Categories
"ethics" a voice for men antifeminism antifeminist women capybaras cassie jaye crackpottery dan perrins drama kings entitled babies irony alert men who should not ever be with women ever MRA post contains sarcasm red pill

Confused MRAs charge conspiracy after Village Voice pans “agonizing” Red Pill documentary

This fictional character from The Office probably wouldn't like the film either
This fictional character probably wouldn’t like the film either

The Pledge Drive continues! If you enjoy this blog, and can afford it, please click on the “donate” button below!  Thanks!

The reviews are in! Well, technically speaking, a review is in.

The Village Voice’s Alan Scherstuhl has posted his review of Cassie Jaye’s The Red Pill, her totally objective documentary about the Men’s Rights Movement that was funded in part by some of the people featured in it and that will be opening in theaters a theater Friday

Let’s just say he didn’t like it:

[F]or two agonizing hours, Jaye tumbles slowly down America’s stupidest rabbit hole, discovering that Men’s Rights Activists are actually just dudes who have been dicked over by a culture that punishes masculinity. …

Jaye acknowledges in the opening and closing minutes that MRAs sometimes spew nasty garbage online, but she never presses them on this in her many interviews. Instead, she lets them moan about how hard it is to be a dude in 2016, endorsing their anecdotal complaints about unfair family courts, incidents of men being tricked into being fathers and — I didn’t quite follow this one — one father’s conviction that the women who had custody of his son were systematically trying to make the boy fat.

One can only assume that they are fattening him up before they EAT HIM.

Confused MRAs, apparently unable to understand how anyone could possibly hate a film they’re pretty sure they’re going to just love, have responded to Scherstuhl’s review by crying “conspiracy.”

In a comment on the Village Voice, MRA David King (presumably the same David King who is the “Chief Information Officer” for A Voice for Men) suggests that “[s]omething definitely stinks, and it’s not the film under review.”

He submits these, er, facts to a candid world:

• September 29, Cassie Jaye tweeted “Events surrounding The Red Pill documentary are getting curiouser and curiouser”, the same day Scherstuhl tweeted that he’d “agreed to review” TRP, the same day Scherstuhl invited a well-known anti-male MRA antagonist to DM him via Twitter.

Just FYI, the “well-known anti-male MRA antagonist” in question is apparently little old me, though I’m pretty sure I am not actually anti-male. I didn’t DM Scherstuhl, though I think I retweeted a couple of his Tweets. 

King continues:

• October 4, HP and Village Voice publish this hit piece using present-tense language (“this movie is playing in two American theaters”) strongly implying that the author has seen a film which doesn’t debut for another 3 days on October 7,

HOW ON EARTH DID A FILM REVIEWER SEE A FILM BEFORE IT WAS EVEN OUT oh wait that’s how film reviewing works.

• so Scherstuhl has not seen it at a theatre and cannot have seen it anywhere else unless either a) invited to by CJ (in which case HP and Village Voice, at which Scherstuhl is an editor, have violated the embargo such previews usually carry) or b) he has acquired a copy illegally.

Since both HP and VV have published this review already, since embargoes on unreleased films are the norm, and barring decent evidence of mismanagement on the part of CJ and her team, that rather heavily points at the latter. Whichever the case, violation of contract (best case) or breaking the law (worst case) doesn’t look good for either HP or Village Voice.

Yes, because films are NEVER reviewed before they hit theaters oh wait.

• If the author has not seen it, then he’s lying through his teeth both in the article’s content and about its provenance. He misrepresents the review as being based on an alleged viewing post public release but, owing to an editorial screw-up, the copy got released days before it should have been, proving that his article is a premeditated and contrived attack motivated by political animus.

• There are numerous tells in the language used in this article that strongly hint at an agenda and a prior conclusion (read: closed mind) so it almost doesn’t matter whether Scherstuhl did see it or not because the actual content of the film would make no difference to the content of the article.

King blathers on for a while along these lines, and even mentions me by name once! It’s good to be noticed.

Meanwhile, on Twitter, the lovable Dan Perrins seems to suggest that I might have actually paid Scherstuhl for his review.

Apparently Dan lives in an alternate universe in which men are oppressed and I am filthy rich.

Speaking of films, here is a short documentary about a capybara who jumps into a pool and plays with a pool noodle.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

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

269 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
4 years ago

((posted without editing this time. Any errors or things I should have removed, mea culpa))

Oh dear. Well, this certainly got a little out of hand. I’m not surprised though! I’ve got a lot of work today so will have to be brief. There’s quite a bounty of dumb statements to pick from, though! Let’s see here. I’ll start here, since it seems indicative of a thread in your statements, Roger.

We’re talking about different things – you guys are trying to develop a theory of how to identify exactly what each individual is going to do only by looking at information on the level of an individual – and until we can do that, do nothing.

I’m saying take advantage of whatever information we have to make the best possible decision.

Sigh. As has been said before in the previous thread, no, that’s not what we’re doing, and kindly stop trying to put words in our mouths. We aren’t trying to say “you shouldn’t do anything if you don’t have perfect information,” and we’ve said that numerous times. We are saying that when you are presented with evidence, you should update your opinions. Because you don’t seem to do that, you seem to think that the better choice is to “rationalize away arguments which oppose the answer you feel is right.”

In other words, you say that you want to “I’m saying take advantage of whatever information we have to make the best possible decision,” but in reality you are disregarding information which doesn’t conform to your pre-existing opinion.

That was a nice comfy one. Let’s do another, shall we?

It’s like – if I was told that I could choose from two groups of people to be my next door neighbour, and one group had a 5% chance of being a murderer and the other group had a 4% chance of being a murderer, if I know nothing else about the groups, I’m going with the 4%.

This one’s been piled on to no end by others, quite well. Turns out that immigrants tend to be less interested in crime of any sort compared to the baseline population, actually! They’re less likely to be violent, and more likely to be the victims of violence!

So yeah, your 5%-vs-4% nonsense is just that, nonsense, or you’d actually prefer immigrants living around you.

One more? Then I’ll get to my point, I promise.

But that to one side – no, I don’t want to become an expert at identifying serial killers, criminals and rapists. No, I don’t want to live next door to serial killers, criminals and rapists.
If there is some easy way to reduce the chance that I might end up living to such people, I’m going to take it.

The only way you can do this is to live alone, far away from any other human. You’re going around saying that we’re operating from a position of extremity, but here you are slicing off imaginary-percentage-points from an imaginary-index-of-violence, and are happy to cast entire ethnicities aside in pursuit of that sliver of safety.

And yet I bet you still drive a car? Despite the fact that it’s much, much more likely for violence to be done to your person by way of a car accident than a murderous immigrant? Why aren’t you campaigning for tougher restrictions on drivers licences and a zero-tolerance limit for drunk driving? That would make you far, far safer than changing the immigration policy.

(Answer: because it ain’t about safety, it’s about fear and superiority, so you can go ahead and throw all the argument about how it’ll make you safer out of the window.)

Eh, gotta do this one, too. It’s too good.

(By the way – if you want to have strict vetting of immigrants that’s fine with me – but if you’re not going to have strict vetting, then it makes sense to allow in those groups less likely to be dangerous (women and possibly non-muslims))

So if you think it’s fine as long as there’s strict vetting, then what’s the big deal? The US has incredibly strict vetting of immigrants.

(The big deal, obviously, is that no amount of vetting is enough to assuage fears that aren’t based on reality. Because it’s not about safety, it’s about fear.)

Finally, back to the source, the important line that gives it all away.

And, yes, I’m sure you can argue rings around me on this topic – but I feel like it’s my duty as an informational node to stand up for how I feel on this issue, even if I’m ignorant.

Or is it a failure of democracy to give a vote to people like me?

To paraphrase, “My ignorance is as good as your facts, and you’re a bunch of tyrants for thinking otherwise.”

Two parts, Roger. First part, your “informational node” nonsense. You accuse us of being too intellectual, about talking too much about “facts” and “theories,” while you call yourself an “informational node” by announcing your feelings. You’re as head-in-the-clouds as you accuse us of being.

“Informational node.” Have you ever talked with a real human being about these things without the sour taste of sarcasm in your mouth? Real people don’t talk about being “information nodes” or faff on about epistemology when it’s something they care about. You don’t care about this. This whole line of argument, this Trump thing, is a weapon you’re using to dig into a deeper objective.

Second part. “Is it a failure of democracy to give a vote to people like me” is indicative of a trap you’re trying to set – trying to set up a “gotcha”, forcing us to either reveal ourselves as moustache-twirling authoritarians or admit that your vote for Trump is valid.

To answer specifically, it’s not a failure of democracy, it’s in its design, because while it often serves up sub-optimal decisions and has huge flaws, it’s still better than tyranny.

The fact that you voiced this, and similar sentiments, in this thread is just more evidence that you don’t give a shit about what you’re saying. It’s a weapon and nothing more, a weapon to “hurt the feminist agenda”.

And it’s abhorrent. You and those like you, jaded and cynical, assured only of their own self-righteousness, will get real people hurt. Your fear-mongering, which you don’t believe but desperately want others to (if only for your own vindication) is a driving force that pushes misery and hate into the core of social life in the western world.

Shut it down and go away. Find your entertainment in something less drenched in living misery.

Brony, Social Justice Cenobite

Bigots are rape enablers. I need to use that more often so I don’t forget. Roger is enabling rapists as a rape enabler.

littleknown
littleknown
4 years ago

@ Roger

We have all of the information we need to make the best decision.

Trumpeting ISIS’s propaganda for them actually does make us less safe. We should not allow their tactic — terrorism — to so cow us that we simply roll over and hand them exactly what they want.

You and I are not talking about different things. I am simply rejecting your preposterous premise that the mere possibility of any Americans being killed in a terrorist attack by a Muslim immigrant somehow justifies ripping the Constitution to shreds, and creating the kind of hostility and bigotry that scapegoating of this type always does. You are more likely to be killed by your own furniture than in a terrorist attack.

I am rejecting the ludicrous idea that grabbing a megaphone and shouting ISIS’s talking points from our rooftops will somehow reduce the number of terrorists, and make us safer from terrorism.

You think banning immigration by any male Muslims will prevent terrorist attacks.

You are apparently so arrogant that you reject the fact that a male terrorist is capable of lying about his religion on his VISA application. You are apparently so arrogant that you reject the fact that terrorists are aware that women receive less scrutiny, and are taking advantage of this.

There is no way to prevent every attack. The best we can do is fight the information war and the intelligence war in the smartest way possible. You are fighting the information war for the other side.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
4 years ago

@ Roger

Would you do something for me? Try and find some information about ISIS and their preferred tactic known as “eliminating the gray(zone)”.

You say you like to gain information in order to make things safer. I’d suggest that’s a good place to start.

See how what you’re proposing feeds into that concept and get back to us.

Ooglyboggles
4 years ago

So now Roger is upfront with not only being unconstitutional, racist against anyone with any amount of melanin AND a rape enabler. This is certainly scraping the bottom of the barrel and into the dirt. I’m kind of unable to properly say words, this shit pisses me off too much for coherent thought.

Roger, dude, I know guys like you who say that. They tend to be friendless and bitter about people living out their lives. Don’t be like them. Trust me, I know.

littleknown
littleknown
4 years ago

Also, I just have to say this: the last time you brought this up, Roger, I brought up the disparity between the number of people who lose their lives to terrorism, and the number of people who lose their lives to drunk driving.

Someone very close to me was killed by a drunk driver. And the fact is, in Red State America, drunk driving is as American as apple pie. In many deep-red communities, it’s pretty much a cherished institution to be supremely confident that you are God behind the wheel. In my case, it was very much this culture that killed my friend.

Twenty-seven people are killed by drunk drivers every single day. Twenty-seven families — mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, sons, daughters, or whatever the case may be — greeted with that terrible phone call.

But are our TV screens filled with people talking about how we need to “be careful” and not let in any immigrants who have an ethnic or religious background that is associated with a greater rate of drunk driving?

Are they even filled with people talking about our need to finally tackle this problem? Is anyone ranting about how we need to be careful, because we can’t continue to exist as a country if we let one more innocent life be taken by someone’s selfishness and arrogance?

And, Roger, what if it turned out that the members of one religion killed people by driving drunk at a higher rate per capita than other religions? Should we forego vetting and just disqualify any member of that religion from immigrating and becoming a citizen?

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
4 years ago

It’s so interesting, watching the trolls modify their persona-of-the-hour based on discussion. Roger showed up, filled with arguments for supporting Big Donny Trumpo, but hit a wall when his arguments didn’t pan out and we boiled them all down to raw fear. So he embraced that and started arguing about ivory towered elitists and the primacy of emotion. Just like putting on a different colour of shoes.

He’s actually adopted a position that Daniel Dennett gives to some sorts of faith believers (He’s talking about bigoted but moderate Christianity in that work, but all my love to the moderate Christians out there, I’m not saying this to attack you or anything).

http://primaryhomeworkhelp.co.uk/castles/images/mb.jpg

He calls it the Motte and Bailey strategy. With this strategy, the bigot states abhorrent (or at least deeply wrong) things and throws out false but reasonable-sounding reasons for it. They’re out on the Bailey, the courtyard. When challenged, they retreat to the Motte – the castle – by declaring that their faith is metaphor and story, and that their God is more like the ground-of-all-being. (not that this view of God is wrong, just that it’s the defense used by the bigot)

In this way, the bigot can go out and claim that God hates gays and believes we should ban all Muslims from the country, but when confronted about the ridiculousness of their beliefs they say that God is mysterious and ineffable, and you need to interpret the bible, and they’re parables for life instead of literal history.

It’s exactly what Roger is doing here. He strolls out onto the bailey and shouts about how they’re comin’ to kill us all and we gotta be safe. When he’s actually confronted, he retreats into the mushy equivocations of “emotions are valid” and “your facts are too fact’y”. No doubt we’ll see it again.

Roger, honey, don’t come out to the bailey like that anymore, unless you’re willing to stand your ground. You’re just gonna get shot up with arrows and then slink back to the motte again.

(P.S. interesting fact! The term “Motte and Bailey” as a rhetorical device is apparently also used in some circles as a snarl word to refer to “SJW” tactics! Only used in the neoreactionary circles of Scott Alexander, an acolyte of the Less Wrong community and an intellectual HBD proponent (AKA smug racist). So, that’s interesting! I’m using the term in the Daniel Dennett sense)

eli
eli
4 years ago

What astounds me is the continued insistence that horrible crimes are committed by immigrants. Terrible crimes are committed every day by born in the USA, raised in the USA people. It’s all noise.

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
4 years ago

<3 littleknown. We have a similar culture here up northwest. It's considered a rite of passage for a dood to drive drunk when he's young, especially bombing down township and gravel roads, where visibility is terrible and the road surface is loose. Doubly so in the winter, when it's all ice and snowdrifts. The culture encourages kids to get behind the wheel and "have fun", and who cares about the consequences.

Huge trucks with drunk kids at the wheel, but we can't talk about that 'cause we're letting Syrians into the country. Syrians! Some of the most lovely, jovial, warm people on the planet! But they're a useful scapegoat for media magnates to drum up fear and sell it by the barrel, so they get to stay out in the cold while our kids are injuring and killing themselves and others out of a sense of misplaced machismo.

Ugh. I wish we had figured out cryogenic sleep. I'd be happy to popsicle myself for a few decades and come back out when it isn't so stupid.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
4 years ago

WTF is this shit.

(By the way – if you want to have strict vetting of immigrants that’s fine with me – but if you’re not going to have strict vetting, then it makes sense to allow in those groups less likely to be dangerous (women and possibly non-muslims))

Refugees are vetted, you dolt. Refugees are vetted to such an extreme degree that only about 5% of them that apply for refugee status are ever recommended to a host country for resettlement. And then in the US another dozen agencies also individually vet the potential refugee immigrant. It takes 24 to 36 fucking months for a refugee to get from “war zone” to “my back yard” and about 1000 pages of paperwork, and none of that is an exaggeration.

Other immigrants are also vetted. Do you think we hand out residency like candy? What the fuck are you smoking? It isn’t two years of vetting (we reserve that for the really dangerous, like people fleeing death squads) but we do extensive background checks on them and compare them to the terror watch lists before we give them legal residency. The US is the most paranoid nation on the planet, but you’re taking Trump’s off-the-cuff witticisms as if they are factual and you are factually wrong as a result.

Talk to me some more about epistemology when your epistemological method is to take whatever Trump says at face value and never fucking check it or question it, ever. Jesus Christ.

If we know that 1/10 of group x are a serial killer – you’d be crazy not to use that information.

One in ten men are rapists. Full stop.

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

To add to the drunk driving stats; 3 women a day are killed by their partners. Hundreds of people are shot and killed by the police a year. But sure, immigrants are our biggest threat.

Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
4 years ago

@Scildfreja

Ugh. I wish we had figured out cryogenic sleep. I’d be happy to popsicle myself for a few decades and come back out when it isn’t so stupid

Sasha: This fuckin Czar guy is terrible
Misha: Inorite! Wish I could freeze myself for a few decades
Sasha: Yeah, 1940 is gonna be awesome! Way less stupid by then…

Roger
Roger
4 years ago

So let’s lay this out:

1) I don’t think it means you have bad relations with someone just because you don’t give them a visa to live in your country. There are many countries in the world that won’t let me live there, and I could care less. I don’t hate China because I’m not allowed to live there – why would I?

2)I think it may be a good idea to base immigration on how dangerous a driver people are. I’ve known many people killed and injured in car accidents and that sounds good to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

3)Do you really mean all this stuff about not using statistics? When can we use statistics?

4)You keep assuming things like “oh, why not base immigration on women” and “why not stop drunk driving” which I actually think are good ideas, just because you think I won’t like it. So why won’t you address those arguments? Isn’t that a little dishonest?
This convo:
Two characters – Me and the WeHuntedTheMammoth crew

Me –
“I want to donate money to cure ALS”
We –
“Oh no! Why are you trying to cure ALS when cancer exists? You evil hypocrite”
Me –
“Um… actually I donate money to cancer research too…”
We –
“Blah! You actually want MORE people to have ALS and CANCER TOO!”
Me –
“No, it’s just I heard that they could cure ALS so I want to donate to it…”
We –
“I’m not contributing to ALS , where is your evidence that the nano-molecules used in this treatment will be effective”
Me –
“Well maybe if we try it, we can see if it works”
We –
“I’m sorry you are a charlatan and a liar – you come here claiming you have cured ALS and you don’t even have any papers published about it… what a CHARLATAN – you are probably trying to KILL people with CANCER…”
Me –
“Um… ok… I’m still going to donate to ALS…”
We –
“IGNORANT – you didn’t listen to my well explained proof of why you are an EVIL LIAR – this is a failure of rationality and thinking. FOOL!”

etc.
etc.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
4 years ago

Did I really just see Roger compare bigotry with donating money to charity?

Roger
Roger
4 years ago

If 1/10 men are rapists – why are we getting more of them. Seems like a strange policy to me.

But ok – if they already have the strict vetting, then that is ok. Maybe I’ll vote for Hillary if that is what she is for.

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
4 years ago

haha, Inorite, Axe? :3 In all honesty, these are important times to be alive, cause it means we can do somethin ’bout it.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
4 years ago

If 1/10 men are rapists – why are we getting more of them. Seems like a strange policy to me.

So your answer to that fact is to support gender-selective abortion and eliminate male births? That’s a position usually ascribed to caricatured feminists. It’s surprising to see you take it.

littleknown
littleknown
4 years ago

@ POM

Yes. Yes, you did. Apparently a blanket immigration policy that bans Muslims is just like spending money to research diseases like ALS.

You know, I have this gut feeling that if people like Roger were actually deported, it would make the country a lot safer. I don’t have any proof, facts, or logical arguments, but it surely couldn’t hurt to try, could it?

@Schildfreja

But we need you to help make the future better 🙂

Roger
Roger
4 years ago

“So your answer to that fact is to support gender-selective abortion and eliminate male births?”

No, because I don’t think abortion is good.

But if there was some way to decide the best ratio of men to women for society, and there was some way to engineer that, then, why not.

As it is, allowing female immigration is the best way to get the benefits of immigration without any potential negative side effects.

By the way – I notice nobody responded to number (1) on the list there. How many of you are concerned about Chinese immigration policy?
Do restrictions on your ability to live in Saudi Arabia make you hate that country? Is it incredibly provocative?

dlouwe
dlouwe
4 years ago

Humans are responsible for 100% of crime, so seems like the safest option is to just kick out everybody.

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
4 years ago

errr…

1) Care to connect the dots? Are you saying that “they won’t hate America ’cause we won’t let’em in” here? ’cause that’s pretty silly. If America says “no Syrians allowed!” to the Syrians, and the American news is allabout how dangerous and violent the Syrians are, then yes they’re gonna take that as evidence that America hates them! Because a) it ain’t true that they’re especially criminal or violent, and b) the evidence would show that America, as a nation, has an anti-Syrian position. You don’t pick out a particular group of people as verboten and then say “just business, man.” That’s silly.

2) errr…

No one has said that would be a good metric for allowing immigration. That’d be a stupid metric for immigration. The roads in southern India are terrifying and have huge traffic problems, but the culture there is deeply and uniquely gentle, and they make lovely additions to any culture to which they immigrate. They just don’t have a long culture of ubiquitous car-driving like we do here. Why are you talking about this anyways, no one suggested that.

3) Statistics are important to use. They’re also important to understand, so that they aren’t misused. This is a common problem of the pseudo-rationalist. They come to rationalism by way of science specials on TV and science’y books and youtube debates, so are used to understanding things through metaphor. This leads to a belief amongst some of them that their scientific instincts are comparable to that of a statistician, when it couldn’t be further from the case. Add to this mix a number of people who are willfully trying to obfusticate with misleading stats and you get where we are now.

4) You miss the point of us bringing these things up. We’re not doing a “Dear Muslima” argument, knocking down the plight of one person because another situation is worse. We are bringing these points up because you say that your end goal is safety. If that were true you’d be pursuing things that make you a lot safer. But you don’t. This indicates that you aren’t actually pursuing safety at all. You’re pursuing something else.

As for your dialog, it’s the mischaracterization I’ve come to expect from you \o/ so that’s fun.

Anything else?

OoglyBoggles
OoglyBoggles
4 years ago

@dlouwe
http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/the-crime-is-life-the-sentence-is-death.pngcomment image
@Roger
By your logic all crime makers are alive, so therefore if all those alive are dead, there would be no crime makers, just to be safe.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
4 years ago

No, because I don’t think abortion is good.

Nobody cares what you think about abortion.

But if there was some way to decide the best ratio of men to women for society, and there was some way to engineer that, then, why not.

Aborting all male fetuses is the way to go, it sounds like. We wouldn’t want to deport men to some other country and make them have to take all our male rapists, after all. That would be unfair to whatever country has to take them.

Really interesting that you went down this path. It’s almost like you didn’t think about what you were talking about before you said it.

Roger
Roger
4 years ago

“We are bringing these points up because you say that your end goal is safety. If that were true you’d be pursuing things that make you a lot safer. But you don’t. ”

How do you know that?

Anyway – If person A says “let’s introduce this new device which will make planes safer” is a good response to this “why are you trying to do this when a device for cars would save more people?”

Can’t we do both?

Brony, Social Justice Cenobite

@Roger

1) I don’t think it means you have bad relations with someone just because you don’t give them a visa to live in your country. There are many countries in the world that won’t let me live there, and I could care less. I don’t hate China because I’m not allowed to live there – why would I?

Acting like a group of people are rapists is bad relations.

2)I think it may be a good idea to base immigration on how dangerous a driver people are. I’ve known many people killed and injured in car accidents and that sounds good to me.

Still bigoted BS. Not all of any group are bad drivers except bad drivers.

3)Do you really mean all this stuff about not using statistics? When can we use statistics?

Did I say we can’t use statistics?

4)You keep assuming things like “oh, why not base immigration on women” and “why not stop drunk driving” which I actually think are good ideas, just because you think I won’t like it. So why won’t you address those arguments? Isn’t that a little dishonest?
This convo:
Two characters – Me and the WeHuntedTheMammoth crew

*As I read*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH….
*deep breath*
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Ok, let’s look at this.

Me –
“I want to donate money to cure ALS”
We –
“Oh no! Why are you trying to cure ALS when cancer exists? You evil hypocrite”

Donating to charity =/= acting as if all Muslim immigrants are rapists or terrorists. For one thing you are not actually attacking the real problem like you are when you donate for research addressing the actual disease. In this analogy you are attacking something related to people suffering from ALS that does not actually have to do with ALS.

Me –
“Um… actually I donate money to cancer research too…”
We –
“Blah! You actually want MORE people to have ALS and CANCER TOO!”

It’s more like “you aren’t actually helping to cure ALS, or reduce the incidence, and you are hurting all these other people!”

Me –
“No, it’s just I heard that they could cure ALS so I want to donate to it…”
We –
“I’m not contributing to ALS , where is your evidence that the nano-molecules used in this treatment will be effective”

We are the ones actually directly trying to learn about and deal with ALS in this analogy because we are the ones actually working on the problem of rape and rapists. Remember, you are targeting something non-rapist, non-terrorist, and non-murderer.

Me –
“Well maybe if we try it, we can see if it works”
We –
“I’m sorry you are a charlatan and a liar – you come here claiming you have cured ALS and you don’t even have any papers published about it… what a CHARLATAN – you are probably trying to KILL people with CANCER…”

Oh I don’t think you are a liar or deliberately deceiving. You have been raised and trained by society to be a bigot. It’s more like “You are hurting all of those people unrelated to ALS and your approach does not actually target ALS!”

Me –
“Um… ok… I’m still going to donate to ALS…”
We –
“IGNORANT – you didn’t listen to my well explained proof of why you are an EVIL LIAR – this is a failure of rationality and thinking. FOOL!”

That’s not too far off.

If 1/10 men are rapists – why are we getting more of them. Seems like a strange policy to me.

We are getting more of them from the culture. That is why we want to deal with rape and not scapegoat people. No matter what country we are talking about we would be getting more rapists by your way of looking at things. Might as well stop people from moving from other states to your state, more rapists. Same for your side of town, your neighborhood.

But ok – if they already have the strict vetting, then that is ok. Maybe I’ll vote for Hillary if that is what she is for.

Either this is sarcasm or you have done absolutely no research into something you supposedly care a lot about. You are not competent at dealing with threats. You really need to work on that.

Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
4 years ago

@Rudy

How many of you are concerned about Chinese immigration policy?
Do restrictions on your ability to live in Saudi Arabia make you hate that country? Is it incredibly provocative?

1)I don’t live there. I have no say there. I have a vote here. Jackass
2)Yes, I’m concerned. Not cos it’s hard to emigrate there but cos of what that means. Yes, it makes me hate those places. Not cos of the restrictions but cos of their source. Those are totalitarian regimes who stomp down on those who aren’t like them, don’t conform, or are critical of the ruling class. I’d like my country not to become like those, thanks much. Jackass

@Scildfreja

we can do somethin ’bout it

Word

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
4 years ago

(1) on the list there. How many of you are concerned about Chinese immigration policy?
Do restrictions on your ability to live in Saudi Arabia make you hate that country? Is it incredibly provocative?

Expansion. Improper analogy. There’s no flood of million of refugees coming out of China and Saudi Arabia, and there’s no decades-long history of us going over there, pounding homes of our neighbours into rubble, bombing, killing, and raping through a concerted effort to destabilize the region so as to get cheaper oil.

If China and Saudi Arabia had been doing that to us for the past 20 years, and then decided to ban our entry into their countries when we’re fleeing for our lives? You bet your bottom dollar I’d hate them, with a fiery incandescence.

Also interesting that you’re okay with joining the ranks of China and Saudi Arabia regarding liberty of movement. They call the West “The Free World” for a reason. I guess you’re interested in dropping that facade and joining with “The Unfree World” instead?

Finally, I’ll just leave a pseudoquote from a recent tweet from George Takei here for you. Your argument and position is the sort of attitude that put the Japanese into internment camps during the 40’s. “Safety” indeed.

Roger
Roger
4 years ago

@policy of madness

I don’t necessarily disagree with your aim of reducing the number of men, I just disagree with your methods.

OoglyBoggles
OoglyBoggles
4 years ago

@Roger
Faking earnestness
From such blatant sarcasm
Does you no favors.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
4 years ago

I don’t necessarily disagree with your aim of reducing the number of men, I just disagree with your methods.

You seem to be laboring under the assumption that I give even one shit about what you think. I do not. You can disagree all you like. It is irrelevant, because you are irrelevant. There is a 10% chance that you are a rapist, after all. Why should I care whether you agree with me?

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
4 years ago

Here it is:

https://twitter.com/GeorgeTakei/status/783486112991997952

@Roger, the whole “can’t we do both?” thing is bullshit, because:

a) we’ve shown a number of times that immigrants aren’t a threat to your safety, despite your feelings, therefore

b) you’re just afraid because you’re afraid. No actual reason. Which is a dumb way to decide on policy, especially when that policy erodes freedoms and harms people. And, yes, barring immigration of refugees harms them, because their lives continue to be in flux, in a camp instead of building a life. And finally,

c) since your fears are utterly disconnected from reality, nothing will make you unafraid. No policies will be more than a temporary balm. Fear ain’t rational. You’ll keep on selling off your liberties one by one for a little more security. You can go ahead and do that yourself, but please pardon us if we don’t want to go that way, and will fight you tooth and nail if you try to drag the country in that direction.

(Well, I won’t, I’m Canadian, but I’ll be cheering on my American friends as they fight and win. Which is what they’re doing. Go team!)

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
4 years ago

@ ooglyboggles

Heh, that was exactly the picture I was about to look for when I read that post.

@ Roger

let’s introduce this new device which will make planes safer

Yeah, but your solution is more akin to “let’s reduce air passenger deaths by banning flying”.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
4 years ago

Yeah, but your solution is more akin to “let’s reduce air passenger deaths by banning flying”.

More like reducing air passenger deaths by banning pickles.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
4 years ago

@ ooglyboggles

Courtesy of one of my favourite poets, John Cooper Clarke

TO-CON-VEY ONE’S MOOD
IN SEV-EN-TEEN SYLL-ABLE-S
IS VE-RY DIF-FIC

Roger
Roger
4 years ago

“we’ve shown a number of times that immigrants aren’t a threat to your safety”

Sorry, I missed that part.

As far as I’m concerned, crime by immigrants should be near to zero. Certainly a lot less than the rate of the existing population, otherwise what is the point in bringing them in?

Just destroying people’s lives for no good reason.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
4 years ago

As far as I’m concerned, crime by immigrants should be near to zero. Certainly a lot less than the rate of the existing population, otherwise what is the point in bringing them in?

Hah hah, I’ll let someone else take this one. The short version is that this has already been addressed in the thread and even I saw it, coming in late. You are such a fucking idiot, in addition to being possibly a rapist.

Kat
Kat
4 years ago

@POM

One in ten men are rapists. Full stop.

I didn’t know that statistics existed on this.

I find this fascinating because — much like Roger claims to — I’ve experienced a lot of fear in my life. In my attempt to manage my fear and enhance my safety, I’ve created my own nonscientific statistics, based on my reading of the world.

And one in ten men is a rapist is the figure I came up with.

I based this on what I knew for a fact: that men who rape, rape more than one woman, usually several women or a lot of women.

I also based it on reports from my friends — unprompted reports. Lots of them have been raped.

One in ten men is a rapist.

But I see no need to ban men from immigrating. For one thing, 90 percent of them don’t rape. For another, I know that men — like other living creatures — can be taught to behave in pro-social ways.

And those that can’t can be removed from society until they learn to become pro-social.

That said, no one is ever completely safe. That’s life among the living.

OoglyBoggles
OoglyBoggles
4 years ago

@Alan
I love Judge Dredd too much to let such an obvious reference go unsaid. It is my favorite comic book and it always gives me a good laugh no matter what issue I flip through.

How amusing. I really should read some of his works. But his poem is pretty much why I do that. I can’t articulate myself when it comes to bigoted scaredy cats with their pseudoscience without cursing like a drunken sailor. So instead I limit myself to seventeen syllables, sometimes more with a quatrain or a canto. Because honestly everyone else has done a very, very thourough job of debunking his nonsense with citations and highlighting absurdities. I might as well find some way to contribute.

Kat
Kat
4 years ago

Roger is so unintentionally funny trying to act as though he’s serious in his mansplainin’.

But also, you know, trying to make it clear that he’s kidding around, yanking our chain.

What a goofball!

As though we don’t all live in the real world, some of us as women, who (naturally) take our own personal safety really seriously.

Personally, I’ve been the least safe with my own family, the people whose DNA is closest to my own. I don’t advocate deporting them — sorry, Roger, nowhere to send those people outside the USA. I also don’t advocate deporting myself, which Roger would want to do, just based on the fact that my DNA makes me closely related to dangerous people. So sorry, Roger, I am also undeportable — you’ll just have to deal with it.

Nah, I’ll just do my best to keep myself safe while also experiencing life among many kinds of people in a big city — and in a neighborhood that isn’t completely free of crime! Also, I own no gun. I’m walking around a big city in the USA in possession of a vagina and with no gun.

Am I some kind of superhero — or what???!!!

ETA: POM, thanks for the linx!

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
4 years ago

@ ooglyboggles

If you like cursing once again Mr Cooper Clarke is your man.

https://youtu.be/3KgB-sI2H-c

Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
4 years ago

@Oogly

I might as well find some way to contribute

And a wonderful contribution indeed

@Roach

As far as I’m concerned, crime by immigrants should be near to zero. Certainly a lot less than the rate of the existing population, otherwise what is the point in bringing them in?

I could think of 1004 reasons, but what would be the point?
“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself”

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
4 years ago

As far as I’m concerned, crime by immigrants should be near to zero. Certainly a lot less than the rate of the existing population, otherwise what is the point in bringing them in?

Just destroying people’s lives for no good reason.

It is. Like I linked.

Here, let me link it again for you.
And another link.
And another link.
And another link.
Here’ the Wikipedia article. Take a look at how many footnotes there are on that first sentence. Each one is its own link to a source.

Yet another example where you figure that your gut instinct is good enough, but turns out to be entirely, completely wrong, and leads your to a terrible conclusion.

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
4 years ago

I think you’re a superhero, @Kat.

Ooglyboggles
4 years ago

@Axe
At least I’m glad it wasn’t that self indulgent.
@Roger
The professionals
Find your claims completely false.
You insipid shit.

Give me evidence
That all those links are untrue.
Reveal them to me.

Grant us your insight
Your so called “Ace in the Hole.”
Don’t leave us hanging.

dlouwe
dlouwe
4 years ago

Take a look at how many footnotes there are on that first sentence.

Holy crap, that’s almost comical. Like the editors are saying “DO YOU BELIEVE US NOW??”

Handsome "Punkle Stan" Jack

Anyone know any good hairstyle mods for men for Skyrim? That isn’t anime style? All the mods I’ve found are for women, pretty much. Men deserve good hair too, ya know.

Megalibrarygirl
Megalibrarygirl
4 years ago

You all are doing a great job explaining everything that is wrong with Roger’s comments. But I wanted to give my 2 cents also because I’m so sick of bigotry.

I’m not afraid of brown people, just the one’s who get up to mischief.

Why would anyone say this if they weren’t a bigot? I say “I’m afraid of people who hurt other people,” I’m not going to single out a race or nationality.

I can’t believe we have bigotry disguised thinly as “concern” or just “evolution psych” or saying “non pc stuff” or whatever in this century. 🙁

littleknown
littleknown
4 years ago

@ Scildfreja

Thanks for the links. Sadly, I’m not confident Roger will read them.

Plus, he seems to think that the pain of losing a loved one to violence is indirectly proportional to how many generations the person’s family has been in the country. So, even though immigrants actually decrease the violent crime rate of the country, they are all bad if a single one of them kills a True American.

We should only allow immigration of religious and ethnic groups you don’t like if no one from those groups ever commits murder…how they compare to the native population doesn’t matter…is that about right, Roger? Good, kindly fuck off and take your bigotry with you.

Brony, Social Justice Cenobite

For something more positive I thought I would share some things I’m putting into a blog post. I made this before some of the first bronies ate themselves after their exodus from 4chan. Fandoms do funny things to people. I joined a social descendant of 4chan.

http://i.imgur.com/VfUbXIo.jpg

It became habit and evolved.

http://i.imgur.com/MCiBCBW.jpg