Evidently it is, at least according to these Men’s Rights Redditors and the people who upvoted them:
Oh, I know, they were JOKING. Pretty hilarious joke there, fellas!
I’ve got a few more based on the same formula:
How many [insert name of group you don’t like] does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
It only takes one to “accidentally” electrocute themselves doing this routine household chore, if you catch my drift, nudge nudge.
—
Why did the chicken cross the road?
I don’t know but it would be a shame if he didn’t make it all the way across if you know what I mean.
—
Knock knock
Who’s there?
It would be a shame if the person you let in the door were to murder your family, hint hint.
Yeah, those really aren’t jokes, per se, are they?
Thanks to Cloudiah for pointing me to this lovely little Men’s Rights subreddit exchange.
Another vote for banning that callous *person*. That post was completely unnecessary and upsetting.
This whinging about having to spend large sums supporting people you don’t like reminds me of rich people whining about higher rates of tax. How much does one person possibly need? If you’re paying a million in tax how much are you taking home? But they can’t ever be satisfied. Its juvenile selfishness.
I vote yea on the motion to ban the black hat. On the grounds of tedium, admitted trolling, and intentionally attempting to cause distress. Stated comment policy:
I’d highlight the parts black hat is having issues with, but he seems to be having issues with everything on the list.
In this letter I’m going to discuss masochism. I’m going to delve into great detail about David Futrelle’s snooty tractates. I’m going to talk at length about how David has been breaking down traditional values. In short, this is not a letter for children or the overly sensitive. Although my approach may appear a bit pedantic, by setting some generative point of view against a structural-taxonomical point of view or vice versa, I intend to argue that this has been documented repeatedly. I will now cite the proof of that statement. The proof begins with the observation that David claims that the Scriptures are responsible for his exploitative, namby-pamby thoughts and fancies. This eisegetical fantasy is not only disrespectful, but it fails to consider that if David is victorious in his quest to promote the total destruction of individuality in favor of an all-powerful group, then his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity.
Whenever David is presented with the statement that I have been a veritable oasis of civility in the present debate, he spews out the hackneyed excuse that education and open-mindedness are some kind of liability. Ironically, such screwball logic is likely to convince even more people that David says he’ll twist our entire societal valuation of love and relationships beyond all insanity if anyone dare threaten the existence of his faction. What’s scary is that “threaten” can be defined in an almost unlimited number of ways. For instance, David might consider it threatening if one were to claim that he finds reality too difficult to swallow. Or maybe it just gets lost between the sports and entertainment pages. In either case, David is entirely gung-ho about yahooism because he lacks more pressing soapbox issues.
If anything will free us from the shackles of David’s headlong adages, it’s knowledge of the world as it really is. It’s knowledge that he seems unable to think of turns of speech that aren’t hackneyed. What really grates on my nerves, however, is that David’s prose consists less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning than of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse. It doesn’t do us much good to become angry and wave our arms and shout about the evils of David’s demands in general terms. If we want other people to agree with us and join forces with us, then we must fight David with everything we’ve got.
David keeps saying that he is a model citizen. For some reason, David’s agents provocateurs actually believe this nonsense. If it were true, as he claims, that character development is not a matter of “strength through adversity” but rather, “entitlement through victimization”, then I wouldn’t be saying that David frequently accuses his nemeses of hurting others physically or emotionally. This is yet another example of the growing lack of civility in our civil discourse that ranges from the malapert to the unconscionable and even delusional. In a more proper debate, one would instead politely point out that I am not a robot. I am a thinking, feeling, human being. As such, I get teary-eyed whenever I see David deny both our individual and collective responsibility to live in harmony with each other and the world. It makes me want to express our concerns about his acrasial indiscretions, which is why I’m so eager to tell you that David is decidedly proud of himself for conconcting such a “brilliant” scheme for cheating on taxes. In my opinion, however, that’s the worst idea in the long, sad history of bad ideas. Much better would be to maintain the great principles of virtue, truth, right, and honor.
David insists that people don’t mind having their communities turned into war zones. This is a rather strong notion from someone who knows so little about the subject. His allocutions emphasize the formation of small units of impudent apostles that can avoid detection by authorities, strike quickly and disperse, and, to some extent, institutionalize sex discrimination by requiring different standards of protection and behavior for men and women, and that’s one reason why I’m writing this letter. Did he cancel his plans to quote me out of context because he had a change of heart, or is he continuing the same battle on another front? It would appear to be the latter. If David’s goons had even an ounce of integrity they would reveal the nature and activity of David’s bootlickers and expose their inner contexts as well as their ultimate final aims. One last thing: Bloodthirsty exclusionism is widespread and growing stronger as it permeates school systems, universities, and the media.
In fairness, I’ve heard one person in my life tell a version of the “slice him thin enough” joke. She’s a feminist and my best friend. I know she is a resolute opponent of violence in all forms [should I have to say it for the MRAs – yes, violence against men as well: she’s protested wars for decades and 2 of her heroes are men who protested being drafted in the Vietnam War era]. I laughed when she told it, but mostly (maybe entirely?) because I simply could not believe that this joke was coming out of her mouth. And she knew that and played on her rep as an anti-violence activist to create the shock that made me laugh.
So, okay, a feminist has told that joke. But it’s not “feminist” humor. It doesn’t express feminist values. It expresses gender-war values which is precisely the value set feminism opposes. That’s why the one time I heard this joke I was shocked to hear it from a feminist.
Curiously, that also explains something about MRA point of view which is probably obvious to most folks here. It’s a quintessentially US view of war. It adopts the gender-war value set: in primary part that there are two *opposed* genders. Then it asserts that feminism is a side in a war, assuming that with that metaphor the have provided proof of some violent hatred. Finally, it seeks to exempt themselves from the implications that if they are a side in the war, and if they can automatically attribute bad qualities to the other side **merely because the other side is participating in a war** then they have to find a way to exempt themselves from the implications of their own logic. How do they do this?
“I never wanted a war. I just want you to make me a sandwich & go down on me while I eat. It’s the feminists who decided they hated the natural sandwich-and-blowjob-providing, evolutionarily-fated role sufficient to launch a war. Therefore I’m a **reluctant** participant in the war, like the US vs. Japan in WW2 or the US vs Iraq or the US vs Iran or the US vs Grenada – because clearly Grenada’s massive assault on the US absolutely forced the US to invade.”
This “we’re in a war and you are warriors so you are despicable; and I will fight you to my last breath but I am not a warrior and therefore not despicable, it’s all about you and your ignorant, violent, despicableness” meme is classic Ronnie Raygun vs Grenada.
=========
Separately, Argenti asked me a while back about pronouns. By the time i read it, that thread seemed dead. So I’ll say here that I’m happy with she/her in contexts where people don’t get trans* issues & language, but that I also like the political implications of going by ze/hir when possible. Feel free to use either set.
roger, if you’re going to spew your bullshit, the least you can do is to stop being so pretentious and wordy.
Maybe that’s too much to ask of an MRA, though…
As a palate cleanser, and a reaffirmation of my love of my Canadian peoples
http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Brossard+team+dons+turbans+solidarity/8505897/story.html
I know I’m late to the party here but…
Fedora, you’re disingenuous, pathetic, and no one is interested. Bye.
@aaliyah – with respect to the whole “theft of property justifying rape of a prostitute thing,” interesting how these assholes seem to skip over an action for breach of contract, which is the much more obvious solution if you really think of prostitution as a sale of a commodity. Any excuse to justify violence against women. (Not like this is news at this point)
And (nods in agreement) with the discussion re: alimony. Pretty rare to see these days, and usually only in very long standing, traditional marriages. Any of these crybabies who is whining about an unfair alimony award is very likely 1) privileged and 2) omitting material evidence.
What? Whiny MRAs betraying their privilege yet remaining completely oblivious to it? Never.
The always relevant Margaret Atwood quote: Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them.
Roger:
An MRA talking at tedious, hyperbolic length? Shocking
tl;dr
I dunno, I kinda like roger. It’s funny because it has virtually no connection to reality. I mean, David doesn’t think anyone minds their neighborhoods being turned into war zones? David believes that education and open-mindedness are a liability? Really?
Plus I have to give roger some points for his vocabulary. It’s a lot more entertaining than the usual $3 words MRAs use to sound intelligent.
However, he loses points for being so out of touch as to be pretty much nonsensical. There’s really no way to argue with him, and arguing with trolls is half the fun.
Overall, I guess I’d have to give him a troll score of 5/10. Needs some serious improvement, but not ban-worthy yet.
Okay, I’m gonna start the ball rolling–Black Fedora’s “jokes” were vile and disgusting and offensive, and I think he’s overstayed his welcome. Anyone else thinking it’s time for him to receive an introduction to the banhammer (or at least perma-mod status)?
Ah, I accidentally missed the most recent page of replies, so the ball was already well and truly rolling–may it turn Black Fedora into a beret.
Roger, OTOH, isn’t vile, so much as DULL. I can’t get through his posts without my eyes and soul glazing over in ennui.
@AK
I couldn’t read the screed, but I got enough of a kick out of “In this letter”. I feel deeply sorry for his correspondents.
And because today seems to be multipost day (sorry about that):
http://mansplained.tumblr.com/
It’s very much laugh-so-you-don’t-cry, but I did laugh. Some of the posts might be triggering, though–particularly those that deal with doctors mansplaining to patients.
As textdump MRAs go I’ll give roger a 7.5. His content gives him a 5.5 at best but I’d grant him one bonus point for his excellent vocabulary and another bonus point for actually using paragraph breaks rather than the traditional “wall-o-text”.
BlackHead isn’t even worth mocking anymore, that kind of a “joke” is just sick, sad, and pathetic. I agree with everyone else; banhammer time.
LOL, as if he assumes we’ll actually read it. I have failing college students who write better than this.
Roger: TL;DR.
Have to agree with everyone else. Black Fedora’s “jokes” are beyond the pale. Please let him not be here anymore.
Oh, thank GOD-I-DON’T-BELIEVE-IN, that shit is seriously nasty! Good work, David!
It’s simple, BF wasn’t given enough attention as a child. He was probably one of those douches in high school.
As for roger…You must have clicked the wrong link, this isn’t reddit darling.
I skimmed to the middle.
…if we were agents provocateur, why would we need to believe it? In fact, we’d be pretty shitty at the job if we believed that was the end-game, right?
And where did he claim it?
Dammit, citations, man, citations!!
If you Google some of the more unique phrases in Roger’s screed, it appears that he has stolen a bunch of sentences from all over the Internetz, and used Find/Replace to toss David’s name into the word salad. I suggest starting with “This eisegetical fantasy is not only” as a search. “Prefabricated henhouse” seems to have been stolen from Orwell.
….remember when we talked about projection? Oh, roger, darling…
Aw, man, I should have known it was stolen. It actually meant something.
Of course, that roger’s rant was actually phrases stuck together like… well. Like the elegant metaphor. THAT. That’s special.
Sounds like Roger might be a spambot.