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.
Feudalism (from Wikipedia)
Feudalism really isn’t a thing.
good ole Google
BAWWWWWW
@Sharculese – the definition of rights I used is widely understood and accepted. Don’t know what “redefinition” you’re banging on about.
nothing is more convincing than the dude who screams that if you wont make all the tenuous, poorly thought out connections he will, it must be because you can’t handle the truth
Noone on Rockefeller’s board, nor the president, has any financial connection to any banks. That the money came from someone who owned a bank in the 1920s is not reflected in any way in the Charter.
Unless you can prove otherwise.
Also, by your logic, these people: http://www.salaambaalaktrust.com/shelters.asp are also part of the global conspiracy to destroy the West, as they were also funded by the Rockefellers.
@Rutee – men are 92% of work related deaths.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_fatality
Way to piss all over that sacrifice by attempting to minimise and diminish it.
Also, pretty hilarious that the guy who thinks all Muslims speak Arabic is calling me gullible.
i’m sure that’s what they tell you on vdare
Oh owly.
The problem isn’t men, it’s women being unable to control their sexuality.
Let’s say this is true, and that a woman who is not “controlling” her sexuality leaves the house lookin all sexay. Either men CAN control their sexuality, which would make her public sexayness not a problem as men’s violent sexual impulses would not be acted upon and everyone just goes about their day, or men CANNOT control their sexuality EITHER, which means that the sexay woman would get raped a lot. Since being outside while wearing clothes doesn’t hurt anyone, but rape does, this means that if anyone’s sexuality is a problem, it is men’s. Therefore, in order to have a peaceful, orderly society, men must be removed from the public sphere, so that women, with their uncontrollable but harmless sexuality, can go about their business, without worrying about men’s uncontrollable and harmful sexuality causing them to be attacked. Please explain to me in detail why this doesn’t make sense to you.
There’s only one reason women dress and act that way.
ORLY? Please tell me more about my motivations! You are clearly the expert here!
Go watch the video again. Tell me the difference between the way every man is dressed and the way that woman is dressed.
She’s wearing women’s clothes. THAT SLUT
She dressed like that to attract sexual attention from men.
lol no
She is unwilling to control her sexuality. Every society it’s always the same. Men try to civilize women but they always fail.
There’s a quote about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I forget what it was. Something about it being very manly, I assume.
@Joe
You know, feminists are the main people pushing for an end to gender discriminatory hiring in the trades.
If it wasn’t a Soviet plot, I’ll bet that would be a great thing for men.
it wouldn’t shock me to find out bircher baby believed that
@Ugh – Your ignorance is astounding! The Rockefellers are a family that “happened to own a bank in the 1920s” in the same way that the Queen of England is someone who “enjoys a modest inheritance, and owns a couple of cottages in the country”, you great bellend!
http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0006.pdf
3.8 out of every 100,000 workers dies on the job. That’s less than 1%. And you’re pretending it’s an unprecedented tragedy that affects every man ever. More men are sexually assaulted than die on the job, and considerably more *women* are sexually assaulted than people die on the job. At least, in the USA. As I said, workplace fatality has dropped considerably in the time after women were removed from dangerous jobs.
@Sharculese – go on then, astound me with YOUR definition of “rights”.
Also this guy: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1951/
SovietAgencyCo hates them some yellow fever.
3.8 per 100k is less than a percent of a percent, actually. It sucks for the dead, but ZOMG INJUSTICE it is not.
no kiddo, we’re talking about you right now. no dodges.
@Joe
At the time the Rockefeller foundation was founded and cut financial and policy ties with John Rockefeller, Rockefeller owned zero banks.
When Rockefeller died, he owned a controlling share of Chase Manhattan, and the Harlem Dunbar private bank. No money from either of these banks ever entered the foundation.
You’re the one claiming this dipshit, by pitting labor against woes.
My point was that fortunately the business I was referring to was subjected to the labor market. Someone actually had a choice. I know, that is awesome, right? Certainly not the picture nation wide, but I like the example. It’s a hope example.
Anyway you’re the one claiming nobody can afford to treat labor in a decent manner. You are the one saying “this must be true everywhere”.
Also, one of the examples you gave was corporate farming, which is disgusting anyway. A couple of things, one if their profits are going to remain the same because they are ahead of things slaughtering ahead of a feed shortage, causing the prices to fluctuate, prove this affect the bottom line. I would also like to know how much government subsidies those animal torturing turds get. You throw out some factoid about mass culling, and suddenly nobody can afford to treat labor a level up from the cows. You have not proved your point, you not only need to consider solipsism, but you also need to look up projection.
Have you any self awareness?
Also, what’s your explanation for how youth shelters in India play into the CONSPIRACY. There is the same amount of “evidence” that they are evil as you presented for feminism.
@Rutee – Nice, you’re trying to make it seem like FIVE AND A HALF THOUSAND deaths as year in the USA is “insignificant”, you heartless asshole!
Also, way to compare being KILLED with sexual assault, but then you HAD to do that, didn’t you? Otherwise how else could you make out that women have it worse? It never crosses your mind that does it that men’s suffering ought to be considered as an issue in and of itself, rather than through a prism of women’s suffering?
Clearly, dead men mean NOTHING to you, at all.
Thanks for perfectly proving my point re. the prevalence of male disposability as a meme! You sure as fuck hold fast to it!
Not a super clear sentence, so let me be clear. In order to prove your point, you need to discuss profits, not practices. In the icky example of corporate farming you gave, I think they’re heavily govt subsidized anyway.
so, we’re definitely into the meltdown now, right?
@Rutee – and 4.8 per 100K is the murder rate in the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide
And men are waaaaay more likely to be murdered than women.
However, feminists like yourself regularly throw up the stat of murder by intimates as you say “ZOMG INJUSTICE”.
Thanks, once more for proving that as far as your concerned MEN’s lives are meaningless compared to womens.