Last night, as you probably have heard, a Dallas man named James Boulware launched a one-man quasi-military assault on the Dallas Police Department headquarters, firing an automatic rife with such abandon that early reports suggested that there were as many as four different shooters. After fleeing the scene in an armored “Zombie Apocalypse Van,” leaving behind an assortment of improvised explosives as a kind of going away gift, Boulware was cornered in a restaurant parking lot; after a long standoff, he was eventually killed by a police sniper’s bullet. It was something of a miracle that no one but Boulware ended up dead.
Boulware’s father told local news that his son had been “pushed past” his “breaking point” after losing custody of his son. Men’s Rights activists often describe men who “resort to violence” after losing a custody dispute as victims of a cruel family court system.
But in Boulware’s case, it appears, nothing could be further from the truth.
Because, you see, he lost custody of his son two years ago — after a violent incident that offered a chilling prequel to last night’s rampage. As the local NBC affiliate reported at the time
A Paris man was arrested after family members reported to authorities that they were concerned he could go on a shooting spree. …
Officers confiscated several guns from a Paris home, after arresting the owner. “There are four or five long guns and three or four pistols, tubs full of ammunition, and the body armor,” says Paris Police Chief Bob Hundley.
James Boulware, 33, allegedly grabbed and choked his mother in Dallas on Tuesday morning, and he has made other threats, police and family members said.
“That he was going to just kill all the adult members of the family and then that’s when he made the comment he may shoot up some churches and schools,” says Hundley.
“He had been talking about the schools and churches being soft targets, being easy targets because no one in them was armed,” a man who identified himself as Boulware’s brother “Andrew” said.
After this incident, a judge handed over custody of Boulware’s son to Boulware’s mother; it seems rather clear that the court was right to deem him unfit to care for the boy.
Further confounding the standard Men’s Rights narrative is the fact that the mother of the child, reportedly a drug addict, was also deemed unfit; both were ordered by the court to pay child support to Boulware’s mother.
Boulware was well-known to local police for this and other family disputes — as well as for repeatedly threatening the judge involved in his case.
Indeed, he littered Facebook and other websites with comments ranting about the alleged injustice done to him, alongside angry and often hateful attacks on “Comrad [sic] Obama” and the “fag loving, abortion have typical queer American brain washed troll[s]” who argued with him online. After a commenter called him “dumb” in one recent discussion of American foreign policy, Boulware declared that “I’M TRYING TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU LIVE SO I CAN DRAG YOU OUT OF YOUR TRAILOR AND BEAT YOUR BITCH A$$!!!!”
His conspiracy theories may have been driven by delusions; Boulware’s mother says her son “heard voices” and that she and other family members had tried in vain to get him the mental health treatment he needed.
After last night’s events, Boulware’s father told local media that, while he didn’t think what his son had done was right, “we all have a breaking point, and they pushed him past it.”
But Boulware, it seems fairly clear, was already plenty broken long before “the system” got to him. And no matter how sad or angry he was about losing custody of his son, nothing justifies a violent attack on innocent strangers with assault rifles and explosives. Most people, even if they were pushed far past their breaking point, wouldn’t respond with attempted mass murder. We are not all rage bombs waiting to go off.
And that’s when this post comes back around to the Men’s Rights movement. No, despite his anger at the police and courts for “taking away his kid,” and his penchant for calling people “BITCHES” in comments sections he doesn’t seem to have been a Men’s Rights activist.
But his was the kind of rage that Men’s Rights activists like to “warn” us all about; his violence was the sort of violence that MRAs all too often excuse.
I’ve written many times before about the way the Men’s Rights movement has lionized Tom Ball, a New Hampshire man who committed suicide several years ago by lighting himself on fire outside a court building — in hopes, as he explained in a long and inflammatory manifesto — of inspiring other men to start fire-bombing courthouses and police stations to avenge the wrongs allegedly inflicted on men by the family courts.
We’re lucky no one took him up on this suggestion, just as we are lucky today that no one except Boulware died in his assault on the Dallas police.
Boulware’s apparent mental illness, and the extreme nature of his assault on police, may keep him from becoming the MRA martyr that Ball became after his death. But MRAs have been willing to excuse if not justify similar violence in the past.
Consider, for example, “How we kill Johnny,” the story Men’s Rights celebrity Paul Elam has just posted to his new “consulting” site An Ear for Men.
In the story — presented as a true one — Elam describes his feelings upon learning of the murder-suicide of a young man he’d worked with as a substance abuse counselor. After a quick mention of the murder part of the murder-suicide — Johnny was said to have “killed that little girl he was married to” and shot, though not fatally, the man she was sleeping with — Elam moves on to the real victim, in his estimation: Johnny, the guy who pulled the trigger.
Johnny, as Elam sees it, was really only guilty of loving the woman he killed too much.
You see, men love. They love with the most profound intensity and selflessness of which any creature on this earth is capable. And the steely bond between them and women is, unlike their hearts, unbreakable. …
They will lay down in traffic for the women they love and stand in the way of bullets to protect them.
Yes, that’s right. He’s waxing poetic about men protecting the women they love — in the middle of a story about a man who killed the woman he loved.
I hope, more than anything else, that at some point in our future that people start to think. When you see the story on the evening news about a man who set himself ablaze outside a family court, ask yourself what kind of pain could drive someone to cure it with fire?
I can only assume this is a reference to Ball, who hoped that men would rise up to avenge his pain with firebombs.
When you read in the newspaper about the man who holed up in his house with a gun and his children, threatening to take them all out, ask yourself if this is just a crazy man, or a man driven to the brink by a pain so monstrous and devastating that even the unthinkable could become an option?
The fact is we “read in the newspaper” and on the internet about men like this all the time. And they are virtually always men. Murder-suicide, while rare, is an overwhelmingly male crime. Women lose custody too — as did the mother of the child in Boulware’s case — but outside of a few exceptional cases they don’t react to this by trying to murder fathers or judges or an entire police departments at once. Men sometimes do.
Elam has in the past “warned” us all that unless we start kowtowing to angry men like him, and soon, we will create a massive “male bomb” that will tear apart society as we know it today.
But men — or at least the vast majority of them — aren’t rage bombs. Those men who do resort to extreme violence — like Boulware and all the men we read about who kill their partners and sometimes even their children before, as they say, “turning the gun on themselves” — aren’t the victims they and Men’s Rights activists would like us all to see them as. They’re the perps — invariably men with an overgrown sense of entitlement, too in love with their own rage.
Those who use these men as a “warning” to the rest of us are playing a very old game, perfected by domestic abusers and bullies of all sorts. Abusers and bullies learn very quickly that they don’t always have to use violence to get what they want; the threat of violence is enough. “Don’t push me,” they say, and the implicit threat of an “explosion” of rage does the rest, all while enabling the bully to pretend to be the victim.
The Men’s Rights movement, to a large extent, is all about taking that implicit threat to the societal level.
It’s up to us to keep them from getting away with it.
http://www.mzshyneka.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/giphy4.gif
Bless your face.
I’m a bit late to the bug-eating party (that sounds weird), but there are a number of places that you can buy cricket flour from. Like this one:
http://bittyfoods.com/pages/about-us
It’s a shade more appetizing sounding than bug paste, imo, but your mileage may vary. I wouldn’t mind trying it out sometime.
@Keith
man, way to barrage us with walls of text that willfully misrepresent what we said.
“broad, diverse”: politically and socially diverse, asshole. “the very foundation of feminism is the opposite” waahwaah, feminists want to take my privilege away; that’s unfair!
misogyny as a smear tactic: so you claim that you’ve never heard of Paul Elam, don’t know AVFM, yet know enough about the MRM to claim that we have not, in this here blog, a mountain of evidence pointing to the fact that misogyny is the central pillar of the MRM, which they prove time and again? Yeah, try harder, asshole. Also, you’re not an MRA, but while feminism is “envy-driven”, MRAs react to “unfairness”?
“False premise”, “with the obvious caveat of human slavery”. Yeah, if you need that big a caveat for a historical phenomenon that, in the course of four hundred years, wiped whole civilizations off the map of the African continent and ensured underdevelopment until today, you might want to reconsider such a stupid claim. Also, fuck you for insinuating that after slavery, everything was peachy. I guess the workers’ and civil rights movements’ are also unfair, because they want to “steal” from people whose wealth is built on exploitation of labour.
“day-to-day exercise of freedom by the individual”. Idiot, what do you think the protests were about? Do you think people protested for better quotas in politics? No, they protested against a police force that infringed on their “day-to-day exercise of freedom”.
“Equal access to wealth” Words, what do they mean? “access” refers to possibilities, not to giving everybody the same, fuckwit. The empty shelves in Venezuela are a propaganda myth. “Human nature” is bullshit. That doesn’t mean anything, it’s not a scientific concept, and Marx, in contrast to neoclassical economists and conservatives, wasn’t so stupid as to simply construct an idea of human nature that fit his theory, like the homo economicus. Marx also doesn’t have anything to do with Gulags, because he never presented a theory of how communism should look like. And nice slippery slope, by the way. That you really think you can argue that better wealth distribution through higher wages, taxes and social services is “stealing” after 2008 showed how a large part of the upper class gets their wealth is just – well, I don’t know. Libertarians are arguing on a level of stupidity that continues to baffle me. Good luck with that.
Dead cops: “[St. Louis County Police Chief] Belmar said he believes those involved could have been associated with the protests, but said, “The responsibility for last night’s shooting lies with whoever did that shooting.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/12/ferguson-officers-shot_n_6854434.html
Same goes for the dead cops in NY. It’s unclear whether the shooters were even part of the protests or just used the opportunity. In contrast to the MRM, protestors in these cases condemn violence and no one excuses it.
In the case of Charlie Hebdo, no one blamed the victims, some people just questioned if a magazine that wasn’t above printing racist cartoons should receive a free speech award just because of the terrorist attack.
@pandapool
Naw, Bill Price was the dude who did the derailing on the walter scott article, I double checked.
Can’t blame you, though. All these whiny longwinded dudebros start to sound the same after a while.
How did we get from the topic of a man attempting to murder people with a massive arsenal of artillery to “WHITE MEN GET HURT TOO! DON’T IGNORE SOME VICTIMS JUST BECAUSE THEY’RE PRIVILEGED- WHICH, BY THE WAY, DOESN’T EXIST”, again?
Oh yes that’s right. Because we get a neverending stream of “but what about the men?/NOT ALL MEN” on this blog, because heaven forbid we actually address the violence and rage that MRA-type mindsets nurture.
@Bernardo Soares
“…what you’re actually comparing…is a guy who planned a murder spree with assault rifles with riots….”
You’ve changed the actual focus of comparison, which was not on the acts, but on the reaction to the acts. In that context, it doesn’t matter if acts are planned or not. Besides, all the planning and preparation that Boulware and the two ISIS morons who attacked Geller’s meeting still didn’t result in them killing anyone. Only one security guard was wounded in the leg. The riots and ancilary actions did result in deaths: two NYPD officers Dec 20, 2014 were murdered by a man in reaction to the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases. The shooting of two Ferguson police officers in March could also have been two more murders, but for a few inches.
Again, it’s correct to blame Boulware for his evil actions. It wouldn’t be acceptable to ask what the police, judge(s), or his ex did to provoke him. The same should be the case for rioters, assassins, murderers, and those who threaten deadly violence. Blame them for their evil. Don’t attack their victims.
“And yeah, of course civil unrest has its place. Your whole political system is based upon a revolution.”
Civil disobedience, whether non-violent or violent, when directed specifically at the guilty, is indeed a noble American tradition. The non-violent disobedience stems from Thoreau. Ghandi and MLK put this to great use. Granted, the Deacons for Defense and Justice accelerated the end of the reign of terror by the KKK, when they took up arms instead of adopting MLKs passive stance.
There is nothing noble or reasonable about burning down stores, shooting random cops, and other acts of rage directed not at perpetrators, but at easy targets.
“…you think it’s a valid argument to equate a whole group…with one psycho….”
No, that’s your straw man. I compare the reaction of people to such acts, the blaming of victims, the call to understand those perpetrating violence. I never asserted or implied the actions were equivalent.
“Your efforts at making Michael Brown the bad guy….”
All evidence I’ve seen indicates Wilson acted in self defense. Eric Garner and Walter Scott, on the other hand, were just plain murdered, starting with minor infractions over cigarette taxes and a tail light. These cases struck a nerve since the victims were black, but the prevaling culture in law enforcement, in which deadly force is too easy an option, and for which egregious abuse of power rarely meets consequences.
Again, the problem with law enforcement isn’t black vs. white. It’s blue vs. non-blue. Making it about race doesn’t fix the problem. It’s like taking antibiotics to treat a broken leg.
“…derail the conversation about police racism are also obviously in extremely bad faith, fucker.”
Absolutely not. I mean what I write and I have no intention of enabling abuse of power by law enforcement, whatever the source.
“…I even agree with you – this is not just about police, but about a whole administrative system and
institutional racism.”
You’re putting words in my keyboard. I never made any remark about institutional racism.
“But guess what, asshole – racist cops are part of that system.”
Guess what, ignorant fool: the racism is just one symptom of lack of accountability for abuse of power.
“Also, “A decade ago” and “last year” – nice. You are comparing that to three murders of black teens by police
in the last 12 months alone, you nitwit. And those are only the most prominent cases.”
Michael Brown was not murdered. Garner and Scott were.
Go back and read what I said about being able to make a long list of counter-examples. Those two cases I cited were the ones I remembered off the top of my head. It would be easy enough just to google Radley Balko, of the Washington Post. The number of acts by cops, from terrorizing people to murdering them, would shock most people.
“P.S.: I’m not really ready to debate political violence with you, because fuck you.”
No matter. I’ll school you on history when you are ready.
Anyone have any recommendations for queercore bands? I need some more queercore.
*releases the cat piss*
@weirwoodtreehugger “The far right is obsessed with Al Sharpton for some reason. They perceive him to embody everything they think is wrong with both the left and black people.”
I can’t speak for the “far right”, but my criticisms of him are over his support for the Tawana Brawley rape hoax, his role in the Crown Heights riots (which resulted in the murder of an innocent Jewish student for his ethnicity), his self-aggrandizing race hustling, and his collectivist politics.
None of that has to do with something being wrong with “black people”, as a group. Those are your words, your argument. As an individualist, I don’t regard people of certain demographics to be guilty of something, based upon the actions of prominent members.
As for “the left”, I’ll simply point to the past century of mass murder, the starvation and depredations, which still go on in places like North Korea and Venezuela. Anyone who pushes these demonstrably failed ideas is a major problem.
“Moderates tend to barely even know he exists. The left doesn’t even quote or discuss him that often.”
He has a show on MSNBC. He’s front and center at press conferences all the time.
You’re either largely ignorant, or just plain lying.
Martin Luther King Jr didn’t advocate rioting and political violence but he did understand why it occurred. Because oppressed groups, being relatively voiceless sometimes feel they have no other way.
I’m really sick of right wingers trying to convince opt MLK and make him “one of the good ones.” He was never about capitulating to any white supremacist status quo. He was a radical and a leftist. His non violence advocacy was not because he was interested primarily in making white people feel comfortable with their racism.
Keith thinks MSNBC represents the left. That’s adorable. Although Rachel Maddow is well respected the American left generally regards MSNBC as a shill for the Democratic party. The Democratic party is regarded by the left as being too pro business and not willing to go far enough.
Then there’s the fact that MSNBC is completely irrelevant in every other country’s left as far as I know.
Keith, if you think that Democrats and the left are synonymous, you’re incredibly ignorant about what being a leftist even means.
Go back to Fox News or Breitbart or wherever the fuck you get your sad, I’ll informed right wing talking points from.
Socialism and Communism aren’t the same thing, Einstein.
@weirwoodtreehugger MLK fought to control those who called for violence. I can admire his principles on that without idealizing him. He had his flaws. I disagreed with many of his political stances. I understand his motives, far better than your lazy caricatures of racist whites being comfortable. Read his Letter from a Birmingham jail. Read Thoreau. Study Ghandi.
Even Malcolm X, who began as a racial supremacist and who pushed a twisted version of an oppressive religion, seized upon some important principles in opposing tyranny. He grew a bit more enlightened after his hajj. I don’t have to accept everything to find value in his statements.
I don’t think I would have had the patience that MLK had. I would only have put up with non-violent disobedience for so long before I sought justice through force. The critical aspect of resorting to violence is knowing where to draw the line in the sand, realizing that at some point, the “fog of war” makes discriminating between innocent bystanders and guilty oppressors more difficult, not to mention the increasing difficulty to avoid collateral damage inflicted by the enemy.. With blacks outnumbered, an all-out violent confrontation would certainly have been at a high price to innocents. The Deacons for Defense and Justice found a good balance, demonstrating their willingness to use guns against the KKK, but keeping their members under control until the Klansmen gave up.
You really should stop with so many of your assumptions, starting with the ridiculous label of “right winger”. As much as that arcane model of the French parliament from centuries ago utterly fails to give any sort of insight into relative positions, I’m neither right nor left. I’m an individualist. I don’t fit on your simplistic scale.
@SFHC
Also, what’s his obsession with Venezuela? That’s a country that, with all the problems that persist, has actually improved the living standard of its poorest populations, and where, despite the authoritarian restructuring of the political system under Chavez, grassroots organisations have major influence on local politics. That’s not a good example for “failed” policies. Apart from that: for this argument to work, you need to ignore a LOT of political murder by right-wing regimes, and the starvation and depredation of a large part of the Earth as a result of capitalist exploitation of nature and workers.
@Keith
funny that you accuse us of changing the focus, when that’s all you do. I quoted you, don’t act like we can’t read your earlier comments. You’re starting to get boring.
@Moocow “Your point has been dismantled, you claimed that he was not getting a protest and thus there was some sort of great injustice. Well, he did get a protest, so GTFO, your argument fell apart.”
You’re the one moving the goal posts. My broader point was about the difference in reaction. It’s your straw man that I asserted that nobody ever protests white victims. The contrast, however, lies in how the different actions are protested. Nobody claims Boyd was murdered for being white. Like Eric Garner and Walter Scott, he broke minor laws and was murdered for “contempt of cop.” Like I said, I can draw up long lists of victims of police abuse, prosecutorial abuse, and a pattern of not holding those acting under color of law accountable when they break the law.
Get people to march for Boyd or Culosi, or any number of other victims. I’d be more than happy for people to see through the surface complaints about racism and to strike at the root of corruption.
@sparky “You’ve yet to provide an example of an MRA who isn’t.”
You’re shifting the burden of proof. If you assert that all MRAs hate women, you get to prove it.
I can easily disprove it, of course, with one example. Not being familiar with the names of the more well-known MRAs, I’ll stick with a man I do know.
A family friend frequently posts MRA type material on FB. I’ve discussed some specific points with him, to clarify his position. Not once has he ever expressed a hatred for women and has explicitly disavowed such viewpoints.
That one person disproves the assertion.
Regardless, I’ve read through many articles and memes put out by MRAs. What you might characterize as hatred of women, I see as complaints of injustice. I don’t agree with many of their complaints, but demonizing them as woman-hating is just lazy.
@sparky “…accurately describing their woman-hatred as woman-hatred….”
I’ve been called a woman hater right here in this comment section. Also, a racist.
Since I know I’m neither, I know that those people throwing about such accusations are either fools or slanderous propagandists.
It’s easy to characterize everything that a group states as “woman-hating”, but perhaps you can provide some examples and illustrated how they are anti-woman, rather than anti-feminist.
I can criticize feminism for their faults in logic. I can note particular individuals who engage in anti-male bashing. But I wouldn’t make the generalization that all feminists hate men, because that’s a false generalization.
Facts matter.
Wow, that one guy. That one guy is a non-misogynist MRA.
Who could have known that one guy would break the mold with those things he told you. “Not once has he ever expressed a hatred for women,” Keith says, telling us the gist of what that one guy said.
This one guy, THIS ONE GUY, a paragon of the MRA which feminist can agree with – that one guy on Facebook.
Wow. What an amazing person.
That One Guy 2016: “He does not hate women.”
@Pandapool 😀 #NotallMen, because he knows this One Guy on Facebook.
Let me guess. He lives in Canada and we’ll probably never meet him?
Oh hey look, a Rational Man Debating Rationally. He’s coming into someone else’s internet space and trying to lay the burden of proof upon them. And he’s indulging in sophistry while carefully not actually laying out his own position in order to prevent himself from having to go onto the defensive. And he’s asserting that he doesn’t hate women and expecting that assertion to stand unchallenged. And he’s defending MLK as being “the good black man” while claiming that institutional racism isn’t a thing.
He probably thinks he’s the first person to say any of the things he’s saying, and therefore deserves to be taken seriously and debated with respectfully.
Wake me up when someone worth talking to comes in.
@Paradoxical Intention “So, you don’t agree with them, is what you’re trying to get at in this round-about way, hence your use of the word “irrational””
Wrong. I disagree with people who think Kurt Cobain was a great musician (ask your parents about him), or those who think liver tastes good. We can disagree on such things and I can still acknowledge that it’s your personal tastes, if that’s what you like.
Making irrational statements on political matters, on the other hand, has implications beyond merely expressing opinions. Tearing down basic tenets of due process, whether it’s rape accusations against students, or poor people carrying large amounts of cash on highways, results in innocent people suffering unjustly. That I don’t like such injustices isn’t the reason to oppose them. Their unfairness and the resulting abridgement of rights is the reason to oppose them.
“… logic is the only thing you seem to think we should make decisions on, apparently.”
Absolutely. Making political decisions based upon emotions or whims is ridiculous.
“Fine, but the “Muslims are violent and engage in threatening protests” are quite the itty bitty minority, just for reference.”
Not small enough. The number of Muslims who agree with the violent groups is disheartening.
Having a face-to-face conversation with a man who told me that Hitler didn’t go far enough, a man who by all outward appearances is a “moderate” in a respectable position in the US, made me quite skeptical of the “tiny minority” claims. The only other person I know who praised Hitler was a neighbor in college who was from Serbia, IIRC.
“You referred to “gays”, and I corrected you saying that that’s not an acceptable term to refer to people of other sexual orientations as a whole.”
I wasn’t referring “to people of other sexual orientations as a whole.” I made reference to people murdered by Muslim theocracies for being accused of engaging in homosexual acts.
Ridiculous over-sensitive language policing is just stupid. There are far, far more important matters at hand.
“Perhaps if you’d learn to listen to someone who doesn’t share all of your characteristics, you might learn a thing or two and not be such a self-righteous shitweasel.”
More impertinence. What makes you think I haven’t had discussions with people of different orientations, since you were just a baby? You’re so presumptuous.
“…slurs and stereotypes referring to Islamic people still fall under the category of “racism”.”
No, they don’t, because Islam isn’t a race. You acknowledged that. The term “racism” means a belief that one race is superior to another. Muslims are all different colors and ethnicities.
Religion isn’t a genetic attribute. I’ll gladly mock religious ideas because they are ridiculous. I’m not mocking people for how they act, but for what they believe.
“…America is Third World….”
No, it isn’t. Just stop.
“Secondly, what makes you think that people in the so-called “Third World” don’t have some of the same problems we do?”
Really, just shut up. You’re digging yourself deeper.
I think that a woman who is treated like chattel in Saudi Arabia, who knows that if she is raped she can be executed for adultery, who can’t drive a car, who can’t leave her home without an escort, would love to only have the problems of the First Worlders, such as those in the US who whinge about “microaggressions.”
“Because [Third World people] [watch TV and read magazines and get cattcalled].. And it’s really fucking ignorant (and let’s face it, racist) of you to assume they don’t.”
Except I don’t assume they don’t. I’ve lived overseas and I’ve known many people from Third World countries, with whom I’ve had conversations comparing life there to here. So, quit with your ridiculous straw man arguments.
The fact is that what people complain about here in the US, in the First World, are often trivialities that people in the Third World regard as insignificant by comparison to their major problems, which we don’t face. Yammer out another lame accusation of “racism” if you like, but I’m mocking you and the more shrill SJWs for getting so caught up in relatively trivial matters.
Learn from this humiliation and be a better person.
“One, if Muslim women are wearing burquas, or any other religious garment, of their own free will, why is this a problem?”
Oh, you’re one of those, who apologize for the oppression by male Muslims by pretending the women choose to be uncomfortable. Many wear such garb out of fear. I recently watched a video of some ISIS thug shooting a woman in the head because her hijab wasn’t modest enough for his liking.
Stop making excuses for mass misogyny!
“How does that make them any different than, say, Catholic nuns? ”
Who beats or kills nuns for not wearing head covering? Also, notice that most modern nuns, at least in the US, no longer dress that way.
http://i.imgur.com/2ulm6id.png
http://i.imgur.com/DYYjShu.png
http://i.imgur.com/mpdVbp7.png
http://i.imgur.com/kYq7MTb.png
Sorry to go so far back, Keith, but what are feminists trying to take from men and white people, exactly?
@Pandapool
http://replygif.net/i/90.gif
I could get behind that platform. Hope he makes it in the Republican primaries.
Do trolls not sleep? Even when I’m on a two-day gaming-and-coffee bender, I post less and rest more than these cyborgs of stupidity do.
How is that remotely relevant? You weren’t quoting or parodying anything.
I’ve said it a thousand times before and I’m sure Ill say it a thousand times again:
UNLESS YOU ARE QUOTING OR PARODYING, DO NOT CALL US “THE GAYS.” WE ARE PEOPLE. FUCKSPLEENING CALL US PEOPLE.
(Not yelling – sorry troll, you haven’t angered anybody yet – I’m just pretty sure he’s ignoring me and caps are larger.)