“Feminized vegans” leave the UK open to immigrant infiltration, and other barmy insights from Daily Mail readers

I suppose you guys are already looking for a way to pin this one on me too.

*tilts head in confusion* Uhm, are you from Charlotte? Are you there now? Have the police come to arrest you for the shooting, wherever you’re at? Did you tell the guy on a message board to go shoot people? If not, then it’s unlikely anyone here is going to try and pin this on you.

And I believe Weird Eddie was mostly addressing John and the assorted visiting lurkers, if anyone. Though he can say for himself who he was talking to when he comes back to this thread.

@kupo

Spoiler alert!! Theyre all the same dude. Lolol thats what i always say about our trolls hahaha

@Viscaria

“I think you may have missed my point.”

Almost certainly, yes I have. I’d not really followed the full conversation, and thought the actual origin of the phrase might be interesting, whatever point was being made to this John character, who I’d got fed up of reading at this point.

@Kupo

No need to be snotty.

@Chris Oakley

You know, freak-outs like yours make me wonder if male egos might be too fragile to hold positions of power. And… who are you again?
Oh, the jerk who doesn’t get why flowery forms of “that guy so craaaazy!” isn’t compliant with the comment policy against abelism. In other words THE VICTIM (TM)

C’mon, it’s not like I can afford to keep quiet when someone takes a blatant and unprovoked personal attack against me. This proves that I was right two weeks ago when I said escalation is the only appropriate way to deal with these situations.

I know Chris has been banned now (thanks, David!), but I’m incredibly amused by this assertion.

“You see?! You see?! My actions of two weeks ago are the only appropriate way to deal with this thing! As evidenced by the fact that this thing apparently just happened again in spite of my TOTALLY APPROPRIATE reaction to the same supposed thing in the past!!! The system works! Escalation definitely accomplished…. something!”

Well, I suppose it did accomplish something. It got you banned, and good riddance. There won’t be any targeted smear campaigns against you because the commentariat will forget your existence in short order. (Well, unless you come back with a sock, like the troll you are.)

You’re so vain
You probably think this post is about you
You’re so vain (so vain!)
I bet you think this post is about you
Don’t you
Don’t you
Don’t you

Me:

Do you think it’s okay to hit someone who used words in a way that hurt your feelings?

Chris Oakley:

Eddie took a blatant, intentional, vicious, and unprovoked cheap shot against me. There was absolutely no way I could afford to let it go.

…oooookay.

So I have just one more question: Which part of what you said was a “yes” or a “no”?

Really sorry to hear about your friend, Dave. Wishing you both the best.

Good grief, Charlie Brown! I’m flashing back to the Ablism Wars of 2014…

I was going to make a tiny observation, but a big NEVERMIND.

Best wishes to your friend, David, and hope she gets well soon.
?

David – I’m sorry about your friend, too. I have a friend who’s dealing with this too, with her dad. It’s horrible.

Anonymous – I do know it’s hard to make a bunch of people with guns into a fighting force. But again, these folks aren’t all stupid and a fair number of them are ex-military, currently LEOs, or both. Not to mention that there are more than a few in (US) active duty right now. I wish I could dismiss them all as bumbling Keystone Kops or F-Troopers, but I don’t think it’s wise.

As far as the not-lamented-recently-banned John goes, we’ve had our fair share of polite and reasonable people with horrible views. Folks here go a few rounds with them, us lurkers* learn a lot, then they either flounce (if they get tired of it first) or get banned (if commenters or David get tired of it first.) T’was ever thus.

But civil or not, it gets tiring to be told that women have it coming to us. Even if the interlocutor agrees that hitting women is wrong, insisting that we constantly (and perhaps deliberately) provoke the desire to hit us, is nothing less than a veiled threat.

Not aimed specifically at Anonymous or John, but related: It’s been said before in this very thread; but talking about men hitting women sometimes seems to me as though it’s implied that men hitting men (or women hitting women or whatever) in a fit of pique is okay. It’s not. How about nobody hits anybody else? With self-defense caveats, ofc, as has been stated above.

*believe it or not, I’m not usually this chatty

If John is still reading, I hope he reflects on what he said, the *words* he chose to express himself, and why what he thought he said was taken differently by people here.

Also, why he felt the need to keep bringing up his sex life, and all the (young? we never got clarification on that) chicks he now gets, since he has conformed to a more traditional masculinity.

I mean, he did stop, but it was brought up more times than I would expect or is really socially acceptable. (Especially in a space that knows that there are different levels of sex drives, and doesn’t award people ‘best person’ status depending on their stud-liness.)

I really hope that he takes his interactions here as a starting point to keep learning, instead of a ‘feminists are too invested in being the purity police! I’ll no longer be an MRA, but I won’t look into any more social justice stuff!!!’

Because feminists, especially in a feminist space, don’t have to put up with people being… Hmm, I’m looking for a better word, but I’d go with ‘ignorant asshats’.

It’s very tiring to do 101 stuff again and again, and not everyone has the patience for it. Some people try, some people are fed up, and some people will just ignore it. This is because the chances of it being someone who really wants to learn are usually pretty small.

Re: Chris – This wasn’t about you. You were lumped into the ‘needing to examine the language you use to help stop reinforcing and giving cover to bad behaviour’, I suppose, but it wasn’t a pointed thing.

I keep trying to think about the language I use, because it is so powerful in shaping how we think. The words we use shape our understanding, and also have definitions beyond the surface. Realising how unspoken baggage affects people is a continuing effort, one that probably will never be done.

ETA: OH GEEZ, also best wishes for your friend, David!!!

Anonymous, well depends on what you find ridicolous about him, being you a Trump supporter, which is curious, but I agree that apparently he didn’t violate the policy and I don’t mean with that it should be applied literally.
He might have been trolling, but no benefit of doubt? In the case he actually was an ex redpill, what if he actually disagrees on most of that bunk but he still has poor wording or language and some awkward ness.
He might feel in a limb where red pillers view him as a cuck-traitor and feminist blogs view him as a troll.
Of course if he goes crying on rp “sjw have banned me, you were right” it would not be worth having him around to start with, but we don’t know that. I might be wrong. or at least having him explaining his whole position first. I admit I’m curious of what he was about to say.
To recap, he started by explaining the logic of terper

https://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2019/04/25/does-female-pleasure-matter-incels-wonder-also-possibly-answering-the-question-as-to-why-theyre-incels/comment-page-2/#comments
made it in a way that appaeared too clinical and detached,

How is this confusing? The point (such that it is) is that women would have sex with less desirable men if they were not motivated by pleasure.

As entrance, it’s quite dismaying and arrogant sounding, I admit, in front of such proposition. Making it sound as if it was remotely logic the idea that women who could not experience pleasure would throw at themeelves!
not evidently dissociated at first, but as he said he was not defending it and used “logic” in quotes.

The shaming part could have been a misunderstanding although it was evident he was not being shamed for allegedly getting laid frequently or without string attached.
But it was for

On female sexual pleasure: Yeah, it’s super important, duh. That’s how you keep them coming back.

it’s clear he was trying to be witty, ok probably failing, made the pleasure only a cold mean to an end, but by psych-evo standards, well, it’s progressive! As we know there’s debate (!) there on whether to consider female pleasure fundamental just because ok technically one could be impregnated without orgasm, while I also always thought that pleasure is what drives women as well as men to sex and denying it show how such science suffer heavy bias. I’d not say “male bias”, as being male does not entail such views, but clearly patriarchal.
So in a way, it also keeps men coming back, if any, still in the comically utilitarian logics of Ep :).
It’s possible he was meaning that.

What he was continuously saying, is that he was not defending their logic. You might find his explanations superfluous and not interesting, that’s legit, I think he was possibly sharing with you his impression and maybe his disdain and while ranting about it here, he was trying to explain it maybe to himself first of all.
Overall he seemed an ex red pill with some left over framing, which of course it’s gonna sound irritating to some and to me too, though maybe to a smaller extent.
As it was clarified that that he wasn’t validating their ideas I understand your point of not seeing his perspective as particularly necessary or useful. You mentioned that there’s no point deconstructing or trying to understand people with such views, they’re not entitled to that and the very fact they come to embrace such hateful world view is entirely their responsability. Although I’m of the view that understanding the cause is not justifying it in anyway or victim blaming the target of the hate for having it coming, for instance, in the case of Isis, we have rightly have discussions of how imperialism could have contribute such ferocious ideology to yield on a very tiny minority of extremist jihadist muslims, but that’s not victim blaming as they target innocent western people. These events in turn contribute to foment white suprematist far right and/or extremist christian groups to make analog attacks on innocent muslims, London car charging ouside a mosque, Toronto shooting, Christchurch, still innocent muslims are not to blame, but Isis, and of course people who fuel the hate instrumentalizing such tragedies and so on. It’s a vicious circle to unprime.
Metaphors and paragons are not perfect, I’m aware so I’m open to correction or being wrong, like all of us should be :).

Yeah, John has been awkward, the soy, using it as a proxy for feminine men, while aware it was bunk, makes it worse, because that’s precisely how these kind of memes diffuse, sure, plus actually believing that not doing what he calls performative masculinity makes one feminine and even if it was the case treating it as a bad thing.
Then insisting on men losing their ehm, grip?
I agree it’s quesitonable, but we sure it was ban worthy? he seemed willing to recover and willing to explain himself, maybe apologize.

If he’s still reading, hope he goes on men’s lib or chapo and not fall in their net again, but that would be his responsibility.