Once again, a look at some of the comments that people try to leave here, but which for assorted reasons don’t get past the rigorous We Hunted the Mammoth screening process.
I kid; the process is not rigorous at all. You just need to pass a minimal standard of basic human decency. Here’s an assortment of comments from people who, well, fell short. In each instance, I’m pretty sure you’ll be able to guess why.
I’ll take “Protocols of the Elders of [BLANK]” for $400, Alex!
This fellow, like a lot of manospherians, seems really, really obsessed with cuckolding.
This fellow tried to post a number of comments on the same theme. This is is most succinct:
I’ll take “I don’t condone violence but you feminists totally deserve it for making jokes” for $200, Alex.
tl;dr: This guy, not really a big fan of women. (Spot the “we hunted the mammoth” for bonus points.)
You thought that last one was the worst it gets? Unfortunately not. Whoever sent this one — from a dubious IP address — is either a giant douchebag of a troll, or the next Elliot Rodger. (Please be the former.)
I’m going to just stop now. This post turned out a bit darker than I expected.
What does this have to do with feminism?
It wasn’t meant to be. But then, you didn’t mean to be nice by trying to make feminists prove they aren’t man haters. Man hating was never the point, but you’d already know that if you tried reading a book or learning about feminism outside your dank little corner of the reject internet.
So, when are you going your own way again? If you are so disinterested in women, you wouldn’t be sitting here trying to talk to them or arguing about feminism, that’s for sure.
Anything before the “but” is usually bullshit (which is proven by what comes after).
To answer my own question, the probability of @bigboy admitting he was wrong is essentially nonexistant.
@PoM
Thank you very much. I was just about to ask if there’s any books or articles you’d recommend. I probably should have asked a little earlier to be honest.
Isn’t Hillary a well known feminists?
I would pick Elizabeth Warren, for one specific reason, she may go after the bankers, but don’t get your hopes up, they may find a way to compromise or blackmail her if she gets in the oval office. ( just like the other former presidents)
@Jackie
No problem. Feminist legal theory is not a bad place to start, since most feminism addresses law in some way, and all feminism operates within a legal system of some kind. Critical legal studies in general are always worthwhile, in my opinion at least.
Why on earth do you think you are on first-name terms with Clinton?
She’s a woman in politics. She’s as feminist as she needs to be in order to be a woman in politics, but her political aspirations sharply limit her ability to be any more feminist than that.
@bigboy
Just because Hillary Clinton is a feminist doesn’t mean she has the right policies or plans in mind for things people care about. Last I heard she’s pro-PIPA/SOPA and I haven’t heard a solid stance on marriage equality or the environment. I’m pretty sure everyone here is against PIPA and want something done for the environment and I know everyone is for marriage equality here.
Also I think Elizabeth Warren is also a feminist, but, you know, she’s also not running for president.
@PoM
I like so far it’s not half in Latin, although I haven’t gotten into the meat of it yet. If I’m reading it correctly a lot of these branches didn’t come about until last century, 40s/60s, which is interesting. You’d think the branches would come about earlier considering how old feminism is. Or they didn’t get really become popular until woman were able to get a good solid footing into legal colleges and stuff.
Policy: Alright, good night.
Padapool:
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/white-house-at-war-with-clintons-obama-does-not-want-to-see-hillary-become-president-of-the-united-states_03162015
New report from daily mail
Elizabeth Warren might be the most likely candidate to take down Hillary. Obama fears if Hillary is elected, she will undo all the Obama policies, and destroy his legacy.
@Jackie
My familiarity with early feminism could be better, but from what I’ve learned, early feminism did have multiple branches. They just didn’t look like the ones we have today. Feminism has always had problems with racism and classism, and there have always been feminists who pushed back against that. That caused schisms, at least in the United States, even before the Civil War. They looked different from today’s schisms, but they existed and were important.
bigboy-You made the ridiculous assertion that prominent feminist ‘leaders’ advocate the extermination of 90% men and you failed to name even one. Listing the names of a bunch of random feminists (some of them are dead) does not count. If you make a claim, back it up with evidence. Links and citations, please. We, however, have a whole archive here full of misogynistic vitriol spouted by members of the MRM, PUA and MGTOW at our disposal. A lot of it spouted by the prominent members of those groups. I suggest you stop writing before you dig yourself an even bigger hole.
Snuffy-I agree.
bigboy, wow, a 2-month-old post from some conspiracy website. Never mind that Elizabeth Warren has stated unequivocally about a zillion times that she’s not running.
‘Nuff said.
David: don’t politicians say their not running, later to be proven false?
Didnt Hillary say,she wasn’t running, in the past, now she is?
“I’m not running,” is one of the most common quotes from politicians. Later to be proven a lie.
For what reason do you feel free to continually refer to Clinton by her first name, but you call Obama by his last name?
LOL DAILY MAIL.
@PoM
YOU SEE I NEED TO READ SHIT.
Misseb47: I did, don’t like names, nothing I can do. You made up your mind.
I’m a point where I don’t believe any man really supports Elizabeth Warren. Okay, maybe I can be convinced of a few, but mostly the men who “support” her is limited to what she can do for them as far as wall street is concerned.
They aren’t interested in seeing more representation for women in politics, they don’t care that Republicans are trying to take away women’s rights and prevent LGBTQA from gaining on theirs, and the constant criticism of Hillary appears to be less legitimate critique and more an attempt to disqualify her before she can even start.
Hillary isn’t perfect, but I’ll take her over some of these clods any day. And when was the last time we saw a male politician’s email servers raided for evidence (no matter how innocuous) of political wrongdoing? I say if a man wants to be president, his emails should not only be checked for signs of corruption no matter how small, but whether he harbors hostility towards women, race and religious minorities, and LGBTQA. If the Mike Huckabee and Josh Duggar bromance is any indication, the Republican party wouldn’t last two days on that standard.
So it doesn’t surprise me one bit that MGTOW comes up and says “Yay Elizabeth Warren!” because she is ultimately a symbol of what he feels women should be doing – looking out for HIS interests. Because of course politics are all about HIM.
Difference feminism is, like, “what is this shit”? I’m happy difference feminism isn’t highly critic. Such bull. What would all the lawful good and evil female characters think?
bold fail! Indignation makes my HTML grumpy.
bigboy-“You have two nominees, in democratic party, which one would you choose or support (if you don’t want to answer, because it’s none of my business that’s fine) who would to be?
Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren?”
Now you is going on about totally irrelevant to the earlier discussion like it somehow means something. Seriously went on a totally different tangent there. It is a derailment tactic and a very transparent one. It is a logical fallacy known as a ‘Red Herring’. Seriously dude, stop writing. You are only making a fool of yourself. Also, as you have already been told Elizabeth Warren is not running for president.
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/151-red-herring
David-don’t be too hard on him. He actually posted a link this time!
Nameless wonder: politics it’s not about him, it about greed!
And power
Male and Female!