Reddit MRAs, heeding the call to service, once again prove what dedicated activists they are. Check out the upvotes on this baby!
Today Urban Dictionary, tomorrow the world! (Also, check out those tags!)
Oh, and in case you were wondering, Reddit MRAs also wield a mean downvote; see definition numero dos.
Of course, Man Boobzers reign supreme where it really counts: the Rationalization Hamster meme!
Uh did you miss the part where I agreed it was shitty or?
The point is, there was an apology and it was accepted. But here you are on some other forum typing out paragraphs late at night without any indication as to what the people in question actually want. Why wasn’t piegasm removed? Well, what does Cuduggan think? What does the rest of the community think? Why are you waging your little crusade so far from Gotham?
Wow, you’re a real piece of work. You acknowledge you don’t have any evidence about the homeless guy’s state of mind, but out of the blue suddenly you DO have the authority to decide that McCreight was saying that he was masturbating to her from the fact that she said he was watching her, and further you have the temerity to claim, again without evidence, that she is an attention seeking narcissist while still maintaining that she needz moar evidents to claim anything at all.
You are a strange, sad little person.
Pecunium: No, the comment I direct linked to was piegasm’s comment responding to emptyell. I guess the direct linking failed.
What I’m equating is you defending piegasm’s remarkably stupid statement. Which is what you do. Is rape a fate worse than death? According to Cuduggan, no, it isn’t, and he said so in the thread and was vindicated for it. He says if he had been murdered, he wouldn’t have experienced [very good, moving things] and he also says that for piegasm to say he should feel that way is telling him to have a victim mentality – which he doesn’t agree with. It seems that for rape victims themselves to feel they shouldn’t have a victim mentality is a grievous error, at least to piegasm.
I’m beginning to get a handle on the level of vitriol that made McCreight take her hiatus. She can’t even complain about people watching her while masturbating in public without people dedicating paragraphs to persecuting her on completely unrelated fora, calling her a narcissist without evidence for the crime of being upset that people are masturbating in public while watching her.
Maybe dogs have the keys to my car. Maybe my curtains are plotting against me. Maybe rear view mirrors see into the future. Maybe incandescent light bulbs open a portal to the 5th dimension. Maybe the 5th Dimension is the best band that has ever existed. Maybe “What is hip today may soon become passé” is the most important wisdom that has ever been passed on to humankind?
So many maybes, Pitchy. What are you babbling about, you babbling little brook you?
Pitchy: What I’m equating is you defending piegasm’s remarkably stupid statement.
Accept that your presentation of it (that piegasm said someone would be better off dead) is wrong.
So I can’t be defending that. Piegasm didn’t say it.
Piegasm said one thing, it was said badly.
Cuduggan misunderstood it (see above, re said badly).
You choose to persist that it was meant as misread.
So the answer is either otiose, or mendacious. At least we’ve narrowed the choices.
See all the other arguments you were so hot about; and that you came here to wage your little war against the evils of A+ (instead of talking about it there, with the people involved), and to abuse the locals on a different blog for not condeming it… I’m going for mendacious.
Pecunium:
Not at all. I’ve seen dudes wanking on the beach. Not homeless, not drunk, just not giving a shit.
Which is obviously equivalent to one another.
So which is it? She should have him arrested, so he can sleep warm, with a hot meal (have you ever been in jail? Dinner on intake is a sandwich, just sayin’), or he wasn’t, and she was just being offended over nothing?
Make up your mind.
I’m saying there is no evidence that he was masturbating. However, if he was, or she thought he was, why not call the police and have him picked up? If she was so damned offended by it, why not do something about it? It’s only logical that some other poor woman (I’m saying woman to appeal to Jen’s sensibilities, but it could be anyone, I suppose) (or a child, to appeal to cloudiah) would see him and then they’d be “violated.”
Tulgey Logger:
Did you now? I only see where you quoted piegasm’s gaffe and then made a sarcastic comment about it.
She said she walked by. Only later did she add that he looked at her, but then it could’ve been circumstantial. Evidently he wasn’t following her around, stalking her. It seems to be quite narcissistic to make that situation all about herself and then say he needed her consent. Remarkable stupidity all around.
I never realized how narcissistic I was to insist that people get my consent before involving me in their sexual activity… So which is it, Pitchy, did the masturbation never happen or was it just unimportant because the dude was hungry and “mentally deficient”? And what should the punishment be for insufficiently correct tweeting by a feminist?
I quoted piegasm’s gaffe? What alternate thread are you reading?
Here is the extent of the evidence you’ve presented for her “making it all about herself”:
http://bitchspot.jadedragononline.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/JMcC7.jpg
Remarkable stupidity all around, indeed. But hey, it’s enough to diagnose her with narcissism on the Internets!
Oh, I see, it’s the whole consent thing you don’t understand. I’m going to explain this very slowly and loudly:
THE HOMELESS MAN INVOLVED HER IN HIS SEXUAL ACT WITHOUT HER CONSENT BY MASTURBATING IN PUBLIC. THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT WAS ALL ABOUT HER. IT MEANS HE INVOLVED HER, AND POTENTIALLY OTHER PASSERS-BY, WITHOUT OBTAINING CONSENT.
Remarkable stupidity all around.
Pecunium: Oh for crying out loud, it’s as clear as day. What is so difficult to grasp?
As for A+, you’re joking, right? They are not tolerant of dissent. There have been several threads on Schrödinger’s Rapist and the questionable nature of Atheism Plus and all of them are sickeningly moderated to the point where you’re pounced on if you should have even a little disagreement. I dare you to find a thread that questions Atheism Plus that doesn’t have any of the mods accusing people of derailing, concern trolling, tone trolling, etc, etc, und so weiter, and that’s just the mods; the primary culprits (Grimalkin, cipher and ceepolk) are foul-mouthed sycophants walking in lockstep with the moderators, attack dogs hoping to get a bone or two and they’re given free reign to whatever they please.
However, a single comment out of place and bam! Expelled. Matt Dillahunty? He exposed a flaw in their moderation policy that could only have been detected going in incognito and what they do instead of thanking? They expunge him for sockpuppeting and request, nay, demand an apology for him should he wish to return to their good graces. No, I will not venture over there. Why would I? It would be pointless. They wouldn’t listen, they wouldn’t accept feedback, it would be a waste of time.
Pitchy: Which is obviously equivalent to one another.
No… this is the same shit you are doing re murder/rape, taking two differnt things,and pretending they were addressing the same thing.
You said, The man was masturbating in public, apparently not caring that people walked on by as he was doing it; how far gone would he have to be mentally to do that?
I answered, with personal experience.
Not at all gone. Completely stable.
It’s pretty simple. You ask a question. I answer it, as asked.
Then you pretend it was something else altogether.
I begin to see a pattern.
We need an MRA Olympics. Possible events:
* Trolling
* Goal Post Moving
* Misdirection
* Being a sad, strange little person
What else?
Who the fuck are you?
You’re in here, frothing at the mouth and leaving a slime trail of butt-hurt indignation because David moderated you in a different thread? And not just any thread mind you, but one in which he made clear his intention to moderate and/or ban the kind of post you tried to make. Nobody cares about your half-assed defense of TAA. Who gives a shit if you don’t think he’s a terrible person? Who asked you for your “perspective”? Who sought your opinions on “balance” and “objectivity”?
And you’re calling McCreight a narcissist?
Really, dude, who the fuck are you?
Pitchy: You dare me? What the fuck is this, middle school? Newsflash… this is MANBOOBZ, not Atheism+.
If you want to bag on the community here… use the community here. If I don’t give a shit about how a place I don’t hang out does things… that’s my business. If I don’t care that you are upset about it, that’s not my problem.
I’ll look after my own house.
If you want to bag on A+, take it there. If they are so all-fired intolerant as you say, then they will dwindle to insignificance. Then you “win”.
But if you keep trying to pretend we are awful because we aren’t marching in the streets to make them change their ways… I direct you to the header. This isn’t about fixing all the worlds problems, it’s about mocking a certain brand of stupidity.
Sometimes, as a bonus, fools come in here to tell us we are doing it wrong.
They’re not tolerant of dissent?
Odd, here’s a 164 post thread centered around disagreeing with the forum’s position on the Dillahunty affair:
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1647
I have zero idea what the whole Matt Dillahunty thing is about, but I find your characterization of what goes on there to be pretty misleading on its very face.
Nobinayamu: He’s Pitchguest, The Dark Knight. He is out, in the seamy-underbelly of the Social Justice spaces in the web: bringing BALANCE,and PERSPECTIVE, to those who suffer from the blinkers of compassion, and the stifling burden of logic.
He’s the hero we deserve, just not the hero we need right now.
Because it’s so bloody hard (ha!) to get, I do not condone masturbating in public. However, if I should see a homeless man masturbating in public as I happened to walk on by, I would still not condone it but not judge it before considering all the variables. The key words here are: happened to walk on by. As I said, the homeless was looking at her but it could have been circumstantial, i.e. she happened to walk into his field of vision as he was doing the deed and he looked up. It’s not that fucking hard. Besides, how many other people happened to walk on by this man masturbating? Many, I imagine. So if I happened to walk by a homeless man masturbating along with several other people, why would I make it all about myself just because he happens to look at me?
And you would be so hoity-toity to request for a possibly mentally ill homeless man for consent to masturbate?
You know, long before David ever wrote anything about Atheism +, that …schtick jackass was here whining like a kid who dropped their ice cream cone. Is this just going to be a thing now?
The standing request I have is that anyone who wants to involve me in sexual activity should get my consent. Schticky, can you explain what is narcissistic or “hoity toity” about that?
So Pitchy why are you trying to make this all about yourself? You don’t like A+. Got it. Thanks for sharing.
You even showed us what you think their faults are (which puts you head and shoulders above most of the fools who try to “set us straight”).
But, on reviewing the evidence, we don’t agree. Why are you going on about it? You’ve said you think we are Lying Liar McLiarsons, nothing but lickspittle sycophantic worshippers of the Great Futrelle.
So what’s your point? You’ve share, “The Truth” with us, and told us what purblind morons we are, and taken us to task for being knee-jerk ideologues.
Why are you continuing? You’ve pretty much run through the entire playbook. If there’s something left undone, get to it man. If not, and you’ve made it to the end of the script, let the curtain fall.
Pecunium: Look, man, it’s simple. The homeless man is probably either a) starved b) dehydrated c) mentally disturbed, or d) a mixture of the three or all of the above. It’s not guaranteed that he’s any of these things, but being homeless with no income, no home, no medicine, it’s very probable. Now you want to make an equivalent comparison between a healthy, probably not starved, not dehydrated, and not mentally disturbed random guy on a beach and someone who’s homeless. The situations are not even close to being the same.
Nobinayamu: Butthurt? Really?
Well, why the fuck wouldn’t I give my opinion? It’s an open blog. What does it matter who I am? Who are you to order me around? All I did in that other thread was to provide a different perspective to David’s obvious and delibarately biased narrative — politely at first, I might add — and then I got pissed off when he just deleted it outright. I haven’t demanded anything of David Futrelle; I offered an objective view of someone who was deemed ‘an all terrible person’ on a controversial topic. Speaking of which,
[VIDEO DELETED BY DF]
Tulgey Logger:
Yeah, have you read that thread, mate? You might want to read the whole thing.
Pitchy: Ever been homeless? Because I have, 1: You are full of shit, and 2: You are moving the goalposts.
You said someone had to be “pretty far gone” to be having a wank in public. I said I’d seen people who weren’t having a pull.
Now you are trying to say that isn’t what you said. Own your words, like a grown-up.
Well, why the fuck wouldn’t I give my opinion? It’s an open blog. What does it matter who I am? Who are you to order me around? All I did in that other thread was to provide a different perspective to David’s obvious and delibarately biased narrative — politely at first, I might add — and then I got pissed off when he just deleted it outright. I haven’t demanded anything of David Futrelle; I offered an objective view of someone who was deemed ‘an all terrible person’ on a controversial topic. Speaking of which,
Horse-pucky. Dave said he wasn’t going to put up with certain types of comment. His blog, his rules.
Then you come in here, making demands of people who are regular contributors; people who don’t know you from my Great Aunt, and tell us we are doing it wrong. You say Dave was unfair to you, because he did what he said was unfair to you, when all you were doing was, “offering perspective”.
And then you embed a link (which I’m not going to click) trying to do it again?
You want to offer persepctive… start your own blog. It’s easy.
If I were Dave, I’d be swinging the ban-hammer about now. Not for being rude (you are). Not for being stupid (you are), but for being a butthurt titty-baby who thinks he’s entitled to shit on the rug, and get a cookie for it.
Stupid block quotes. Stupid insomnia.
Pecunium: Anyone with a modicum of honesty, integrity and humility would dislike A+ and what its proponents are doing. It started with Jen, escalated with Richard Carrier and now the moderators at their own designed forum is taking it a whole a new level. Pitiful.