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.
If you’re not sure, the word you’re looking for is “hypothesis.”
I’m am so far from conservative, you have no clue.
Gravity is a theory. The big bang is a theory. To some who take the definition of the word theory seriously, the fact that the sun will rise again in the morning is just a theory. Evolution exists as both as a fact and a theory, so yes, it is just a theory, too.
I could match you documentation for documentation right down the line between states-rights and slavery as theories for causes. They are both well documented theories.
The stupid, it burns.
People were not around to observe and document the Big Bang. People were around to observe and document the Civil War.
Oh, and I told my manager and he made a male waiter deal with them. They whined loudly about not getting a “chick” but they were lucky he didn’t just kick them out. Then again, they were tough looking biker dudes so nobody wanted to get in a fight with them. Ah, the fun times of being a waitress.
Guys like them are why I say the customer is not always right.
Angela, you are clearly confused. Slavery is alive and well to this very day but has been illegal for a very long time in the US and in other parts of the world.
You have decided that that which is unconstitutional is not illegal. You are mistaken about that. It may not be criminal, until provisions are made in law, but it is indeed not legal.
Hellkell: Angela is flat out wrong. Why she’s stating that the 13 Amendment did not outlaw slavery is beyond me.
Because no state passed any specific laws against onto the books until 1941. A solution in search of a problem.
Angela: ’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?
This part.
The south started the war because when they tried to leave they weren’t allowed.
Which very conveniently ignore why they wanted to leave. What they said about the need to leave. What they enshrined in their constitution (no state was ever allowed to outlaw slavery).
Leaving that out, and then saying, “The North didn’t end slavery,” that’s Confederate Apologia.
That you are doing it out of anger at the moral failings of the North, after the war doesn’t make it not apologia.
Actually, that makes it worse, because it both forgives the South for seceding to defend the right to keep slaves, and pretends there really wasn’t any difference of opinion on the matter. You have, in so many words, said the North was just fine with slavery, ad infinitum so long as the South didn’t leave.
Which is also not true. Had the South not left, Slavery was doomed. Maybe it would have been better that way; with some sort of shift and the South accepting it. I don’t think so, but maybe.
But the South saw the writing on the wall and was willing to kill people (who weren’t slaves) to keep it. And you are prattling that it was about something abstract.
Bullshit.
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.
You used weasel words, stupidly. You said that something which was unconstitutional wasn’t illegal. You repeated it in the face of Federalist 78 (that was me showing my work, which you didn’t accept) and you ignored my disquisition on the 13th/14th amendments, with examples in Maximum Speed Laws and Jaywalking (with exempliae gratiae of jaywalking in NYC).
You bob and weave and refuse to answer specific refutations, and then pretend you didn’t. That’s, to be polite, engaging in weasel words. To be less polite it’s intellectual dishonesty in debate.
Who are you to say you know the definitive truth of what happened?
Someone who has a deep interest in it. Someone who has spend thousands of hours researching the topic. Someone who has read at least one hundred books on the subject (and about 20 on my shelves) has read “the controversy”. Someone who had thought (until now) that he’d heard every variation on the, “it wasn’t about slaves” excuse there was. This one, I confess is new. Thank you for that, at least.
I’ve deliberately used the word theory.
WEASEL WORDS. Saying it’s a theory isn’t a get out of
jail free card. Own your words.
no one really knows that slavery unconstitutional but not officially illegal until WWII.
Not true. As explained above; which you have not responded to (if you can explain how this is the case, there are some legal scholars who would love to hear it).
Even if I am outnumbered, it doesn’t remove the truth.
Ah… the mating call of the Internet Iconoclast, boldly speaking truth to power. The sheer loneliness of your position makes it more noble. Facts, quotations, citations, even basic agreement with the central tenet of your moral position aren’t enough to sway you.
You want us to drink the Kool-aid, and pretend it was about “state’s rights” and not about slavery. To imagine that slavery was legal, and (indirectly) absolve the South for waging a war, killing 650,000 people, for the right to enslave other human beings; because you think the people who won weren’t pure enough.
Fuck that noise.
Angela, enough with the theoretical wanking. This why people say you use weasel words, because guess what? You do.
Thanks for playing, thebewilderness, and your condescension is unique and refreshing among all the rest of this condescension, but as I’ve pointed out several times by this point, after the 13th amendment was passed banning slavery, no actual law was passed until 1941 actually outlawing the practice. So for 80 years, between December 1865 and December 1941, it wasn’t against the law to own slaves. It was unconstitutional, but not illegal and there is a difference. So for those who family members were either kidnapped, falsely accused of some bogus crime, or arrested for looking for work while employed by someone else, they had no legal recourse to have their family member free.
I know, I know, you don’t believe me.
Read: http://www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/
or
Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPlk41mNDuM
I’m really should listen to my wife and just let it go. So I’ll just say it one more time, from the beginning.
The. Civil. War. Did. Not. End. Slavery.
Why the civil war began is a matter up for debate today, but if it was fought for slavery you would think someone would have remembered to outlaw it on the way out the door. But no. The first people charged with owning slaves was a father and daughter who had kidnapped and forced a man to work for them as a slave for fifteen years were accused and charged with the crime in 1941.
You don’t believe me. I really do understand. Watch the first thirty minutes of Slavery by Another Name and then hit reply. I may or may not answer. Hopefully future me has come to her senses and realized that this just isn’t worth it.
JESUS H. TAPDANCING CHRIST, IF IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL IT’S ILLEGAL. PERIOD. FULL STOP. END OF STORY.
Are you this stupid on purpose?
hellkell, if I used weasel words, I did not intend them to be. I believe the states were fighting for their rights rather than fighting to free the slaves, and the civil war did not end slavery. Plain enough?
Of course zie is.
“Intent is not magic” is a classic for a reason. Doesn’t really matter if you meant to use weasel words, you did. Like I said, maybe you’re just that dumb and can’t help it.
FLYING TWISTING AROUND SPAGHETTI MONSTER, YOU CANNOT CHARGE SOMEONE WITH BREAKING THE CONSTITUTION, YOU CAN ONLY BE ARRESTED FOR BREAKING THE LAW AND IF IT IS NOT A LAW YOU CANNOT BE ARRESTED FOR BREAKING IT!
Every single level of government, from the town bylaws to the federal government FORGOT TO MAKE SLAVERY ILLEGAL. If it is not illegal, you can’t charge someone with it. If you can’t charge someone with it, that person cannot go to jail.
ARE YOU REALLY THAT MORE STUPID???
I’ll just point and laugh at your complete and utter inability to grasp even that which school children can wrap their heads around.
So tell, me Ms. Smarter Than a Fifth Grader, why you’d need to make a law when a constitutional amendment was passed, making it–wait for it-the law of the land. Federally.
You really should. You’re not accomplishing anything, and you’re not going to. You’ve not only killed any credibility you might have had on this site before it had any chance to develop, you’ve actually earned yourself negative credibility. From this thread on, you are the Confederate Apologist, and people are actually less likely to believe something if it’s you who say it.
Everyone shut up for 40 minutes and watch the first half of this PBS documentary. I don’t want anyone telling me how wrong I am until after you are able to type “I have watched the video, and I got past the bit where Mr. and Mrs. Kinsey finished talking about the letter their great-grand-aunt had written, and I still want to discuss the difference between something being unconstitutional and being illegal”
If you haven’t done that, I’m sorry. You don’t know what you’re talking about and have nothing to add to the conversation.
And the goalposts achieve escape velocity!
That’s so rich. I hate the north almost as much as I hate the union. The federal government, after the civil war, who knew about the atrocities still being committed in the south didn’t even make it illegal to own slaves. I’m very much against both sides, because other than the few brave politicians who spoke against it and the people who risked their lives in the underground railroad, my whole point from the very beginning was the only thing BOTH sides had in common was how much they disliked black people.
But I’d still wear the scarlet letter with pride.
Angela, who the fuck are you to tell us anything? Like Seraph said, if you had an iota of credibility, maaaaaaaybe you could tell us to shut up and listen, but as it stands now you can fuck right off.
*oops, wrong word in the first line. I’m sure you’ll all love pointing it out, again and again and again and again.
Ah, yes, the federal government that passed an amendment making slavery illegal, didn’t make it illegal.
Do you read what you type before you hit post?
hellkell, I’ve only been posting links to that video for the past two days. If you haven’t watched it by now, please don’t pretend as though you ever had any intentions of ever doing so.
Take your video and cram it sideways. Better yet, listen to your wife and let it go, she’s clearly the brains of the operation.
And Dr. Freud tells us something we already know.
No. Your whole point from the beginning was that the South went to war over “States’ Rights” instead of slavery, which is a very old, crusty and racist bit of apologetics which ignores the fact that the founders of the Confederacy themselves declared that the “States’ Right” they went to war over was slavery.