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.
ithiliana – I could see it. NWO has barely been phoning it in lately. Still, TOTY takes more than a single exploded thread.
Pecunium: not only a dramatic opulent gleaming Aryan hobby-horse, but a rather obscure one, at least for these parts.
ithiliana: hope the semester’s going well for you. Is it midterm time already?
I get that what I’m trying to say is so horrible that you’d rather make fun of me than take what I have to say seriously. Enjoy it, yak it up. But what you’re finding HILARIOUS is the story of a woman whose 14 year old brother was charged with trying to find a new job because his old boss beat him. He was charged 40,000 dollars in today’s dollars worth of fines and court fees, and is sentenced to work in a mine where up to 30% of the convicts died in.
Is everyone still laughing? Great. It gets worse.
You can’t contact your local police department. They are the ones who arrested him. Courts, same issues. You can’t go to the papers because you’re black and people don’t care about it. There are thousands of other families just like yours that are missing family members because the cotton mill needed workers or whatever, but whatever your brother is doing, it’s dangerous. They aren’t paying him a red dime for anything because he’s a convict, and they’re beating him because the Black Codes say that you can.
OMG, SIDE SPLITTING. My, my bullshit is strong.
So then, having exhausted all other avenues, you write the president. Your letter gets stored with all the other letters about black workers that have been stolen and their labour sold.
Now, we wait. We wait, twenty years, forty, sixty, even. It totally depends whether your brother was beaten under the black code or the jim crowe laws. But still, you wait. Your brother probably dies, or is so damaged when they finally release him if they ever released him at all. They didn’t have to, you see. He was purchased fair and square from the courts.
So now we come to pearl harbor. And now we’re fighting the Japanese. A propaganda officer comes to you (you’re now a middle management type). He wants to know if there’s anything he should know ahead of time so that the Japanese can’t go through our history and accuse us of anything we may or may not have done.
“Oh,” says someone in the room. “Well, we haven’t been fair in our treatment of the negro.”
Oh. Shit. You say. You go into the files, to see just how unfair you’ve actually been in the treatment of the negro. And you find a letter. You find hundreds of letters, each from a family member who has lost a loved one and can’t find a sympathetic ear to do something about it.
Wait. Are we laughing now? Because now we’re up to date in 1941.
It turns out, no one actually made it illegal ILLEGAL illegal to actually own someone after the civil war. Oh. But the 13th amendment, right? That tots covers our ass. We’re good! Yay USA!
Except you can’t charge someone, in a court of law, with an amendment. Amendments still needs laws to set down penalties and the actual wording of the law.
For eighty some years. It’s been unconstitutional, sure, but not actually against the law. Nothing could have been done to help that poor girl, because what was done to her brother wasn’t actually illegal.
At any point they could have made it illegal, but they didn’t. So the old slave owners died a natural death, spared the hardship of having to give up their slaves if they didn’t really want to, and the crimes against humanity continues.
Drop dead funny to me. Only not even a little bit. Yak it up.
That sums up the first thirty minutes. The rest continues on.
Well, there was the anti-peonage act of 1867, which the people in 1941 you have such a bug up your ass about were prosecuted under.
I’m not making light of or laughing about slavery, I’m mocking the shit out of you because you hilariously fucking wrong about everything, and you’re too stubborn to learn. You have hit all the troll high notes in the short time you’ve been here. Brava.
This horse, it is deader than disco.
Angela: I get that what I’m trying to say is so horrible that you’d rather make fun of me than take what I have to say seriously.
No, you don’t. You are acting like a, “true believer”. You refuse to look at the evidence presented, and go on that the only reason we might have to say you are wrong is that we lack brains, heart, soul.
No one has said that any of it is hilarious. That you choose to so lie is why you are getting hostile reactions. You are being dishonest.
I’ve seen that program.
And none of it makes your arguments true. It’s a tragedy. It was a crime. It was a greater crime that the crime was ignored.
And NO ONE HERE HAS EVER SAID DIFFERENT.
What we have said is your underlying arguments are factually incorrect.
Which, actually, means we think worse of the people who did it than you do. But you can’t see that. You want to be “Right” more than you want to know the facts. Emotion is trumping reason.
You are repeating things which have been refuted. You have stopped responding to anything. As I said, there are more than 200 years of laws, and cases, which say that things which are unconstitutional are illegal. There have been laws making slavery illegal (in some parts of the country) for more than 200 years.
People were killing over slavery from well before the Civil War (look up John Brown). The South went to war to keep slaves.
The North outlawed it.
The North refused (for venal reasons) to enforce those laws.
That’s the truth. It’s shitty, and it’s ugly, and it’s actually worse than the story you believe.
But it gives the lie to “state’s rights”.
And you don’t care, because…?
I don’t know. I can make guesses (it makes you feel good to be preaching a story no one believes, and to be railing against an evil they didn’t know existed?), but that’s all they are.
What I do know is you are giving cover to people who say the war wasn’t about slavery. That makes it easier to say, “Slavery wasn’t all that bad”. It makes it easier to cast The Confederacy as standing for bedrock american principles, like freedom.
And that’s evil. Not by intent, but by deed.
And that’s not going to get any slack, at least not from me. I’ve seen to much evil, face to face, and eye to eye, to let that shit slide.
So no, I don’t think it at all funny. I think it sad, and tragic, and; when all is said and done, pathetic.
*Stands on chair to applaud Angela*
Bravo! Very moving.
And none of it changes the fact that the South went to war to preserve slavery. In fact, it just illustrates the lengths to which they went to preserve it once they couldn’t practice it openly.
If you’re trying to say that the North was racist too, that our hands aren’t clean? No shit. While the South was doing its best to maintain slavery, the North was happily feeding poor people into machines.
But you do not get to feed us that old lie about the CIvil War being about States’ Rights. You do not. We will run you to exhaustion on this. That’s what the “recent comments” column is for. So lies don’t go unanswered.
I haven’t wasted any efforts in trying to convince anyone to give up whatever beliefs they have or may not have as to the start of the war. I’ve said it many times I wish I could believe that people would go to war and fight to free the slaves. I believe that for the south, slaves and statehood were hand and hand. Like a selfish child threatened with the removal of a toy, it threatened to take its toy and go home. When it couldn’t, it came out swinging. That ball happened to be slavery. So which is the fight over?
It is solely my personal opinion, but I just don’t think the north fought to free the slaves. Some did, I’m sure of it, but I don’t think they could have filled up their armies with enough people who viewed people of color as actual people.
There were a couple moments of history that I’ve learned that have made me feel deeply ashamed. That the north were likewise racist for the day and not noble freedom fighters was one, and that when the concentration camps filled with gay people were found, the allied troops just left them there was the other. I’m sure there had been hundreds of other moments in history, but its those two very sore points that have haunted me my whole life.
How is it that I, a British person, understand how the Constitution works better than Angela does?
Dear Angela – lack of enforcement is not the same thing as legality. You can scream and yell and call everyone else heartless assholes as much as you like, but there’s really no way to get around that fundamental fact. Did the US government fail to enforce the Constitution properly? Yep. Does that mean that slavery was still legal? No. It means that enforcement was shitty, because of racism.
And if you’d said “it is soley my personal opinion” right from the beginning then this argument would not have turned out how it has. The problem is that you keep presenting your personal opinion as an objective fact.
Liar.
And we’ve said it many times that no one did…but the Confederacy did go to war to keep the slaves. And we’re going to keep saying it no matter how many times you try to cloud the issue.
So you admit that, as I said in the very first post I directed in you in this whole debacle, that the “States’ Right” in question was slavery? Splendid! Reality welcomes you!
Who are you arguing with? Seriously, who? Is there someone other than NWO on this thread who actually claimed that the North fought to free the slaves, or are you sticking to a script that we never agreed to follow?
Know what? At this point, I don’t trust a single goddamned thing you say. Quite frankly, your appeals to our feelings disgust me. You are a base and shameless manipulator.
Cassandra, I don’t know. I think this one would have called us meanypants for not thinking their opinion was the be all end all of opinions.
Angela, please stop with the bathos. It’s creeping me right the fuck out.
Angela: I haven’t wasted any efforts in trying to convince anyone to give up whatever beliefs they have or may not have as to the start of the war.
Lies.
I’ve said it many times I wish I could believe that people would go to war and fight to free the slaves.
No one said they did.
The South went to war to keep them.
The North went to war to stop them from leaving.
The war became about slavery, because the South made it about slavery.
And you’ve lied about what we said, from the start, and never stopped.
You’ve refused to look at the citations (what with the snark about showing my work), and then ignored the evidence handed you on your demand.
You’ve said we found thing hilarious which we condemned; which we condemned BEFORE YOU SAID WORD ONE
Why should we believe you?
Really, why?
Hey now, Disco Stu would disagree.
Angela, you are being stupid on purpose because you want to bleat about how awful something was for people.
We agree it was awful.
Where we do not agree is that it was not illegal to act in the manner that you are complaining about.
Because it was illegal.
It was never enforced but it was illegal.
And it reminds me why Harry S Truman is my favorite president.
Angela, I am sorry that the discovery that wars are fought for economic reasons and not for peance and freance has haunted you all your life. Still, reality is better than fantasy, even when it bites.
This whole thing has been like arguing with a LaRouchie.
And I’m off to bed, so I can go and vote, and maybe (please let it be so) hop the PATH into NYC with My Beloved.
Good luck, pecunium.
pencunium, firstly I outlined and cited every single thing I said. You rebutted with “You’re wrong” and “You’re stupid”, but I cited everything.
Secondly, absolutely my point. The north went to war against a state’s right to leave, not against slavery. We agree on something. And since the north had last chance avoidance (they could have just let the south leave and become a new country) wasn’t their reason why is it 100% because of slavery and not because of the right a state has to secede?
Lastly, I appreciate everyone who still thinks that there was no need to make slavery illegal after the war because it was already in the amendment.
But there was a massive need. You’ve missed the whole point about the arresting officers and the courts being paid off by the corporations that were in need of a work force. Thousands of people were bought and sold through the very legal system that was somehow supposed to watch out for people being held against their will.
If you still think I’m wrong, just keep rereading that last paragraph until it sinks in exactly slavery very much needed to be made illegal and on the books as against the law to do so.
Gah, I’m tired. That second paragraph was mismash. Basically, both the north and the south’s reason to join the war should have been considered. I’m going to close the webpage and leave it until the morning, I promise.
It was illegal but until WWII the law was not enforced.
Why is it so hard for you to grasp this? Is it because you are stupid or new to the concept of law?
I am going to go with stupid.
I’m going with disingenuous, just because I find it hard to believe that anyone could be that stupid and still be able to use the internet.
And that was illegal.
Fine, let’s, for a moment, assume that your whole unconstitutional != illegal shtick is correct. Do you really believe that the scenario you describe would have been different if slavery had been made illegal through a different legislative process?
So let me get this straight. The very thing that we have been saying all night long, and which you have been arguing against – i.e., that the South went to war over Slavery and the North went to war to preserve the Union – is suddenly a point of agreement because you’ve found a way to weasel it around to mean “See? It’s about States’ Rights after all!”
Unreal. You do know, don’t you, that people can go back and read the rest of the thread?
They have been. You’ve been pretending that they haven’t because when we consider them, we don’t come to the conclusion that the former Confederacy’s favorite face-saving lie is true.
But it was, remember? Peonage Act of 1867. That wasn’t enforced, either, but it did make slavery illegal even by Angela’s standards.