Logo contest! Win $300!

@LBT

This shouldn’t be a surprise to me, but I find this sad. I love getting to know other Boobzers! I’ve made buddies through there! (Including, most recently, a lurker who turned out to be friends with one of my friends!)

Exactly. I don’t interact with Boobzers outside of the site, but that’s more than enough for me to consider the regulars here as either friends or friendly acquaintances. I mean, I’ve known some of y’all for years now!!! With the MRM sites, I’ve yet to see people just goofing off together, or sharing in-jokes, or laughing about anything other than the real or imagined pain of the woman of the day. And, on that note, WHOOT for your housing!!

Happy Veteran’s Day USians (I’m looking at you pecunium), and happy Remembrance Day to my Canuckistan comrades!!

RE: Shadow

Yeah, that’s really sad. I mean, I knew inurashii and Cliff before I joined Manboobz, but since joining, I’ve physically met up with pecunium and Argenti as well. (And I was JUST ABOUT to meet aughochlorella, before my health shat the bed on me. Cloudiah and katz and possibly thebionicmommy were also on my list of to-meets!) It’s why I love the place!

And yes, happy Veterans Day to my compatriots!

The new logo is certainly very definite. But as said above, the way the letters are combined does look like a short-legged man with a strange looking penis. Or a weird diaper. I also have to say that I find their slogan confusing – I preferred the old one – Compassion for men and boys – whether it was actually true or not, at least it made some sense. But I suppose that there is some manly reason for the change. Btw, has anyone else noticed that Theodore Beale is trying to change the term “Manosphere” to “Androsphere”? He seems to think that using the Greek form is more impressive. It will be interesting to see if it catches on. And what the gentlemen at A Voice for Men think of the modification. Maybe someone should ask them!

“Happy Veteran’s Day USians (I’m looking at you pecunium)”

He was up til like one talking to me about a troll on his blog, and had to be out and about by 6:30, idk if we’ll be seeing much of him today.

Agreed, best Pierre! And, with three cats I have been in that situation

I see poor Julie was ignored:

I don’t see ‘hate for women’ in this logo activity and I’m starting to feel sorry for Paul Elam. I am sure it’s normal when mobs start to single out people and bully long term. The person being attacked starts to take a human identity and witnesses start to question the ring leader.

Perhaps you can extend your blogroll if you are struggling to find women haters so things don’t turn on you. Just a thought, otherwise, thanks for holding people accountable. Just don’t forget power corrupts and to keep yourself in check.

Let’s look at her rhetorical style.

I don’t see ‘hate for women’ in this logo activity

There isn’t much, active hate for women in the acquiring of a logo. There isn’t much hate for blacks/catholics/jews in a Klavern designing new badges either, but the who is is important as the what.

1 point

and I’m starting to feel sorry for Paul Elam.

Non-connected thought, though the implication of ongoing engagement with the site, and implications of unfairness sort of balance.

On balance, it’s not quite deft enough for merit, nor inept enough for demerit: neutral.

I am sure it’s normal when mobs start to single out people and bully long term.

This is perhaps the most interesting part of the comment, it’s actually the core argument. Kudos for having a preamble, and for relating it back to the, “feeling sorry”. But the use of, “mobs” is perjorative, and doesn’t have enough prefatory set-up in the sorrow. The use of bully (esp. in an online context) is topical to social events, but lacks merit. To bully the target of the attack has to be unable to avoid it. None of what is said here, in the comments [which must be included in the reference of this sentence, because “mob” (the collective noun for a violent, and uncontrollable group of unthinking people) was used is sent to Elam. That he, or his various sycophants and minions, are interested/obsessed enough to keep tabs on us doesn’t make our commentary (no matter how public) bullying.

Since the rhetoric of the commentariat is surprisingly free of desire for harm (save the regular use of the passive, “may s/he step on a Lego” in it’s various forms) it’s also hard to support the idea that “bullying” is going on.

Just because a person, or group, dislikes someone, and is not shy in saying so doesn’t make for a bully.

-2 for overblown, -1 for poorly established argument, and -2 for so weakly structuring the anchoring idea of the argument.

The person being attacked starts to take a human identity and witnesses start to question the ring leader.

Oh dear, after such a promising (if pedestrian) start, even with the stumble of the Thesis, there was some hope, but this is starting to look like fresh pineapple Jell-O.

The idea that Dave hasn’t presented enough rounding detail to make Elam a human figure undercuts the implication of long term readership. The use of the idea that becoming familiar with the humanity of a “victim” is also sort of bathetic. With dozens of examples of his beliefs, behaviors, actions and reactions, there isn’t much to support this idea that nothing more than repeated exposure to his words will make him sympathetic; just because he is one of the targets of Dave’s focus on manospheric misogyny.

You also introduce the idea that the commentariat are passive, that or you are making reference to those lurking without comment. If so you undercut it with, “ringleader” (which is harkening back to the aforementioned slur of “mob”, with the added quality of diminuition. If carried on; in a longer piece, slowly building, it can be an effective tool. Sadly this isn’t more than extended quip, a passing jibe; and so it doesn’t really manage to overcome much, but it shows a basic understanding of device), as that requires a shared goal/aim. As such it’s hard to support the defense that you mean lurkers. Again we are left to think you are referring to a “bullying mob” which is both localised in a comment section the target need not read, and passive enough to never read anything else about the object of their, “two-minute hate”.

Failure to actually extend the core argument -1 Undercutting the dominant theme, -1 use of device… a wash; it’s a decent extension, but requires more support later, which fails to materialise, neutral. Arguments which are internally inconsistent, -3 (it would be greater, but the failure isn’t immediately obvious. It isn’t so great as to be immediately obvious to the casual reader, which keeps it from gaining the full Five marks of demerit it might otherwise).

Perhaps you can extend your blogroll if you are struggling to find women haters so things don’t turn on you.

Argh… whiplash. There is no transition. That’s an automatic deduction. Making the shift with a passive structure isn’t so bad; your general tone is quasi-avuncular, but again, it’s hard to sustain. If all Dave wrote about were Elam, or Elamites, you might be able to avoid more demerit, but he’s got a fairly wide range of topics, and the regular inclusion of outside referents means the readership can see he is widely read.

The second half of this, “so things don’t turn on you” is histrionic. What/who is going to turn on him? His “mob/ring”? The people who read, but don’t comment? Those who come in at random? This needs support, evidence. Some, otherwise friendly audience who is decrying Dave’s monomania with Elam.

Lack of transition -2. Poor use of tone -1 complete failure to find a valid target for this line of argument -5

Just a thought, otherwise, thanks for holding people accountable.</I<

Banal. You've no standing, from lack of ongoing interaction, to be in the position to give casual advice. Inconsistent. All you have done is say Dave is wrong; from the "lack of hate, to the thematic use of gang/mob, hounding and bullying, nothing in this comment shows any sense that Dave is doing any good. At, an implausible, best, you are saying he's doing the right thing but ineptly.

-5

Just don’t forget power corrupts and to keep yourself in check.

This is your closing? It tails off. Given the charges further up it either needed to rise to a denunciation, or close with a Parkeresque zinger. Really, given how many balls you have in the air this is too soon to call it quits. You need to expand on either the ways Dave could be better holding these more valid targets you think exist (in the “expanded blogroll” you recommend), or detailing why various exposures of Elam are a poor episode in his otherwise worthy endeavors.

It raises more questions than it answers, uses the passive voice in closing, and is insincerely worded.

-10

So, looking at the deviation from the mean (where neutral = being inoffensive, neither causing the reader to think good or ill) to positive, where the audience is moved to think well of the argument presented, or negative, where the argument is undercut by the style (this isn’t a comment on the substance of your claims, merely on the way you present them).

You scored -28 pts

Given the short length of this piece, and you being in a place where the substance was already going to be less than favorably received it’s a very poor showing. Had you continued in this vein while actually attempting to get into the details you sketched out… odds are you would have been in triple digits below the line, since you collected you had nine rhetorical phrases, and only one of them with positive marks.
I see poor Julie was ignored:

I don’t see ‘hate for women’ in this logo activity and I’m starting to feel sorry for Paul Elam. I am sure it’s normal when mobs start to single out people and bully long term. The person being attacked starts to take a human identity and witnesses start to question the ring leader.

Perhaps you can extend your blogroll if you are struggling to find women haters so things don’t turn on you. Just a thought, otherwise, thanks for holding people accountable. Just don’t forget power corrupts and to keep yourself in check.

Let’s look at her rhetorical style.

I don’t see ‘hate for women’ in this logo activity

There isn’t much, active hate for women in the acquiring of a logo. There isn’t much hate for blacks/catholics/jews in a Klavern designing new badges either, but the who is is important as the what.

1 point

and I’m starting to feel sorry for Paul Elam.

Non-connected thought, though the implication of ongoing engagement with the site, and implications of unfairness sort of balance.

On balance, it’s not quite deft enough for merit, nor inept enough for demerit: neutral.

I am sure it’s normal when mobs start to single out people and bully long term.

This is perhaps the most interesting part of the comment, it’s actually the core argument. Kudos for having a preamble, and for relating it back to the, “feeling sorry”. But the use of, “mobs” is perjorative, and doesn’t have enough prefatory set-up in the sorrow. The use of bully (esp. in an online context) is topical to social events, but lacks merit. To bully the target of the attack has to be unable to avoid it. None of what is said here, in the comments [which must be included in the reference of this sentence, because “mob” (the collective noun for a violent, and uncontrollable group of unthinking people) was used is sent to Elam. That he, or his various sycophants and minions, are interested/obsessed enough to keep tabs on us doesn’t make our commentary (no matter how public) bullying.

Since the rhetoric of the commentariat is surprisingly free of desire for harm (save the regular use of the passive, “may s/he step on a Lego” in it’s various forms) it’s also hard to support the idea that “bullying” is going on.

Just because a person, or group, dislikes someone, and is not shy in saying so doesn’t make for a bully.

-2 for overblown, -1 for poorly established argument, and -2 for so weakly structuring the anchoring idea of the argument.

The person being attacked starts to take a human identity and witnesses start to question the ring leader.

Oh dear, after such a promising (if pedestrian) start, even with the stumble of the Thesis, there was some hope, but this is starting to look like fresh pineapple Jell-O.

The idea that Dave hasn’t presented enough rounding detail to make Elam a human figure undercuts the implication of long term readership. The use of the idea that becoming familiar with the humanity of a “victim” is also sort of bathetic. With dozens of examples of his beliefs, behaviors, actions and reactions, there isn’t much to support this idea that nothing more than repeated exposure to his words will make him sympathetic; just because he is one of the targets of Dave’s focus on manospheric misogyny.

You also introduce the idea that the commentariat are passive, that or you are making reference to those lurking without comment. If so you undercut it with, “ringleader” (which is harkening back to the aforementioned slur of “mob”, with the added quality of diminuition. If carried on; in a longer piece, slowly building, it can be an effective tool. Sadly this isn’t more than extended quip, a passing jibe; and so it doesn’t really manage to overcome much, but it shows a basic understanding of device), as that requires a shared goal/aim. As such it’s hard to support the defense that you mean lurkers. Again we are left to think you are referring to a “bullying mob” which is both localised in a comment section the target need not read, and passive enough to never read anything else about the object of their, “two-minute hate”.

Failure to actually extend the core argument -1 Undercutting the dominant theme, -1 use of device… a wash; it’s a decent extension, but requires more support later, which fails to materialise, neutral. Arguments which are internally inconsistent, -3 (it would be greater, but the failure isn’t immediately obvious. It isn’t so great as to be immediately obvious to the casual reader, which keeps it from gaining the full Five marks of demerit it might otherwise).

Perhaps you can extend your blogroll if you are struggling to find women haters so things don’t turn on you.

Argh… whiplash. There is no transition. That’s an automatic deduction. Making the shift with a passive structure isn’t so bad; your general tone is quasi-avuncular, but again, it’s hard to sustain. If all Dave wrote about were Elam, or Elamites, you might be able to avoid more demerit, but he’s got a fairly wide range of topics, and the regular inclusion of outside referents means the readership can see he is widely read.

The second half of this, “so things don’t turn on you” is histrionic. What/who is going to turn on him? His “mob/ring”? The people who read, but don’t comment? Those who come in at random? This needs support, evidence. Some, otherwise friendly audience who is decrying Dave’s monomania with Elam.

Lack of transition -2. Poor use of tone -1 complete failure to find a valid target for this line of argument -5

Just a thought, otherwise, thanks for holding people accountable.

Banal. You’ve no standing, from lack of ongoing interaction, to be in the position to give casual advice. Inconsistent. All you have done is say Dave is wrong; from the “lack of hate, to the thematic use of gang/mob, hounding and bullying, nothing in this comment shows any sense that Dave is doing any good. At, an implausible, best, you are saying he’s doing the right thing but ineptly.

-5

Just don’t forget power corrupts and to keep yourself in check.

This is your closing? It tails off. Given the charges further up it either needed to rise to a denunciation, or close with a Parkeresque zinger. Really, given how many balls you have in the air this is too soon to call it quits. You need to expand on either the ways Dave could be better holding these more valid targets you think exist (in the “expanded blogroll” you recommend), or detailing why various exposures of Elam are a poor episode in his otherwise worthy endeavors.

It raises more questions than it answers, uses the passive voice in closing, and is insincerely worded.

-10

So, looking at the deviation from the mean (where neutral = being inoffensive, neither causing the reader to think good or ill) to positive, where the audience is moved to think well of the argument presented, or negative, where the argument is undercut by the style (this isn’t a comment on the substance of your claims, merely on the way you present them).

You scored -28 pts

Given the short length of this piece, and you being in a place where the substance was already going to be less than favorably received it’s a very poor showing. Had you continued in this vein while actually attempting to get into the details you sketched out… odds are you would have been in triple digits below the line, since you collected -28 in only nine rhetorical phrases. Worse, of those nine, only one had positive marks.

I really do like the new tagline far more: The old one gave the wrong impression that they might actually care about men and boys or even do things to help them. The new tagline gives the far more accurate impression that they just sit around and argue all the time.