By David Futrelle
Well, this little joke went over well on Twitter so I thought I’d post it here too.
Here’s one that didn’t go over quite as well. But it might just come to haunt your dreams.
I saw this so now you have to see it too pic.twitter.com/mSHcWXj6ou
— David Futrelle (@DavidFutrelle) August 15, 2018
Some good-ass tweets by people who aren’t me:
https://twitter.com/maddc8/status/1029184821329833986
https://twitter.com/BoringEnormous/status/1028321380213907458
Somebody waited their whole life to write this serial number pic.twitter.com/WxnKJwVbHw
— WendigoPBFox (@tmaxxnc) August 14, 2018
Accidentally shitting yourself vs. Defiantly shitting yourself to own the libs. pic.twitter.com/HIGCYuP1dJ
— Sir Woofingtons (@Sir_Woofingtons) August 15, 2018
Richard Ford:
MRAs et al are the ones who insist that men are inherently rapey. Feminists say that they don’t have to be; that it’s a choice, not nature.
I think you turned the projector backwards on this.
@Troll
So, we should go back to the way things were in the past because then we would have so much less violence? How cute. You want some actual historical data, hmm?
Middle of the 17th century, small town somewhere in west-central Germany. The documents of the local court have been analysed (because that’s what actual historians do, you know) and on average in a town of about 1000 people there were 56 people a month bringing cases to the court based on: violence due to drunkeness, domestic violence, fornication (in one case involving three people at once – never let it be said that our ancestors didn’t know how to have a good time 😉 and adultery. And all that in that nice “enforced monogamy” environment that you keep waxing on about, friend.
By the way, when and where exactly was that? With all the time I spend working as a historian I can never quite figure out what periods/places all go into your nice little fantasy land mix. Must be because I work with actual facts and not wishful thinking.
In short, shut up about “the past”, trolls. I have yet to meet one of you who had any idea what you were talking about. That past you talk about? It never existed. Go check some sources that aren’t your misogynistic internet friends’ imaginations, you’ll see what I mean.
Nope. I’m responding to your own words.
You are the one saying that it’s obvious that when men are dissatisfied with the way things are, they hurt people.
You said it. Not me. Having angry disenfranchised men is not a recipe for peace.
Why is it that disenfranchised men disrupt the peace but disenfranchised women become docile and happy? The implication is right there. That men are inherently violent. The contemporary feminist position tends to be that male violence is largely cultural. The science hasn’t fully settled whether or not men have a greater biological proclivity for violence than women. But even if there is a biological component, that can be largely overcome with a culture that discourages men from responding with violence when they don’t get their own way.
In fact, violent crime has not been rising. It’s been going down. It has actually never been safer to be alive. Now I’m not claiming feminism is solely responsible for this. There are tons of factors and it’s not 100% settled why this is. But it does rule out your claim that feminism has made men violent because they’re disenfranchised by having to only be with women who actually want to be with them.
@little
Very odd when you think I want to ‘go back’ to anything. These things are cyclical as you should know, claiming to be a historian and all.
Things were pretty ‘progressive’ around the fall of Rome. Then they got all reactionary as Europe left the dark ages. Sophisticated thinkers such as yourself no doubt think it a coincidence…
Feminists simply want to recreate Nero’s Rome. Not an ambition I share.
Me neither. I think anti-feminists believe life was a Leave it to Beaver episode until 2nd wave feminism came along.
I know that a few weeks ago I looked up marriage in Elizabethan England and apparently even though the stated rule was that the church only recognized marriages with a virgin bride, something like 40% of brides were already pregnant by the time couples got around to getting their union officially sanctioned. It was extremely common for couples to cohabitate before making it official.
Neros rome was not part of the fall of rome
@weirwoodtreehugger
How to argue like a treehugger.
1. Project feminist ideas about the evil nature of men upon a non feminist.
2. Demonstrate the absurdity of these feminist ideas.
3. Claim the fact that men do not in fact behave in the evil ways patriarchy theory would expect…. as a feminist victory!
OK… right.
@Valentin
Point taken, but no paradise despite the cross dressing and the persecuting of the Christians.
@London Pilgrim
She didn’t, but let’s try something else.
We as a society need to take steps in order to have less angry, disenfranchised women. Having so many is not a recipe for peace.
Agree or disagree?
@treehugger
There is a logical problem with your position.
For some bizarre reason you have decided to oppose the notion that large groups of disenfranchised men with no stake in the current system is a bad thing. You admit that it actually makes feminist points in a strange way. Feminists like to pretend ALL men are savages while I contend that many men are capable of becoming one.
Surely you should welcome this! I am half way to being a male feminist!!
BUT.. you have to oppose the notion.. because what is happening to men is hurting men- and this is what matters. Hurting men.
You do not want to help women. You just want to hurt men- and do not mind if women get hurt in the process.
People who use the fall of rome to describe today do not understand history or time at all. you know how long was the fall of rome? you talking about 100 years ago, but the fall of rome is longer than all of “modern” history. you can’t compare them! and don’t even start to talk about “reasons” for rome falling. historians still argue about this today and it is hard to say what is true because it is so long ago, they must work hard with archaeologists and study to find evidence. (something wich Jordan Peterson and his followers don’t have – evidence?)
but we have living memory of 100 years before now, we have footage and photographs. we have truth to easily show that Jordan Peterson is lying and hypocrite.
@makroth
Agree obviously. The problem is that telling women there is a Patriarchy is a very good excuse to give up on life.
@ WWTH
You might find this amusing/interesting.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x335ow3
(The woman in this wrote and starred in a horror film called ‘Prevenge’ that you also might enjoy)
You haven’t actually backed up your claim that men are disenfranchised.
You haven’t backed up your claim that there more angry violent men now than there was in the past. The whole premise of your argument is faulty.
That’s before we even get to your conclusions. Which are also faulty. The burden of proof is on you to back up your claims. How I do or don’t feel about disenfranchised is irrelevant.
Point to where anyone here has stated that all men are savages. You can’t used “feminists think all men are savages” to refute anything any of argue until you can demonstrate that we do think all men are savages.
Be clear and concise.
Are men increasingly angry and disenfranchised? Yes or no. Provide evidence backing up the claim.
If yes, what is your solution? What specifically do you want to happen to make men less angry. What government policies should be put in place? What other specific changes in education or media need to be made.
@valentin
There are certain common factors within empires that fall. One is sexual indulgence and gender confusion. Greece Rome Egypt and possible all others.
Debt and welfare seem to be in the mix too. It certainly was with the British empire.
Of course we cannot say with certainty these were the causes- but so far the coincidence seems to be 100%.
Slightly higher than chance.
USA maybe has imperialist policy but it isn’t a empire. It’s a capitalist state and lots of problems you said are problems with capitalism and greed. The USA is also a very young country compared with many other counties and it is so so young compared with rome! you are talking nonsense to try and seem educated. ?
Pfft, this troll is crap.
@London Pilgrim
So you want them to be lied to? Specifically, lied by omission? And how many actually do give up on life. Do you have any studies to show us?
Somebody here said it best when they said that you IMPLICITLY want women to be sacrificial lambs for violent men. You leave out men’s obligations out of this “new order” of yours so there will be assumptions to fill in the gaps. In many ways, you resemble Jordan Peterson. Vagueness is one of them.
I think the best course of action is to make incels stop entitled, sadistic, radioactive turds.
But if you have a better solution, learn from the faults of JBP, and be precise in your words when presenting it.
Do tell.
Please point to the portion of her text where she says that.
Please point to the portion of her text where she says that.
Please provide evidence to support this claim.
Uh huh.
As this is your opinion, it isn’t objectively verifiable, but its argumentative value is exactly equal to that of my opinion that this statement is a steaming pile of bullshit.
Why?
Matters to whom?
If you’re implying that that’s what matters to weirwoodtreehugger, then please point to the portion of her text where she says that.
If you’re implying that that’s what matters to feminists in general, then please provide evidence to support this claim.
Even if all of your claims about what weirwoodtreehugger was saying were true, this is not a logical conclusion. It might be true, but there are many other possible motives – most of which are far more plausible – that could generate the same rhetoric from her.
But until you can provide any evidence to support your claims about what you claim weirwoodtreehugger said, it’s not even wrong. It’s just stupid.
…and even if your claim about weirwoodtreehugger not caring about women were true, once again, this would not be a logical conclusion.
You really just don’t know what the fuck you’re doing about anything, do you? That’s pretty pathetic.
@valentin
The Soviet Union was even younger. Had plenty of debt, was relatively sexually conservative in theory at least. The fact that it did not call itself an empire did not help.
Loads of divorce. Loads of abortion.
At least the USA has a saviour in Trump.
History never exactly repeats.
@ London Pilgrim
Contemporary Roman conservatives blamed the adoption of trousers. It was probably more complex than that; but I’ve never seen any reputable historian (or any historian come to that) even mention ‘gender confusion’
Well another view is that we’d armed tens of millions of people who’d just had a five year course in how to defeat colonialists. That certainly what swung it with Jinna’s India. But again, not a mention of gender confusion.
@Troll
Ahahahahahahahaha…. Sorry.
And yes, we do have some pretty good theories about why those fell and…that is not one of them. Not since historians have moved beyond the sheltered Victorian gentleman who enjoyed being shocked by all those delightfully scandalous tales in some of the sources. Propaganda? Invective? Tropes? Perish the thought.
And Greece? The “Empire” of “Greece”?
What the fuck are you even talking about? Antiquity? Someone should go back in time and tell all those poleis they are actually all part of the “Empire” of “Greece”… not, you know, different entities that are competing with each other all the damned time. But why am I even trying? I’ll just go back to laughing.
@makroth
Thank you. You are the first person not to put words into my mouth. I feel you are an honest person.
You believe I implicitly believe things I do not because you are in a bubble that believes bad things about men and bad things about right wingers.
My solution is a society that does not devide men into Alpha and Beta in such a savage and perminant way.
I would like it to be possible for a man who is unlucky in love to be respected for the good he does in the world even if he remains a virgin till the day he dies.
Is virginity such a crime? Does it really make a man a useless loser or a creep or does he remain a human being?
I think most incels could be reconciled to their status if only they were respected as people. To tell lies about them- based on nothing but bigotry drives them to the margins and this is dangerous.
What is your point? I’m not comparing modern day to the fall of rome – that’s you! Of course the reasons for collapse of СССР are different from the fall of the Roman empire – I’m not saying that at all. The reasons for collapse of empires and political structures are not all the same and not all clear. Why anyone will argue this at all? Unless they don’t know anything about history, or they are lying to support their ideology (I can guess which reason for you lobster?)
You don’t feel tired moving the goal posts so much!? take rest my friend.
Divorce and single mothers were supported in Soviet times to make sure children were born, to discourage abortion and increase population. And abortion was popular only because other birth control is not available for most people, especially if they don’t live in the city and they are not part of nomenklatura or academic groups.