If you’re on Twitter, and have any number of followers at all, you’re going to end up getting followed by some bots — usually spambots looking for people to pester when certain keywords get used.
But when Twitter accounts have more than a relatively small percentage of fake followers, it’s almost certainly because they went out and bought them in order to make themselves look more influential than they really are.
Well, it looks like two of the most active members of A Voice for Men’s Twitter squad have done just that.
Twitter users @BlutalTheDog and @UnseenPerfidy recently ran “Twitter Audits” of a couple of AVFMers who are especially active on Twitter — AVFM “Managing Editor” @deanesmay and @Jackbarnesmra, co-host of AVFM’s Blue Collar Red Pill online radio show. The results weren’t pretty:
That’s right: it looks like both of them bought the overwhelming majority of their “followers” — tens of thousands of them in total.
I checked both of their accounts using another fake-Twitter-follower finder on Statuspeople.com, and the results were similarly terrible:
That’s not just embarrassing; it’s sleazy, and a pretty big breach of journalistic ethics for someone (Esmay) who’s the managing editor of an online publication.
By contrast, here’s the Twitter Audit of someone who doesn’t buy Twitter followers.
It will be interesting to see Esmay and Barnes explain this, or if they even try.
UPDATE: Well, Barnes has responded by … blocking me on Twitter. (Esmay already had me blocked.)
Twitter user @AnimalJimmies, meanwhile, has pointed me to two more (apparent) fake-follower buyers, one a GamerGate celebrity, the other AVFM’s “Assistant Managing Editor.”
Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we buy Twitter followers to decieve!
UPDATE: I’ve been informed that Mr. C is claiming that evil SJWs are buying fake followers for him in an attempt to make him look bad. Which is, I suppose, possible. But he also claims that he’s got 11,000 or so real followers regardless. Twitter Audit says his real followers only number about 4400.
Can anyone find a PUA article from the 20s about how small breasts and narrow hips have been the ideal since time immemorial?
To give what very little credit I can, in the comments at one point they do acknowledge that body shapes are due to weight distribution and also bone structure. I’m more of an apple shape pretty much because my ribcage measures more than my hips (I have a teeny pelvis. Good thing I don’t plan on having natural kids :P).
I think they very vaguely understand that women aren’t in control of their natural body shapes, but I’m not sure if Heartiste does.
When I google for “PUAs in the 1920s,” I just get a bunch of results for Hawaii and its state flower. *shrug*
There were no PUAs in the twenties. Nobody knew how to pick up women until The Red Pill came along. Until then, people mated by accident when bumping into each other in hallways.
Not sure if you’re a newcomer, omegaconstant, or an out-of-lurking regular, but good lord you’re funny. Have a cookie, an internet, and help yourself to the welcome package on the right if need be.
Aw, shucks. Long-time lurker, new commenter. I appreciate the kind words, but I’m just a regular guy, doing what he can to avoid actually doing my job at work.
The child bearing hips thing does make some sense. A wider pelvis reduces the chance of death in childbirth. Of course, with modern medicine that matters less. Also as far as I know, wide hipped women aren’t more fertile, they just have an easier time with birth generally.
That’s why teen pregnancy is more dangerous, because girls have narrower pelvises than adult women. So they undermine their biotruth about teen girls being appropriate sex partners that adult men are hardwired to want.
@weirwoodtreehugger:
Only if you’re actually talking about bone structure, rather than just absolute wideness of hips. I don’t think these dudes really grok the difference.
I’m an average-sized woman with a small waist, big hips and boobs…and no maternal inclinations whatsoever. I can also cheerfully go without sex partners for years at a time.
Shartiste’s shit out of luck with me.
I can just hear the snurklesnorting from here.
The most logical retort to that is, “Well, you know what they say…chicken at the table, chicken in the sack!”
One of the biggest unchecked premises in this nonsense is the idea that most men, more often than not, will share their preferences. From what I’ve read, men with different preferences are often mocked by these bozos – “oh, you like women who don’t look like the women I like? String of uninspired and derivative insults!”
Gay men deal with something similar, which is where ‘bear culture’ came from.
Mike, I did actually run an audit on Elam’s Twitter account, and most of his followers, alas, are real.
Everyone else: for more about Heartiste’s thoughts on (cis) female anatomy, see my latest post.
” Given that men, unlike women, are neurally primed to get aroused and motivated solely by stimulating visual cues…”
Oh, so that’s why puas are so indigneindignant over basic hygiene and having to not look like they just rolled out of a shit pile while getting their not-so-white undies in a knot over the misandric practice of women not wearing makeup every hour of every day.
It certainly makes a fair bit of sense in places and times when food supplies are unreliable. A woman with wider hips in such societies shows that she was probably better nourished as a child than women with less developed physiques. Of course, it’s not a foolproof guide. Regardless of the width of the hips and pelvis perceived by external observation, the critical “measurement” is the internal size of the pelvic opening.
As for men not liking women with fat on them. Just as these men like to use women as status symbols, in places where food supply is a problem, being able to display a well-fed wife is a status symbol for men. Especially if she’s regularly producing babies. His status as “a good provider” is demonstrated by the fact that his well-nourished wife has not been exhausted and made haggard by repeated pregnancies and years of breast feeding.
Potentially interesting link for folks: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/02/what-happened-confronted-cruellest-troll-lindy-west
The article is tough to read–Lindy West talks pretty openly about the trolling she got, including one that she considered the worst of the lot. But it has, bizarrely, a happy-ish ending. She confronted him, and he has actually apologized for and denounced his prior conduct. He talks a lot about where his headspace was at at the time, and it’s… well, almost enlightening–he definitely confirms a lot of my own suspicions about online misogynists (and yes, he cops to that label regarding his former self, as well).
weirwoodtreehugger sez:
Which would be obvious if they bothered to consider the boobs of any other mammal on the planet.
Yeah the pelvic opening’s size and shape matter when it comes to getting a baby through it, but fat distribution’s only possible contributation is that pregnancy is easier on a well nourished person than a malnutrited one. And at least pre-junk-food, a, uh, well padded woman probably ate well.
Just wanna note that frikken Ancient Rome recognized the too small pelvic opening problem and had tools for we’d now call a late term abortion, but then was the only way to save the mother since c-sections had a 0% survival rate (they did do it, but only when there was no hope for the mother’s survival). So yep, medicine 2,000 may’ve had their reproductive health shit more together than we do — if you can save the mother, you do so, she can have another kid, if not, save the fetus if you can.
And I’m rambling about Rome, sorry.
Loving your Roman ramblings.
You probably already know this but the Caesarian Section (and , no, I’m not about to promulgate *that* myth 🙂 ) was used in Rome to remove foetuses from women who had died in childbirth.
This originated as a religious requirement based on a tradition that women could not be buried whilst pregnant but eventually evolved into a procedure to save the live of the foetus when it appeared the mother would die anyway.
There is no recorded account of the mother ever surviving this procedure notwithstanding the Julius thing.
Sorry, should have been a “first” in there after “was”; otherwise it doesn’t make sense.
Those comments on the articles about “ideal body shapes” are a little sad to me, for more than just the reasons other commenters covered.
A lot of these guys talk about what they are attracted to in terms of child bearing or maternal fitness because these are the only masculine approved ways of talking about their attraction to body types besides that of the supermodel/large breasted but thin ideal that patriarchy pushes on them.
These men have a normal distribution of attractions (some prefer bigger, smaller, taller, shorter etc) but they have to hide those feelings to avoid being called “betas”, “chubby chasers” or “settling for less”.
It’s sadly difficult in a patriarchal world to talk about attraction in terms of what we actually find attractive when it always invites the comparison to the patriarchal ideal that you “should” be attracted to.
Alan, I don’t think Julius Caesar was born via C-section. The name actually came from the laws of the Caesars. Either he or Augustus promulgated that law Argenti mentions, the one that says that if a woman dies in childbirth, the attending physician must cut her open and save the baby, if at all possible. It’s gruesome, but it was probably considered humane at the time. Especially since so many women died either shortly before or during childbirth.
Crap, there are two Orions now?
Hawhaw, the broad hip thing.
My mum and I have broad hips and small waists and she has always had problems with giving birth. To the point were she gave birth to all of her last three children (me included) via C-section. My dad being tall and stocky didn’t help much either. :/ (He could have given some of that height to me) 🙁
Big hips don’t always lead to easy birth, and the orientation of the birth canal and size of the bone structure on my mum was remarkable enough to warrant comment from her gyno when examining her X-rays. Namely that the birth canal bone opening(?) (My technical language is amazing, I know) is smaller as is the hip flare despite the breadth of the hips. Apparently, we’re more likely to get ovarian cysts as well, which exacerbates our reproductive health worries. I’m twenty and I have numerous very small ones, which still turned up despite being on the pill since I was a sprog.
Lucky for me, I probably don’t have this bone shape problem and I should be able to give birth just fine, assuming I’m interested.
But yeah, the ‘big hips is what he-man cave-dweller liked so it’s better!’ thing is rubbish. It doesn’t take into account the build of the woman or the other important factors for successful birth. Like a birth canal that isn’t human-baby-appropriate.
I remember Cernovich making some noises on Twitter about the evil SJW hordes inflating his follower count for some nefarious, incomprehensible reason.
Orion the ?th said
You know..I decided to stop caring about what other people thought of me at age 30…this involved AC/DC. They are not hip at all.
I decided that I did not care that people might find out i was an AC/DC lovin’, headbanging, dork.
This decision extended outward to my whole life. I embraced my dorkiness.
Maybe this whole ” beta” thing is hetero guys realizing that what other hetero guys think of their sex life doesn’t really matter all that much?
They have their AC/DC moment, decide they like what they like, and they stuff all that stupid PUA crap…which is really about having sex as a way of keeping score between guys…
…They pull their head out and go do something that actually makes them happy, like find a woman whom they get on with well and have a relationship, hopefully with lots of sex in it.
And they stop worrying about what the PUA’s at the club think of them, because with PUA’s, winning a contest is all it is. It’s not about happiness.