So when I was poking around on Roosh’s Return of Kings blog the other day I ran across a guest post from someone calling himself Samseau accusing feminists of using racism to exploit men – that is, of expertly manipulating men of different races to fight one another instead of standing firm against the evil feminists and their evil agenda.
The post, while purporting to be somehow “above” the issue of race, is a muddled mess full of “white men have it worst” nonsense like this:
[R]acial infighting between American men wouldn’t be so bad if it weren’t for the political consequences.
Women, if you haven’t noticed, do not fight with each other over racial conflicts. They might get angry over the past, but they are able to resolve all issues by agreeing on a scapegoat: the white man. Colored women will gladly forgive their white sisters, since, after all, it was the white man who oppressed women and minorities.
White men are the big, bad, evil masters, and as such, all females of different colors can agree to put aside their differences in order to bring the white man down.
Yes, he did indeed use the term “colored women.” Oh, but there’s more.
The election results show that decades of brainwashing young American boys has been an unqualified success. Rather than have boys be loyal to their gender, boys have instead been trained to be loyal to their race.
Little non-white boys at the tender age of 9 years are fed lies about how white male oppressors created their poor living conditions, while white boys are taught that they need to correct the injustices of their forefathers lest they be guilty with the indelible sin of white privilege. Female teachers use the appropriate shaming tactics on these young minds to imprint the intended desire for conflict.
All according to plan.
And more:
Men are pawns in the race game. Thus while American women feed themselves government largesse, jobs, university degrees, their husband’s money, and child support money, American men fight each other over table scraps.
But my favorite thing about this article is the little graph that Mr. Samseau made up to illustrate the REAL issues men face today.
Yep. Race is the least important issue, while “getting laid” is number one.
It’s a pretty revealing little chart, huh?
The comment section for the article – wade into this swamp at your own peril – is (predictably enough) filled with angry racists trying to explain why race really does matter. Others, meanwhile, seem upset that all this racism is getting in the way of the regular woman-bashing. Still others suggest that men of all races needed to understand the “root cause” of all our “multicultural problems.” That being … teh Jews.
My favorite comment of the bunch, though, has to be this, from Caliente, combining an astounding ignorance of history with some half-digested evo psych:
Btw the reason why there are practically no racist women is simple.
Males of mammals are territorial.
They naturally base they identity from bottom up: family,tribe,nation,race.And naturally react negative to males of different “tribe”.
Females at the same time are receptive to have sex with any males as long as they are alpha enough.
In 19 century whites fucked all the black women because they were alpha and they had recourses,just look at Brasil.Nowadays a feminist will be cheating on her white beta herbling with some black fitness coach because that is how her brain assumes alphaness.
Wow.
Glad we got that all settled!
One of those two again? If it’s Mr Al, you are a very sad little man and you need to spend the time you spend here in therapy instead. If it’s Diogenes, please stop bringing shame upon your parents.
So which troll would be unable to resist writing “Dagrabbit, this sentence is wrong, totally, deeply, outrageously wrong.” with its careless sprinkling of commas?
Also? Steele was a much better attempt at sockpuppeting as a person whose English is terrible.
That does have a Steelish sound to it, doesn’t it?
Brz: I needed to read your last bit several times, due to the need to mentally correct entire paragraphs of bad syntax (which I don’t fault you for, IF it’s an honest mistake) and the misuse of big words when a smaller, more accurate word would do (which I DO fault you for). I don’t really know what point you are trying to make at this stage of the discussion; therefore, I’m not going take the bait of putting words in your mouth for the sole purpose of having something that I can respond to.
Persuasive people make their points CLEAR.
P.S. Yes I know “which I fault you for” is bad formal grammar, but I am speaking colloquially, which I hope is does not obfuscate my point. =P
However! Just to make socktroll feel better, I promise to indulge in gratuitous PDA with Mr C tomorrow, since we’ll be out and about.
Perhaps Brz was told by a misandrist puritan teacher from Cambridge that his English is terrible, and it traumatised him forever.
Brz, Pourquoi n’avez-vous pas répondre à ce que j’ai dit? Je vous ai parlé en français, peut-être vous n’avez pas compris ce que j’ai dit? Peut-être que vous n’êtes pas vraiment français?
Si vous êtes vraiment français, vous me répondre en français. Si vous n’avez pas …
Nous pouvons tirer nos propres conclusions …
Are trolls never pithy? these self-indulgent walls of text from the 2013 vintage are very wearing.
Hey, cool. I don’t speak French but I had just enough words and context to get the gist of that, Historophilia. The Mister’ll be proud of me. 😛
Brz — “…because that’s antisocial and everything that’s antisocial is good for making a society more agreeable to live.”
And some people just want to watch the world burn. Pro-tip: you want to go for “all things exposing evil” not “all things anti-social”. Particularly considering the definition used by psychology —
1) Callous unconcern for the feelings of others;
2) Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations;
3) Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them;
4) Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence;
5) Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment;
6) Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.
Than again, you seem to endorse some of those points as being to the benefit of society, which is just fucking creepy (creepy is the politest term I’ve got)
My vote is that Brz is Mr. SteALe (apologies to whoever I’m stealing that from), especially since he said he is in Cambridge.
If this Brz doesn’t reply to me then I will declare him Troll.
Brz, Pourquoi n’avez-vous pas répond[u] à ce que j’ai dit? Je vous ai parlé en français, peut-être [] n’avez[-vous] pas compris ce que j’ai dit? Peut-être que vous n’êtes pas vraiment français?
Si vous êtes vraiment français, vous me répondr[ez] en français. Si vous n’avez pas …
Nous pou[r]ons tirer nos propres conclusions …
Nous pou[rr]ons tirer nos propres conclusions …
And Kitteh thank you, my French isn’t great, I still have to check all my grammar and my range of vocab isn’t huge.
Also, when I actually try and speak it I panic and bargle it.
I’m sure your mister will be proud 🙂 though I would imagine the french he would have spoken would have been somewhat different to modern french.
Brz: I’ve never seen a French scholar have the boldness to say “a white feminist cannot condemn a black-on-white rape as a hate crime because white privilege and intersectionality”,
Who said all that tripe you’ve plucked from your ass and declared to be truffles?
Jacques Barzun must be known as Whirligig Jack to his neighbors, and Dada is laughing in his grave.
But lets look at your personal arguments:
That’s you who own a “absurd fear of vulnerability” because you think that misogynist speech have a effect “on the perpetuation of sexist cultural norms.”
So let me get this straight… words can’t hurt people, and speech can’t perpetuate norms, but you want to engage in speech to dismantle what you see as oppressive norms.
So it’s not able to oppress when you do it, but it is able cancel out oppression?
I’ll bet it also cleans the dishes, and shines the floor and leaves your breath smelling minty fresh.
because easily outraged people are always the better gulag door-keepers
And you are outraged. You are outraged about things which you made up.
Things you are using to act as the keeper of a social gulag; i.e. to make sure women don’t get “uppity” and make you feel like a victim for being an asshole.
Petard, yours, hoist upon.
What’s with the brackets, bro?
“Brz, Pourquoi n’avez-vous pas répondre à ce que j’ai dit? Je vous ai parlé en français, peut-être vous n’avez pas compris ce que j’ai dit? Peut-être que vous n’êtes pas vraiment français?
Si vous êtes vraiment français, vous me répondre en français. Si vous n’avez pas …
Nous pouvons tirer nos propres conclusions …”
Historophilia: Isn’t it funny that even though I butchered the French language a page ago, I completely understood everything that you just said? =D
Je parle français un PETIT peu… mais Brz? Je sais pas…
@Argenti Aertheri
That’s the puritan conception of anti-social behavior.
Like Trust said :
“Anti social tu perds ton sang-froid”
Anti-social people are cool, anti-social people make the society better.
Historophilia – I imagine it was! Interesting comment I read once in a late nineteenth century book about his time was that in those two hundred-plus years, French seemed to have changed less than English. I wonder how much it’s changed between when that book was written and now?
Brz, La correction de mon français ne compte pas.
Il vous fait juste ressembler à un trou du cul.
I have problems with logical thinking?
You base this on?
My not agreeing with the apparent thrust of your gibberish? If you’d like to try putting it into French, I’d be glad to see if it makes any more sense in what I take to be your native language, but… My “conte de fées” being true or not have nothing to do about it. gives me some pause.
Because if you really think the truth, or falsity, of your positin is irrelevant, the logical difficulties probably don’t lie with me.
And in the follow up: I make use of misogyny speech only in front of women in public because it’s anti-social because you think, everything that’s antisocial is good for making a society more agreeable to live.
Again, the logical failings don’t seem to be with me, after all you think something which is anti-social improves the social millieu. Anti-x = Pro-x. Up is down, freedom is slavery, love is hate this that is.
You might want to irrigate your cul that shit stinks.
Brz: I’ve never seen a French scholar have the boldness to say “a white feminist cannot condemn a black-on-white rape as a hate crime because white privilege and intersectionality”,
More shit you pulled out of your ass?
Who said all that tripe you’ve plucked from your ass and declared to be truffles?
Jacques Barzun must be known as Whirligig Jack to his neighbors, and Dada is laughing in his grave.
But lets look at your personal arguments:
That’s you who own a “absurd fear of vulnerability” because you think that misogynist speech have a effect “on the perpetuation of sexist cultural norms.”
So let me get this straight… words can’t hurt people, and speech can’t perpetuate norms, but you want to engage in speech to dismantle what you see as oppressive norms.
So it’s not able to oppress when you do it, but it is able cancel out oppression?
I’ll bet it also cleans the dishes, and shines the floor and leaves your breath smelling minty fresh.
because easily outraged people are always the better gulag door-keepers
And you are outraged. You are outraged about things which you made up.
Things you are using to act as the keeper of a social gulag; i.e. to make sure women don’t get “uppity” and make you feel like a victim for being an asshole.
Petard, yours, hoist upon.
Oopsie, that last post didn’t contain any grammatical errors except a run-of-the-mill comma splice. The mask is slipping.