Categories
creepy evil women men who should not ever be with women ever nice guys threats

How to creep out the entire internet, lovelorn banker edition

Try dressing as a nun. Then maybe he'll go away.

Dating can be tough. It can be especially tough if your personality is a mixture of petulance and insecurity. And even tougher if you think you can argue someone who’s not interested in you into a second date with an angry, accusatory, sometimes hilarious, sometimes deeply unsettling 1600-word email. And no, I’m not speaking hypothetically here.

The email in question, written by a young investment banker named Mike to  an unfortunate woman named Lauren after one less-than-great date, was posted on Reddit a couple of days ago, and has already gotten a lot of internetty attention, but some of you may not have seen it, so I thought I’d give it a little fisking anyway. Settle in; it’s going to be a long and bumpy ride. (Note: What follows below is most of the email; I’ve cut out a few passages here and there.)

Hi Lauren,

I’m disappointed in you. I’m disappointed that I haven’t gotten a response to my voicemail and text messages.

Well, we’re off to a not-so-good start. Perhaps she is, as they say, just not that into you?

FYI, I suggest that you keep in mind that emails sound more impersonal, harsher, and are easier to misinterpret than in-person or phone communication. After all, people can’t see someone’s body language or tone of voice in an email. I’m not trying to be harsh, patronizing, or insulting in this email. I’m honest and direct by nature, and I’m going to be that way in this email.

Gosh, I wonder why Lauren didn’t get back to him.

By the way, I did a google search, so that’s how I came across your email.

Google-stalking – always a nice touch. There’s no better way to charm a nice lady than by tracking down her personal information online.

I assume that you no longer want to go out with me. (If you do want to go out with me, then you should let me know.) I suggest that you make a sincere apology to me for giving me mixed signals. I feel led on by you.

Uh, what? She’s ignoring you, dude. She doesn’t want to go out with you. Seems to me she’s sending you a pretty unmixed message here.

Should she have responded to your voicemail and/or texts? In an ideal world, perhaps, but she may have sensed that you’d react precisely how you’re reacting now, and didn’t want to have anything more to do with your creepy, entitled bullshit.

And now Mike the banker makes his, er, “case” for why she should go on a second date with him:

Things that happened during our date include, but are not limited to, the following:

-You played with your hair a lot. A woman playing with her hair is a common sign of flirtation. You can even do a google search on it. When a woman plays with her hair, she is preening. I’ve never had a date where a woman played with her hair as much as you did. In addition, it didn’t look like you were playing with your hair out of nervousness.

You were flirting!! Hair-twirling = sex! If you don’t realize it you can google search it!!!

-We had lots of eye contact during our date. On a per-minute basis, I’ve never had as much eye contact during a date as I did with you.

Eye contact is an Indicator of Interest. IOI! IOI! If you didn’t want to bear my children why did you look at me, with your eyes????

-You said, “It was nice to meet you.” at the end of our date. A woman could say this statement as a way to show that she isn’t interested in seeing a man again or she could mean what she said–that it was nice to meet you. The statement, by itself, is inconclusive.

Well, not really. This is what people say to be polite at the end of a disappointing date, when they don’t want to see you again.  If she wanted to see you again, she would have said something about making plans for a second date.

-We had a nice conversation over dinner. I don’t think I’m being delusional in saying this statement.

We had a conversation! You did not flee in horror! Therefore you must have my babies!!!

In my opinion, leading someone on (i.e., giving mixed signals) is impolite and immature. It’s bad to do that.

And sending someone who clearly wants nothing to do with you a long, creepy, accusatory tirade is polite?

Normally, I would not be asking for information if a woman and I don’t go out again after a first date. However, in our case, I’m curious because I think our date went well and that there is a lot of potential for a serious relationship. 

Dude, you do understand that she has to actually like you too in order for there to be a relationship?

I think we should go out on a second date. In my opinion, our first date was good enough to lead to a second date.

You cannot argue someone into a second date! That’s not how it works.

Why am I writing you? Well, hopefully, we will go out again. Even if we don’t, I gain utility from expressing my thoughts to you.

Gain utility? Really? DATING IS NOT MICROECONOMICS!

In addition, even if you don’t want to go out again, I would like to get feedback as to why you wouldn’t want to go again. Normally, I wouldn’t ask a woman for this type of feedback after a first date, but this is an exception given I think we have a lot of potential.

Well, banker dude. You’re getting some feedback now. All over the internet.

If you don’t want to go again, then apparently you didn’t think our first date was good enough to lead to a second date. Dating or a relationship is not a Hollywood movie. It’s good to keep that in mind. In general, I thought the date went well and was expecting that we would go out on a second date.

So your argument is that she should go out with you, even though she doesn’t want to go out with you, because life isn’t perfect and you’re probably the best she really deserves?

Way to sell yourself, dude.

If you’re not interested in going out again, then I would have preferred if you hadn’t given those mixed signals. I feel led on.

Well, she’s not really responsible for you thinking that every woman who twirls her hair in your presence wants to have your babies.

We have a number of things in common.

Oh dear, sounds like we’ve got another “logical” argument coming up here.

I’ll name a few things: First, we’ve both very intelligent. Second, we both like classical music so much that we go to classical music performances by ourselves. In fact, the number one interest that I would want to have in common with a woman with whom I’m in a relationship is a liking of classical music. I wouldn’t be seriously involved with a woman if she didn’t like classical music. You said that you’re planning to go the NY Philharmonic more often in the future. As I said, I go to the NY Philharmonic often. You’re very busy. It would be very convenient for you to date me because we have the same interests. We already go to classical music performances by ourselves. If we go to classical music performances together, it wouldn’t take any significant additional time on your part.

Um, what?

I have no clever remark to make here, other than that Lauren is probably going to have to avoid going to the Philharmonic ever again, on the off chance she might run into banker Mike.

According to the internet, you’re 33 or 32, so, at least from my point of view, we’re a good match in terms of age.

YOU ARE RIGHT AGE. INTERNET SAYS SO. THEREFORE YOU MUST DATE ME.

 I could name more things that we have in common, but I’ll stop here. I don’t understand why you apparently don’t want to go out with me again. We have numerous things in common.

Also, you both require oxygen to live. Lauren, can’t you see that you and banker Mike are soulmates?

I assume that you find me physically attractive. If you didn’t find me physically attractive, then it would have been irrational for you to go out with me in the first place. After all, our first date was not a blind date. You already knew what I looked like before our date.

Banker Mike: You said you wanted feedback. Here is some feedback. She was apparently not horrified by your physical appearance. It may be your horrible personality that needs some work.

Perhaps, you’re unimpressed that I manage my family’s investments and my own investments. Perhaps, you don’t think I have a “real” job. Well, I’ve done very well as an investment manager. I’ve made my parents several millions of dollars. That’s real money. That’s not monopoly money. In my opinion, if I make real money, it’s a real job. Donald Trump’s children work for his company. Do they have “real” jobs? I think so. George Soros’s sons help manage their family investments. Do they have “real” jobs? I think so.

You’re fighting a losing battle here, dude. Just as you cannot argue someone into liking you, you cannot argue someone into being impressed that you manage your parents’ money.

In addition, I’m both a right-brain and left-brain man, given that I’m both an investment manager and a philosopher/writer.

And I’m the Queen of Denmark.

That’s a unique characteristic; most people aren’t like that. I’ve never been as disappointed and sad about having difficulty about getting a second date as I am with you.

Oy. As if this email wasn’t stalkerish enough already.

I’ve gone out with a lot of women in my life. (FYI, I’m not a serial dater. Sometimes, I’ve only gone out with a woman for one date.)

This last bit I have no trouble believing.

I suggest that we continue to go out and see what happens.

I suspect that Lauren has already played out various scenarios in her head already, and that none of them end well.

Needless to say, I find you less appealing now (given that you haven’t returned my messages) than I did at our first date. However, I would be willing to go out with you again. I’m open minded and flexible and am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I wish you would give me the benefit of the doubt too.

So now you’re being noble and “open minded” for trying to pressure a woman who wants nothing to do with you into a second date?

If you don’t want to go out again, in my opinion, you would be making a big mistake, perhaps one of the biggest mistakes in your life.

Now you’re just making my skin crawl.

I spent time, effort, and money meeting you for dinner. Getting back to me in response to my messages would have been a reasonable thing for you to do. In addition, you arrived about 30 minutes late for our date. I’m sure you wouldn’t like it if a man showed up thirty minutes late for a first date with you.

Here’s a solution, dude: How about she never goes on another date with you, ever. Then you won’t ever have to worry about her being late ever again.

If you’re concerned that you will hurt my feelings by providing specific information about why you don’t want to go with me again, well, my feeling are already hurt. I’m sad and disappointed about this situation. If you give information, at least I can understand the situation better. I might even learn something that is beneficial.

I hope you find the feedback that the internet has now provided you to be helpful.

If you don’t want to go out again, that I request that you call me and make a sincere apology for leading me on (i.e., giving me mixed signals).

Now we’re back on this again.

In my opinion, you shouldn’t act that way toward a man and then not go out with him again. It’s bad to play with your hair so much and make so much eye contact if you’re not interested in going out with me again.

Damn you, foul strumpet, and your devious hair-playing ways! Google it! GOOGLE IT!!!

I would like to talk to you on the phone.

I think you’ve pretty much guaranteed that this will never, ever happen.

Even if you don’t want to go out again, I would appreciate it if you give me the courtesy of calling me and talking to me. Yes, you might say things that hurt me, but my feelings are already hurt. Sending me an email response (instead of talking on the phone) would better than no response at all, but I think it would be better to talk on the phone. Email communication has too much potential for misinterpretation, etc.

Not much to misinterpret here, Mike. You’ve made it absolutely crystal clear that you’re an undateable creep.

Let me be serious for a moment. Forget about Lauren. Hell, forget about women in general for a while, and work on yourself. Get some therapy; you can afford it. Work through your bitterness, your petulance, your highly unattractive mixture of entitlement and insecurity. Stop being a “Nice Guy” and learn to be genuinely nice.

And don’t ever, ever, ever write another email like this one.

 

 

Categories
$MONEY$ antifeminism evil women marriage strike misogyny MRA oppressed men reactionary bullshit

You May Kiss the Other Bride: Girl-on-Girl “Feminist Marriage” will destroy America, apparently.

Our dystopian future.

MRAs, and manosphere dudes in general, tend to have some strange notions about marriage, many of them believing it to be little more than an elaborate scam, perpetrated by women, to rob men of their money and freedom and even their precious bodily fluids.

Given that they generally see marriage as a tool that women use to pry money from men, MRAs tend to be simply baffled by the very idea of gay marriage, and lesbian marriage in particular – why would any woman want to marry another woman instead of a man whom she could exploit?

Now the right-wing Center for Marriage Policy has put forth a case against gay marriage that’s even more bizarrely conspiracy minded than any MRA screed on the evils of straight marriage.

In a recent post on the Center for Marriage Policy website, the group’s president, David R. Usher, argues that proponents of gay marriage like the National Organization for Women are using the issue as a Trojan horse to promote a new kind of evil he calls “feminist marriage.”

Forget the adjectives “same sex” and “gay” as prepends to marriage.  These are victim-based marketing ploys invented by NOW to send us off into a heated debate about homosexuality and equal rights – distracting us from seeing their real goal of establishing “feminist marriage.”

Feminists … intend to convert marriage into a feminist-controlled government enterprise and subordinate the rest of America to fund it.

So what exactly is the strange beast he calls “feminist marriage’?

Feminist marriage is a three-way contract between two women and government.  Most women will have children, and few women can afford or will go to the extreme of using artificial insemination to achieve pregnancy.  Government is the automatic third party collecting “child support” entitlements for children born in these marriages.

Even non-lesbian ladies will want to get on this gravy train:

Feminist marriage will be far more attractive to women than heterosexual marriage.  Sexual orientation does not matter when two women marry and become “married room-mates.”  They can still have as many boyfriends as they want and capture the richest ones for baby-daddies by “forgetting” to use their invisible forms of birth control.  On average, a feminist marriage will have at least four income sources, two of them tax-free, plus backup welfare entitlements.

Meanwhile, those in traditional man-lady marriages will pay through the nose:

Those in traditional marriages will pay taxes that will be used to support feminist marriages where child support or welfare cannot be recouped, as occurs in our existing welfare state.  Traditional marriages have only two income sources, neither of them entitled or tax-free.  Over time, many women will prefer “feminist marriage” because of the very substantial economic and sexual liberation advantages.  Heterosexual marriage will be heavily burdened by costly marriage penalties, and be comparatively unattractive to women.

But what about dudes who marry each other? Tough luck, fellas!

Marriages between two men are destined to be the “marital underclass.”  In most cases, these men will become unconsenting “fathers.”   Women in feminist marriages will not mention they are not using birth control.   Men in male-male marriages will be forced to pay child support to women in feminist marriages and become economically enslaved to these women.

Apparently, most of the dudes who marry other dudes will not actually be gay.

Most men in these marriages will still have regular sexual encounters with women.  Some men in these “marriages” will want to have children.  These men will have even more illegitimate children with women in (or contemplating) feminist marriages, most often without informed reproductive consent. Over time, reproductive fraud will become the norm in the United States.

In addition to being so very very evil, feminist marriage is apparently very very complicated.

Women will no doubt enjoy the financial benefits of these new arrangements. But all of us – even the ladies married to other ladies — will pay in the long run  when “feminist marriage” ushers in a sort of economic fempocalypse:

Feminist marriage will demolish men’s drive to be successful, motivated workers.  It will also further weaken the American job market and harm women’s employment opportunities.  Our “Competitiveness Gap” with marriage-based Asian economies will expand as men’s productivity and educational attainment continues to decline, while increasing social problems, violence, and higher taxes stimulate businesses to remove jobs overseas.

Oh, hypothetical women using hypothetical girl-on-girl marriage to extort hypothetical money from hypothetical men, why must you be so hypothetically evil?

Even though the Center for Marriage Policy is little more than a cheerleader for traditional hetero marriage, I wouldn’t be surprised to see marriage-hating MRAs taking up this argument as their own. Politics makes strange bedfellows. As does “feminist marriage,” at least in the fevered imagination of David Usher.

Categories
antifeminism evil women false accusations idiocy misandry misogyny oppressed men western women suck

Offshoring? More like Off-whore-ing! Amirite fellas?

Women pretending to work.

All those jobs going overseas? Blame it on the ladies. At least according to MRA blogger The Fifth Horseman – the guy behind The Misandry Bubble, a bizarre apocalyptic manifesto that took the manosphere by storm last year. In a heavily upvoted comment on The Spearhead, TFH explains:

Not many people realize that outsourcing happens mostly due to feminism.

Feminists impose all sorts of costs on businesses in the US, who are forced to employ women despite the low productivity of these female employees.

Since an office is not allowed to have too many men, the next best answer is to move the entire department to India or China, where Western feminists can no longer harass it.

Since Western women cost more than what Western men produce, outsourcing is inevitable, as a means to avoid feminism.

The blogger behind the Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology blog was impressed enough with this argument that he featured it in a post of his own, adding

Plenty of people have tried to run the numbers on the offshoring of jobs, but they can never figure out where the savings are supposed to be. Business would only offshore jobs if it made financial sense, and running the numbers indicates that it doesn’t make financial sense because any savings gets eaten up by the costs of offshoring.  That is the case until you include the costs of feminism in the analysis.  When someone runs the numbers on offshoring, they don’t include things like the costs of the false sexual harassment industry, affirmative action, and pure makework jobs for women in their analysis.  As soon as feminism is included, offshoring makes perfect financial sense for business. …

If you want jobs to come back to the US (and elsewhere), then you have to eliminate feminism.

Yeah, that’s gotta be it.

 

Categories
alpha males idiocy MRA oppressed men transphobia video

ABC’s “Work It”: Drag me to MRA hell

The programming executives at ABC have been secretly replaced by alien pod-people from planet MRA. That’s really the only logical explanation for “Work It,” an upcoming ABC sitcom whose premise seems to have been lifted straight from the comments section of The Spearhead. Here’s a description of the show from ABC:

With unemployment an ongoing issue and women now outnumbering men in the workforce, the new comedy series Work It follows two alpha males who realize the only way to beat the current “mancession” and land a job in pharmaceutical sales is to pass themselves off as women.

Yep, it’s a retread of Bosom Buddies, this time sprinkled with MRA buzzwords.  Alpha males, mancession – all we need is a few false rape accusations to complete the MRA-cliche soufflé.

Gawker has already hailed the show as an abomination that “Could Be the Worst Television Show in History.” After watching the promo clip below, I’m thinking that may be an understatement.

Of course, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe this isn’t an MRA show at all. Maybe it’s just a really inept and misguided attempt to explore the issues faced by trans women in the workplace.  But somehow I doubt it.

Categories
creepy evil women hypocrisy I'm totally being sarcastic kitties MRA oppressed men paul elam violence against men/women

Katherine Heigl: Ballbusting bigot?

That's not funny?

Most people who hate Katherine Heigl hate the actress because she seems like a bit of a diva, or because she keeps appearing in annoying rom-coms, including one with Ashton Kutcher that hurts my head when I even think about it. The fellas at Register-Her.com have another reason: she hates balls.  As in, testicles.

Well, not really. What the Register-Her fellas are worked up about is a PSA she did for Funny or Die in which she claims to be in favor of neutering pets not because she loves animals but simply because she hates balls so much. At one point she declares, tongue firmly in cheek:

I can’t cut the nuts off human men … yet. So, I’ve dedicated my time to the neutering of dogs, cause that’s legal.

The joke here, as any rational person can plainly see, isn’t that cutting off balls is inherently hilarious. The joke is that an actress with a reputation as a diva is basically doing her critics one better by portraying herself as a deranged, narcissistic, supremely creepy ball-hater.  And she’s spoofing her own bad reputation for a genuinely good cause: reducing cat and dog overpopulation and therefore the number of unwanted animals that are put to death in our nation’s animal shelters.

Of course that’s not how the fellas at Register-Her.com see it. And so they’ve put Heigl on their faux “offender registry” as a “bigot.” Their explanation?

The actress’s willingness to endorse male targeted sexual mutilation betrays a bigoted indifference to sexual violence, and justifies her inclusion on this registry in the category of bigot.

Presumably the fellas at Register-Her will next go after the people who have posted the more than twenty thousand YouTube videos that feature dudes getting hit in the nuts. Surely these videos, which feature actual violence against actual human balls are a far graver threat to the balls of the world than even Katherine Heigl.

The Register-Her Action Squad might start by tracking down the (admittedly quite ingenious) ball-hating dudes involved in this video.

And then move on to all the ball-hating bigots featured here:

And here are 50 more:

Better track down the ghost of Scott Joplin, too, for providing the music to the last one from beyond the grave.

Categories
antifeminism antifeminst women evil women feminism kitties misogyny off topic video

Mostly off-topic: Cats and Bats

Inside the Mellerverse, by Holly Pervocracy

The other day Holly Pervocracy, a friend of Man Boobz with her own awesome and sometimes NSFW blog, drew the picture above, which is her best rendering of what the world apparently looks like to one of this blog’s resident trolls, a rather untraditional traditionalist named David K. Meller. On the left, an example of a fine, upstanding traditional woman, dressed in a proper ladylike manner and concerned with ladylike things  (e.g., cooking and kitties); on the right, a foul feminist.

This got me thinking: are there any videos online that depict both cats and bats? This being the internet, the answer was of course yes. So I present to you a kitty snatching a bat from the air. Kitties are fucking amazing.

Here’s another video, involving a cat and a different kind of bat.

EDITED TO ADD: Bat cat!!!! (Thanks, Katz, in the comments.)

Categories
crackpottery idiocy off topic reactionary bullshit

Women for Cain: Proof women are not always right about everything.

Yes, this is actually a thing.

MRAs, including some of this blog’s resident trolls, complain often and vociferously that feminists view women as perfect princesses, unable to do wrong. This is of course untrue, but just for you guys — the “you feminists all think women are perfect” crowd — I would like to present some women who are not perfect princesses at all. In fact, these particular women are a bunch of gullible, misguided nincompoops. I present you Women for Cain, which describes itself as

an online national fellowship of women dedicated to helping elect Herman Cain as the next President of the United States.

Of all the terrible, backwards, completely unqualified Republican presidential hopefuls, why pick this particular dude ?

Mr. Cain has been a strong advocate for women throughout his lifetime, defending and promoting the issues of quality health care, family, education, equality in the workplace and many other concerns so important to American women.

No, that’s really what it says.

Some selected quotes from women on the site explaining their love of Cain:

Sir, I firmly believe that you were sent to our nation through Divine Providence and I believe that you are the man to preserve our Republic for our children.

I’m “reassessing” my Christmas List… instead of buying misc $10 gifts for people I barely know anyway, I’m sending all that money to you. YOU are who this country needs. Please don’t let the opposition win, they are vile liars and will face God for what they’ve done to you. … I have NO doubts about you after thinking and praying about it. If Mrs. Cain is OK w/ what you did, I am.

Its disgusting these women have taken advantage of you. They are the ones with questionable character, not you.

My dad would give a waitress 100 dollar tips and I just thought since I was a child that was normal, giving unconditional that is true Christianity and I get Herman Cain and A president who will save the Republic,

Mr. Cain, To me you are the embodiment of the prayers of every faithful believing slave who turned to ALMIGHTY GOD for deliverance from slavery and inequality. …  Our God Reigns!

I cannot believe you had time for an affair. If you are ill and fighting for your life,suffering through chemotherapy,how can you have time between hospital visits and family time? Wouldn’t you be too sick to participate in a make-believe affair? You are a triple threat to the Left!! I believe these “women” are looking for money and attention and have been groomed by the “Demonacrats” to be a bunch of bad actress’.

Don’t let Satan and his demons win. Stay true to the Lord’s will and stay in this race. Remember Philippians 4:13! CAIN TRAIN is chugging!

Weird.  I looked up Philippians 4:13 and there was nothing there about a CAIN TRAIN.

Also, how much do you think the women in the banner above regret posing for those stock photos?

Categories
I'm totally being sarcastic misogyny MRA rape rapey reddit

Rape, mansplained at last. Thanks, anonymous dude on Reddit!

On Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit, Detective_Mills cuts through the complexities of the rape debate with this bit of wisdom, putting all those rape complaints from women in their proper perspective.

 

 

Sorry, did I say “women?” I meant “cuntbags.”

NOTE:

Categories
evil women I'm totally being sarcastic idiocy oppressed men reddit sex

New form of anti-male oppression discovered: Women’s magazines in checkout lines!

Yeah, I know you've all seen this one before, but, come on! It's funny!

Over on Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit, cheester warns all of us dudes about an especially insidious form of anti-male oppression: the racks of women’s magazines that lurk near the checkout counters of grocery stores everywhere!

can I get some feedback on womens magazines at the grocery checkout? Every issue states “new tricks he doesn’t know in bed” and shite like that. It’s obvious porn for the gals but why is it so accepted by everyone that it has carte blanche to be within a two foot reach as I pay for my food? If a magazine for men had on the cover: “20 Ways To Make Her Squirm Like A Fish”….there would be a national outrage.

Yeah, it’s not like Men’s magazines ever run anything like that.

Church groups and womens rights would say it demoralizes women and have the publication banned or put behind censored racks in seedy smoke shops.

Yeah. It’s not like this ever happens to women’s magazines.

But the womens mags are right there as a last shop item in the flourescent lit, sterilized, family atmosphere where every mother parades her toddlers and kids right past the 3 letter word in big black block letters;SEX on the cover of every flashy colored womens mag that comes out each month.  

Not only is this oppression of men, it’s oppression of all toddlers who can read and know what the word “sex” means.

Also, feminists have never criticized women’s magazines in any way. “Ten Ways to Make Him Squirm” articles are the distilled essence of feminism! And most of them are written by the ghost of Andrea Dworkin.

NOTE:  Does this even need a “sarcasm” tag?

 

 

Categories
creepy douchebaggery I'm totally being sarcastic idiocy men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA reddit threats

And the Redditor of the Day Award goes to … AnnArchist! No, really. It actually did, yesterday.

AnnArchist is also in the running for this prestigious award

Good news, everyone! The good folks on the RedditorOfTheDay subreddit picked our friend AnnArchist to be Redditor of the Day yesterday. He filled out a little questionnaire for the RedditorOfTheDay folks listing all sorts of fun facts about himself.

In addition to moderating the Men’s Rights subreddit and posting hilarious videos of women getting beaten up to the beatingwomen subreddit, AnnArchist (who is a dude, despite the name) also enjoys: Skyrim, bass fishing, sports talk radio, chicken tacos, and football!

His biggest pet peeve:

People who want to interfere with other people’s happiness.

His biggest worry about Reddit?

I just hope the community doesn’t grow so quickly that we lose the quality debate and discussion that has kept many of the users around reddit for a long time.

Over on ShitRedditSays, fxexular has helpfully catalogued some of AnnArchist’s contribution to the “quality debate and discussion.” Like his considered opinion on one female judge:

I hope someone kills her.

And his opinion of an alleged false rape accuser:

I hope she was harassed. Fuck I hope her house was firebombed. Lets be clear, I really will applaud anyone who does anything to her, be it slash her tires or slash her throat.

You can find even more of these charming nuggets in my post about him here.

In his answers to the RedditorOfTheDay questionnaire, AnnArchist reveals himself to be a truly sensitive soul. Here, he shares a painful moment from his past:

When I was a senior in HS and when my friend and I saw … the plane fly into the twin towers our first reaction was laughter rather than OMG thats a tragedy. Yea, we’re fucked up. I TPed my High School that night. I’m a horrible person.

Oh, and did I mention that he’s the creator, sole moderator, and basically the only contributor to the NSFW4 subreddit, devoted to posting pictures and videos too horrific and offensive to post anywhere else on Reddit?

Godspeed, AnnArchist! Thank you for making the world a better place!

NOTE: This post is almost entirely made up of sarcasm.