Reaxxion, the world’s crappiest right wing woman-hating excuse for a video game site, has now officially responded to my post revealing that a GamerGate manifesto they recently published was literally a repurposed John Birch Society newspaper ad from the mid-1960s, with words like “communist” removed and replaced with their GamerGate equivalents.
Whether the, er, “author” of the post was trolling, or just the world’s least subtle plagiarist, it was a giant embarrassment for Roosh and Reaxxion. And so, in the course of a nearly 1000-word post, Reaxxion “ethics officer” announces that they’ve shitcanned the author – and congratulates the site for its heroic bravery for throwing out a writer who copied his entire post from an old John Birch Society newspaper ad from the mid-1960s, with words like “communist” removed and replaced with their GamerGate equivalents.
That’s all well and good, because journalists aren’t supposed to copy pretty much their entire posts from a John Birch Society newspaper ad from the mid-1960s, with words like “communist” removed and replaced with their GamerGate equivalents. If you’re an editor and catch a writer doing this, you’re supposed to send that writer packing. (Remember Stephen Glass?)
But Roberts ignores what is really the most interesting and revealing thing about the whole incident, which is that a writer copied his entire post from an old John Birch Society newspaper ad from the mid-1960s, with words like “communist” removed and replaced with their GamerGate equivalents – AND NO ONE NOTICED UNTIL I POINTED IT OUT.
And why is that? Because the hysterical anti-communist rhetoric of the original ad sounds pretty much identical to the ridiculously over-the-top rhetoric that’s characterized GamerGate from the start. And it’s rooted in the same sort of reactionary politics.
Which is itself even more embarrassing than the plagiarism itself.
The John Birch Society, if you don’t already know, isn’t just a right-wing group. It’s a group so far to the right that even the National Review has denounced it. As a Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report notes that for years those on the left and on the right basically saw the Birchers as “the political equivalent of an addled uncle sent down to the basement rec room to drink, rant and hopefully pass out” before he had a chance to thoroughly embarrass the whole family by saying something truly dreadful.
I found the Bircher’s newspaper ad in a newspaper from 1966. At that time, the Birchers were fierce opponents of the civil rights movement in general and Martin Luther King Jr. in particular, labeling him a tool of the communists. As the SPLC report notes, Birchers feared that “the African-American freedom movement was being manipulated from Moscow with the goal of creating a “Soviet Negro Republic” in the Southern United States.”
Of course, the Birchers saw communists hiding behind every tree and under every bed. Indeed, the group’s founder, Robert Welch, was convinced that even President Dwight Eisenhower was a treasonous Communist puppet, and that LBJ was plotting to turn the United States over to the Communists even as he sent troops to fight against the Viet Cong.
So congratulations, GamerGaters, you’re now as officially ridiculous as the John Birch Society.
It might be a good idea to reflect a little on your life choices.
Right Wingnut, that is YOU not considering YOUR MOTHER bad. You’re aware there are OTHER PEOPLE who consider themselves pro-lifers, right? People who are not you? People who view the situation differently? Who basically think that that little clump of cells should have more rights than a living, breathing, already existing person?
Basically, Right Wingnut, what you are saying boils down to #notallprolifers. Come on. Be better than that.
@isidore13: Well sure I do. And I’m not here to argue on their behalf… too late for that I guess. Unfortunately when somebody thinks about the other side, often it’s in the worst light possible, kinda filling in assumptions about them to begin with.
E.g. “All SJWs are morons because I think I met one once that I didn’t like”…
Either way, @all, I come here for the articles, not because I expect to agree with everyone on everything. 😉 I am also the “enemy of your enemy”.
Ehrmagherd that video.
See, the woman in question doesn’t even come into it. She’s literally erased. There’s sad bro who missed out on his chance to “hang out” with a kid (all that other stuff, like feeding and cleaning and trips to the pediatrician, that stuff just happens by magic), and there’s the religious rhetoric, but there’s no woman there with hopes, dreams, or a real life of any kind. Nope, there was a baby in a jar one minute, and because he didn’t fight (how, exactly?) then, suddenly, there was no baby. There never was a woman, just a walking uterus that was full one day and empty the next.
“I only go the half hog in my misogyny. That makes me one of the good ones, right?”
It was really gross how they said they were the ones to have the abortion.
It’s not like MRAs are the only enemies of feminism. I wish they were. David specifically mocks what he calls the new misogyny. The forced birth movement is the old misogyny and they are scarier than MRAs because they actually have political and cultural power.
Thing is, Right Wingnut, there aren’t many assumptions needed. I’ve talked to many, many “pro-lifers” and to a one they’ve all told me themselves that they were against things like easily available contraception (“it just encourages sinful behavior!” “no one should have sex if they aren’t trying to have or at least willing to rear a baby”) and good quality non-maternal childcare (“if she can’t afford to stay home with her kids why is she having them?!”) and support for single mothers and low income families (“why have kids if you can’t afford them?!”).
This isn’t a matter of “I think I met one once” but of the preponderance of evidence from many interactions. You are the one who happens to be the outlier.
agree w/gillyrosebee. I don’t think anyone here is asking you defend other forced birthers, but I would appreciate your explanation for being against abortion. Please tell me it’s some other reason than ‘well this is how I was raised’. That isn’t good enough. I was raised a forced birther, too.
If you are anti-abortion then you need top be pro-birth control, pro-sex ed, pro-well everything to stop people being pregnant. Abstinence don’t stop people getting pregnant. Ignorance don’t stop people getting pregnant. OK, tired but…
And if he’s not lying about being an outlier, I’ll eat my Kermit the Frog laplander hat.
@isidore: Because if a “fetus” is a human after all, then being “pro life” is the decision to not let someone who cannot speak for themselves avoid the death penalty for, surprisingly, not committing a crime. If the death penalty is a bad thing for suspected criminals, what about the people who have not had the chance to commit a crime?
If “all you liberals” believe in eradicating the death penalty and “all you liberals” believe in racial equality, it’s a hard line to tow when 30% of abortions in the USA are for African-American mothers.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
I’m not saying there isn’t hypocrisy in the conservative community. I don’t like hardline conservatives who care more about party beliefs than moral behavior. But I also find it kinda crazy that I’m getting attacked from all sides and asked to explain my reasoning when everybody else here is buddy-buddy and unquestioning of each other’s ideals.
>When does an unborn child become human? What keeps them from being human until then? Age? Size? Location? Mental development? Physical development?
>Can we use born people’s age, size, location, mental development, or physical development to treat them as less human?
>If you call me “forced birth” do you call yourself “pro death” or something? Do we call the LGBT community “sodomites” and African-Americans “negroes”?
>When is it okay to kill a child outside of the womb for convenience? Seeing as they’re still dependent on the mother and all. As long as it’s the child’s mother deciding to kill the child, after all… some third party would be just, you know, sinful.
I was proven right in four minutes. That must be a new record. =P
Dude, we’re not here to do your bloody research for you. These questions have been asked and answered so many times. You are being boring. If you don’t want to question the beliefs you were raised with, that’s your business until you make it mine. But this is not Feminism 101 over here. Go do your research before you come in here to this space demanding we justify ourselves to you.
Dude, you are being asked to drop it because it will never be your body affected (you will never be pregnant) and it is therefore not up to you. Any claim you make to ownership of women’s bodies, and make no mistake that is exactly what you are doing, is misogyny. You are misogynist, for all that you claim to respect women.
> If you are anti-abortion then you need top be pro-birth control, pro-sex ed, pro-well everything to stop people being pregnant. Abstinence don’t stop people getting pregnant. Ignorance don’t stop people getting pregnant. OK, tired but…
Well yeah. We can’t keep stupid people from getting pregnant, and the friendlier solution to paying for the abortion of their likely-to-be-stupid posterity is definitely to make the people less stupid.
Talked the other day at an adult store to a woman who was there as a second job. She took no pity on women who used pregnancy as a way to try to secure a husband, or on men who wanted to be unsupportive of their wives after there was a child on its way. She said quite frankly that she didn’t pity the women “who didn’t keep their legs shut.” I guess she’s talked to a whole lot of women who are careless and trying to use pregnancy as a bargaining chip too.
And she was very pregnant. With a child who’s going to be born with a deformity, from how it sounded. Her choice.
Holy shit, that’s a hell of a double-down.
“All of us liberals” don’t believe abortion is murder. So, you know, that pretty much solves any dilemma you might be facing.
Maybe because we’re all familiar with each other’s ideals and are generally in agreement due to being part of a self-selected community? Maybe?
Wow. Oh my god. You need to leave. Now. You are a total misogynist.
‘
You must be new here. Even David has gotten pushback from time to time.
Your questions are highly dishonest or tendentious, but I’ll bite.
1. No one is arguing that zygotes/blastocysts/fetuses aren’t human (they aren’t aliens or giraffes or anything), just that their potential existence and hypothetical future is subordinate to the woman carrying it. Her life, her body, her health, her choice.
2. Irrelevant and tendentious begging the (wrong) question.
3. We call ourselves pro choice because that is exactly what we are for. We want women to be able to choose what they need to do in their own individual situations. Most “pro-life” people only care about one potential life, and only care about forcing that life to birth regardless of the consequences for the woman carrying it and over and against any objections she may have. Hence “forced birth”
4. You tipped your hand there with the word “convenience” and also with the use of “child.” Thing is that upwards of 80% of abortions happen in the first 10 to 12 weeks. Yes, the zygote/blastocyst/fetus is human (again, no one is debating that particular straw argument) at that point, but it is not a child. The bulk of the abortions that happen after that point do so because some fetal anomaly so threatens the viability of the fetus that it might not live to be born or much after, or threatens the life or health of the mother who might otherwise not survive the birth either.
I really wish I didn’t have this fever… My mind is going in a hundred different directions at once in an effort to grasp how monumentally horrid Right Wingnut has proven himself to me.
No, for two reasons. One, people don’t frame their own side negatively. Two, people aren’t pro-abortion because they want to see more fetal corpses, they do it because they want to improve the quality of life for everyone, parents and children alike (less children in the foster care system is a good thing, families not being forced to care for children they don’t want or can’t afford is also good).
If by “we” you mean other right wingnuts, then yes. Yes you do. So?
See, if you want people to give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren’t a complete misogynist asshole, you have to actually, you know, leave some doubt there.
*proven himself to be
I got quoted by a pro-lifer!! Wow!
And damn, they used it to prove their case 🙁
I’m not even sure what you’re trying to do with that little anecdote. Prove that other women blame women for pregnancy, too? We knew that already. Prove that you’re using us as wank material (why mention that it was in an adult store?)? I’m kinda creeped out. Is this when they start bringing out their violent, explicit descriptions of what they imagine while fapping?
I think Right Wingnut has proven to me that anybody who uses smilies in their first couple posts, especially as a deflection, will invariably turn out to be a horrible person.