So the Men’s Rights subreddit has temporarily relaxed its policy of not allowing links to the terrible cesspool of lies that is Man Boobz to allow this post attacking me for detailing the disgusting threats and harassment a certain Canadian feminist activist has faced in recent days.
Most of the commenters flatly ignored the evidence of doxing and harassment that I included in my post — if they even bothered to read it — and simply invented their own story of what had happened. Instead of denouncing those who left death threats, they attacked me and the activist in question. And blamed all the ugliness on “trolls.”
Men’s Rights regular Sigil1, who used to post awful comments on Man Boobz as Eoghan (and using countless other sockpuppet accounts) responded in an all-too-predictable fashion, by falsely accusing me of making “false accusations” against MRAs.
You may recall that in my post I offered two pieces of evidence that showed that MRAs were involved in posting this woman’s personal information on the internet — that is, doxing her. One was a large screenshot from a Men’s Rights forum containing a wide array of her personal information including phone numbers and her home address. I also noted that the A Voice for Men forum featured links to several of her dating profiles.
In other words, these are clearly MRAs, and they have been disseminating her personal information — that is, doxing — her. To repeat, and I’m sorry that I have to repeat such an utterly simpleminded point: THE FACT THAT SOME PEOPLE (WHO ARE MRAS) ARE DOXING HER MEANS THAT MRAS HAVE BEEN DOXING HER. Other people who are probably not MRAs have also been doxing her.
In the Reddit thread, giegerwasright complains that “they” — meaning me –“are also moving the goalposts on doxxing to suit their needs.” Well, no. I’d say that a post on a Men’s Rights forum that includes her picture, links to her Facebook page, her Tumblr blog, her YouTube account, her old Twitter account, a dating profile, her home address and two phone numbers is “doxing” by pretty much everyone’s definition of the term.
As anyone who looks at the large screenshot I posted earlier would see, its author — a famous MRA spammer who goes by the name John Rambo — urged men to “contact her through one of the below methods and ask her why she hates men so much.”
In my earlier post I showed you the sort of horrific stuff many of those who have been contacting her have been saying.
Did I provide proof that any of these threatening and harassing comments were from MRAs? Well, aside from one message from A Voice for Men’s Dan Perrins, which was more of a gloating message than a threatening one, no. Part of the reason for this is that most of the direct threats sent to the activist were sent — wait for it — anonymously. That’s how threat-makers generally do things. Cuts down the possibility of getting in trouble.
As for the YouTube comments, I didn’t check. Why? Because, given that the video in question was titled “mras and feminists arguing at u of t mra event,” and that the video was linked to on assorted Men’s Rights sites including the Men’s Rights subreddit and A Voice for Men, I figured that the odds were pretty good that a lot of them were MRAs; certainly the odds that none of them were MRAs were pretty much zero. (And of course I never claimed they were all MRAs.)
But as I sat down to write this post I found I was curious about these nasty YouTube people. So I did a little experiment. I went through the list of awful YouTube comments that I posted on Monday, and took at look at the YouTube feeds of the various commenters who left them to see if I could determine whether or not they were MRAs. I included only those who made threatening and/or misogynist comments, and left out a few that didn’t provide enough information for me to make an educated guess.
Here are the results. But first, a TRIGGER WARNING, because I quote liberally from their nasty, violent and often crudely sexual comments. (You can skim down to my summary of what I found if you wish to avoid the gruesome details.)
.
.
.
YouTuber Kilz Bryce, who wished a gruesome “death by cheese grater” to the red-haired activist (henceforth RHA), is an otherwise unassuming Japanese fan of Taylor Swift and Carly Rae Jepsen. VERDICT: Probably not an MRA.
Slurpos, who suggested shooting the RHA, is a racist conspiracy-monger who recently called MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry a “slut.” VERDICT: Misogynist, but not a confirmed MRA.
Joris667, who suggested a “cock up the arse,” recently “liked” an antifeminist video by Mykeru, who just happens to be a contributor to A Voice for Men. VERDICT: Possibly an MRA.
Damndisplace07, who suggested punching the RHA, has posted a bunch of rambling, ranty misogynistic videos on YouTube, some of which rely heavily on Manosphere ideology and jargon. VERDICT: Probably an MRA.
BusinessmanBandit is a young entrepreneur and goldbug who likes referring to women as “bitches.” VERDICT: Misogynist, but not a confirmed MRA.
Lazywhiteb0y, who “would love to punch this annoying cunt directly in the face,” is a fan of rap, country music, guns and beer. VERDICT: Misogynist, but not a confirmed MRA.
Akranejames, who also favors punching “this type of feminist,” is mostly obsessed with video games. But he also made a recent comment suggesting that we should abandon feminism and “machism” for “equalism,” and the only people I’ve ever heard use that ridiculous term have been hopeless MRA types. VERDICT: Probably an MRA, or at least a sometime reader of Mens’ Rights sites.
Leinster4life13, who wanted to ship her to Saudi Arabia, is a soccer enthusiast who also recently “liked” a video by the notoriously misogynistic Manhood Academy. VERDICT: Probably an MRA, or at least an MRA-in-training.
Chocolateking1, who made a joke about keeping “bitches” in the kitchen, seems to be, well, the sort of trolly asshole who thinks jokes about keeping “bitches” in the kitchen. VERDICT: Misogynist, probably not an MRA.
MadDogFritz, who railed about “feminazi propaganda” and made three separate comments on three different videos demanding to know “who is the the red headed pig monster with the attitude,” has recently commented on a number of MRA videos and is also a big fan of TheAmazingAtheist and his antifeminist rants. Also has complained about “women’s lib.” VERDICT: Seems pretty damn MRAish to me.
Robert alakaka, who declared that the RHA is “one of the most unlikable cunts in his [?] existence,” and that he “sincerely hopes she dies,” is a raging misogynist and homophobe who recently “liked” a video featuring the MRA-ish “Dick Masterson” explaining how “men are better than women.” Aaaaand he’s a fan of TheAmazingAtheist. VERDICT: Definitely MRA-ish.
TheTrueValkyrie66, who compared the RHA unfavorably to goatse, is also a fan of TheAmazingAtheist and — wait for it — MyLittlePony. VERDICT: Probably not an MRA, but seems to have stepped straight out of the Big Book of Redditor Stereotypes.
HUEHEUHE HEUHEUEH, who made a generic misogynist remark, seems to be a Brony. VERDICT: Probably not an MRA.
EndlessCycleofPride, who declared “I hope you get raped,” is way into bodybuilding. VERDICT: Probably not an MRA, but a terrible person nonetheless.
Dominic Galvin, who declared “I want to punch her,” is a vintage car enthusiast and yet another fan of TheAmazingAtheist, especially his antifeminist rants. VERDICT: Possible MRA.
Corbbin Goldsmith, who suggested oral rape, is a software synth enthusiast and bedroom musician. VERDICT: An awful person, but there’s no indication he’s an MRA.
Amaurypenseur, who thinks that “feminists deserve rape as punishment,” is a weird Belgian who hates American culture, “hanker[s for] a society based on war, inequality and irrationally,” and is a sort-of fan of, um, Hitler. Verdict: Antifeminist (obviously) but probably not an MRA as such.
Theninja36, who wanted to “punch her in the face,” is a American gamer who seems a tad obsessed with Japan. VERDICT: Clearly hates feminists, as several of his comments attest, but there’s no indication he’s an MRA.
About all I can tell about Jack Ofalltrades, who made a crude, racist sexual suggestion, is that he’s a fan of the XFactor. VERDICT: Probably not an MRA.
So what have we learned here, aside from the sad fact that going through the histories of a whole bunch of YouTubers takes a fuck of a lot longer than I thought it would when I started out? Well, a number of things.
Out of the nineteen horrible commenters I was able to determine anything about, only one, Chocolateking1, seems to even vaguely fit the stereotype of the amoral, lulz-seeking troll that our friend Sigil1 wants to blame for all this.
Most of the commenters have been on YouTube for some time, with most of them using the site as an outlet for their various obsessions, which may or may not include hating on feminism. In a few cases they seem to be posting under their real names, which makes it all the more amazing that they’re perfectly willing to post violent and/or sexual comments as if no one except the nasty feminists would find any of this at all objectionable. Virtually all of them seem to be genuinely and unashamedly misogynistic.
Eight of the nineteen commenters are explicitly antifeminist, which puts them more than halfway along the route to possible MRAhood. Six — roughly a third of the total — are probably MRAs, or at the very least consumers of Men’s Rights and/or Manosphere media. Four are fans of TheAmazingAtheist. (NOTE TO SELF: TheAmazingAtheist has some really, really shitty fans.)
So congratulations, fellas: only perhaps a third of the many hundreds of terrible people who have been harassing and threatening the activist in question on YouTube seem to be MRAs or MRA-adjacent. Given that the total number of MRAs in the world is probably less than the number of people who watched that one video, that’s pretty impressive.
The comments I looked at here, nonetheless, are only a small fraction of the total number of threatening and/or harassing comments about the red-haired activist that have been posted to YouTube, and that are still being posted as you read this. She also received hundreds of messages directly, most of them anonymous.
Even if most of these messages weren’t sent by people who identify explicitly as MRAs, a signficant proportion clearly were, so we’re still talking about many dozens, perhaps even hundreds, of MRAs and fellow travelers who decided that the appropriate response to the video of the red-haired activist was to fire off comments and messages calling her a “bitch” or a “cunt” or something equally odious — and/or suggesting that she should be punched, or raped or even killed.
This whole exercise has helped to make even clearer to me why so many MRAs have made their names posting videos on YouTube: Because YouTube is filled to overflowing with the sort of terrible people who think rape threats are hilarious and that GirlWritesWhat is a genius.
MRAs, these people are your audience. Your peeps. Your most likely source of future converts. (Well, maybe not that Belgian Hitler fan. He’s got some ideas about statutory rape of teen boys that are as likely to offend MRAs as they are to offend feminists.)
And you wonder why so many see the Men’s Rights movement as a hate movement. (Hint: It’s the hate.)
NOTE: My promised post reflecting a bit more on A Voice for Men’s role in this all should go up tomorrow.
Hey Clintiskeen, were you the one who told a rape survivor on Customers_Suck that only soldiers could have legit PTSD, or was that some other asshole? I could never keep you guys straight, and it’s taking me a while to get through the sf_d archives.
Also, weren’t you the guy who kept a list of comms he’d been banned from in his profile?
He’s not a sock. He was assing up LiveJournal way before MBZ even existed.
I’m starting to think there’s a factory somewhere that manufactures petulant young men. They’re designed to repeat “I’m not an MRA, but…” over and over again, like one of those horrible dolls from the 80s that cried until you shoveled pretend food into them.
Well, you’re citation needes were much more thorough. 😉
*bows before titanblue’s greater control of the blockquotes*
Well, you’ve got to admire Clint. He’s made this thread the “All About Clint Show”. *slow handclap* Well done there, laddie, much more important that we examine whether we’ve falsely accused you of lying (I don’t think so) than the avalanche of hatred heaped upson RHA.
CLINT – RESPOND TO THIS…seriously. I’m trying really hard to engage in a dialogue, for whatever reason.
How can you possibly claim that you aren’t MRA-affiliated? Your blog and Facebook (which is linked to from your blog) indicate you identify with Anti-Feminist groups. You cite Farrall (an MRA leader, though you’ve claimed you don’t engage with them at all), and engage in all their talking points. As we’ve gone through before. Okay, maybe you don’t call yourself an MRA, but as we’ve all pointed out, in essence, you are one.
And, what if I said you were mean to us, calling us idiots and more, and then I went and posted all your personal information here, then hundreds of people starting threatening you with rape? Would you like that? Would we be misrepresenting the situation if instead of saying how horrible that response was, we made sure to point out that you called us names and were rude and dismissive in a forum that was not made for your voice?
And, based on the “logic” of your argument of why you’ve been trolling us from the beginning, I repeat:
@clint, Actually, you know what? I went back and found the first comment you made on the original post. Which started with “I think you’re missing the point here”. And proceeded to tell us that “the point” is not that rape and death threats combined with digging up and spreading around someone’s personal info is a really awful and unjustifiable response to someone protesting a talk and being impolite, but that it’s “unfair” to talk about how awful and unjustifiable those things are without acknowledging that the men apparently had “reasons” to be angry. So you can shout all you want about how you don’t actually think those things are okay, but you clearly think they’re not as bad as having a legal protest and being impolite, or you wouldn’t have been trying to say that the legal protest and being impolite were “the point” and not the threats and doxxing, or that men having “reasons” to be angry in any way mitigates how awful and unjustifiable those threats and doxxing are.
Secondly, I found the comment with the person saying they don’t tolerate “harassment and threats”, and the fact that they paired those two terms makes it clear they’re talking about the type of harassment (i.e., threats and doxxing) mentioned in the post, not everything that anyone could ever consider meeting any definition of harassment. You are nitpicking a tiny little detail that you can construe as being inaccurate so that you have something to attack. Again, priorities. Why is it more important to you to construe that detail into an inaccuracy and go on at length about it than to tackle the issue of rape and death threats? Oh, right, because as noted above, you’ve already made it clear that “the point” to you is whatever the women were doing wrong, not the completely over-the-top and horrific retaliation carried out at one of those women. Trying to distract people from the larger issue of an organization condoning the widespread doxxing and threatening of an individual they don’t like is, in effect, supporting the people doing the doxxing and threatening, because you’re trying to *get in the way* of the people trying to stop it from happening. It doesn’t matter how many times you claim you don’t support that behavior; as long as you’re standing in the way of people trying to stop it, you’re making it easier for the behavior to continue; thus, supporting it.
In other words, you are not even capable of being morally consistent yourself. So clearly by your own definition you’re not worth talking to. Have a nice life.
I dunno that “admire” is the word I would choose.
I recommend we just ignore Clint. Unless his behavior has changed significantly in the last two years, he won’t stop spewing his bullshit until he’s banned (maybe not even then), and it won’t be anything we haven’t heard a million times before.
Oh, and one last point. If you don’t read MRA material, why is it that from your very first post, you’ve been referring to the activist by name? No one else has mentioned her name here. Her real name was disseminated by the MRAs. How could you know it unless you were reading things written by MRAs? Just one more lie…
I’ve actually been finding the repetition of her name rather creepy. It assumes an intimacy that doesn’t actually exist.
Me too. Glad I’m not the only one bugged by that.
What is up lately with the petulant man-children who will not stop? It’s like they think that if they just keep hammering their point, we’ll give up and admit how right and brilliant they are.
If their boundaries are this bad HERE, I shudder to think of what they’re like irl.
Maybe it worked on their parents?
If my kid turned to be an MRA, I would have objectively failed as a parent.
“Son, I am disappoint. Also please stop creeping out your cousins, and don’t call grandma a c@nt.”
@Cassandra–I think the repeated use of her name could almost come off as a threat in itself. It’s in the comments following a post that’s *all* about how she’s being harassed in part because her personal info, including her name, has been spread around, and which makes great effort to eliminate those identifying details. To ignore all that and post her name, while complaining about things she did… It’s hard not to take that as a veiled “not going to let her get away with this even here.” I mean, when no one else here is using the name and we’re referring to her by another moniker, and most of us probably didn’t know the name (I didn’t), it’s totally ineffective from a communication standpoint. So what other purpose besides intimidation could it serve?
I think intimidation was exactly what was intended, with a bit of “see I can keep using her name even in the comments of a post about how doxxing her is not OK and you can’t stop me” thrown in.
Clint is a creepy, petulant asshat. I respect those who are continuing to engage with him, but I’m out.
I’m past the “try to engage” stage and firmly into the “point and mock” stage.
I can’t even be bothered to mock him any more. He’s giving us no new material! 😀
That’s the problem – none of them are. They’re melting together into a solid blob of petulantbabytantrumwahlistentomeori’llhurtyou.
My bad, that was David_Deacon.
First, you said that she committed a felony by inciting someone else to pull the alarm. “Incitement” in legal terms (which, when you’re accusing someone of committing a felony, is the ONLY perspective that matters) has a definition, you lying, libelous, shit-spewing fuckweasel. Specifically, it means to directly encourage or direct someone to commit an illegal act. It doesn’t refer to being happy it happened after the fact. It doesn’t refer to making a complaint, then someone else deciding to take matters into their own hands.
In the video that YOU, yourself, posted, it’s plainly evident that she’s personally nowhere near the fire alarm; that she’s fully engaged in the protest chanting (oh, and despite your constant insinuations otherwise, she’s not even the one holding the fucking bullhorn); and that she is as surprised as anyone else when the alarm first goes off. She does indulge in a bit of schadenfreude and cheer after the fact, but she in no way, shape or form does anything that would rise to the legal level of incitement.
To claim otherwise, you must either:
A: Be a libelous, lying, shit-spewing fuckweasel, or:
B: Be so ignorant that you’ve managed to shove your head up your ass so hard that it’s come back out of your own mouth and gone around for a second time, like some sort of Ouroboros of Asshattery.
.