Categories
advocacy of violence dread game emotional abuse empathy deficit entitled babies heartiste irony alert men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny oppressed men rape culture reactionary bullshit red pill

“Feminists you should be F***ING SHOT,” and other insights from Scott Adams’ fans

Belle Starr: Proof that women run the world?
Belle Starr: Proof that women run the world?

So our dear old friend Scott Adams has responded to my recent post on him by declaring it “Pathetic Outragism” and me an “Outragist.” He also strongly suggested that I was a stupidhead. Which is a step up, I suppose, from calling me fat, which is the go-to response of many of those I’ve written about.

Adams’ fans, a tiny army of whom showed up here after Adams linked to it, haven’t been quite so polite, leaving behind some comments that I haven’t let out of moderation. But I thought I’d share a few of them with you all.

“You, sir, are an imbecile of the first order,” wrote one. “P Z Myers is a c**t,” wrote another, perhaps a little confused as to what blog he was on. (And no, the original comment didn’t contain asterisks.)

But it was a fellow calling himself John Doe (but using an email account with a woman’s name) that really took the terribleness cake. I’ve broken his huge wall of text up a bit.

CONTENT WARNING: Domestic abuse, gaslighting, genocide, you name it.

Adams is so great. Fuck all you dirty piece of shit feminists you should be FUCKING SHOT or sterilized. or sent to a rehabilitation facility.

Well, I’ll give him this: he gets right to the point.

You should lose your right to vote. Ignorance is dangeorus. and Feminism is evil ignorance. Feminism is not about equal rights and has not been for many decades. Maybe if this was the 1960s america you could say something to me, but now you can shove it up your fucking ass. Fuck american womena nd fuck feminism.

When I started this blog I really had no idea that there were still people around who think women shouldn’t have the right to vote. Turns out there are a lot of them.

Men will stop getting marreid more and more. THe spawn of the MGTOW groups are evidence of this.

I’m not sure that these guys leaving the dating pool is quite the catastrophe for women that MGTOWs think it is.

The government is getting what they want. People to stop breeding.

Uh, I’m pretty sure that the government, at least here in the US, is not terribly interested in stopping people from “breeding.” Hell, the IRS actually gives parents an assortment of tax breaks.

But it turns out that Mr. Doe doesn’t actually think it’s a bad idea to, er, reduce the population of planet earth. Specifically by shooting feminists.

I think every feminist should be sent to a labor camp or imprisoned or shot dead. I don’t care. You are scum and if you are not capable of changing you should lose your right to live. All humans are a burden to the earth, but Feminists are a burden to all humans and everything else, especially men.

This seems harsh.

Women are treated like children and coddled with kid gloves and in some ways you always have been.

[citation needed]

Even in 1890 there was a female bandit in the west that did crazy shit and got away with it for years. But there were men that did the same that were shot dead instantly.

An odd example, but I guess that’s as close to a citation as we’ll get. Presumably he means Belle Starr, who had a long career as a bandit in the “wild west” before being shot to death, possibly by her husband, possibly by a dude who was mad she wouldn’t dance with him. (No, really, those were two of the prime suspects.)

After this short digression, Doe returns to his main themes:

And men have always fought the wars. Women rarely in any society ever had to do so. You got to stay home. You got the easier job.

Women have been working, in the home and out of it, since the dawn of time. They have also been victims of war.

The rant then takes another dark turn:

The only way now for a normal guy to have a healthy relationship with a girl under 30 in the new generation is to scare the shit out of your woman and make her fear you and make her think you will end her life if she tries to screw you over. That is the only way to keep them in line from being destructive bitches. And even then you might have to sit them down and threaten them now and then.

This is abuse 101, though not terribly different from “dread game” as promoted by Heartiste and other pickup artists.

I had to, i’ve had to with the last girl i dated. all the time.

I can only hope he’s talking out of his ass here.

Look what happened when i didn’t. She told her friend i was a drug dealer simply because she was jealous she liked me. She publically slandered me. So i used her took her virginity which honestly id trade for her hotter friend at this point.

What a romantic!

Unless you are rich and powerful and good looking youre only real option to have a good time and enough control that you can relax is to scare the shit out of these girls, find some way to blackmail them or scare them and use it. That is the only way.

Today I Learned that “healthy” heterosexual relationships are only possible if the man is rich and/or abusive.

Even without me saying any of this it remains true and feminism has destroyed the country and everyone born from the 90s onward.

And once again an opponent of feminism demonstrates clearly why feminism is necessary.

Doe had some words for me as well:

David Futrelle is a piece of shit beta male and should lose his right to vote among other freedoms for supporting such a piece of shit ideology.

Apparently the only people Doe thinks should be allowed to vote are men who hate women.

The US and Canada and most 1st world countries are female dominated all the way up to the super rich who then are the men having power but everyone who is not rich is ruled and controlled by females if they want any kind of success. Period.

Yeah, that’s not actually how it works.

Unless you do as I was saying before, find a way to scare a girl and blackmail her into doing what you want. Because even if she likes you, even if you are perfect for her, she would rather run away and flirt with many other guys and fuck things up. So scare her into submission.

If you hate women so much that your notion of a “healthy” heterosexual relationship is one in which the man is so abusive that the woman literally fears for her life. here’s a thought: Don’t date women. Don’t come near them. Seek treatment for your fucked-up ideas.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

160 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Like I just wrote in the other thread, it’ll be a couple days before I get to start Jessica Jones, but I’ve been a Kristen Ritter (think I misspelled that) fan since Don’t Trust the B in Apartment 23. What a great and underrated show that was. James Van Der Beek was actually great too.

guy
guy
5 years ago

Yeah, there’s been a lot of slavery throughout human history, and the Atlantic slave trade is quite possibly the most brutal form. Roman slaves would often be treated quite well and frequently got formally freed and continued to work for the same person as freedmen; former slaves of Augustus provided much of the early Imperial bureaucracy. Or they might strike out on their own and become respectable merchants, sometimes becoming spectacularly wealthy in the process.

But ultimately, that was all because their masters decided to let them. A lot of prominent figures spoke out against brutality, calling it both cruel and an ineffectual motivator, but there weren’t any laws actually prohibiting torture or murder at the slightest provocation or for no reason at all.

Fabe
Fabe
5 years ago

I posted this comment in another thread and I’m sorry if I’m breaking the rules or ToS about off topic stuff.

Has anyone watched Jessica Jones?

I wouldn’t be surprised if UltimateNiceGuy(tm) Kilgrave was the hero trying to save the poor deluded Jessica who is silly enough to think that she can make her own choices from having a relationship with /le gasp A BIG BLACK MAN!!! in the MRA interpretation of that series.

The posts where MRAs vomited up their pathetic whiny outrage and where they think of human beings as objects to be disposed of for disagreeing with them, well, it made me think of that series.

This series is just amazing and that character is like the living avatar of the manosphere.

I’ve been wondering myself if there’s been any MRA backlash against the show. Kilgrave is just the sort of person they would elevate to godhood.

ColeYote
ColeYote
5 years ago

Maybe if this was the 1960s america you could say something to me,

Right, I totally believe you would have sympathized with feminists back when they “only” wanted equal pay.

Shaenon
5 years ago

Hmm, but don’t really really rich people pay people to do the grocery shopping? Grocery shopping is a chore. I bet he thinks women are the real home owners because they get to do all the cleaning…

I did ask him if maids are wealthier than the people hiring maids, but I’m kind of tired of trying to make sense of his posts so I’m not going to go back and see if I got a response.

I’m sure Adams honestly feels his post has been misrepresented, and the rape stuff wasn’t intentional; it comes from him not putting any deep thought into how any of his ideas would actually work. I think his argument, as he meant it, is something like this:

–Men are oppressed everywhere in the world because they can’t have sex with women on demand. In “matriarchal” societies like the U.S., they can’t have sex on demand because women have the freedom to say no. In “patriarchal” societies like ISIS-controlled territories, they can’t have sex on demand because more powerful men have taken all the women as sex slaves. In the balance, it’s better for men to live in “matriarchal” societies because they have a higher chance of eventually getting laid, but they’re still totally oppressed. The point is, terrorism is caused by men getting such painful blue balls they have to go blow things up.–

This is all a lead-in to his genius killer-app proposal for ending terrorism, which is to helpfully point out to the terrorists that their leaders are the ones responsible for their failure to get laid, at which point the terrorists will slap themselves on the foreheads for not noticing that, rise up against ISIS management, and take the sex slaves for themselves. PROBLEM SOLVED, for everyone except the sex slaves, but they’re just women so who cares. (This is one of a long series of posts where Adams proposes cartoonishly simplistic solutions to complex global problems, then congratulates himself for cutting through yet another Gordian knot. It is not a huge surprise that he thinks Donald Trump is a great political mind.)

Most of the people horrified by the post got hung up on the whole “it’s so unfair a woman can keep her legs closed even after a man GETS HER A DRINK FROM THE FRIDGE LIKE A GODDAMN SLAVE” thing, and also the “men who don’t hugs from ladies have no choice but to go on murder sprees” thing, while glossing over the twenty thousand other wrong things. Adams doesn’t intend for his whining about women to be the crux of the essay (in fact he feels it was really enlightened of him to stick up for the “matriarchy”), so in his mind everyone missed his point.

What he doesn’t seem to understand is a) when you stick a bunch of rape apologia in the middle of an essay, that’s going to be a tad distracting, and b) his point is also stupid.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

Re: slavery

I think the “ownership” aspect is a good defining factor. There are exceptions to all the other things we’ve looked at. Roman slaves could own property and earn money (the legal status of that is complex and changed over time). There were also public slaves.

Interestingly Roman law regarded slavery as “contrary to the natural state of freedom” showing perhaps that they recognised that slavery was an abhorrent thing.

There was a surprising amount of social mobility in ancient Rome. Slave to senator in 3 generations was by no means unusual. There’s a great story about one ex slave who rose to very high rank in government. Some senators wished to embarrass him by awarding him a pension (to highlight his background). It transpired he was one of the wealthiest men in Rome. He declined the pension saying he preferred to live in his humble poverty.

nparkern
5 years ago

Adams’s hateful views are a massive shame. I only got into Dilbert a few months ago, now from his articles I’ve learnt the truth- never reading again. Any sign of Adams condemning his commenter’s views?

I’m almost certain this ‘John Doe’ is purposely exaggerating- trying to be as hateful as he can possibly be, out of some kind of raving fanboy-like obsession with Adams- it comes across as trying waaaaaay too hard! I’ve no doubt he’s a disgusting person of course.

Off topic- anyone (in UK) seen the advert for the new Reggie Yates thing from BBC3- looks like he’s tackling anti-feminism. This one guy’s like ‘you’re all seen as rapists’ and Reggie looks at the camera with a look that sort of says ‘what the hell is this guy on?’

To be honest, I think Scott Adams knew exactly what he was saying, he simply doesn’t care that it makes him sounds like a hateful little bigot. Why would anyone think that they’ll win people over with that attitude?!

Orion
5 years ago

Sorry about the confusion. You’ve got to admit, we do look like twins when one is blinded with rage.

PZ,

Which of you is blinded by rage? You, or David?

Aris Boch
5 years ago

That’s fucked up severe… But this article also smacks of the association fallacy (which is implied rather than stated. There’s only so much you can do to control, who your fans are).

Leda Atomica
Leda Atomica
5 years ago

I don’t think there’s any ‘fallacy’ here. This blog often treats us to special edition posts about messed up stuff that didn’t make it through moderation for us to pick at. The context to this one was the recent post about Addams and the sort of angry response it summoned. Angry, misogynistic, abusive response.

sbel
sbel
5 years ago

@Orion,

Neither. The guy who wrote “P Z Myers is a c**t” to David is the one blinded by rage.

Aris Boch
5 years ago
Reply to  Leda Atomica

@Leda Atomica | November 24, 2015 at 5:32 pm
If it didn’t made it through moderation, how’d you know about it?

sbel
sbel
5 years ago

@Aris Boch,

‘Cuz David posted it. That’s what this thread is. 2nd paragraph:

“Adams’ fans, a tiny army of whom showed up here after Adams linked to it, haven’t been quite so polite, leaving behind some comments that I haven’t let out of moderation. But I thought I’d share a few of them with you all.”

dhag85
5 years ago

@Aris Boch

You wrote:

If it didn’t made it through moderation, how’d you know about it?

Leda Atomica wrote:

This blog often treats us to special edition posts about messed up stuff that didn’t make it through moderation for us to pick at.

Step 1: Read
Step 2: Comment

Don’t skip step 1! It’s one of the most important steps.

Aris Boch
5 years ago
Reply to  sbel

I see, but that still doesn’t mean, that he really can control, who his fans are.

tedthefed
tedthefed
5 years ago

My question is always, if you’re unattractive and so can’t date, why on earth does that inspire such anger? According to the theory, these guys aren’t rich or hot enough to get laid, because of those richer, hotter guys out there. But that is explicitly THEIR OWN PROBLEM. They said it themselves: they are too ugly to date! The appropriate emotional response is self-pity, not anger!

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Adams doesn’t control his fans, but if his fans tend to be awful, that says something about Adams. Like attracts like. I’m betting n9 Mammotheers posted a comment on Adams’ blog about how he and/or his readers should be murdered.

contrapangloss
5 years ago

Aris Boch,

I know it’s stupid grammar stuff that really shouldn’t bother me and poor comma usage has absolutely no impact on whether or not your points are valid…

…but you use too many commas.

And it’s bugging me.

I know it’s extraordinarily stupid and pedantic of me, but the commas.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

No. Where did n9 come from? Oh, phone.

Leda Atomica
Leda Atomica
5 years ago

@ Aris Boch:

“I see, but that still doesn’t mean, that he really can control, who his fans are.”

I’m not sure why you keep bringing this up, since the point isn’t that Scott Adams is terrible because his fans are terrible.
The earlier blog post was about Scott Adams being terrible because he says terrible things.
This blog post is about the terrible comments that didn’t make it through moderation (and I know about them because they were in fact included in this post, same way you know about them).

Both stand as terrible in their own glory of terribleness.

Aris Boch
5 years ago
Reply to  contrapangloss

@contrapangloss | November 24, 2015 at 6:31 pm
I know, I’m terrible, with, commas, in, English,

Orion
5 years ago

Fallacies are not bad, except in formal logic. Fallacies are often very good arguments. Maybe I should say good IN arguments. They’re good as questions or challenges. You can’t claim that they prove anything, but you can ask people to account for them.

For instance: Argument from authority. You should not say “Dr. Roe has a PHD in Physics, so whatever she says about physics must be true.” Or, “you don’t have a PHD in physics, so your theories about physics must be wrong.” But you absolutely should say, “You’re telling me A, but Dr. Roe, PHD, says not-A. Are you saying that Dr. Roe is wrong? If so, why should I believe that you, as a layman, know better than an academic specialized in the field.”

Same goes for guilt-by-association. You should not say “Mr. Doe gets retweeted by Nazis, so he must be a bad person.” You should absolutely say, ‘Mr. Doe, have you noticed that many of your fans are Nazis? Why do you think Nazis resonate with your message. Is this a case of ‘even a stopped Nazi is right twice a day,’ or do they only like you because you’ve failed to clearly communicate your position?”

contrapangloss
5 years ago

Seriously, Aris?

At least try not to be a pain in the mik’ta.

Aris Boch
5 years ago
Reply to  contrapangloss

@contrapangloss | November 24, 2015 at 7:29 pm
Oh, a fellow Stargate fan? Always happy to meet one.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

IIRC Aris has made some trolling, or at least obnoxious comments here before.

leftwingfox
5 years ago

Yes, you can at least try to control your fans and associates. If I learned my fans went after a critic with harassment, threats, rape-wishing, or bigotry, I could do one of the following:

a) Call out he bad behavior specifically, and say that is completely unacceptable. Full stop. If you do that and call yourself a fan, stop doing both, because I want nothing to do with you.

b) Pretend nothing happened.

c) Whine as if YOU were the one being accused of harassment, threats, rape-wishing or bigotry, and double down on making the victim the villain.

Option A can at least potentially disincentive the behavior of your followers. Option B will ensure it happens again. Option C is the summary of Gamergate’s existence.

leftwingfox
5 years ago

(Ps.) sorry about the perspective shift in the above argument. I’m used to using “you” as the default hypothetical, and have been trying to switch to “I” to see if that makes them seem less like a personal attack, but I sometimes revert, and don’t proof-read as clearly as I should.

contrapangloss
5 years ago

Yes on the being a Stargate fan.

However, I’ll need to get back to you on whether or not we are fellows. Not to be suspicious or anything, but when you pop in just to drop “Are you sure you’re being fair” comments while simultaneously naming yourself after one someone who (I think we can both admit) enjoys trolling the team a little too much…

http://33.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lg4dcl8v3q1qd13vb.gif

…I’m reserving judgement until after a bit longer of an observation period.

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
5 years ago

WWTH — pretty sure you’re right.

Za_Docta
Za_Docta
5 years ago

That’s outragist.

Newt
Newt
5 years ago

Why do you think I have this outragist accent?

Flint
Flint
5 years ago

“I think every feminist should be sent to a labor camp or imprisoned or shot dead. I don’t care. You are scum and if you are not capable of changing you should lose your right to live. All humans are a burden to the earth, but Feminists are a burden to all humans and everything else, especially men.”

>Doe: Feminists are Nazis!
>*Doe wants to send American women and/or feminists to concentration camps.*

shay simmons
shay simmons
5 years ago

You can be a physically unattractive man and still get dates. Two of my longest relationships when I was single were with guys who weren’t Adonis’ by any stretch of the imagination. If you are both physically unattractive and very unpleasant I don’t give much for your chances, though.

Robert
Robert
5 years ago

I went to the Adams blog to see how he’d extricate himself from the Stygian bog he’d stepped in.
When I saw the term ‘rationality engine’, I had a distinct suspicion about what was coming. In short, he shot an arrow, then painted the target around it, and declared victory – excuse me, TKS*. I could practically smell the plomeek soup through the screen.

*He is unwearyingly fond of the in-jokes he’s made up. Tactical Kill Shot, meaning “I think that I’ve won, and will not hear anything telling me I haven’t.”

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ leftwingfox

To just go into evil corporate lawyer mode for a second, I would always advise someone with a public profile to *never* comment on the behaviour of their fans; and certainly never to actually tell them how they should behave.

The problem with doing that is there is a risk of creating wither the perception of, or actual, vicarious liability for their actions.

Consider for example if one of your fans does commit some atrocity purportedly in accordance with you comments. There are various forms of vicarious liability that put you at risk of civil suit and similar criminal provisions about incitement or encouragement.

If you’ve never engaged with your fans you can say “nothing to do with me”, if however you have then you are (a) admitting you have some form of responsibility for them and (b) you leave yourself to exposure if you don’t address *every* aspect of your fandom (“You never condemned that action so you must have approved of it” sort of thing).

Oliver_C
Oliver_C
5 years ago

Crappy cartoonist who draws a crappy cartoon strip says what?

There’s more artistry in a single panel of ‘Peanuts’ or ‘Calvin & Hobbes’ than there is in all the worthless decades of ‘Dilbert’.

Aris Boch
5 years ago
Reply to  Oliver_C

@Oliver_C | November 26, 2015 at 10:53 am
I doubt you would’ve said that, if he didn’t made this controversial … or rather idiotic statements in his blog. You know, it is completely possible to enjoy things an artist creates while thinking, that the artist itself is a complete asshole (e.g. enjoy Wagner without forgetting, that he was a raving antisemite or reading HP Lovercrafts stuff even though he was a racist, antisemite and a few other nasty adjectives).

katz
katz
5 years ago

Alan: Sorry, dude, that’s bullshit. If you let people you have major influence over act like douchenozzles because you’re afraid of your liability, you’re a rubbish person.

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
5 years ago

Yeah, um, no. You can totally say “guys, stop being sexist fucks” and not get “you didn’t tell them not to be racist” thrown at you in court. You might as well be saying “don’t have a comment policy”.

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

From a legal point of view, of course Alan is right. From a moral point of view, of course katz is right. Law has nothing to do with morality and it is foolish for us to suppose otherwise.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

As much as it sucks ass (read: All the ass, ever), remember when Palin’s little crosshair stunt accidentally-on-purpose caused Gabby Giffords’ shooting and barely anybody even noticed?

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ Argenti et al

You can totally say “guys, stop being sexist fucks” and not get “you didn’t tell them not to be racist” thrown at you in court

Ah, but consider if your followers engaged in a racially motivated crime and we’re now in court trying to make you responsible.

You can’t deny that you endorsed their racism. We know that if there is something you don’t approve of, say sexism, you specifically address that. If you hadn’t wanted your fans to be racist you’d have told them; like you told them not to be sexist.

That’s the legal danger.

dhag85
5 years ago

@Alan

We know that if there is something you don’t approve of, say sexism, you specifically address that. If you hadn’t wanted your fans to be racist you’d have told them; like you told them not to be sexist.

So, if you’ve ever specifically told your fans not to rob a liquor store, you can be held accountable if they instead choose to rob a bank? That’s really how the law works?

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ dhag

Bizarrely enough it could do.

Remember we’re talking about people addressing their fans’ comments rather than just making general statements. So if there was a dialogue along the lines:

Fan 1: “You’ve inspired me to rob a liquour store”

Fan 2: “I think it would be better to rob a bank”

Author: “Hey, I don’t want any of you to rob liquour stores”

You can perhaps see what a lawyer could do with that in court.

The above is maybe a daft example but you can maybe see how it applies to our original discussion:

Fan 1 “Women are such [slur]; someone should do something about them”

Fan 2 “No, it’s [ethic group] who are the real problem; they’re the ones who need sorting”

Author: “Hey Fan 1, I totally disagree with what you’re saying, cut that out.”

Fan 1 then stabs a woman and Fan 2 stabs a black person. The author is arrested for incitement/sued by the victims. No problem defending in the first case, but what about the second?

It’s a Catch 22 for the author. If he denies he has any influence over his fans then he can be asked why he told them what to do. If he responds that he recognises he has no influence but just wanted to make his own feelings clear than he’s admitting that, whilst he will condemn sexism he doesn’t have a problem with racism.

Hence my initial legal (rather then moral) advice that people should never address their purported followers’ behaviour.

Hope that makes sense.

dhag85
5 years ago

Honestly no it doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. I mean, I understand your words but I can’t quite wrap my head around the idea that you can be arrested for incitement to X by condemning an unrelated Y. This is one of the worst things I’ve ever heard.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ dhag

It’s only if you’re selective in your condemnation of specific things raised.

You could make an unsolicited blog post for example saying you’re against cruelty to donkeys and that can’t be interpreted as suggesting you approve of cruelty to other animals.

It only becomes an issue if you pick and choose in your responses to specific things your following says. Basically you can say nothing, which puts you in the clear or you must condemn every problematic comment. It’s when you only call out certain bad behaviour but not other types of bad behaviour that you expose yourself to risk.

dhag85
5 years ago

How would they go about proving the person has even seen the comments they didn’t condemn?

dhag85
5 years ago

I.e. if you make a blog post against cruelty to donkeys and in the comment section someone promotes cruelty to horses. You never respond to the comment about horses. Now you’ve incited cruelty to horses? Makes zero sense, it really doesn’t. Alan, fix this law before society collapses.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ dhag

It would be open to any court to draw inferences from analysis of the author’s response pattern. If it was seen that he/she hardly ever engaged in dialogue with their audience then it would be easy to argue that they didn’t pay much attention to comments.

If though, the pattern of responses showed that the author generally read all comments then it would be harder for them to suggest they hadn’t seen any particular one.

As for changing the law, as I mentioned on the shooting thread, lawyers just deal with the laws we’ve got. It’s the legislature that makes the things purportedly on behalf of the electorate, so it’s down to people to argue for change if that’s what they want. I’m not sure they do. I suspect the majority of people on this blog want Internet commentators to be held accountable for the behaviour of their followers.

Is that the case? Can we do a brief survey?

dhag85
5 years ago

I was joking about you changing the law.

I only want people to be held accountable for the behavior of their fans if they actually argue for their fans doing what they do, and/or if they show appreciation when their people do those things. For example, AVFM always portrays men murdering women as a good thing that needs to happen.

I would not be in favor of holding someone accountable for the behavior of their fans just because they never explicitly condemned that exact thing. Obviously.