MRAs can now shampoo away the grey in their neckbeards in just five minutes with Just For Men’s Rights Activists special neckbeard formula gel! Now with a new, angrier formula!
I found this faux trading card on Reddit’s AgainstMensRights subreddit, which is devoted to skewering the MensRights subreddit. The OP says his girlfriend got it at an art show, but alas I do not know where that show was or from whom she got it.
Click on the pic for a bigger version, in which you can see that this formula comes in Fedora Brown, and was “voted best for neckbeards by a panel of elder misogynists.”
Ironically, the beards depicted on real Just for Men boxes aren’t much more believable than the one on the parody box.
Also ironically, I am sporting a bit of a neckbeard today. No bulging veins in my forehead, though.
*murder rate not murderer rate
How does my dictionary know murderer and not murder?
Some Gal: That’s why I wrote “if everything else is equal” – now in real life, it’s incredibly unlikely that everything else is equal. In real life, if the murder rate in group A is that much higher, everyone in A is gonna suffer from it somehow since everyone are gonna feel insecure and scared, just as you point out, whereas in B the murders might just affect the victim and zir family and friends.
@ Dvärghundspossen
I didn’t mean to come across as correcting you. Sorry. I was just thinking that Argenti might want to bring it up.
Thanks guys, I was far too angry to argue logically. In context it was that the murders of trans* people are less important than the murders of poor people, because there are more poor people and apparently one can only fight so much injustice. (And that was poverty in general, not inner city violence where it does actually affect everyone)
…I’m going to want to scream again if I keep thinking about this
Oh fuckfuckfuckityFUCK … that calls for brain bleach at the double.
http://youtu.be/yD3yVwC0fjg
@Argenti
I “love” that that argument basically screams “fuck you” at the very idea of intersectionality.
Did you see/are you familiar with the Grouch Anthem? Because arguments with people like that pretty much demand that (for me). It makes me happy while affirming my right to be angry. 🙂
In that case, they’d be better off addressing the murder of trans people since it’s a “smaller problem” it’s less injustice to fight against!
Is this trout trying to explain why they prefer to worry about poor people than trans people? Or trying to comvince you that you and/or everyone should as well?
Also, IMO they are trying to use statistics to support an “I care less about people I don’t know and people who aren’t me” stance. That stance is not unreasonable, but don’t try to make it about facts when it’s about you.
@Kim
I think they are also trying to make that stance seem noble. It isn’t really, it is kinda the decent-person default setting.
How long before they bring in the “I’m so rational and ‘these people’ don’t contribute as much and this other group is worthier and, and” BS that’s on the same road as promoting eugenics?
I notice the latest eugenics troll wasn’t so keen on decisions about abortion, for instance, being made by the person who had to give birth.
Colour me unsurprised.
Brain bleach and grouch anthem are appreciated!
“I “love” that that argument basically screams “fuck you” at the very idea of intersectionality.”
Yep, tried making that argument, got asked why there are so many poor white men then. Argument about how poor white men stand better odds of getting a job got met with how see, he said the solution to everything was fixing economic inequities.
“In that case, they’d be better off addressing the murder of trans people since it’s a “smaller problem” it’s less injustice to fight against!”
That was one part of consequentialism he was getting right (in a very technical sense) — that since there are more murders of the poor, in raw numbers, then that’s a bigger injustice. And easier for baby marxist’s first social justice debate. It’s all economy sounds so well and good, until you remember that some people just like to watch the world burn.
“Is this trout trying to explain why they prefer to worry about poor people than trans people? Or trying to comvince you that you and/or everyone should as well?”
More like trying to justify caring more about the things that affect him, and support his pet theory.
“Also, IMO they are trying to use statistics to support an “I care less about people I don’t know and people who aren’t me” stance. That stance is not unreasonable, but don’t try to make it about facts when it’s about you.”
“I think they are also trying to make that stance seem noble. It isn’t really, it is kinda the decent-person default setting.”
Yep and yep. To the point I noted that no one doesn’t care about the things that affect them personally — even sociopaths care about themselves (everyone else is a means to an end)…though I guess the emotionless brain damage joanimal noted on the other thread might impede that… That’s the PUAHate thread.
And thanks guys, being told that raw numbers matter more than ratios/rates, particularly about this, makes me cranky. It’s bad math, and personal. Venting, it is good!
““Is this trout trying to explain why they prefer to worry about poor people than trans people?”
Obviously trout shouldn’t be allowed to do statistics et al.
As I said to BigMomma, we wouldn’t be much of a community if we didn’t have each other to vent to. It seems to be the weekend for badness. Hugs to everybody who wants one!
Re: eugenics, idk, but we’ve got queued a discussion of genocide in relation to this raw numbers thing. He’s also having trouble with the fact that Burma/Myanmar is refusing the Rohingya citizenship, discriminating in general, and engaging in genocide…while the US opens trade relations and thus supposedly helps with his favorite topic, economic inequality.
Having gotten that across, he went to how they can go elsewhere is the region is better off (they’re boat people, the press and NGOs are basically banned from Burma/Myanmar but sure, Thailand et al will start accepting them if we trade with the country they’re from)
…my head hurts just trying to summarize that hot mess, here’s his final thoughts on that, paraphrased:
I’m right about their plight, the US should take more refugees…but there’s a economic element because more immigration would help our economy…”and the rest of the world indirectly”
Children fleeing their homeland in starvation, dying at sea, being refused refugee status…and accepting them might help our economy.
How do you fail this much?! How do you manage to make everything, including a vastly under reported genocide, into an economic matter in your home country? (A thing they’re denied btw)
Oh and in the “absolutely no surprise” category, they’re brown skinned Muslims. But taking them here would help our economy, not cause more bigots to have islamophobia outrage and immigration ire. Economics doesn’t magically make people no longer bigoted (hey BlackBloc, you around? A Marxist take on this that isn’t baby’s first Marxism would be nice)
“Obviously trout shouldn’t be allowed to do statistics et al.”
But clown loaches can! Ok, probably not, they do seem able to count though, sort of. Which group is bigger is within their grasp.
Gah, it sounds every bit as ugly as our refugee situation – all “protect our borders” and “keep control of these people” when ONE guy has proved to be a criminal scumbag (sexual assaults). And fucking economics … oy.
About the eugenics conversation–I missed it, but I just want to say that Down’s Syndrome is NOT what you want to bring up when you discuss eugenics, because Down’s Syndrome is proof of why eugenics cannot work. Down’s may be genetic, but it is generally not inherited. Instead, it is caused by errors in meiosis (separating the chromosomes when making sperm and eggs) which is relatively common and can occur in anyone.
You could sterilize every person with Down’s syndrome on earth (though most already have fertility problems anyway) and all their close relatives to boot and it wouldn’t get rid of the disease in the next generation.
(Actually, eugenics as a whole is rife with “would not work at all”. First, I dare you to find someone without a family history of something nasty and at least partially genetic lurking in the background. I come from a family where people tend to be very smart and accomplished–but we also tend to have depression and heart disease. Second, most of the nastier genetic disorders are recessive, and the math doesn’t work out for their elimination–they’re rare and hard to find, but if you don’t make a habit of marrying cousins the chances of any ones you carry meeting their match is quite low. So to prevent recessive genetic disorders from hurting anyone we should promote people reproducing with others of vastly different backgrounds.)