Over on Reddit, Men’s Rights subreddit regular 0bvious_Atheist has offered the most, well, inventive explanation for the Newtown school shootings I’ve seen thus far. Apparently channeling the old Man Boobz troll NWOslave, he argues that they were the result of … Title IX.
The only good news here is that this theory was too weird and opportunistic for even the Men’s Rights subreddit, and 0bvious_Atheist’s post got many more downvotes than upvotes.
Also, the 4Chan thing hasn’t been confirmed by any reputable media source. Here’s something from the not-exactly-100%-credible Daily Mail on it is definitely a fake.
Thanks to r/againstmensrights for pointing me to 0bvious_Atheist’s post.
Maybe Thinking Housewife? It’s her or Boston Boy, no-one else is this accommodating.
Well, DKM was, but he was instantly spottable, wouldn’t sink to sockpuppeting, and hasn’t been around for ages.
Argenti – okay, I’m looking for something that’s more pinpoint than monogamous, monoamorous, and the like. They sort of suggest loving or being partnered with one person at a time, but don’t narrow it to one person ever. It’s not just the actual partnering, either, it’s the idea of only ever being sexually attracted (as in primary sexual attraction) and romantically attached to that person, and not only being not-attracted to anyone else, but finding the idea quite ewww inducing.
All that for one poor little word, lol. I was prowling the AVEN forums a while back and encountered the term demisexual there, but it doesn’t work for me. Apart from anything else it always makes me think of a demitasse or the glass-half-empty thing. And grey-a sounds like my hair needs colouring.
My BFF suggested “extreme monogamy,” which I like even though it sounds like a dangerous sport!
That’s a point, did Owly ever sockpuppet? He didn’t while I was around, at least. Wonder if he’s still sitting shouting on the White House lawn like Creative Writing Student suggested?
lowquacks — Glad you guessed, as if it is Mr. Al I don’t really want another “I AM NOT PELL!!!!!” type meltdown. (And frankly, being mistaken for Pell is a few steps up from being mistaken for Mr. feminist world domination tin foil hat man)
I’m just not sure it’s been long enough for Mr. Al to have sobered up, maybe sober enough to post coherently, but it’s only been like 5 hours and he was drunk.
Pell ALWAYS denies being Pell or knowing who Pell is.
@Argenti
I don’t know; I can apparently hold my booze a lot better (most evening posting on Man Boobz off-semester is pretty drunk, including this), but young people are sometimes pretty good at that sort of thing.
@kittehhelp
I still like “extreme monogamy”, but maybe “monoromantic”? Or figure out what the opposite to “serially” is and put that in front of “monogamous”?
Yeah, I was thinking Owly, just because I hate dealing with him and our new guest has hit a few of his saner topics.
As for your word, you’re basically looking for Latin for the (usually religious) concept of having one true love? Ask pecunium before I play create-a-word, he knows liturgical Latin, if there is a word already, he’ll know it.
Is Thinking Housewife the one who was all about how women be submissive per “god’s plan” or some shit like that? No, that was um, Sunshine Mary? I’m not sure I know Thinking Housewife’s style.
I think Sunshine Mary ran the Thinking Housewife blog and I got the two mixed up.
Um, the opposite of serially, at least in most contexts, is parallel. As in poly (though parallel monogamy would be an interesting idea…)
Cool, thank you! I’ll do another derail when he’s on.
Perma-monogamy sounds kinda good except it brings to mind either permanent press or permaculture, neither of which is quite the right image …
Did Unthinking Mousewife ever troll here, or did her woeful blog just get quoted? Sunshine Mary hasn’t been on for a while. They seem kind of interchangable to me, though come to think of it, I’m not sure the Mousewife had the religious bent. Sunshinesoutherarse Mary certainly did.
Half of the old trolls seem to have disappeared since the election. ::smirks::
I’m failing to come up with a Latin (or Greek) suffix for the idea, but exclusionary monogamy?
The same usage, more or less, as in — 1-10 exclusive (not including 1 or 10) — monogamy not including anyone else?
Right. Maybe an opposite’s not quite right. There must be something out there that conveys “not serial or parallel” – if a TV series is a serial, what’s a standalone film?
Parallel monogamy would be interesting if a trifle difficult to organise! 😀
Ooh, exclusionary’s getting warmer.
The serial thing reminds me of the (not) greatest joke of all time – just make up a long and boringish story about a cornflake, telling everyone it’s a joke, and when someone finally asks when the end will come, tell them there’s no end – it’s a cereal.
“Half of the old trolls seem to have disappeared since the election. ::smirks::”
Lol, I should’ve guessed as much.
lowquacks — a standalone film is um, a standalone…that’s the only term I’ve ever heard, but I might just have missed the term.
Exclusive monogamy?
A standalone film is one that hasn’t yet had an attempt to cash in with sequels or is, maybe, so bad it’s never going to … though that doesn’t usually stop ’em. 😛
The old standby ‘soulmate,’ in the romantic sense, is the only word I have that really describes the situation, but it doesn’t really convey the idea either. Hetero for one person and asexual for everyone else is what it is, but that’s not exactly pithy.
A cereal – argh! 😀
“… – it’s a cereal.” — smh, had you actually tried using this joke, I’d have to send you to the corner of shame.
Other recent favourites:
Why’s it so hard to find painkillers in the Amazon jungle? Parrots eat ’em all.
What’s the first step in the REAL Anarchists’ Cookbook? Mash the tate!
…I do not have good taste in jokes.
Go to the corner of shame. Go directly to the corner of shame. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
(Why does my keyboard not have a pounds sign? It isn’t real Monopoly unless it’s in pounds!)
Of course there’s always the cone of shame.
Or – even better – this cone of shame!
Don’t think I’ve ever seen Monopoly in pounds, actually. An odd LOTR one, but no pounds. I have experienced strip Monopoly, but that wasn’t an official variant.
“I have experienced strip Monopoly, but that wasn’t an official variant.”
I think my not-an-ex is going to wake up to that quote (I mean, if I’m going to be both slightly sleep deprived and slightly drunk, might as well have fun with it!)
kittehs’ — the Romney cone of shame is awesomesauce.
I’ve played Monopoly in Imperial credits — it was an Ep-p-p — an Episode Wuh — a Star Wars tie-in. From 1999.
Some people are more prone to socks than others.
The general rules I’ve noticed are:
1: Has something to prove.
2: Feels they are being denied the opportunity to speak.
2a: Is an outlier position, with little support.
If they are banned from speaking (directly, or indirectly) they may resort to a flat out sock.
If they are being isolated from a lack of support they may engage in secondary sock-puppeting (a la Torvus Butthorn).
So Owly, Meller, sunshinemary, et. al, aren’t likely to sock because they don’t feel the need. Owly and Meller thirive on being abused (Meller less than NWO), and the sunshinemary’s of the world make being the, “Truth-telling Outsider” their persona.
The last is the least likely to out and out sock, and they will be more likely to ask someone else to come in and lend support than to pull a Butthorn; since the inhabit other fora where their views are praised. They don’t need to “win” to get validation, merely to, “preach the good word”. They actually get more validation from being denied victory, since it allows the martyr complex,and the sense of persecution for, “the right” to reinforce itself.