Men’s Rights subreddit regular Demonspawn (remember him?) is back again with some deliberately vague but definitely threatening talk about judges and politicians:
Not a lot of “plausible deniability” here, though I am sure various MRAs will try to excuse this as not being what it obviously is: a threat of violence against judges, politicians and others who work for the government.
He’s done this before; I wrote about it here.
And while we’re on the topic of Demonspawn, here’s a little followup comment of his from the thread we discussed the other day. It’s a giant wall of text, I know, but it contains gems like: “When women mouth off to men and get their faces bashed in, they’ll know equality.” At least this comment of his got as many downvotes as upvotes.
I’m banned from the Men’s Rights subreddit, of course, but Demonspawn, despite repeatedly violating the subreddit’s rules about posting comments advocating violence, continues to post away. See his comment history for more lovely thoughts on, among other things, why women are parasites who don’t deserve the vote.
NWO, yes, let’s go over human sexuality again, because you are utterly and hilariously wrong about it. Is it because your 1911 Britannica is silent on the subject?
But she didn’t fuck YOU (or a man like you, you are an infant who sees all these stories as about you somehow), and that’s really the issue here, isn’t it? All those women get to decide who they want to fuck, and none are choosing you. I wonder why.
that has nothing to do with the fact that you can’t control yourself, owlslave
No no I got it all.
Women wear tight silky clothes with microskirts and bikinis everywhere. This is bad because women don’t let all men fuck them which is bad because men can’t control themselves hence rape. Also some random crap about you being turned on by kids and homosexuality is taught by the government.
Did I miss something?
I’ve fucked at least a dozen different men and absolutely ZERO of them were guys who hooted at me in the street.
Maybe we do need to go over human sexuality again.
…I think NWO thinks that hooting at women in the street is honestly the only way two people ever get together.
🙁
Actually I think the “none of them are choosing you” part angers Owly less than the “All those women get to decide who they want to fuck” part. He does not think that is fair, just like Demonspawn doesn’t think women should get to decide who (or whether) to marry. These decisions are WAY to important to be left up to women, after all.
The hooting at women in the street really makes me want to dust off my wave albatross mating ritual videos… Don’t make me do it, Owly!
@Cliff: I’m not sure exactly how many men I’ve fucked, but I’m completely certain that none of these men first initiated contact with me by hooting in the street. Has this EVER happened?
NWOslave wrote: “thigh booties”
No, they were not thigh booties. Thighs are the parts of legs between the knees and hips. They were boots, the tops coming about to the middle of her shins. The dress was sleeveless, scoop-necked, and came to just above her knees. It was neither tight nor loose. It did swing a bit when she walked, but as anyone who has ever worn a fairly full skirt or dress or a kilt can tell you, they will swing a bit when you walk at a normal pace; they’ll swing more as you walk faster. In fact, I think the only way they won’t swing is if you walk like a mummy or a zombie.
I don’t know if you confused shins or calves with thighs or if your views are so colored by your misogyny that you saw thigh boots when they weren’t.
This is a bit OT, but I just finished reading “Clarimonde/the dead leman” by French nineteenth century writer Theophile Gautier. It’s about a catholic priest with a vampire girlfriend. Their entire relationship is pretty disturbing, abusive and rapey (it’s suggested that she has some kind of mind control over him, and she puts drugs in his drink so she can steal blood from him while he’s sleeping). He just loves her so much that he thinks anything she does is okay (like, she didn’t take that much blood and his health was never really threatened, and besides he would have consented if she’d have asked him, so it’s allright.) The final moral of the story is that everything that happened was the priest’s fault, since their entire relationship started with him LOOKING at her in church. If he hadn’t LOOKED at her, but kept his eyes virtuosly down-cast at all times like a good priest should, then their entire relationship wouldn’t have happened. So – all his fault.
It’s really like an inverse version of MRA logic.
Well if men can’t control their behavior around women who are dressed like animals in heat (which somehow doesn’t mean nekkid), I have a solution! The men should stay home and take care of household duties for their wives and children, while women run the rest of the world with their clearly vastly superior self-control. That way the men wouldn’t be exposed to all the sexy sexy ladies, and their utter lack of self-control wouldn’t matter!
There’s the problem that women might not want to marry someone who can’t control himself when he’s around a woman wearing clothes, since she’d have to be around him while wearing clothes sometimes. In which case, we shall provide secure barracks for unmarried men to live in.
Of course, of NWO is wrong about men being uncontrollable beasts which must be kept locked up for the safety of everyone else, this is all very unnecessary.
What do you think, owly? Have I solved the problem? Do you have any suggestions?
Oh to heck with it. The hooting starts at about 1 minute in:
Okaaay… I’m trying to understand NWO slave’s “logic” here. It seems that men are controlling their sexuality when they’re not raping or harassing, and fail to control their sexuality when they ARE raping or harassing. Women, on the other hand, control their sexuality if they dress in burkas, and fail to control their sexuality when they dress otherwise.
You’d think that if a straight woman wasn’t controlling her sexuality, that would mean she’d harass and/or try to rape hot men. But apparently not. I guess… straight women aren’t really turned on by sex with men after all? Rather, they’re turned on by TEASING men and gloating in the POWER they wield over men.
Is that how it works in your world, NWO slave?
I think we should go over human sexuality, Mr. Slave. I would very much like to see what your understanding of it is.
Only if it involves debunking evolution by citing the fact that X Men and Heroes are pure fiction.
Haha, Demonspawn compares himself to Ben Franklin and Paul Revere. He has deluded himself into thinking he’s some sort of heroic martyr.
Demonspawn is obviously saying that
1) he believes that the consequence of various things e.g. contraception / abortion / eugenic efforts at population control – reduce women’s value to society over and above that of (the vast majority of) men. Men who are treated as interchangable & disposable subhumans.
For those of you who still don’t get male disposability*, see this: http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-health/male-disposability-then-now-in-one-image/
(*Duh. It’s fuckin’ systemic!)
2) he believes this drop in value will lead to women receiving treatment equal to that which men recieve. e.g. a man who mouths off to another man does indeed risk getting his face bashed in… (Men being whatever it is ?8 times? as I recall more likely to suffer violent attack than women).
Actually, a man who mouths off risks anything from physical harm, through arrest and imprisonment, up to and including death. Plenty of men have been beaten / stabbed / shot for little more than speaking to some arsehole. Here’s an example from the UK. A bloke had a word with some dickhead (who was annoying his girlfriend by throwing chips at her on a bus – how chivalrous of him to stand up for her!) and he got stabbed to death for it, the poor bastard: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6639859.stm
🙁
Demonspawn is saying that he expects women’s experience of life to become a lot more like men’s experience of life. Of course he chooses to do so by getting all Nostradamus with his hyperbole and making careless “woooh!! Woe! IN tha FEWCHA!!”** predictions of various individual possible scenarios – thus allowing Futrelle et al to go “oooooh, he’s threatening to do violence to women!”
(**iLL WILL PRESS reference. Don’t read it. It’s great.)
Which is why MRA writers should always avoid this^ kind of writing.
When you have a vested opposition that is actively looking to twist anything said to make you look bad, you have to think:
“How would this sound as an isolated soundbite? What if my readers (wilfully or otherwise) fail to understand that I’m making a future prediction of likely widespread behaviour in society, rather than a ‘threat’?”
It’s basic politics. Never say anything that could be misconstrued out of context, and keep everything dumbed down to the level of the most restricted literalist reader (Futrelle). Never assume goodwill on the part of that reader either, better to assume active hostility (Futrelle).
I actually disagree with Demonspawn’s predictions in the short term – there’s no sign that women’s priveleges are about to be systemically rescinded, not as long as the corporatecronybankster system keeps on bankrolling Big Hubby Gov’t to beat / kill / jail men en masse for failure to be good little robots supporting women in general (taxation with disproportionate redistribution to women) and in particular (all the monys – alimony, palimony, chilimony, now with extended “childhood” – see ACTA, and parental healthcare obligations to children up to age 26).
To date, over the last 40 years or so most political changes have just doubled down over how screwed the average working man is, and politicos keep getting elected off the back of that – why would they change a winning formula?
In the medium to long term, with the collapse of the tower of lies and outright theft that is the global “economic system” (you should read Zero Hedge) and the shift in geopolitical hegemony away from the West… Well, it’s not going to be business as usual, but that might mean any number of things… Which I’ve already speculated on in earlier threads.
@whoever – you said something about “hey, what about aiming for equal paternity / maternity leave?” Sounds great in theory, but as the economy is going to hell in a hand basket double quick, and food / fuel prices are about to soar due to drought and upcoming embargoes & war? Don’t hold your breath on that.
yo joe, if you have to write all those words to even semi-justify this bullshit, maybe you should just admit that your movement is mostly cover for petulant wannabe terrorists
‘im an idiot conspiracy theorist’ isn’t actually an answer to anything i said, dummy
@Molly Moon
“There’s the problem that women might not want to marry someone who can’t control himself when he’s around a woman wearing clothes, since she’d have to be around him while wearing clothes sometimes.”
The problem isn’t men, it’s women being unable to control their sexuality. There’s only one reason women dress and act that way. Go watch the video again. Tell me the difference between the way every man is dressed and the way that woman is dressed. She dressed like that to attract sexual attention from men. She is unwilling to control her sexuality. Every society it’s always the same. Men try to civilize women but they always fail.
@Sharculese – why do you fear the words? :p
(Apologies if you actually suffer from dyslexia.)
“Women granted inherent value from society” – riiight, so society is only men. Half the human race doesn’t actually get a guernsey on being part of society. Oh, wait, I forgot, women aren’t human, are we? Just some sort of weird animal that men get to fuck without actually thinking they’re committing bestiality.
Um, Joe, there’s not a ton of value in addressing your posts if you’re just going to address them to “whoever.” FYI.
In other news, hey NWO! Sometimes I see men in the street and I find them sexually attractive! Sometimes particular outfits on men turn me on more than other outfits on men! My sexuality doesn’t work the way you tell me it does! Please explain this discrepancy kthx.