To arms, Men’s Rights Redditors! Evil feminists are running riot on Wikipedia, deleting pages devoted to books by MRA hero Warren Farrell!
Oops. False alarm! Turns out WillToHave doesn’t quite understand how Wikipedia works. As one commenter pointed out several hours after the post went up, no pages about Farrell’s books have actually been deleted. The reason there are no pages about most of his books is … that no one has bothered to put any up yet.
D’oh! MRAs aren’t being oppressed by feminists; they’re being oppressed by their own laziness.
Of course, the only ones who know this are those who’ve bothered to actually read the comments. 15 hours after being totally debunked, the post, with its misleading headline, remains near the top of the Men’s Rights subreddit, with 142 net upvotes.
Never said NOW wrote the S.C.U.M. manifesto,, But many feminist consider it to be a great read:
http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm
Here is an “Uncanned” list of women who kill their children,,
http://www.google.com/search?q=kiloled+her+children&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=WIs&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=X&ei=Mx_mT-7NDKTs6gGNj5DfDg&ved=0CAgQvwUoAQ&q=killed+her+children&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=24bd4001b4cd61d4&biw=1440&bih=712
“But many[weasel words] feminist consider it…”
Oh right, you already displayed a sucktastic understanding of how wiki works, so let me cite that.
That website’s main page has under 5,000 hits btw, has anyone here ever heard of it before? Or did Paul just pull from the edges of the internet to weasel word?
HTML lesson for you Paul —
<a href=”put_your_link_here”>and give it text</a>
You want an uncanned list of men who’ve killed people?
I don’t think David has the server space.
What in the fuck are you trying to prove? What “equality” are you even trying to get here?
@Argenti:
I have no idea what Paul is doing, and I’ve reread this thread. Apparently, if you can find examples of women who kill there children, feminists are bad. Never mind all the men throughtout history who have killed their entire families… Is the point that some people are terrible? Because I don’t think anyone would disagree.
“killed her children” => “About 291,000,000 results”
“killed his children” => “About 191,000,000 results”
“killed her child” => “About 276,000,000 results”
“killed his child” => “About 323,000,000 results”
So um, congrats? You’ve managed to display that men are more likely to kill one child versus women being more likely to kill more than one? Or maybe that women who kill their children tend to have more than one, while men who kill their children have only one?
kirbywarp — idfk either, but after 2+ weeks of whack a troll with the glossary troll, this is almost refreshing XD
And oh, by the way, this has been bugging me.
Sharculese | June 23, 2012 at 2:16 pm
considering theyve neither planned or carried out any terrorist attacks, i’m gonna go with no.
are you sure you know what terrorism is?
Yes Paul, you actually did say that NOW wrote the S.C.U.M. manifesto. No, that isn’t a direct quote, it’s just a direct implication of the words you’ve used. Though to be fair, you’ve made so many non sequitors in this thread it could be the case that you’ve just randomly jumped to a new topic.
BLOOOCKQUOOOOOTTTESSSSSS!!!
*falls to knees and shakes fist a the sky*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Organization_of_Women
Delete per WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTNEWS etc. Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of ‘men’s rights’, or for any other political cause –
BTW,, My responses my be off in as much as I am responding from emails.
I have to ask, how many of you are married??
“You’ve managed to display that men are more likely to kill one child versus women being more likely to kill more than one? Or maybe that women who kill their children tend to have more than one, while men who kill their children have only one?”
Third option — women killing multiple children is more news worthy thus resulting in more hits. Those results are not attempting to account for the “About 1,330,000 results” for Andrea Yates.
No, he’s only managed to display what gets talked about more. It’s not like there’s only one page on Google per murder.
@Argenti:
Maybe Paul could use this site for his future research? 😉
Speak for yourself Paul, I don’t think I’m being treated particularly unfairly for being a man.
Try the talk page instead, there is already a discussion of controversy over there.
“I have to ask, how many of you are married??”
No, you neither have to ask, nor have any right to know.
*Revels in the glory that is being right about sentient/evil blockquotes*
kirbywarp — maybe! XD
Cliff — I’m going to assume we jinx’ed on “No, he’s only managed to display what gets talked about more.”
I’m certainly not. I’m far too ugly and bitter and hairy, and I hate men too much!
Did I mention hair? Hair everywhere. I’ve got hairy fingernails. It sprouted spontaneously the day I read my first Gloria Steinem essay.
See, therein lies the biggest problem, you just read, say and hear only what you want to believe.
So give the the DIRECT quote where I said NOW wrote it.
” you actually did say that NOW wrote the S.C.U.M. manifesto. No, that isn’t a direct quote, it’s just a direct implication of the words you’ve used”.
… Did I accidentally get baked or something? Or is this all a weird dream? Or am I just really really out of it today?
WHY THE HELL ISN’T THIS MAKING ANY SENSE?
Married? Why, Paul? Why do you want to know this? What purpose would the answer to this serve, since we aren’t talking about marriage at all? What rhetorical point could you possibly make? And why don’t you address your posts, making us have to guess what you’re responding to, which is made harder by the fact that every post is a non sequitor?
That comment didn’t even stay on one subject for the duration of the comment! WHY?
Thats because you have a mangina.
@Paul:
Let’s take the following hypothetical conversation:
Person A: Aren’t the boy scouts are a terrorist organization?
Person B: Since they haven’t done anything that would be considered terrorist, no.
Person A: But what about 9/11?
Person B: You really think the boy scouts were behind 9/11?
Now, pop quiz. Is person A saying that the boy scouts are behind 9/11?
@Paul:
No! No no a thousand times no! The correct shaming tactic/stupid joke is “because you touch yourself at night.” Can you do anything right?
“… Did I accidentally get baked or something? Or is this all a weird dream? Or am I just really really out of it today?”
It’s him, not you, either that or this is some weird shared delusion. But my vote is on “it’s him”.
Giving the direct quote where you said anything would be impossible seeing as how you have yet to actually make a point. Nonetheless, let me trying getting those blockquotes under control (pesky things!)
So pick one —
a) You admit your comment about the SCUM manifesto was a non sequitur.
b) Your comment about the SCUM manifesto was meant as an example of terrorism, which, in context, would have to be terrorism by NOW (or it’s a non sequitur, file under a)