“A short ugly hambeast gamed him and got him,” and other tales of MGTOW woe

I should note that while I have not read any of Ayn Rand’s novels, I have seen and read interviews with her, seen a documentary about her, and read excerpts of her writing. I suspect the same would be true of others in the thread who didn’t read her novels. Not reading her books =/= only has 2nd or 3rd hand knowledge of her opinions.

I vote let them through, but I have a high tolerance for terrible things.

I return to this thread to find out that POIsonous said cuck! Oh, joy! Thanks for the bingo space, man!

I am okay with letting them through! Mostly I am curious how he plans on “rebutting” me. I imagine it’s a lot of “whargarbl terrism” but I hope that there is a germ of communication in there!

I will abstain to others, however; if anyone is troubled by it then it shouldn’t be continued.

I’m okay with him returning but eh, that’s just me.

Might as well let snacks through one or two more times, David. I’d like to get some popcorn for the meltdown.

Though, nthing this: If you have any objections to that, please do voice them before David lets the comments through!

Really, name me ONE majority Muslim society that doesn’t have issues with terrorism or some other malady (poverty, child-marriage, brutality, illiteracy, illness, bellicosity, etc.). I’ll wait.

“Triggers” are just things that set off extreme, unwanted reactions in people with certain mental health problems. Fireworks or other loud noises can trigger PTSD flashbacks in some veterans. Images of violence or sexual assault can trigger flashbacks or panic attacks in people who’ve been abused. In online communities where people are considerate of these issues, it’s considered polite to put warnings in thread titles, or put images below a link, if something might be expected to trigger someone. Pretty much every mom forum on the internet has rules about putting trigger warnings on threads about child abuse/death. It’s not an attempt to silence any particular viewpoint, it’s just a courtesy to people who suffer from PTSD or other mental health issues.

Just in case…
@ a POIsonous snack

You’re all using faith to discredit Ayn Rand’s work, and you have no idea of the ideas expressed by her supporters or her detractors are correct or not; they could very well be common misrepresentations, borrowed from one another.

This does not bear resemblance to how I see faith described by people. These are people, myself included, that tend to encounter devotees of Rand who are people of shitty character. Sure, there are probably non-shitty versions, but that does not make our experiences go away.

As for the validity of Radian thought, your beliefs, your job. It’s a separate issue from the typical experiences we have of such people. I’ve experienced enough of the same jerks to have no problems talking about thinking that there are more assholes who follow Rand than the population at large might contain on average, the same way I would describe the Republican party as containing more racism than the population on average.

You are actually another good example. You seem fine making broad general statements about biology and are unable or unwilling to offer any substance to back your shit up for one example. Shitty character.

People on the left generally complain about how unfair it is when people bring Marx’s work into disrepute by pointing to the atrocities of the USSR, or point to the failures of Latin American socialism; why do you insist on pointing to the attitudes of those who claim to be followers of her as a reason for not reading her? Her ideas are very influential in modern American politics, and it would be ridiculous of you to overlook them.

OK, here is how this works. Take your eyeballs, move up the thread and actually read the parts where people say why they think that they can do this. Because it’s actually there, you just seem utterly unwilling to actually address what people are saying, even just to disagree with it.
Now if my sarcasm is actually a problem because you literally can’t see it let me know because I can point out the comments of some people for you.

And yes, I very well do think of a good many of you as belonging to the “regressive left,” due to the fact that whenever someone criticizes Islam, you feel it necessary to step in and defend Muslims; Islam has a problem, and you need to acknowledge it.

I see people talking about the problems that exist within some groups of Muslims, including feminists. But I also refuse to look away from the xenophobic bigotry that exists within the people claiming to only be opposing Islam, as someone who tries to be an ally I’m on the lookout for good ways to simultaneously deal with the bigots and deal with bad behavior of some Muslims. For the moment unflinching opposition to said bad behavior (like sexism, misogyny, various LGBT phobia, and the defined actions and activities that constitute terrorism independent of group) as it exists is how I do it. Objectively speaking there are plenty of decent Muslims. Frankly I just think that you don’t like the opposition to the bigotry and your very next statement is good evidence of that.

I think it quite hypocritical that you demand “safe spaces” and the like for women, and go on about how men are such a danger to women, but when someone applies the same logic to Muslims (I.E. getting scared, like any rational person would, when seeing them on a plane) you all complain about “Islamaphobia.” Prove me wrong.

1) They are not demanded, they are set up and if you choose to act out in such a space you will face consequences. People get to define the social dynamics of their private groups, people get to reserve public spaces on occasion, many authorities like professors and teachers are allowed to have codes of conduct within their realms of authority.
What you are missing is that these spaces exist to help a group that is historically socially subordinate to express themselves because of people like the ones this article is about. I’ve seen many other minority group describe the internet in these terms, and they helped me to see it too.

I’m not going to play pretend with you, this is about dealing with people who abuse social dominance instincts and they hate seeing their victims have a place where they can’t shout them down. Too, fucking, bad. You have many other places around the net, but of course the mere communication is not the point.

2) The data is what shows men as a group are a danger to women, and they are a danger to men too as Saffron’s link shows.

Men make up the majority of perps and so men are the group where the things that let rape happen will be most easily found. It’s basic science and no, it does not imply that all men are rapists.

3) As there are objectively Muslims that are not violent or bad people, getting scared when seeing them on a plane is irrational. I don’t go assuming that all Republicans are overtly racist even though that party has more overt racists than the average population. I don’t do assuming that all second amendment advocates are like the people at Bundy ranch.

That is literal xenophobic irrational prejudice and discrimination on your part, and you want to be able to do your little social dominance displays so you can try to keep everyone who is not like you in line by the only means you know how, fear. It’s probably how you learned it. I bet you suck at identifying threats and that must be terrifying.
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/villains/images/6/6a/Discord_S02E02.png

Ableism: Was told to “fuck off.” Cannot and will not fuck, because impotent and asexual.

As my kids would have said when they were little, you are sooooooo not funny.

I’m sure you are well aware of the fact that in this context, ‘fuck’ has nothing to do with sex. It’s not an invitation, suggestion or instruction. When I drop something and say ‘Shit!’, that is me conveying displeasure. It is not a request for my cats to relieve themselves on the carpet. In this case ‘fuck’ is merely there for emphasis; the operative word here is ‘off’.

Being told to fuck off was not ableist either, as being asexual is not a disability. It’s pretty insulting to suggest that it is, when asexuality is just one beautiful colour in the vast spectrum of human sexuality and happiness.

I personally don’t agree with all trigger warnings, normally on the grounds that if it’s crystal clear it the title, there’s no need to repeat the same words verbatim in a trigger warning. It’s also true that some trigger warnings can be a bit over the top. People make mistakes though because they are human. But unlike you, their motivation is good; they just want to protect those who have already been through so much. You just think it’s a big joke.

In spite of the abuse I suffered as a child, I am notoriously difficult to trigger. It took me a long time to get here though. Others at different stages of coming out the other side may still be struggling with it. As someone who knows what it feels like to be triggered, it’s is unbelievably painful. I’d rather not be reminded of it as the average person’s worst nightmare was my reality. It’s nothing like the crap that you tried to pass off as being triggered.

Seriously, Is a heads up too much to ask for? I’m not even saying that you (or anyone else for that matter) can’t read/watch/listen to something that may be triggering. For example, there’s a brief warning at the beginning of every episode of ‘Law and Order – Special Victims Unit’ giving everyone the choice to watch/switch over. Done. Does it really inconvenience you that much?

Just to finish off, for the record I AM physically disabled AND sexual (as opposed to asexual). I cannot have sex because of my disability. So for you to try and claim ableism on the grounds that you are impotent, asexual and told to fuck off, that is insulting. Note, it’s insulting, not triggering. By the way, what exactly was ‘fuck off’ supposed to trigger? Doesn’t your asexuality make your impotence a moot point?

You don’t have a fucking clue and you should be thanking your lucky stars for that. You are the one who is ableist as you’ve used disability and abuse to make an incredibly pathetic ‘joke’. I’m glad my suffering and the suffering of others like me caused you so much amusement. You’re the joke, you arsehole.

@Fabian Prewett

If you’ve overcome so much in your life, surely learning to take a little joke shouldn’t be too difficult for you. Of course, the typical SJW tends to exaggerate their suffering a good deal; I’d honestly question whether or not you have a “disability” that prevents you from having sex, or if you’re just too lazy to get up and do something. Hell, I know an old man with Parkinson’s who works on a regular basis, shaking and rattling all throughout the day, and then there are people who just want to lay around and collect disability. If he can work and he has Parkinson’s, what’s stopping you? The question on your mind should not be “who’s going to let me?” but rather “who’s going to stop me?”

Quote within a quote…

According to Lisak, “somewhere around a third of men who are sexually abused as children are abused by women,” and while every case of sexual assault is unique, many of the cases of men being sexually abused by women involve a power imbalance.

@Saffron. This is so true, although not all the victims are boys. It’s only relatively recently been acknowledge than women sexually abuse children and even when it is acknowledged, the same scenarios always come up. It’s either, as you say, an under-aged boy who should be ‘grateful’, interestingly enough a position that tends to be held by men. Or the female abuser is the unwilling sidekick/victim of a dominant male. I’m not saying this doesn’t happen, but it’s far from the whole story. Women have also been known to sexually abuse girls and boys, both pre and post-puberty, without male involvement at all.

It’s impossible to tell exactly how many children have been sexually abused by women and to what extent. This is partly because the nature of the assault is often different if the perpetrator is a woman. A lot of them want plausible deniability, so they claim they were simply ‘washing’ the child for example. Michele Elliot and Jackie Saradjian have produced some interesting research on the subject.

Of course it’s not simply confined to abuse under the guise of ‘care-giving’. But the reason we know so little about it – cue MRA howls and gnashing of teeth – is patriarchy. NOT MEN. It’s the patriarchal stereotype of women all being caring and nurturing which stops many children and adult survivors from even reporting it, let alone any hope of legal justice. Sometimes even the thought of a woman sexually assaulting a child can cause such a violent reaction, they lash out at the very person who needs the most help. The don’t want to face the terrible knowledge that it happens, so they lash out at the bearer of the news, usually the victim.

This is why our knowledge on this subject is so woefully inadequate. Unfortunately it will stay that way until we acknowledge the fact that not all women are cookie-baking, apron-wearing superwomen. Some of them are less Mary Poppins and more Aileen Wuornos. You only have to look at the case of Vanessa George et al, nursery nurses who photographed themselves sexually abusing toddlers aged 2 and under, to know that a small percentage of women are monsters. George has 9 children of her own and even when she was begged to identify some of the victims, she just smirked and said, “No comment”. This is why I get annoyed with MRAs making it all about them. It has nothing to do with them at all, it’s about the children who’ve been abused. I wish those whiny attention-seekers would stop talking about it and just JTOW, ffs.