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.
I don’t think a milk machine caused his stupidity. I think he has lovingly curated and cultivated it from an early age.
Yes, technically, it was the 13th amendment that ended slavery, not the war. Do you have a citation for northern slave-holders carrying on after the war?
I found the image of a milk machine sucking his brain out kind of appealing. (Zombie milk machine, perhaps?) But yeah, he really works on that perfect balance of stupidity and malice, doesn’t he?
NWO’s sophistry was bad enough without bringing “the white man’s burden” into the mix. It does fit his character of holding the (white Christian?) man on a pedestal and framing the Civil War and all the other wars white Christian men were in as a noble cause without any hint of ulterior motives.
Hate to argue when someone is mocking NWO, but the right to own slaves was very much the “states’ right” in question. Ta-Nehisi Coates has a whole series discussing how the founders of the Confederacy proudly proclaimed as much in their Declaration of Independence, their Constitution, and especially their personal writings.
And wasn’t their “right” to spread slavery to the new territories part of it, as well? Pardon me if I’m getting it mixed: my knowledge of this Civil War comes mostly from Ken Burns’s series. It’s not exactly terra cognita in Oz!
@Seraph – *golf claps*
NWO, the white Christian men who fought to free African-Americans did indeed act nobly. But those people were enslaved in the first place by other white Christian men. And white Christian men also fought bitterly for the right to keep them enslaved.
So, as great as some white guys were, I’m not quite on board with your version of history, where slaves just sort of existed, with no one actively enslaving them, until white men as a group stepped forward to free them. Some white men were great. Some sucked. Just like all people
Many women and non-white people (male and female) also worked to end slavery. Some fought in the Civil War. Check out the story of Mary Walker, the U.S. military’s first female surgeon and the only woman to be awarded the Medal of Honor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Edwards_Walker
Would it kill you to say that maybe, just once in the history of the world, women did something that didn’t make ya wanna puke?
@Kitteh – that was part of it, yes. Part of the shameful compromise that allowed the Constitution to be ratified (see 3/5ths of a person) was that Free States and Slave States would be admitted to the Union in equal numbers. As time went on, there was violent fighting in the Territories as to whether they would be Slave or Free (look up “Bleeding Kansas”), and eventually there were just too few territories that wanted to become Slave States.
Another part was that the Slave States felt that the federal government wasn’t being active enough, at least not when it came to enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law.
In the end, the problem was simply this: the South saw power slipping away from them, and their entire economy and social structure was based on a system that was becoming more and more unpopular. If you think Americans can get a bit scary over “they want to take our guns away”, it’s a pale shade of “they want to take our slaves away”.
@NWO – so your whole argument basically amounts to yet another version of “We hunted the mammoth”. Gotcha.
States rights trumped slavery. The northern states, industrializing at a much faster rate, had enough immigrants that they didn’t need to own the workers, and in fact, when a slave cost between 15,000-40,000 today’s dollar, it wasn’t economic. There were a lot of people back in the 19th century that truly believed that slavery was wrong for all the right reasons, but after the war was over, the states that fought on the northern side of the war that still owned slaves were still allowed to own their own slaves. The emancipation proclamation only freed the slaves in the south.
In 1787 the Philadelphia Convention compromised that while slaves were people, they were only worth 3/5ths of a person, which meant that taxation wasn’t equal across the land. Slave owning states were getting more money from the government to be used by fewer white people, which gave them a definite economic advantage.
Thanks, Seraph!
I remember the part about Kansas and what happened there – and the runaway slaves situation, the grotesque Dred Scott decision in particular.
@Seraph – Nah, Ayla was out there hunting mammoth alongside Jondalar and the Mamutoi.
Hey, Jean Auel’s stuff bears at least as much resemblance to history as anything the MRM spouts. 😉
Hey, NWO – what about, instead of glorifying past accomplishments, doing something now?
“There are more slaves today than were seized from Africa in four centuries of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.” source – http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0309/feature1/
(Also, quick reminder – you’re in prison because I completely ruined your life a couple of weeks back – thought you might have forgotten.)
Um, so, around 1800 there were maybe 8,000 Jewish people in North America, according to the rough data. The number of Jews doubled over the course of about 50 years, and the majority of the immigrating Jews moved to the northeast, especially New York City, after 1825. The US outlawed the importation of slaves in the early 1800s.
The US population in 1850 was estimated to be 23 million, including 3 million slaves. Of that, at least 8 million people lived in the South.
So NWO’s argument is that 6400 Jewish people (40%) owned slaves. While living in New York City. Where it was illegal to own slaves. When the majority of those Jews had arrived in the US AFTER it became illegal to import slaves. And those 5 million white Christians in the South, which is where the 3 million slaves mostly were, are innocent and noble.
In the immortal words of Bill Cosby, “Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.”
http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/lpa/census/1990/poptrd1.htm
A white man set them free!
Buck up Slavey! If current trends continue, we may even have a White Christian Man as president some day. Some day….
Your kitten pics=win
I first thought the whole “Zeta masculinity” thing involved the AVFM crowd getting their revenge on those darn feminists by joining Los Zetas, the Mexican drug cartel, but then I realized that could never happen because Los Zetas do more than sit around and whine about things.
The States’ Right in question was slavery. This has been pointed out to you. Stop acting like it hasn’t been.
From their own mouths:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America#A_revolution_in_disunion
From the Confederate Constitution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Constitution#Slavery
2-D Man has already asked you for a citation on this. Please don’t ignore him.
And finally, answers from someone much more eloquent than myself:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/12/the-republic-of-winston/68457/
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/04/lies-damn-near-everyone-told-me/237244/
What a strange thing to say….
I didn’t read the section asking for a reference: “The Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves in the United States. Rather, it declared free only those slaves living in states not under Union control.”
From:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h1549.html
If union states fought against the confederation, they got to keep their slaves.
And I’m not saying slavery wasn’t a factor of states rights, but it wasn’t the reason. Why would the union allow states who still owned slaves to fight for them if the war was fought over slavery? The union cared more about the extra support than they did the slavery issue.
The 3/5 compromise was forcing the northern states more taxes than the southern states. The south then believed they had the right the quit the union and the federal government said they didn’t.
There were dozens of reasons why the war was fought and slavery is among them, but it wasn’t the only reason and it wasn’t the main reason.
Actually, yes it was. You were given citations. Read them, if you want us to keep treating you as if you’re arguing in good faith. You have officially run out of benefit of the doubt.
Because it was the Confederacy who went to war over slavery (yes they did, read the citations). The Union, which wouldn’t have been willing to go to war over slavery, was willing to go to war to preserve the country.
I didn’t dispute the accuracy of that statement; I did dispute its relevance given the passage of the 13th amendment.
That’s a non-sequitur.
And I know I’m harping on this, but one of the problems with freeing slaves today in places in this world where slavery is still legal/not prosecuted is that without education and support, NGOs can go into areas and free all the slaves and not fix the problem. The photographers go home with a feel good story and the slaves are right back into the same situation that they were before they were “freed”.
And while the people who go in to free slaves will never purchase someone from their masters, it still costs approximately $150 dollars per person to provide the education and support necessary to allow the newly freed person to support his or herself and family.
The emancipation proclamation was incomplete for several reasons. Racism existed and still exists today on both sides of the line regardless of who which side was shooting at when.