Let’s celebrate this lovely February day with some random stupidity from Alcuin, a brave anti-misandrist intellectual titan who is single handedly bringing about what he calls “the Intellectual Renaissance of the Western Tradition.” Mostly by blathering on and on about how much ladies suck.
Some highlights from recent posts.
The history of achievement is, in fact, the history of male achievement to such an extent that, were women absent from human history, we might still be where we are today, but were men absent from history, da wimmin would be in the caves, screeching ‘n hollering at each other. …
Dante wrote the Divine Comedy. Feminists crafted VAWA, the beginning of the end of western freedom.
Shakespeare changed the English language. Sharon Osbourne laughs about the female mutilation of men.
Socrates established a way of thinking and reflection on the virtues that still inspires us. Women falsely accuse men of rape on a weekly or even daily basis.
Feminism is the KKK with tits. The only difference is that western women don’t have any shame, so don’t cover up with white bedsheets. They are openly supremacist. That is why their starting point parallels the KKK, but they tend towards Nazism as well. The Hitlerists were no more ashamed of their supremacism than western women are of theirs. Both bigoted groups, in fact, are quite proud of their prejudicial thinking.
Racial supremacists running around with bedsheets are cockroachy – they run to the darkness whenever light is shed on them. Feminists, like Nazis, prefer the limelight. Will we soon see Nazi-like rallies with tens of thousands of banshees and their manginic self-hating male bozos?
Everybody Loves Raymond, and your female supremacist mom
Men are made into buffoons by Hollywood because male buffoonery sells. Women eat it up as greedily as they inhale chocolate cake and buy useless luxury goods. “Everybody Loves Raymond” is Everyman. Why does your mother like that sitcom so much? Because she’s a female supremacist. Why does your girlfriend like that show? Because she’s a female supremacist.
That’s why the lady is a tramp
Life is too easy. It’s too easy for a woman to become a tramp, and experiment sexually and socially, so she does. What are the consequences? Our society has so much surplus that we’ve eliminated the consequences of bad or irresponsible behavior, at least for women. We are wealthy enough to reject the concept of shame. Thus, we have shameless hussies.
Perhaps because men are still the most creative movers and shakers of our society, men as a whole class have been pushed into being the responsible ones, the moral adults. Women are let off the hook, able to remain perpetual moral children, responsible for none of their behavior, such as drunken sex. Non-issues such as faulty breast implants or police warnings about slutware enrage these people because they face no real injustices or hardships.
Slutware?
Also, here are The Undertones, with “Life’s Too Easy.”
VOIP – JEWWWWWWSSSSSS
wait i mean international bankers
big nosed international bankers with curly hair
it’s a coincidence
Back to my question. Why do you promote rape, sodomy and pedophelia?
Some Wikismarts for ya:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
ooooooohhhh, snap!
The original post offers little commentary about the quoted excerpts, except to designate them as “stupid.” But what moral or political standard is being applied in that designation? To me, it’s clear that the author considers the quotes to be reflective of stupidity because he fundamentally believes that men have no unique contributions to add to humanity, relative to women and children. This foundational premise he considers to be the self-evident embodiment of non-stupidity. Another premise, albeit implied, is that somehow it is bigoted to acknowledge the suffering that men have uniquely endured through history, as though this acknowlegment would undermine the well-being of women everywhere in the process.
Contrary to the author’s foundational premises, I think that it’s perfectly acceptable and worthwhile to recognize both the achievements uniquely made, and also the suffering uniquely endured, by men as a sex. What such recognition should culminate in is empathy, leading to real-world assistance for men in need. Unfortunately, people who share the author’s world view tend to prescribe to men the unattractive and untenable solution that if men seek an end to their suffering as a sex, they need only become less like men, and more like women. It’s not really an effective solution, nor in my opinion does it convey much empathy to the male sex.
What bothers me further still is that, in the blogosphere and in the associated comment threads, so much discussion is devoted to maligning one’s opponents that this overshadows what should have been the outcome of such discussion: tangible help being extended to people in need, regardless of their alleged historical privileges, regardless of their sex, regardless of their political (or any other peaceful kind of) orientation. Unfortunately, what happens instead is both sides hurling charges of bigotry and/or stupidity, never culminating in any real action, nor culminating in any real empathy.
This whole blog, its emphasis, and the bloggers and commenters that it mocks, are all part of one massive war of words and judgment between intractible enemies who have lost sight of what really counts, namely empathy leading to tangible action for any human being in need.
Think that’s pollyannish? Then go right back into your self-congratulatory snark war, and by the way, thanks for nothing.
@Holly Pervocracy
“So much poop. It must make you sick. Your teeth are all brown.”
This is why it’s impossible to debate a feminist and most modern women due to the level of feminist indoctrination promoted by our State, schools and by the MSM. All you have is hatred. And that’s all you could ever offer in a debate. So many generations of having carte blanche of hatred that you feel like you’re losing privilege if a man dares question a woman.
tl;dr the first time, Roscoe. No need to do it again.
When has the MRA movement ever done something for men in need? Do they partner with Just Detention? Are they working against racism (which harms black and Latino men quite a bit)? Are they working to better conditions for recent immigrants (many of them men, who come here to slave away in agriculture and such)? No? I’ll see myself out.
@voip – i used to be able to touchtype cyrillic on an american keyboard. sadly, i lost that skill after college.
NWO hath made a declaration upon the motives of a person he only knows over the intertubes! We must all bow down before his awesome telepathic abilities and live in fear of him turning them upon us!
NWO, question women all you like, but make sure the questions MAKE SENSE.
And NWO admits to begging the question: No, you haven’t answered my question. You simply denied that that’s what you’re promoting. The question wasn’t “if” you promote it, you do. The question is “why” do you promote it.
Tell me NWO, have you stopped lusting after little girls yet?
And tittering teenager? Really? You must hang out with some pretty hep-teens, what with me talking about the Chain of Command, Maritime Law as it relates to Blockade, Alexander Haig (you do remember him, right? He was in office while you were in your twenties… the time when the sort of thing like a president being shot would be memorable. It’s not as if I was asking about Squeaky Fromme).
Then again, it’s been so long since you called me a White Knight, I’d begun to think you didn’t remember me the way you used to; and with Valentine’s day coming. But I see you still have a warm place in your heart for me.
Which reminds me, I need to go to the store, my fiancée wants some ammanita for a mushroom pie she’s going to make for the men at her work.
Ta-ta for now. We’ll chat some more later, when you have more time, and aren’t distracted flirting with all the other boobzers.
Why? Because I like 2001 a hell of a lot more than I like NWO’s lunacy.
Roscoe: That tag line of the blog involves ‘mockery,’ not ‘deep philosophical discussion.’ Reading comprehension, how does it work?
I like how you didn’t respond to the rest, but you’re an idiot. I didn’t say women are entirely blameless, you imagined that meaning into my words as a straw man. I said they didn’t really carry the primary responsibility of most wars, because they don’t, because men dominate most countries almost all the time. You even had the temerity to ask about female rulers, because you’re stupid and subscribe to Great Person history, completely ignoring circumstance, social movements of a given era, and current events.
A number of women will carry responsibility for their roles, yes, but those roles are not of primary importance; take the White Feather movement you erroneously believe proves women were responsible for WWI (Because Britain is responsible entirely for WW1? Seriously, do you know anything about anything?). Yeah, they carry responsibility for the recruitment that they did, but the genesis of the war still ultimately lies on the web of alliances spun by men of a dozen countries, to protect the interests of a predominantly male upper crust, and how that web of alliances spun into world war after a rebel assassinated a male noble (and heir presumptive) of an imperial power (which for bonus points was also dominated by men). And no amount of recruitment by women can make them primarily responsible for a war they had a vanishingly slim, if any whatsoever, role in actually starting. You’re just an idiot.
And lest you think I actually blame this (or any other) war on men either, well, no. It’s generally the responsibility of the upper classes, and although most wars were orchestrated and dominated by men because men had the majority of the power, I don’t have any reason to believe that in a reversed or equal society, women would do particularly better or worse on the matter.
Poopsy, why are you building a human centipede in your basement? The question isn’t “if” you’re building it, you are. The question is why.
NWO, I have nothing left but hatred after you exhaust all my numerous, frequently kindergarten-level attempts to explain humanity to you.
Sometimes boys kiss boys or girls kiss girls. Kissing is good and doesn’t hurt anybody (as long as both kissers want it!) so this is good!
Were the words there too big, or what?
@ Roscoe: “it’s clear that the author considers the quotes to be reflective of stupidity because he fundamentally believes that men have no unique contributions to add to humanity, relative to women and children.”
No, you are wrong. The OP is idiot because it is ridiculous to compare Shakespeare with Sharon Osbourne. An appropriate comparison would be (for example) Watson and Crick with Franklin, or Tesla with Lovelace, or the Kaiser with Queen Victoria.
Also, you need to use like 50% fewer words.
Sorry, that’s “Not generally of primary importance”. Sometimes there are more equal societies! Sometimes there are women rulers!
I love compare/contrasting MRA stupidity. We have Roscoe apparently defending the OP (If you can’t be fucked to include a line break I can’t really be fucked to read your shitty writing) and it’s claims that men are responsible for everything, and NWO is claiming women ran everything in the shadows. I love it!
So, does anyone else remember that one time a satirical rant was posted in comments section here and NWOSlave took it at face value? Even though it was blatantly riffing on an MRA screed posted earlier? And it was literally prefaced with “…If we were really like the MRAs, we would post things like this:”? And when Slavey was informed that he had not, in fact, exposed the secret true nature of feminism, he went on a passive-agressive whiny tirade about how it’s unfair that he doesn’t get to define what is or isn’t satire, just because he’s a man?
Those were good times.
NWO: You do realize that saying something over and over doesn’t actually make it true, yes?
@Rutee Katreya
How about all those glorious white women who had slaves beaten and hung for the lies they told? Were they responsible? Or were the men who did the actual dirty work responsible?
How about those precious white women who cried wolf over the evil savage native americans? They demanded blood as well. No blame there?
How about women throughout history withholding love and sex for monetary gain and resources. Go kill, go die, they all scream.
How about women using the violence of the State to support their lies. Have mens children kidnapped and extorted for money while denying tyhem access to their children? Do they get any blame?
When women demand death, does the blood wash off any easier?
Mockery and satire have a long tradition in discussions of politics. See: Mark Twain, Jonathan Swift, Voltaire, etc.
Frex: Standing on a roof and shouting, “Holly Pervocracy supports pedophilia” and “Most rapists are bisexual” doesn’t mean they’re true. If you can provide actual evidence ( a peer reviewed study showing that most rapists are bi and there’s a causal link between the two for example), we’ll look it over Unless and until you do, we’re just going to mock you, because you’re a dumbfuck.
I guess the real meta question here is whether NWO believes himself.
Also, of course, if he even knows why dogs look different from wolves.