Oh, Reddit, not again. So about a week ago, a woman posted what seemed to be a heartfelt and sorrowful confession to r/confession with the self-explanatory title “I cheated on my sweetheart of a husband for 3 years with my violent, abusive ex. This is the one secret I am taking to my grave.”
Now, r/confession purports to be a subreddit devoted to helping out those who confess their wrongdoings, and the sidebar warns potential commenters not to be abusive: “No personal attacks, we are not here to make people feel bad.”
But Reddit being Reddit – that is, a hotbed of resentful “nice guys” always looking for an excuse to vilify women in general or a woman in particular – many of the commenters attacked the OP as an evil “scumbag,” or worse. While the worst comments were deleted by the mods, many attacks on the OP remain, some with literally hundreds of upvotes. Those who expressed any degree of empathy for the OP found their comments roundly downvoted.
After a few days, the discussion died down.
But then, after several days of silence, a new wave of abusive comments started to appear. Like this one:
And this:
Oh, but there’s more:
I’ve saved the worst for last. (I’ve also included the response from the confessor herself.) TRIGGER WARNING for violence.
.
.
.
So how did a dead thread like this come to life again, and so unpleasantly? Well, you guessed it: it got linked to in r/mensrights and later in r/redpill, a smaller and even more extreme “men’s rights” subreddit. And indeed, if you look at the comment histories of the people I’ve just quoted, you’ll see that most of them also posted in either r/mensrights or r/redpill around the time they made these comments.
It’s a fair guess that many of the upvotes that these terrible comments got also came from visiting r/menrights-ers.
Back in r/mensrights, one commenter, disgusted by all this, chronicled some of the bad behavior of his MRA comrades:
A lot more people besides IBM2431 are going to have to stand up and speak out if they want to clean up r/mensrights’ well-deserved reputation as a net exporter of hate.
Not that r/confession is absolved of blame here. While commenters there piled on this woman, who seemed sincerely sorry for what she said she had done, the r/confession regulars found nothing wrong with the behavior of another commenter — a dude, of course — who confessed he’d “fapped” a number of times to cam footage he found of a friend of his sister’s masturbating — which was evidently recorded and put online without her knowledge or consent.
NOTE: By the time this post goes up, it’s possible and even likely that the mods of r/confession will have deleted the worst of the comments from the r/mensrights and r/redpill invaders. But they should still be visible in the comment histories of those who posted them.
Yes. That’s why I went with “if.. still an admiralty court”.
::smacks forehead:: How embarrassment, as Effie used to say.
I’m thinking we need a picture of a fringed US flag surrounded by scented candles. 🙂
“I can’t even hand an olive branch to any of you people, can I. I’ts sad it truly is. This is why there is so much hostility toward feminist these days. You guy’s are now officially the doucebags. Goodbye losers.”
So in case anyone playing along at home is confused, this kid
(1) showed up in a feminist space dedicated to mocking misogyny
(2) made excuses for misogyny
(3) engaged in acts of misogyny
(4) maintained that anything other than agreeing with him was a direct attack (you wanna hand an olive branch to people, try NOT BEING A MISOGYNIST)
(5) arbitrarily declared himself the Supreme Winner of All Things Said
This is how you make people think you’re a massive douchenozzle.
Pecunium — I’m this —->| |<—– to sending you to your room. At the least, here, have some coffee so you can freshen up instead of being fresh!
whataboutthemoonz — that’s about the gist of it, yep. I’d add “using detailed and uncommon examples” but that’s just personal preference.
Okay, I’m skimming, but did Pecunium just come within a gnat’s whisker of being sent to his room for mentioning irregular pubes?
😀 😀 😀
If we have an admiralty court, could we bastardise it just a little teeny bit by making “talk like a pirate day” the prevailing conversational style. Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease.
Argenti: So basically when we detain suspected terrorists, they should be treated like all other arrestees? Due process, speedy trial, no cruel or unusual punishment, all that?
Unless it isn’t crime at all but a standard sort of act when resisting an invading army (which we are, whether my favorite asshat likes it or not)
And they, and everyone else in the countries we’re occupying, have certain Geneva protections? I’m guessing things like rations, housing, not fucking torturing them.
How the fuck do I begin to explain this to my racist asshat of a father? I’m so very sick of him ranting about how everyone in the countries we’re occupying are either terrorists, or terrorists in the making (yeah, by us [insert derision here])
People in the zone of occupation are entitled to not be fucked with any more than is needed to keep things moving (which includes the actions the Occupying Power is doing to maintain hostilities).
The laws of the Occupied Power are still in effect (insofar as the don’t hinder hostilities).
Crimes against the Occupying Power are not to dealt with arbitrarily; though the ways in which they are can be separate from the laws of the Occupied Power.
For your father, a copy of US Army Field Manual 27-10 The Law of Land Warfare would spell it all out.
As to what we do with suspected terrorists, your Para. 1 sums it up.
I immediately thought of this:
Seconding Talk Like A Pirate Day!
In all seriousness, though, we clearly lost a powerful ally today.
Argh, verily we did me lad!
Pecunium — makes sense that the occupied country’s laws would still apply, it’s implied by using occupied instead of conquered, no? I wonder if he already has that field manual, or I should attempt to sway his next purchase (we certainly don’t need any more huge disarmed shells, that’s for damned sure!) …you’d probably love his collection actually, if you could tolerate him…
Re: differences between laws for citizens vs detainees, I assume that the Geneva convention does apply? Or some other international bare minimum standard? Eg torture is still fucking unacceptable, even if you try writing it into the standard practice for dealing with detainees? Probably doesn’t address due process and the like, but there has to be something addressing the human rights of detainees, right? (For all my befuddled horror here, I imagine you’d have mentioned it if not!)
My father’d claimed GOTCHA is that Geneva doesn’t spell out procedures for “terrorists” by that name, and that they are a separate class than detainees or civilians or arrestees (if citizens) — basically he’s bought the line that there’s a loophole in Geneva and all other human rights treaties that allows new classes of people to be created, and then dealt with as one sees fit. Tying to explain wtf that could mean for our POWs fails as “we aren’t terrorists!” (yeah um, try taking that up with the detainees we’ve tortured and killed?)
I don’t know why I try arguing with the delusional, including, but in no way limited to, my father. And if you’re still up, I advise looking at a clock!
If Talking Like a Pirate, one can’t do better than the great Phil Harding from Time Team:
http://youtu.be/S1QdvjOLID8
Hey starla! Been super busy. I went to bed too soon- that was a decent flounce.
Going back to jonatma:
What is it with MRAs and their obsession with “consequence”? It seems they want a world in which women suffer the most serious consequences for doing healthy and harmless things (enjoying sex, having sex with men they’re actually attracted to, having more than one partner in their entire lifetimes) while men suffer no consequences for rape, paedophilia and domestic violence.
Maybe they’ve genuinely convinced themselves that the actions they excuse men for are less harmful than the ones they condemn women for, but they also seem to want to punish no matter what they do- in the MRA’s book there should be “consequences” for women for using contraception (“neglecting their duty to breed!”), not using contraception,(“spermjacking!”) exercising their right to say “yes” (“sluts!”), exercising their right to say “no” (“friendzoners!”), wearing clothes that are too sexy, wearing clothes that aren’t sexy enough…
MRAs aren’t too good at articulating what they want, and while they probably don’t actually know what they want, they inadvertently put one thing across all too clearly- their desire for male privilege. Not equality, but the right to get away with things women are punished for, and the right to blame women for everything and punish them purely for the crime of being female.
I was hoping that after a good nights sleep some of you dweebs would have something more entertaining and grown up than a dumb movie clip and a nonsense comment from Knife. It’s strange that for being called “boring” You people sure finding me interesting enough to continue commenting at 7:00 in the morning. My friends are gonna laugh there asses off when I show them this stuff. LOL LOOOOOOSSSSSEEEERRRRRSSSSS. 🙂
It’s 1.40 pm where I am…
MRMs thinking they have a right to control my body by telling me what to wear, who to say yes to, whether to have children or to get married are ill informed.
I really don’t care what they think they think I should do. My problem is when I see this in legislation or see large scale attacks against women who are exercising their bodily autonomy.
I’m still catching up and I know this is a couple of pages back, but I want to clear up what I meant, because I didn’t mean to compare poly and cheating and I’m sorry if I hurt any poly people (or cheated-on people, or their children…) by doing so.
People here seem pretty familiar with poly in theory, but it never hurts to clarify: as said above, polyamory is NOT cheating, by definition: fi you have your partner(s)’ consent, it’s not cheating, and if you don’t, it’s not polyamory (which is what I meant by “the parameters of the relationship”).
The reason I mentioned poly was to explain where I’m coming from personally: that I believe it’s possible for a person to entertain romantic and/or sexual feelings for more than one person at a time, and that if my partner cheated on me, it wouldn’t necessarily mean that he doesn’t love me or isn’t serious about our relationship. So from my point of view, the assumptions that the woman in the OP doesn’t love her husband or isn’t serious about the marriage, and that it would destroy the marriage if he knew, were all just speculation.
Jonatma, it’s common fucking courtesy to stick the flounce. 0/10. And yeah, it’s 13.58 here. Not everywhere is America!
This thread has swiftly become ‘Tell Jonatma Things He Should Have Learned At The Age Of Five’. We can teach you how to tie shoelaces next, if you’d like?
By the way Jonatma, I wasn’t around to point this out last night but you know when you showed up and had a big strop and then said it was because you wanted to see if people would actually say they felt bad for the husband? Why didn’t you just check the VERY FIRST PAGE OF COMMENTS, where people were already saying that before you and your idiotic arse showed up?
Weedeater: I thought you were leaving? Why so interested in what we have to say? More to the point, have you nothing of your own to say?
In case you, and/or your friends (are you sure you want to show them this? You do seem a bit obessed, and all in all your showing isn’t, perhaps, putting you in your best light. Well, you’re right, we don’t know that. Perhaps it is. Carry on) weren’t aware, the internet is a world wide web. People from lots of places can all look at the same thing, at the same time.
Which makes, the, “it’s x o’clock” argument sort of silly. Even at that you were only gone for seven and a half hours after washing your hands of us. You aren’t our first moron, you won’t be the last. It would be nice to see a failed flounce which didn’t have the, “oh, you are so lame, I leave and you still talk about the topic,” as if the only reason someone might want to talk about how fucked up a viewpoint (btw, you don’t seem to want to address the question of what other actions lead to sub-humanity. I begin to sense a lack of willingness to engage in honest conversation. One begins to think it wasn’t about the “evil” of the situation, and just an excuse to attack a woman) is that you have it.
Which is amazingly self-centered. But we knew that.
In the meanwhile we’ve been talking language, and international law, getting some sleep and amusing ourselves.
As someone said before, you aren’t the target audience of our comments.
Argenti: Geneva says, right up front that all persons in the zone of hostilities (which includes Occupied Areas) are covered. Every Single Person.
No exceptions.
So I’m just straight up arguing with a delusion, wonderful >.< The little green men under the couch were so much more fun (remind me to tell you about that some time, it’s pretty funny)
And sleep? Speak for yourself. Sleep? Who needs sleep? So yeah, maybe it’s that I’m running on sleep dep and caffeine, but this is one of the best asides in the history of asides —
“are you sure you want to show them this? You do seem a bit obessed, and all in all your showing isn’t, perhaps, putting you in your best light. Well, you’re right, we don’t know that. Perhaps it is. Carry on”
Isn’t the “it’s x o’clock” argument the drunk logic behind margaritaville? (And, for that matter, EA’s “it’s always tea time somewhere”?)
Jonatma@
So you came up here made an ass of yourself, acted very hostile, then turned around and claimed all you needed was for someone address you politely. And you can’t wait to show what am ass you were to your friends. And you’re talking to us about maturity.
“my friends ate going to laugh there asses off when they see this”
It’s “their” sweetie, and I don’t think we need your “maturity”. Don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
Starla: It’s “their” sweetie, and I don’t think we need your “maturity”. Don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
It won’t, he’s not leaving. Then again, he seems to think that if we talk about the subject at hand (how badly this woman was treated), we are losers. If we talk about him, we are losers. If we talk about other things in his absence we are losers.
It almost seems he has closed his mind to ideas which aren’t, “women,are such bitches, amirite?”.