A little realization hit me while I was watching videos about #GamerGate recently. MRAs and #GamerGaters really seem to enjoy depicting themselves as cartoon villains. Above, the skull-in-a-Koolaid-pitcher mascot of MRA videoblogger Bane666au.
Below, a screencap from a video by Mundane Matt, one of the movers and shakers behind the whole #GamerGate thing.
Once the smokey skull intro is over, here’s what you look at the rest of the time when you watch one of his videos:
And while we’re at it, the logo for his channel:
When they’re not depicting themselves as evil skulls with creepy eyes, MRAs and other antifeminists like to identify themselves with fictional villains:
That is, when they’re not posing as supervillains themselves:
Oh, hey, it’s our friend Davis Aurini, from earlier today, in an unphotoshopped screenshot from a video of his.
Oh, and here’s a screenshot from a more recent video of his. Note the skull. That’s right: he owns a freaking skull.
I hate to tell you guys, but I think YOU’RE THE BADDIES.
Yes, I know I’ve posted this video before, but once again it seemed very very apt.
@Kakanian
Nope! I don’t do much gaming these days, although I might make an exception for Pillars of Eternity.
Does the cite=”” attribute in the blockquote tag work?
Guess not 🙁
If I remember correctly some cultures consider the skull a symbol the human body’s element design.
“You’ll get a lot of Machiavellians and sociopath-ish types. I.e. the intelligent segment of the population.
”
Isn’t this, on a fundamental level, an admission to being evil, in the metaphysical sense of the word?
The criticisms I’ve seen of it has usually been in the context of companies that shell out huge monies to test their workers and then use the results as a rigid way of dealing with and pigeonholing said workers (e.g. “She’s an INFP, so obviously the best work environment/tasks for her would be….”).
It would be interesting if someone made a horror movie actually based on those concepts.
I actually really like Machiavelli. Then again, when I read the prince, I totally read it as a “I secretly hate your guts and am spilling out the secrets of how you keep power whilst sounding like your friend, so that everyone you’ve been trying to control will know exactly what you’re trying. Take that!”
I’m not sure if reading it like a SJW 101 course for abuser-state recognition (not all monarchs were evil, so no slights against the good kings) is completely legit, but…
Also, not hopping into any “what system of governance is worst/best” discussions.
It’s really easy to look at specific governments in hindsight and go: “Yeah. You were awful.” Figuring out which ones were good, and would work with resource and population levels different from the awesome seeming ones?
Really hard.
I never finished it but I’ve also heard the view espoused that he was really a good man who exposed the tactics of abusers.
Anyway even problematic media can be enjoyed, right?
If the fucked-up things are rendered conscious, they don’t easily slip through filters into your subconscious any more.
So pointing out how fucked- up something is neutralizes it to a degree.
People to use “Machiavellian” to refer to themselves ought to actually read Machiavelli and try to understand that he wrote political science for heads of state, not relationship advice for antisocial losers.
what is that nonsense about feminists being up in arms if a hot guy politely rejects an unattractive woman? MRAs think this is a feminist thing? Baffling.
The Prince was written for the rulers of Florence, an endangered city-state, in an unstable region, at a time where all the old Roman era books on politics were revealing themselves to be obsolete. In order to make sense of all the bullshit around him, he had to invent a new way to think governance, and he saw stability under an absolute and capable ruler as essential to keep Florence from being smashed by one of their many powerful neighbors.
@ Bogdan – the original Amityville Horror has a significant economic dimension to it. A big part of the reason that the family sticks it out in the house as long as they do is because they’ve overstretched themselves economically in the purchase of the house, and don’t have the means to flee. What’s more, the house uses economic stresses to help push Dad toward axe murder.
Newer movies where economics play a big role are Session 9 and Sinister, where characters with linger in situations where things are going supernaturally wrong because their finances are teetering on the brink and they have families to support.
I hesitate to say more unless people don’t mind spoilers.
I actually retook the Meyers-Briggs test today, and found that I’ve moved from INTP to INFP.
So congratulations to the douchebag skeptic types: you’ve actually moved me away from idealized logic and reason.
Apparently, I’m ISTJ. Does that mean I’m a JudgeyOldNurse? Will they take away my grumposhpere card?
I’m right on the border between INTP and ENTP. Apparently whether I’m an introvert or an extravert varies depending on my mood when I take the test?
The first season of American Horror Story tried to use this track, too, (SPOILERS AHEAD) but the definition of economic hardship was so painfully reeking of upper-middle-class privilege that I stopped watching because I was tired of rooting for the ghosts. I think it was when the husband conceded that yes, they could move out of the house (they’d had a home invasion by a bunch of ‘murder story fans’ who wanted to re-enact the crimes), but it would entail moving into a studio apartment. The mother (who had until then been demanding they just sell and walk away) suddenly gets all huffy and rejects the idea out of hand. And when they finally DO go and look at apartments, the daughter starts whining about how she would refuse to live there.
Since my wife and I were, at that point, making do with a horribly overcrowded one-bedroom apartment, it was kind of difficult to feel any sympathy for the victims. (The father, meanwhile, had been portrayed as the worst sort of shitheel from episode one, so there were literally no living characters on the show I liked after the mentally-disabled neighbor died–which was, bizarrely, a ‘happy’ ending for her, since dying in the street meant she wasn’t trapped in the house’s effect, and could go on to her final reward.)
A Wolverine: Isn’t the Meyers-Briggs test baloney?
Why, yes. Yes, it is.
http://www.vox.com/2014/7/15/5881947/myers-briggs-personality-test-meaningless
Personally, my opinion is that Machiavelli was taking the piss. I’m with Contrapangloss on that one, reading The Prince *feels* like reading someone having one long, protracted finger-pointing laughriot, constantly going “You do this thing, are you even aware that you do this? It’s hilarious how you think this works! Look, let me tell you about it”.Discourses on Lily, written slightly later, is much less about the absolute rule of a genius despot, and much more about how a well functioning republic is based on the free liberty of its subjects (who are repeatedly stated to be much better judges of their own needs than some manic despot desperate to maintain control). You get the same idea in his Art of War, where, again and again, an armed populace well trained and willing to defend themselves and their city beats a mercenary mindset nine times out of ten (fortuna willing), and several other little bits that hint at a surprising empathy for “masses of people”, which is not something you find in a lot of writers. It’s weird.
So, whenever anyone says “Machivellian” I hear: “Unable to fully read all source material, makes claims based on hearsay and assumption” which is an ingrained instinct that as stood me really, really well.
I was under the impression that the price was a satire written while Machiavelli was being held as a political prisoner. Is that not accurate?
I mean, for gods sake, if people have to raise up Machiavelli as some kind of genius PUA icon worth emulating, they should go with The Mandrake over The Prince.
The Prince is all “It’s better to be feared than loved, for fear lasts longer and entails more submission. When taking power, destroy and dismantle all old orders and replace them with the new that are loyal to you. Those that stood by you in your rise to power, you must now assassinate, ‘lest they believe themselves able to take your throne”
The Mandrake is literally the story of two men running a con on a lady to get her into bed, complete with lies, deceit, penis envy, trickery and dishonesty. It’s the perfect PUA manual! “Why yes, this mandrake root will increase your fertility, dear lady, but it will also kill the first man you sleep with. If only some convenient fool could be found for this ardeous task. Oh! How convenient, my friend, the fool rapscallion Callimaco, is right over there, and I’m sure we can convince him of the terrible duty of sleeping with the most beautiful woman in town!”