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.
Yes, because you clearly don’t want to learn anything today, hellkell. That would just be wrong. Hee! There’s Angela. Do you know what I heard? I heard that she thinks that slavery should have been made illegal in the 1860s! OMG, what a dweeb. Let’s not talk to her. I bet you were really popular in high school, hellkell.
What the fuck? No, seriously, what the absolute fuck is this?
P.S.– Slavery WAS made illegal in the 1860s.
Annnnd meltdown! We have achieved third grade, people!
*High fives hellkell*
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!
Really… Treason is defined in the Constitution. Are you saying it’s legal.
Quartering troops is prohibited by the constitution; there is no statute which forbids it. So you are saying it’s not forbidden?
Federalist 78 explained that if something isn’t, per the constitution, it cannot be legal
Marbury v. Madison was all about that very question.
So you, legal expert, are arguing that approx. 225 years of caselaw and precedent are wrong. Got it. Why do we listen to you, rather than Marshall, or Frankfurter or even, (God Help Me) Scalia? Explain to me why I should believe your claims over my knowledge of the law. Show me a citation which says, “This is legal because, although the Constitution forbids it, no local statue has been written to make it so.”
Please show me that. Because then I’d see one thing you weren’t pulling out of your ass.
I’ve read a lot of law. I studied it, to some degree, when I was teaching interrogation (if you’d like to discuss the arcana of the Geneva Conventions as General Article 3 of the Third Convention applies to Prisoners of War, Detained Persons, Retained Persons, Displaced Person and Protected Persons I’m probably as expert as anyone this side of Den Haag, or the ICC), as well as when I was contemplating a career in it.
Your misunderstanding of it is great. Your fundamental failure is actually greater than your lack of historical understanding. Both seem to stem from the same failing, which is related to the appeal to emotion you tried to make here:
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”
Ain’t gonna happen. Because the plight of the victims is irrelevant to the question.
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.
Horseshit.That’s an appeal to emotion. The tragedy of the victims changes not one whit the nature of the law. It is, as I’ve said before, your basic problem. You are substituting your outrage for facts
If you think you get to dictate the terms on which you come to engage others, you are in for a life of disappointments. If you think my paying attention to the way the law works, as opposed to some fantasy where the North was conniving to pretend slavery was illegal (and for why… if slavery being illegal wasn’t such a big deal what was the point of not one, but two amendments to make it so?) when it wasn’t?
You keep ignoring that I’m telling you I’ve seen slaves, with my own eyes. I spent a long career doing interrogation. I hope I’ve seen more of the horrid things people can do to each other than you have.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. No one is entitled to their own facts.
*high fives Seraph*
-From the Civics Library of the Missouri Bar (website)
There was no landmark new anti-slavery legislation done in 1941. When two Texas debt/slave holders were finally prosecuted in 1942, it was under the Anti-Peonage Act. That law had been around since 1867. The Federal government just never cared to enforce it before then. They left all of that to the state/local courts, who handed out pitiful penalties whenever they saw fit to prosecute and convict. There were a few stabs every now and again at enforcement (Teddy Roosevelt’s administration tried and ultimately decided it was too much work). No one decidedly took the involuntary servitude bull by the horns until WWII.
– From pbs.org, “Slavery By Another Name” Gallery of Themes: FDR and the New Deal
Was it awful that the federal government couldn’t be bothered to help these people before WWII? Yes. Did it mean that the slave/debt holders were acting legally? No. If nothing else, they were in violation of the Act quoted above (and that’s not even bringing the 13th Amendment into the picture). Lack of enforcement does not mean that a law is erased. Just because the cop who lives down the street decides to ignore my neighbor’s meth lab does not mean that the manufacturing and distribution of crystal methamphetamine is now legal. It means that someone’s not doing their job.
If you want an honest-to-goodness, hey-you-can’t-keep-slaves criminal law, you actually have to wait until Harry Truman takes office:
-From the Wall Street Journal, “The World War II Effect”
But I would think that a Constitutional amendment would have been enough to make slavery against the law of the land. Otherwise, why bother amending it at all? Why bother having a Constitution at all if it means nothing? You can make the argument that no one upheld it in the case of all of those people who had been imprisoned, abused, and exploited. That doesn’t change the fact that the Constitution said you could not imprison, abuse, or exploit them.
OK, I’m going on media blackout until after the election is over. If the debate is still raging on Wednesday, I’ll answer for my claims then. Good night, and good luck.
Seraph, if you had read my whole point, my point it had to be states rights, because if the war was fought for slavery, it was an incomplete emancipation that left a quarter million people dead for an institution that was recreated within 20 years through racist laws and straight kidnapping.
The southern states found time to make vagrancy punishable with a thousand dollar fine and make it illegal to go looking for work while you were already employed but didn’t make holding people against their will in neo-slavery illegal.
I get how horrible states rights are as a reason to fight a war. It choosing between scyalla and charybdis, between slavery and states rights as to which reason the war was fought. They’re both horrible, and made even more horrible by the fact that when the war was over, slavery took a blow to the chin, but it wasn’t defeated by a long shot. 1941 was the first time someone was charged and convicted with owning a slave.
It’s not common knowledge, and it should be.
Angela: my whole point from the very beginning was the only thing BOTH sides had in common was how much they disliked black people.
Lie.
You point was the war was about states rights, and the North not being willing to give them to the South.
Do you know what I heard? I heard that she thinks that slavery should have been made illegal in the 1860s!
It was. People broke the law. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but people do that.
Also, there is no Sinter Klaus, the Tooth Fairy was your parents and the Easter Bunny doesn’t shit colored eggs.
hellkell, if I’m wrong, simply show me where a law was passed before 1941 that it was illegal to own slaves. I didn’t write the name of the 1941 law down, and I won’t watch the video again for anything. I’m glad it exists, but I won’t put myself through just how many people’s civil rights were violated again.
I really thought there was something with my research that I couldn’t find a single person charged with a single count of holding slaves after the war. I had no idea it was because there weren’t any laws on the books to charge slave-holders with.
But don’t listen to me, I only think the federal government should have stopped the civil rights violations that took place from the police officers to the companies that hired pressed service chain gangs long before the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Here’s your law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
That it was unenforced is something else altogether, which you have been told over and over.
*considers bashing head against desk multiple times to override the pain of reading Angela’s bullshit*
Historians all over the U.S. are weeping tonight, drowning in despair they know not why.
ithiliana! Good to see you!
Yes, the bullshit is strong with this one.
Angela, a lot of your ignorance would be alleviated if you’d read Fitzy’s post above.
percunium, the difference between illegal and unconstitutional, is while they are both wrong, but one would get you arrested and fined, the other will get you frowned upon. Slavery was frowned upon for 80 years and you can’t change that.
It was only illegal if the person was kidnapped. If they were “legally” arrested, even if they were found innocent they were sentenced to court costs. If the person didn’t die, they just weren’t released from their chain gang. And there was nothing illegal about that for 80 years.
I didn’t cause that to be, so don’t get mad at me.
But apparently I have no credibility because I think that is a bad thing that happened.
And the reason your point is not only irrelevant but active obfuscation has been pointed out many times.
Tell me: are you a shameless propagandist, or just so deep in denial that you actually think these are convincing arguments?
You have no credibility because you keep lying about known facts of history.
I am somewhat shocked that Angela has never heard of the Northwest Ordinance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance
ithiliana: We did what we could. The stupor in this one is strong. Stronger than truth. She wants to believe. It’s sort of strange, she is angry with us because we think worse of some people than she does.
thebewilderness: It’s not as if Angela has shown herself to be much for research. Hell, it’s not as if she’s not much for reading what’s handed to her, much less finding things on her own.
Pecunium: I know you did–there was much awesome refutation falling upon somebody who seems to be stuffing cotton and wax into hir ears, wearing headphones, playing loud music through them, spinning around and shouting LALALALALALALALALALALALA to herself.
If this stupor goes on at this rate, I could see a nomination for Troll of the Year.
No wonder she couldn’t find the 941 law, because it was actually an 1867 law. Whoops.
It’s been a while since we’ve had a troll dig a hole this deep over nothing related to the the OP. Thanks, NWO.
ithiliana: Have you seen this: http://american-shakespeare.com/?p=234
hellkell: It’s rare to have someone with this dramatic a hobby-horse get riled up. NWO has some power in him still.
*waves at hellkell*
I’ve been reading all along, often on my droid, just not enough time/energy to talk.