Manosphere drama is always a bit surreal. You may recall my post the other day about the feud developing between two sites that are regular sources of material for us here at Man Boobz: MGTOWforums and A Voice for Men. As you may recall, the folks at MGTOWforums were working themselves into a lather because AVFM was committing the cardinal sin of allowing women – sorry, “cunts” – to post articles and comments. The horror!
Now AVFM has fired back. In a thread on AVFM’s relatively new forum, head cheese Paul Elam lashes out at the “MGTOW Forum Fuckwits,” declaring them a bunch of shit-stirring “piss ants” and announcing his plans to turn the AVFM forum into MGTOW central.
I see an opportunity here, This forum is very user friendly to MGTOW’s. MGTOW Forums is the largest one of its kind, but it is run by children. I will happily siphon off as many of the men they ban and shame for not measuring up to their cliquish little band of alpha wannabe’s as I can.
God knows [MGTOWforums admin] Nacho and his bootlickers run them off as quick as they come in.
AVfM is already a more traveled site than their forum, and as time passes the MGTOW presence here will eclipse their little circle jerk.
Speaking of circle jerks, here’s Paul, in an unrelated thread on his forum, banning a dude for having the temerity to suggest that “Reddit, not avoiceformen.com, is the most important online resource for Men’s Rights Activism.”
BANNED! Nothing must challenge the supremacy of PAUL ELAM!
Naturally, I found out about this by reading about it on MGTOWforums, where A Voice for Men is now being dismissed as — I kid you not — “A Vagina For Manginas.”
Still, the strangest development in this civil war is this: some MGTOWers who’ve been banned from AVFM’s forum have set up an alternative forum of their own, which they’ve rather confusingly named “AVFMforums.” Yes, that’s right, it’s a battle between the AVFM forums and … AVFMforums. How can you tell them apart? Well, when the latter group uses the acronym AVFM they mean “Alternate Voice for Men” rather than the original “A Voice for Men.” Also, the dudes at AVFMforums think that AVFM’s Elam is “a lying hippocrite [sic] with no credibility.”
If this is all a bit confusing, perhaps this brief video clip will help elucidate some of the issues here:
Also, for no particular reason, here are two new pictures of Sweetie Pie Jonus, one of my kittens:
Actually, the combatants in this latest mansophere civil war could learn a thing or two from my kittens. They fight, but always seem to end up licking each other’s heads. The kittens, that is. I’d love to see Paul Elam and his critics doing the same.
What part of your video did not convince me is failing to get through your moralistic blinders?
I watched it. You are still wrong.
That’s the problem.
You have confused being morally outraged with being right.
It doesn’t work that way.
Sorry, what part about it not actually being illegal to own slaves until 1941 was I actually wrong about? What part about people being enslaved for eighty years after the civil war with no actual repercussions did I miss? What part about slavery not being against the law after the civil war did I get confused? How are you defining “wrong”? To quote you, “show your work”. No one was arrested for owning slaves after the civil war because it wasn’t illegal to actually own slaves. “You are still wrong” is hardly proof. Yes, I’m morally outraged, but I’m not incorrect in my anger.
The causes of the war is debatable and always will be, but you cannot have actually watched that video and actually believe that the institution of slavery came to an end as of or before December 22, 1865. You just can’t. I don’t know if you don’t have a brain, heart or soul, but you’d have to be missing something not to feel broken after listen to that poor woman who thought that if the president actually knew what was actually going on, he surely could have done something to help her kid brother, but he didn’t.
After the civil war and nothing was done at any level of municipal, state or federal level to help the people who were re-enslaved. An entire group of people lived in a state of constant terror that some cotton farm’s quota meant the difference between being a free person to working in a chain gang. They could be legally beaten for not working hard enough. They could starve. They could die from any number of things but they couldn’t quit without permission. Looking for a new job was against the law. They couldn’t vote and at any time they could be arrested for trumped up crimes. Guilty or innocent, they had to work off their court costs. They could be raped or lynched. You can’t argue that not a single person was actually charged with the crime of owning a slave until 1941.
But somehow, despite all of that, I’m wrong? Show your work.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it’s a duck. If you don’t make any money from your work and you get beaten while you do it because the guy who chains you up at night isn’t breaking any laws, that’s slavery.
Angela:Sorry, what part about it not actually being illegal to own slaves until 1941 was I actually wrong about? … What part about slavery not being against the law after the civil war did I get confused?… No one was arrested for owning slaves after the civil war because it wasn’t illegal to actually own slaves.
That part.
To quote you, “show your work” I have; at length, but I’ll elaborate.
It is illegal for the US to quarter troops without the permission of the homeowner. Says so right in the Constitution (3rd Amendment). There is no specific law against it. Doesn’t need to be.
Now, it may there is no state statute prohibiting it either, which is immaterial to it’s being illegal.
One might argue that, absent such a parallel statute it is legal, under the Common Law precept that what isn’t prohibitied is permitted, but under the Incorporaton aspects of the 14th Amendment that stopped being arguable at the same time the 13th Amendment made slavery unconstitutional.
Passing a local law prohibiting it wasn’t to make it illegal, it was to make it locally illegal so as to not need the federal gov’t to choose to prosecute to punish someone for it.
Was it unjust that the Feds might not get involved? Yes. Did that make it legal to keep slaves? No. It just meant that punishment was harder to manage.
The causes of the war is debatable and always will be, but you cannot have actually watched that video and actually believe that the institution of slavery came to an end as of or before December 22, 1865. You just can’t.
Are you blind? Have you read a thing, or are you satisfied to be living in a stupor.
I said that it was illegal. I said that any number of ways to opress, coerce, and otherwise deprive people of their rights existed.
Yes, I’m morally outraged, but I’m not incorrect in my anger.
Which is the crux of the issue. No one has said you are wrong to be angry. We have said the reasons you ascribe to an event (the US Civil War) are wrong.
You can say it’s “debateable” all you like. We can also debate whether a fetus is a person, fire is caused by phlogiston, or the earth is flat.
The fact is that all of those, no matter how cleverly debated, not true. It is also not true that the US Civil War wasn’t fought about slaves, or that it was illegal (no matter how the laws were violated) to have slaves after it.
It’s illegal to drive more than the posted speed limit. It’s illegal to jaywalk in New York.
That both are done with impunity changes those two statements not one little bit.
You argued the Civil War wasn’t about slavery. You are wrong.
You argue that it wasn’t illegal to keep slaves after the war. You are wrong.
It really is that simple. You are simply wrong.
What are you even talking about at this point?
Slavery conditions in the South continued due to the coordinated political and local effort to cause Reconstruction to fail. That kind of doubles down on the truthful assertion that the war was caused by the South’s desire to continue slavery given how hard they fought post-war to return to that status quo.
Slavery conditions elsewhere in the U.S. after that are historical instances of global slavery in its form today, reported in detail in such instances by National Geographic’s “21st Century Slaves” expose.
(Attached photo excerpt):
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0309/feature1/zoom5.html.
This is something that is illegal in this country under the 13th Amendment, so please stop with the gas-lighting about legality as it relates to the Civil War.
I guess the one possible attribute to your Confederate-Apologist spiel is that it isn’t the one of the usual mind numbingly stupid Antebellum South narratives born from the Southern school system.
One of the dumbest/elaborate arguments I’ve heard is one that made the Civil War into a conflict between simple plucky Southerners (read: a slave-holding aristocracy with a freeman soldier class bonded together by a racist and inhuman culture) defending their agrarian utopia against the oppressive nightmare of the industrialized north which wanted to take their farmland for factories.
My head literally hurt typing that garbage.
I’m sorry, which part of my “both sides of the war were racist bastards who didn’t give a rats ass about the plight of the actual slaves in actual slavery” are you thinking is confederate-apologists? Because whatever part you’ve read it as is wrong.
I’m not gaslighting anything. I’m saying that the war had to have been fought over states-rights because in the 1800s if all the people who had actually cared to end the institution of slavery just because of the way it treated the slaves had gotten together and fought all those people who wanted to keep owning slaves, the war would have been fought by less than a couple thousand people and would have only lasted an afternoon, maybe creeping up to supper-time. It would have been short, over quickly, and all the lives, time and money that had been wasted during the actual civil war could have been used for humanitarian reasons.
Instead it was drawn out for years at unending suffering and slavery didn’t stop just because the union won. That’s what I said in the beginning, and that’s what I’m saying now. Both sides were racist as fuck. Both sides wouldn’t have sent their children to die if it had just been because of black people’s suffering.
You’re the one trying to force me into a gaslighting apologist because I refuse to believe the fairy-tale that once upon a time, people died for the equal treatment of others.
Angela, why are you still even here? No one is buying what you’re trying to sell.
The part where you pretend that the North’s racism somehow erases the fact that the South started the war because they felt that slavery was in danger.
The south started the war because when they tried to leave they weren’t allowed. I didn’t say anything erased anything else. Both sides were wrong and both sides paid for it. And I’m not selling anything. The siren song of people being wrong on the internet is a strong one. But did it make you feel like a superior person asking me what was I still doing here?
Even if I am outnumbered, it doesn’t remove the truth.
Yeah, k.
The entire really simplistic “both sides are racist!!!!!” argument doesn’t really fill the nuances of a society that based it’s economic ability on controlling and suppressing the movement, reproductive rights, family structure, education, and cultural heritage, of a people based on their race and ancestry.
Can you even comprehend the logistics of Southern slave culture? The damn arithmetic?
So comparing some shitheads from Southie Boston, or a Northern draft riot, to the systematic processing, institution, and degradation of human beings into little else then self-perpetuating agricultural tools kind of falls flat.
Second point, your entire afternoon jaunt of a battle theory didn’t happen because the south had independently, separate from the Federal government, accelerated the organization of a confederated army because of its roots both in pushing the slavery agenda in nonaffiliated territories (ex. The Kansas Conflict), and suppressing any possible threat of a slave revolt (ex. John Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry).
So, guess what? That whole Southern slavery thing is cropping up again, as the explicit reason for the escalation of the South’s men and armament for the conflict.
The personal reasons for people fighting in the civil war on both sides are varied, and only speak to peoples’ personal ideologies, the reasoning for the South’s aggression stems out of their systematic response to the threat against slavery.
And they tried to leave because they felt their way of life – i.e., slavery – was endangered.
No. The South was wrong. They went to war to protect slavery. The North went to war to put down a rebellion and keep the country together. How is that wrong?
And yes, you are in fact trying to erase the face that the South went to war to defend Slavery. It’s what you’ve been doing since your very first comment to NWOSlave. This is a written medium, we can go back and look.
You’re really, really not.
No. The fact that you’re spouting apologia for the Confederacy – and yes, pretending that they went to war for any reason other than slaver is apologia for the Confederacy – makes me feel like a superior person.
The truth of what?
Their leaving for what?
You can bust out some weaselwords about both sides being wrong, but the reasons for one side actual starting the conflict, and tools it used to start it, are right there in its actions both, before, during, and after the war.
Delude yourself all you want about knowing “the truth”, but just because you coded your entire argument as something slightly different then the typical “states raghts!” and historical contrarianism that only speaks to Union actions and nothing to the Confederacy’s, doesn’t make you and others similar to you any less wrong about the the foundations for the Civil War.
I missed this thread discussion. That reminds me of my sophomore English teacher’s husband that came to talk to our class about being a Civil War reenactor. He asked the class why the Civil War happened. One student said “Slavery”, and he said “Wrong, the truth is it was over states’ rights”. I was like “What the hell?”. He also described the border ruffians as brave heroes fighting against the evil Kansas jayhawks (the historical group, not the college team). I love studying history, and I was offended to hear people rewriting it to hide the ugliness of racism and oppression. No, we have to be honest about history so we can prevent the mistakes of the past, and sorry if that sounds like a hokey cliche.
That whole “States rights!” rallying cry was used again this year by the Missouri legislator that wants to “nullify” any federal laws they don’t like, in regards to abortion, gay marriage, homeschooling regulations, the Affordable Care Act, etc. Nope, state sovereignty is treason, and the South lost.
It is true that both the North and South has racism. Everywhere has racism. That doesn’t change the fact that the Civil War was fought over slavery.
Sorry, I meant Jayhawkers. Jayhawks are the Big 12 team, and Jayhawkers were the free state settlers defending themselves from the border ruffians.
I’m stumped as to why Angela is sticking around and is clinging to her ignorance so hard. I’d say she’s doubled down on it, but it’s gone way past that.
Erase the fact. Slavery. Oy. Anger is not your friend when debating, regardless of the forum.
Didn’t a certain libertarian-politician-who-shall-not-be-named’s son (also a libertarian politician) make a similar argument about why he wouldn’t have voted for the Civil Rights Act had he been in office at the time? Like, “It’s not because I’m a racist, it’s just that the whole concept of civil rights infringes on the much more important right of business owners to discriminate” or words to that effect? I am too lazy to go look that up. But yeah, the whole “States rights” canard gets tiresome quickly, even when it’s dressed up as concern about the post-Civil War treatment of African Americans.
Don’t accuse me of using weasel words. I flat out said that slavery didn’t end with the civil war, and it didn’t. I said that if people had been fighting for slavery alone, it would have been a very short battle if you would even call it a war. The truth is most people didn’t own slaves in the south and didn’t care about the non-economic and political affect of slavery to the north. Because people didn’t.
I’m not a bad person trying to twist words around. I don’t understand why I’m being accused of the things I’m being accused of. Who are you to say you know the definitive truth of what happened? I’ve deliberately used the word theory. The people who have said that slavery ended at the end of the war (incorrect) or with the proclamation (also incorrect) were clearly wrong. Those thinking that the 13th amendment ended slavery are still wrong, but it’s not their fault that no one really knows that slavery unconstitutional but not officially illegal until WWII. How and why the war started are theories, and no one can proclaim one theory more or less correct. You can trade links to the cows come home, for every one person saying Y you can find someone just as knowledgable and specialized saying Z.
It would make my day if we as a county placed those who say the war wasn’t catalyzed by the Confederacy’s need for slavery at the same level as 9/11 Truthers.
But, I know between places like the South Carolina public school district, people like Angela, and scrubs like that pair of chinless wonders I passed in Oregon City with the Stars and Bars bumper sticker on their Datsun, that will never happen.
*country
Oh, now we start on the extreme butthurt part of the show. Angela, let’s say you’re not a bad person. That still leaves the question of why the hell you’re here.
Kobold: I’ll see your stickers and raise you not one but TWO giant-ass Confederate flags flying off the back of an F350. My eyes about fell out of my head when I saw that tooling down the road. Fucking Texas.
Angela, according to your logic the existence of bootleggers shows that the 18th Amendment didn’t make “…manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States…” illegal.
Angela is flat out wrong. Why she’s stating that the 13 Amendment did not outlaw slavery is beyond me.
Of course the war did not immediately end slavery Angela-it was the 13th Amendment that ended slavery.
The 13th Amendment made it illegal to have slaves.
What it did not do was make the people who refused to follow the law, follow the law. Mere fact that someone fails to obey does not mean that slavery is legal.
So once again:
THE 13th AMENDMENT MADE IT ILLEGAL TO HAVE SLAVES.
To keep denying this actual fact is basically showing you to be rather stupid. I mean beyond what we normally expect out of trolls.
Oh, hey, I recognize this particular brand of conservative bullshit. Next up – how evolution is just a theory too.
(For the bonus round, let’s talk about how stupid it is to apply the “evolution is just a theory” logic to a series of historical events that happened within fairly recent history and that were very well documented.)
Kobold and Hellkell, I got a Confederate flag story. When I was a high schooler, I waited tables at a restaurant catering to truckers. These three guys come in wearing Confederate flag bandanas and shirts. I was like, “Ugh” but I took them to their table. One of the guys tells me “If you sit on my lap, I’ll go ahead and give you a five dollar tip already”. So all of the assumptions I made about them based on their attire turned out to be true, not that there was any doubt.
Another guy from a nearby town put up the Stars and Bars up on his Chevy and showed it off at tour small town drive in. He kept correcting everyone that it was a Naval battle flag, not a national flag, as if that made any difference about it being racist. Are we gonna split hairs here? It’s Confederate, it’s crap, end of story. Oh, and I don’t like the old line of “it’s heritage, not hate” because it’s a heritage based on hate.
You can also see them all over Branson and even more out in the more remote parts of the Ozarks. I think racists like the isolation of the hills.