So The Independent recently ran a piece by Catherine Murphy of Amnesty International, explaining why the organization is calling for the decriminalization of sex work.
In the comments, someone calling themselves THEMISHMISHEH offers a unique take on the issue.
And by “unique” I mean “seemingly from another planet.”
Shades of Tom Martin, huh?
@Kat
I share ‘similar’ views on abortion with catholics. That doesn’t make me a Catholic.
I ignore your replies because you are immature and rude and unbecoming of a reply. As I mentioned earlier, I would be foolish to entertain someone who lacks that essential ingredient to a civilised debate…respect. Stick to chatting about Skittles sweetie.
@Dlouwe
You are smart. Ponder this question,
Is it fair for me entertain every point you raise in your comments in return for you ignoring the bulk of mine? if the answer to this question is yes, then allow me to treat you in kind.
Of course you do.
What if a sex worker is impregnated by one of her johns? Would you rather she get an abortion or would you rather she keep the child and make him pay child support?
ETA: How can you call it slavery when a man voluntary pays a woman for a sex act and then be completely fine with forcing a woman to give birth against her will?
Tell us again how you’re not a misogynist, just an egalitarian.
Numerous people have pointed out, in numerous ways, at numerous times, specific ways in which you are wrong. About specific things. In specific manners. They’ve done so forcefully but objectively, they’ve done so rudely, they’ve done so politely.
You have ignored the objective rebuttals, you have ignored the polite rebuttals. You have only put your attention on the rude rebuttals, mostly so you can trade invective for invective.
You ignore our replies because you are a coward.
I vote for banning, please. This stopped being interesting or useful a long, long time ago.
I feel that I have to say “fuck you” to this. I’ll explain why first; but please be aware that it’s coming.
To say that feminism is a gendered agenda is bullshit of the highest order. Yes, feminism notices gender, because gender is a thing in our society. To fail to do so would be absurd.
Do you object to wildfires being put out in California because nobody’s turning the hoses on forests in Washington state? That’s also unequal. That’s dividing the population by state. Why shouldn’t people in Washington receive the same amount of water poured into their forests and parks?
Oh, wait, it’s because forests in Washingon aren’t currently on fire, and so that water would be wasted. If the problem only affects one group of people, then we need to focus the solution on that group too.
Do you object to cancer sufferers receiving surgery on the grounds that healthy people aren’t also getting it? Do you object to food banks for the hungry on the grounds that well-fed people aren’t also eating it? Do you object to black people being protected from lynch mobs on the grounds that white people aren’t also given the same protection?
(Thinking about it, I imagine that you probably do object to that last one.)
The first step in solving any problem is to notice that the problem exists. By stating that “feminism is a gendered agenda and therefore I am against it” you are opposing this initial stage, and therefore preventing the problem from being solved. You might just be benevolently stupid, sans either malice or clue, but having seen the previous discussion you’ve raised, I very much doubt it.
So fuck you.
Guess it’s time to make a WHTM Troll Bingo.
@WWTH
Dayum!
@Scildfreja
Motion is seconded
How does that answer my question? I legitimately do not follow.
You’d think that the sheer number of MRAs too ashamed of their own little group to admit it would be something of a wifflebat with “THIS IS A CLUE” written on it, huh.
It is based on your interpretation that the problem only effects one group of people not mine. So that we don’t stray from the topic of this article, lets take prostitution as an example that negatively effects both genders. If you look at one gender whilst ignoring the other then of course you will come to the conclusion that the problem only effects one group of people. If you apply the gendered approach of feminism to prostitution, you will come to the conclusion that this problem only effects women.
Additionally there seems to be some confusion between you guys. on one hand we’ve got one group of you claiming that feminism if for liberation of women and on the other we have a group of you claiming that its not a gendered monolith but rather one that is for men’s rights as it is for women’s rights. It seems like this issue keeps shifting to suit your agenda. When it does suit your agenda, feminism is for the liberation of everyone, when it does not its for the liberation of non-men…but feel free to ignore this issue as strays from your comment and we want to stick to the topic unless you wish to address it then its up to you.
if you take a gendered look at life you will most assuredly come to the conclusion that the problem only effects one side.
This gendered approach renders feminism sexist in my opinion. Choose a topic that effects women and lets compare it to one effecting men and see whether you have a case for this problem of sexism ‘only effecting one group’ and let us apply the same standards of assessment and critique to both genders in that choice of topic…Sexual exploitation, or violence for example. Choose a topic and lets apply to both genders with equity.
thank you for the insult. I will let my conduct speak for what i stand for and yours for what you stand for.
One remark.
One throwaway remark about Skittles, and I’m tarred with the “chats about Skittles” brush!
@Dlouwe
OK, let me break it down for you. If you are going to ignore the bulk of my replies what is the point of me replying to you? Why do you expect someone to entertain what you have to say when you are not willing to treat them in kind?
MRA debate strategy:
1. Drop a long, rambling comment with barely coherent versions of old arguments that have been countered a million times.
2. Refuse to read any replies to the comment.
3. Refuse to acknowledge counter-arguments.
4. Ignore the fact that your factual errors have been pointed out.
5. Instead of replying to other commenters, drop another long, rambling comment where you go on and on about something that nobody has said ever.
6. Declare victory.
7. Flounce.
8. Come back 20 seconds later with another long word salad.
9. Whine about being treated unfairly, and being denied free speech.
10. Flounce again.
11. Come back a week later and drop another rambling comment with the same arguments from before, which have already been countered.
12. Get banned.
13. Wait two days.
14. Create a sockpuppet account.
15. Drop a long, rambling comment in a new thread. Make sure it’s almost identical to your previous word salads. Use the same expressions, same random caps, same vocabulary, similar screen name.
16. Promise you’re definitely not the same guy from before!
17. Complain about mean feminists when called out.
18. Flounce.
19. Wait 3 hours, create new sockpuppet.
@Dlouwe
I think Imaginary Petal is accusing you of being an MRA.
@Living in the twilight zone Petal
I love you too.
I can’t speak for dlouwe, but I would be very happy if you simply stopped replying in general.
Your conduct, over the last several pages, is the reason why I would be very happy if you simply stopped replying in general.
Tell me, because I’m curious: are there places on the web where you are regarded as a thoughtful, insightful commentator? Do people quote your writings and discuss them? Does your content get reblogged by other people? If so, where are these places?
If not, why do you think that is?
I’m not sure why, troll is not answering for fellow anti-feminist Andrea Hardie’s comments about nuking Mecca. I guess he’s just laudatory and authoritarian like that.
Yeah, but talking about Skittles is productive in comparison. I’d rather talk about Skittles than to an anti-feminist wall.
Here’s a rough draft of the WHTM Troll Bingo. Feel free to suggest additions.
@Handsome Jack
Oh, of course.
But I’ve annoyed our erudite visitor so much that he has stooped to mockery!
Bad Things will certainly ensue.
@ Violet
Brilliant. Might I also suggest:
“Actually I’m female/black/neuroatypical myself”
Violet,
Maybe “I was neutral until all of you feminists were mean to me” and “I’m a nice guy! Why won’t you have sex with me, you slutty bitch!”
*completely deadpan* Oh no. I am so upset that this has happened. Oh my. Oh no.
…
But, for real, I really should get me some Skittles.
Now I want skittles too. Look what Kat has unleashed upon the world!
@Violet:
Here are a few. Feel free to pick and choose, or edit them if they’re too long.
– Valerie Solanas
– Conscription
– “Watch this hours-long youtube rant video; it explains it.”
– “Listen to this hours-long podcast rant; it explains it.”
– “It shouldn’t be relevant what my gender or ethnicity is.”
– “Gamergate is against harassment, those were third-party trolls.”
– “Google it yourself”
– “I’m equalist / humanitarian.”
– “I’m against third-wave feminism.”
– “I’ll only talk to this one (curiously invariably male) commentor because the rest of you were mean to me.”
– “You’re too irrational.”
“Regressive left” and of course “cuck”