANJINAFUCKOMGWTFBBQ’
@Quackers: You say you’re teaching yourself philosohy–one of my specializations is critical theory (and there’s a huge debate whether “theory” is “philosophy” or not–I will note that the Official Academic PHilosophy departments often declaim that theory is not philosophy which allows them to kick out all the non white and non male thinkers–philosophy departments are also the most sexist and racist of the humanities–if you want some links, I can give them to you–I follow several feminist philosopher blogs).
So while all the official theory courses in my department (literature) start with Aristotle and Plato and the Big White Dead men, they also end up with a lot of nifty currently alive theorists who are writing in the areas of gender, postcolonial, etc. theories.And since I started college in 1973 but had lots of detours along the way and completed my Ph.D. in 1992, I often say that “theory” in its newest incarnation helped me break the dead white male canon.
So after way long tl;dr, could I ask what philosophers you are reading? What you mean by relevant? Because I find a lot of the dead old philosophers fairly irrelevant (given that much of their work totally excluded, oh, women, slaves, all the non-elites, etc.). As one philosophy major once informed me, “there’s no need to include work by women because philosophy is all about HUMANS.” So it’s totes OK to read only men.
*shrugs* relevance is as much else subjective; and don’t ignore the filtering effect, plus the “no prophet” effect. They killed Socrates for corrupting the youth, remember. (Oversimplified, but basically.) So the Great Classic Philosopher of the Western World–executed by the state. Saying that our modern thinkers are not X or Y like the Big Dead White Men doesn’t make much sense, because those Big Dead White Men weren’t always X or Y when they were alive and working.
>>For example I’m slowly teaching myself philosophy and there aren’t any modern philosophers I can think of that would be relevant
That’s because we’ve already solved philosophy. We came up with natural philosophy, logical positivism and empiricism. 😉
And now today the news is out that Indiana University has found that young men who play violent video games show less brain activity in the areas of emotional control and cognition. So that’s being covered all over the place as proof that video games make you violent. And yet this country has been in an aggressive military occupation of a foreign country for the past decade, a war in which over a million of our troops have fought and in which hundreds of thousands of people have died. But it’s VIDEO GAMES that make us violent. I, for one, blame Marilyn Manson.