It’s an all-MGTOW Saturday here on We Hunted the Mammoth. First, let’s meet a repugnant little gang of Men Going Their Own Way sharing their thoughts on rape, and how it would probably be a good thing if white women started getting raped a lot more often than they already are.
In a MGTOW subreddit discussion of the proposition that “White Women are clearly the most priveleged [sic] group to exist in the history of the human race,” several Reddit MGTOWs suggest that this terrible problem may soon solve itself, with rape.
![hiper4 21 points 1 day ago* Well they are probably going to go from most priveleged to most raped in the not too distant future. If the pendulum goes to one extreme like we are seeing with western women at the moment than it will naturally overcompensate to the other extreme in order to find balance again... so women and girls got something coming. permalinkembedunsavereportgive goldreply [–]SixteenthRiver06 6 points 1 day ago All of the "embrace Muslim refugees!" Will be the pendulum swinging back for them. Trust. permalinkembedsaveparentreportgive goldreply [–]MRALawyer 2 points 1 day ago They're getting their just desserts.](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/whitewomen.png?ssl=1)
Naturally, all these comments have gotten upvotes, because, in case you’ve forgotten, Men Going Their Own Way is a straight-up hate movement.
Why does Reddit give these guys a forum for this shit?
http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/02/social-justice-abuse-ipv/
I found it!
Oh, good, now Victoria’s snipe trolling. Lovely.
@Judas
Which are you madder about? That she spoke out of turn and not in accordance with her station relative to yours as befits your… heroism. Or the idea that she hasn’t been viciously attacked by fascists. Which would you prefer? That she not speak to her betters in such an impudent fashion. Or that she goes and courts a beating first, just so she has the credentials. Don’t answer, there’s no good answer
https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7aTpVyQCkQKfekVy/
Merlyn – I seriously would LOVE to know how women talking about oppression and patriarchy is in ANY way similar (and therefore should not be given a public forum) to men saying that women should be raped more because they are so ‘uppity’. PLEASE TELL ME!
I’ve heard a little about MGTOWers and only recently started reading this blog, but dayyuum, these are some disturbing people. My adult self reminds me they are lonely, socially awkward and feel themselves to be completely without power. My adult self frequently allows strangers to engage me at bus stops because they seem to need to practice engaging other humans. My inner self says, “What a bunch of zit-faced losers,” and wonders if there is some way to track these jerks 24/7.
SFHC, I like your description of freeze peachers. Mine left out the off-line type by accident.
Why does Reddit give these guys a forum for this shit?
Because Reddit is a pit run by shitfuckers. They’ll ban someone for posting movie spoilers, but they go all Freeze Peach about incitement to rape and murder, not to mention flat-out threats and doxxing.
MGTOWs are not necessarily any of those things. “Lonely,” “without power,” and especially “socially awkward” are not diagnostic for “asshole,” and assholes do not have to be all or any of those things.
@EJ
And there goes coffee up my nose.
I wonder how much they can try to top each other in horribleness before one of them tries to do awful shit outside of the subreddit just to prove himself.
@Victoria And how is that relevant in this case?
Because the admins are either spineless or scum.
@SFHC, thank you genuinely for the willingness to engage with me. I think different people here use it differently; I was curious specifically what *you* meant.
I’m not going to defend people who say or do bad things. My position on hate speech and free speech generally is based upon the notion that as much authority we give to governments to police speech based upon its content is precisely as much authority as will be used against the speech of traditionally marginalized groups.
In other words, start with laws against hate speech, mix in a little of the new fangled “religious freedom restoration” shibboleth, and you have a recipe for criminalizing LGBTQ advocacy.
If you’re of the opinion that we can craft and codify those kinds of laws and somehow assure that they aren’t turned against traditionally marginalized groups, I will agree to disagree. I don’t think that’s how the system works.
Brandy Turing:
Canada has anti hate speech laws and we have not ended up criminalizing LGTBQ advocacy. In fact it could be argued that are greatest flaw is that we don’t enforce those laws enough.
@Fishy Goat: Victoria is bringing that up in regard to the exchange between SFHC and Judas Peckerwood. He found her verbal abuse of him to be overly-aggressive, which in turn set her off further. Then he decided to macho-posture back to shore up his anti-fascist bonafides as it descended into them both being dicks to each other.
For the record, I agree with SFHC and others that people who are able to say “I don’t agree with what you say but will fight to the death for your right to say it” about hate speech generally aren’t those that are already being threatened with death BY those speakers. This is what is meant by privilege. You can afford to be virtuously above-it-all because at the end of the day, you aren’t a target (yet).
For the record, I also agree SFHC decided to flame and challenge Judas’s integrity and adherence to cause for daring to deviate from her political orthodoxy, while other people showed that yes, you can get her basic point across in a much more effective way.
And already, I can tell that this will get people angry about “tone policing”: Why does the woman always have to be the “nice one” to coddle men’s hurt feelings? And that’s a relevant complaint in a lot of interactions. People shouldn’t have to be kind when another person is being an ass. However, Judas hadn’t said anything rude (only politely misguided) up to that point, and SFHC went into immediate attack mode, likely because of patience being exhausted by other people who were actually trolling/disingenuous, or perhaps just the day-to-day exhaustions of her life. He responded by expressing his own anger and bewilderment, which was partly justified and partly not, and kind of being a swaggering, flexing jerk about it.
And then sides get chosen up. And fractures and schisms happen. And people that are basically on the same side spend more time waging a jihad of purity on each other than real threats. Or everyone can step back, breathe, and appreciate the basic decency of each other, work past the flaws, and be stronger for it.
@Chimeric
Could you don’t, pls? Cos that’s uncool…
Judas Peckerwood called out Feline in my defense on this:
It’s strongly worded, but I wasn’t bothered by it. It would seem hypocritical to say that I support free speech and then get all pearl-clutchy because someone uses strong language at me.
If Feline’s conditionals *were* meant to imply that I’m the kind of person who whines about neo-nazis in germany or the kind of person who places the founding fathers of the US on a pedestal, defending free speech because of allegiance to constitutional originalism — and I don’t think they were — then that implication would be false.
I took them at face value as conditionals and neither describes a thing that I would do.
@ChimericMind
There was no verbal abuse hurled at Judas Peckerwood. Your whole rant is flawed and makes it look like you side with Judas and feel personally attacked by the discussion.
The problem with this is that the people who are already oppressed, who are vulnerable to the negative effects of hate speech are actively harmed by this “compromise” while the “free speech” advocates lose nothing by simply not engaging in their “philosophic” wankery.
What in the almighty flying fuckcopter are you talking about? I make no bones about being righteously yet rightfully abrasive, but I’ve only directed one post at Judas so far and it was 25 words long.
Wait, I think I get it, you’ve confused either me with Dali or Judas with Brandy.
@Kat
Going into English teacher and grammar nerd mode here, but it is more correctly spelt “deserts” as the derivation is from “deserve” which has a single ‘s’.
I’m all for receiving my just desserts though – bring on the chocolate mousse!!!
@Judas Peckerwood:
And you’re welcome to your opinion as well. And I am well within my rights to disapprove of the demands of a great many “free-speech advocates” that I agree with them that their absolutist conception of freedom of speech is the only legitimate one. And consider these demands quite asshole-ish, indeed.
@EJ:
While your analysis isn’t wrong in the abstract, there are a couple of reasons why it’s a bit off-base in this specific case.
First, it’s predicated on an assumption of a certain fact which I have not disclosed: my gender.
Secondly,
is not accurate. I responded to Brandy Turing, but not out of any sense of specific offence, but rather to give a kicking to a behaviour that commonly follows assertions of “I don’t think hate speech should be a crime”, viz. “and any legislative body that disagrees with me is wrong-wrongity-wrong-wrong, and also illegitimate.”
@Brandy Turing:
1: Indeed they where, if formulated somewhat splenetic.
2: I am glad.
Thank you for the correction, Feline.
Is it just me or has the atmosphere in here gotten significantly more touchy and defensive over the last couple of months (I’ve lurked for years), resulting in more and quicker snappishness? Is it Trump? Extra trolls? Can we maybe abstain from angry backbiting so characteristic of our ideological opponents? Or am I out of line?
@dashapants
You’re getting dangerously close to accusing people of being too emotional. I don’t see anything different now than previously. People react proportionately to the combination of offense and pushback/doubling down.