Feeling nostalgic for any of Man Boobz’ classic trolls? Here’s our old friend Anthony Zarat, now a regular Reddit Men’s Rightser, explaining some things about the ladies of today. Note: In order to understand what he’s saying, you need to know that when MRAs talk about “proxy violence,” they mean women calling the police on a dude, which women of course only do when men are completely innocent, because men are always innocent. (Also, in MRAland all police are men, and White Knights to boot.)
I like that he complains about women being “narcissistic,” then invents his own definition of “character” that applies to his own little obsession.
(Has had IKEA dark chocolate for breakfast this morning and had some of their Julmust earlier this month)
😀
I’m so confused. Asking why he thinks Sweden hates men means that I’m doomed? I don’t *feel* particularly doomed. I’m a bit tired, like, but not DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED
I’m kind of pushing it on one of my deadlines, depending on how quickly the other person gets back to me. Maybe that’s why I’m doomed?
Wow, your conclusion REALLY doesn’t follow. “You said A isn’t always true, therefore you think A is never true!” I mean, really?
@emilygoddess
“Note: In order to understand what he’s saying, you need to know that when MRAs talk about “proxy violence,” they mean women calling the police on a dude, which women of course only do when men are completely innocent, because men are always innocent. ”
Wow, you really can’t see the original argument makes the same sort of conclusion albeit from the opposite side. I mean really?
Yep, Emilygoddess really doesn’t. Because the argument doesn’t. As she explained.
Anon = logicfail
@titanblue
Ooookay I’ll try to spell this out for your simple little mind, please remember to turn off the ignorant part of your brain responsible for automatically shutting out others opinions that disagree with yours.
” […] women calling the police on a dude, which women of course only do when men are completely innocent, because men are always innocent”
From this amazingly insightful and not at all bigoted sentence, it can be gleamed that:
1: Women only call the police on men when the man is guilty.
2. Men are always guilty (or why would the police be called?)
… Actually you know what; I’ve got a headache now so I’m going to leave this here because I know even if I construct an amazingly convincing argument the majority of you are all so pathetically human that you’d not admit any fault or entertain the notion of not being right.
It’d be too much like arguing with a Christian and that’s a sure fire way to get no where expect frustrated.
Oh and before you (anyone reading this) try and write me off as some MRA/Anti-feminist/what ever stupid term you wish to come up with just know this, my problem is with the often times ignorant or ridiculous posts on sites such as Manbooz or Jezebel compared to more respectable sites that don’t promote a culture of hatred of those you disagree with.
Anon admits zie has failed to “construct an amazingly convincing argument” and then flounces after logic / reading comprehension fail. We need a better class of troll.
Anon, you sure have displayed that you’re here in good faith. Ad hominems from literally the very first sentence of your post.
But here you go: the conclusions that you ‘gleamed’ (sic) from that post are fallacious.
if A = B, not A does not necessarily mean not B. The alternative to “all men are innocent” is not “all men are guilty”, it is “NOT all men are innocent.”
Show me one post — ANY POST — on this site that says that all men are presumed guilty. One post here.
No one on this website has said that all men are guilty and all women are innocent. Fucking read what we write once your self-inflicted headache goes away.
Please be sure to stick that flounce, Anon.
Assume the statement “All men are innocent” is false.
So it is not true that ALL men are innocent.
Therefore NOT ALL men are innocent.
Therefore AT LEAST ONE MAN is not innocent.
Note, Anon, this is NOT the same as “ALL men are not innocent”.
Sigh! Wanders off to polish frame containing her PhD in mathematical logic. 😉
Anon: Wow, you really can’t see the original argument makes the same sort of conclusion albeit from the opposite side. I mean really?
No, that’s not what’s happening. It’s a little known rhetorical tool known as hyperbole
Since the MRA does, in fact, argue that women call the cops on, “completely innocent men, all the time”, and then the cops show up and ruin their lives, just because a woman pointed her finger at him, the characterisation isn’t actually false.
This has been your free lesson in rhetorical devices. Next week, Litotes.
I tried to save you. You are all doomed.
Doomed! DOOOOOMMMED!!!!!
Doomed to a life of fulfilling relationships with partners who have agency.
Oh wait… you mean that the economy is going to be destroyed because single parents aren’t made to live in poverty; and because women who earn a living can’t be controlled by their husbands.
Want to make a wager? Money to be put in Escrow in Vegas?
The economy will not collapse if the “entitlements” you are against continue. It won’t collapse even if the debt ratio goes to 200 percent of GDP. China will not buy N. Dakota to grow grain (and some of the commenters at MGTOW.com are predicting).
What do we need? A more progressive tax structure. The removal of the “carried interest” rates. Capital Gain taxes to go back to something closer to the rates of income. 401Ks to be taxed at the Capital Gains Rate.
SS to not be capped (and payouts to be means tested; if you have a retirement income which is more than 2x poverty, you don’t get SS).
What we need is (heresy to you, I am sure) fiscal policies which are more Socialist: akin to those of Pres. Eisenhower.
DOOOOOOOM!
Uhm Pecunium, Philomarx might be a sexist dolt who has some kind of Scandophobia, but I’m pretty sure he expressly said he was a socialist.
He’s just the really shitty kind of cliched cis-male, straight, white, able-bodied, neurotypical socialist who thinks all oppression is due to class, and ignores other intersecting oppressions, or reasons someone may be more likely to be part of the working class.
natfantastic: he’s a socialist who thinks:
I think the real issue is the paternal family structure has collapsed due to technology and its impact on the wages of workers and their ability to maintain monogamous, paternalistic marriages, which require the father to support the family in order to preserve his control over his wife. If I sound like an ersatz Engels, well, it’s because I completely agree with his theory on the family.
So yes, he sounds like an ersatz Engels. I’d say that was truth in advertising.
Shit happens, but it doesn’t mean we need to become Talibama or man-hating Sweden (now that IS an odd culture!)
Our socialist hates Sweden… WTF? Oh, it’s because women are people there. Which can only be reversed (things being what they are) by dismantling the socialist aspects of the state.
Ersatz indeed.
Yes, he’s a complete numpty of a “socialist”, but telling him we need more economic socialism isn’t going to actually lead to discussion with him, you’re in agreement there.
It’s just that if he agrees with you on one issue but is a massive sexist, racist douche-hole everywhere else, we should probably work on the sexist, racist douche-hole bit is all.
natfantastic: I think his other problems are such that, in fact; he’s against the socialist things I support. Take his dislike of single parenting… the only way to “cure” that “problem” is to make sure there is no safety net; so that women need to have a “provider” to “control” them.
His desired end state is such that a socialist society can’t be the model.
@Anon
so pathetically human
As opposed to…?
The thing is, any man who has ever been alone with a woman for an extended period of time and had nothing happen to him (which I wager is the vast majority of the time men and women who aren’t romantically or sexually involved and spend time alone together because most people are decent and actually pretty awesome) can attest to the total not-trueness of this idea of guilt by proxy.
It’s like the reverse werewolf boner for MRAs. Instead of the traditional “of course he wanted sex, it was late and you were with him ALONE!” that gets bandied about at date rape survivors, it’s “of course she assumed you were going to rape her! You were alone together for hours and misandry says all men are rapists!” (nevermind how contradictory THOSE statements are. Srsly, if you don’t want all women thinking you’re potential rapists, stop trying to normalize rape by suggesting that all men are potential rapists).
I work with a lot of men who mentor a lot of very beautiful young women and to my knowledge, none of them has this harrowing, visceral fear of being wrongly accused of harassment or assault (nor to my knowledge, have any of them experienced such accusations during their careers). Of course, they’re also not delusional douchebags who engage in victim-blaming “you got too close to his potential boner!” garbage, nor are they dudes who are so hopefully insecure as to feel the need to financially entrap a woman in order to keep her as a partner.
balls, that’s HOPELESSLY, not “hopefully”
Wow, Anon might be the weakest troll I’ve ever seen, actually arguing themself out of the picture, and then leaving with a headache.
Seriously, even Explore Nature had better staying power!
I hereby resolve to always follow people’s links to Wikipedia articles, lest I again fail to do so and be DOOMED.
the 2012 Zarat Dicktionary definition of character is so vague and specific at the same time
Has anyone seen Dr Tara Palmatier of late? It’s just that I’ve got a UK court ordet that says she owes me >$93,000. l’m keen to get that check, else I have to sieze the house in the Hollywood Hils.
So the lawyers and the Realtor skim another $100k… And there’s this boat for sale I’m after. Want to live out my days as Quincy MD. Let’s make it happen, and you’re all invited for drinks and BBQ.