Apparently Davis Aurini is capable of sometimes telling the truth.
As you may recall, the bald, semi-Nazi stain on humanity released his version of The Sarkeesian Effect (that was officially not his version of The Sarkeesian Effect) last week to something less than universal acclaim, with one critic describing the “film” as “worse than a dead squirrel in your wall.”
Ok, that was me.
Weirdly, it turns out that Aurini actually agrees with some of my criticisms. While still maintaining that his not-version of The Sarkeesian Effect is a “damn good film,” he admitted on a livestream last night that the section of his film critiquing Anita Sarkeesian’s alleged lies was “crap.”
He then suggested it would have been much better … if he’d actually watched Sarkeesian’s videos.
Yep. He spent a year — and tens of thousands of dollars of other people’s money — ostensibly making a film about Sarkeesian. But somehow he never got around to watching any of her videos.
ETHICS!
You can hear the whole segment on “Bechtloff’s Saturday Night Livestream: Secret Crisis of the Infinity Hour” on Youtube here. (The link should take you to the relevant portion of the livestrean, which starts just short of an hour and twenty minutes in.)
Here are the highlights.
In this first clip, Aurini responds to someone with a question about his attacks on Sarkeesian’s alleged dishonesty.
This clip ends a bit abruptly because Aurini was cut off by Bechtloff before finishing his sentence. Luckily, he went on to elaborate on his point. And threw in in a racial slur while he was at it, because why not?
And here he admits he didn’t bother to watch Sarkeesian’s videos.
It’s about ethics in making an entire film about someone without actually knowing anything about them.
EDITED TO ADD:
We Hunted the Mammoth has obtained this footage of Davis Aurini as a child.
H/T — Thanks to the alert reader who pointed me to the relevant section of the livestream.
I could not resist some more from the fear-soaked wretch Galt, who still can’t bring themselves to get specific on where Moocow said all of those things.
Running to the rules without getting specific about them, and the general inability to see how they apply to themselves because someone used a swear was just one bit of garbage.
Then get with the outlining of why it’s true. So far you have been a profound disappointment when it comes to functionally describing the things you have intense emotional impressions about. I want the reality behind your characterizations.
>I’d advise you not to threaten me with a good time, but I can’t imagine having a good time with a budding Lorena Bobbitt like yourself.
I love it when people with shitty personal characteristics use humor! They tell me so much about themselves. Did you know that they purpose of humor is the transformation of negative emotion into positive emotion?
Now is it anger, disgust or fear? The fear matches the best with the Lorena Bobbitt reference and your inability to support your assertions, but the mere transformation of what weirwoodtreehugger said into a suggestion of sex is a metaphorical use of sex as social dominance, does anyone know if anger drives rape? I suspect that it does because connections have been discovered between aggression and sex processing in mice, and the way sex is used in prison and war would suggest that it is so.
So are you admitting that Moocow did not actually say any of that and that you were just making shit up at best, and asserting that because someone is a feminist they automatically want to do those things because you are a bigot at worst?
If you wish to have any pretense of an honest discussion here you will start getting specific about these reforms and their nature.
Why is this relevant? Women live in a world which is hostile to their needs too.
Where did you get the idea that weirwoodtreehugger thought that being told to “kill yourself” is a compelling reason to follow orders? They clearly hate the whole idea of people saying such. Are you making shit up/being a bigot again?
Now where is that part in bold happening? So far your craven fear-soaked person has been unable to outline where Moocow has supported what you assert, so maybe you can do better with an impersonal stereotyped “feminist” that normally haunts your mind. The real thing you seem utterly incapable of interacting with in an honest manner.
So you are allowed to feel strong emotion about what you care about but others cannot? Is there any personal strength to you at all? Other people have to put up with your emotional intensity but others cannot respond in kind>
NO. You can deal with what you shovel out hypocritical fear-soaked wretch. I can deal with insults, emotional intensity projected at me, black and white characterizations and remain in control. Is it because you can’t handle strong emotion so you have to actually control it around you?
I’m seconding RosaDeLava, on this matter and in praying for the sexbots. Veterans were paid a paycheck. Why is that not enough? Maybe they should been smarter about what they did with their money. (This is rhetorical, of course I want to see both veterans and the population at large get good healthcare.)
Where do you get your information that it’s men that will be paying for this in taxes?
Why is the value of a man’s labor worth more?
It’s quite interesting the way that you complain about men paying for things because they pay more in taxes and assume that their labor is worth more, when I hear feminists explain why men pay more in taxes and why men’s labor is assumed to be worth more.
This is your chance, show me what you have. Don’t be a coward.
Ran out of edit time on that one. He grew up in MA. But I guess being born in NY is enough to make you a NY roach? It’s a genetic thing, I’m sure. 🙂
The bit after the “>” above is supposed to be quoted. I type my replies up in Word and then format them in the text box and I missed that.
@Luz
Yup. And I actually think it’s quite a rapey quality. This is a dude who thinks when a woman tells him to fuck off, what she really means is come closer and let’s have sex. I automatically strongly suspect Galt and other gross guys like him are either rapists or future rapists.
Galt, if you’re gonna flail angrily, make sure it’s an entertaining flail. At the moment you’re just being a poopy baby and it’s way more tedious than fun.
I mean, I know you’re not going to answer the serious questions, like the excellent stuff that Brony is posting. You won’t do that until you’ve found some way to worm out of answering directly, because the answer doesn’t exist! But at least be entertaining about it!
Why do trolls never stick their flounces?
Ohhhkay there trollyboi.
@IP, Luz,
Inherent in the libertarian philosophy is a pretty rapey mindset – what I want is the only thing that matters; other people need to worry about protecting themselves from my desires. That I want something is enough reason to pursue it, that I can get it is enough proof that I should.
It’s gross from the bottom to the top.
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/2364106/scarlett-flounces-out-o.gif
^
Perhaps ironically, I think that the many of our non-flouncers think of themselves as the damsel and hope that we’ll go chasing after them.
“But, no! Let us continue to converse!”
No.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v487/jennagryph/macros/00018qqf.jpg
There hasn’t been a draft in nearly 50 years, but feminists had been protesting every draft and heavily involved in the antiwar movement ever since it began with the suffrage movement around the WWI.
Investigation into the allegations of bias in family courts concluded it to be a myth. They found that men are given full or joint custody in 70% of all court cases where fathers actively pursued it, the catch is that only 4% of all divorces every proceed to court and only 1.5% complete litigation.
The other 96% of divorce custody arrangements are agreed upon by the parents without a legal third party telling them what to do. In these cases settled outside of court the parents agreed that the mother become the custodial parent 51% percent of the time, which means that fathers are given full or partial custody almost exactly half the time. So you really have no basis to claim bias.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cathy-meyer/dispelling-the-myth-of-ge_b_1617115.html
As for whining about child support, the average payment is $40-60 per week, which is pretty fatuous and dramatic to compare to “indentured servitude”. It’s also not even half the financial support or hands-on, full-time effort and supervision that raising the child requires, the custodial parent is paying more and doing more unpaid work. Fathers also receive child support when they are the custodial parents, but as they probably discover quickly, single parenthood is not a gravy train.
I reached into the wayback machine to a few days ago when we had this exact same conversation. This would be another good time for that FAQ.
Galt, stop trying to fuck us. We’re not interested.
Just out of curiosity though, which commenters do you believe
A) are women
B ) are into men
and
C) want to do you
Inquiring minds want to know!
But noooooo – they’re compelled to drag things out.
You can just say “Jew”, you know. Nobody’s fooled.
I’m going to place a cautious sum on: “increasingly suggestive comments that begin to merge into physical threats.”
The ‘creators” are the ones who get others to work hard for them, the people who do the work of actually furnishing all our food and other necessities are just the stupid beasts of burden.
http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif
@Axecaliber
I quite enjoyed your response re: libertarians!
“I tend not to be comfortable with ‘dismantle capitalism’ talk. And this is coming from a socialist myself. It’s just, cutting off the heads of the bourgeoise oppressors (figuratively in your case, I’m sure), has historically not ended well…”
Well when I said dismantle I didnt mean destroy, not fully anti-capitalist in every sense of the term. I meant to say restructure, reform. 🙂
ETA basicly I think the Nordic model looks like it works
Going all the way back to page 2, that wonderful picture of a lizard OoglyBoggles posted proves one of two things: Either Carmen Miranda (she of the well-known fruit-laden headwear) has been reincarnated a lizard, or that Prince isn’t the only one who can rock a raspberry beret.
@GenJones
Great comic. What I’d be interested in reading is the full aftermath once “the titans” are gone and the utterly shocking, inconceivable news break: They were never essential to society. People tend to make do just fine without self-centered, greedy assholes with way too high an opinion on their own importance. Or do the free market faithful really believe that without their precious input, people who run society would just suddenly forget how to run society? Like, food was no longer produced, toilets would never again be scrubbed, roads would remain untended, all because a few smug douchebags decided to throw a toddler’s temper tantrum and run away from home? Boy, the Randroids’ level of self-important chest-thumping rivals that of MGTOWs*.
*Since many of the latter group also belong to the former group, it’s hardly surprising how eerily similar their entitled mindset appears to an outside observer.
Interesting side note: my brother the libertarian once tried to convince me he’d never used roads. While we were in his house that is only accessible by road or teleportation.
@isidore13
XD
Libertarians are hilarious.
@isidore13
I mentioned the conversation between Walter Block and Sam Seder earlier in this thread. The part that really made my mind boggle went something like this (paraphrased and significantly shortened, since libertarians always ramble on for fucking ever):
Sam: In your libertarian paradise, what would happen if for example I stole your wallet?
Walter: Then I would take you to court.
Sam: Okay. Which court?
Walter: I would pick a court that I like, and you would pick a court that you like. Then they would both rule. If they both happen to agree, then the case is settled. If they disagree, we would go to a third court which could settle the disagreement.
Sam: Sounds complicated. What happens if I don’t agree with the court?
Walter: That’s why we would pick courts in advance and pledge to let the courts decide.
Sam: But let’s say the third court finds me guilty and I just maintain that I’m innocent. Then what?
Walter: Then we go to war!
Sam: So, in the libertarian scenario, it’s just down to whoever’s rich enough to afford an army?
Walter: NO NO NO STOP TAKING ME OUT OF CONTEXT
ROFL, yep that is how he actually argues, in earnestness.
We know what happens in truly ‘libertarian’ states where there’s no government. We have enough real world examples. They effectively become feudal. No individual can survive on their own for long, they either get killed or enslaved by someone stronger. Then the survivors band together under some sort of warlord and those bands get absorbed by the bigger badder warlords gang until one day there’s either one guy ruling over all of the gangs or a small number of big gangs none of whom can completely defeat the others so there becomes a de facto division of territory.
If you have some useful skills (keyboard warrior probably not being at a premium) you might be able to live under the protection of one of the warlords if you’re useful enough to him but generally the ‘elite’ is composed of people who have previous experience in organised violence such as major criminals or ex military.
@Imaginary Petal
why bother with courts at all then? why not just go full medevil and settle everything via trial by combat?
I have a “Go Galt Already” bumper sticker which once seriously offended a senior manager at work.
He did end up “Going Galt,” but not by choice.