NOTE: This page is in desperate need of revision and expansion. In the meantime, I suggest you use Rationalwiki’s Manosphere Glossary.
For newcomers to this blog, here’s a handy guide to some of the strange acronyms and lingo you’ll encounter here and in the “manosphere” in general. (For a definition of that term, see below.) I will update this entry periodically as needed.
First, the acronyms you’ll see most often here:
MRA: Men’s Rights Activist
MRM: Men’s Rights Movement
MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way MGHOW: Man Going His Own Way.
Ok, so what do those terms mean?
MRM: The Men’s Rights Movement: A loosely defined, but largely retrograde, collection of activists and internet talkers who fight for what they see as “men’s rights.” Unlike the original Men’s Movement, which was inspired by and heavily influenced by feminism, the self-described Men’s Rights Movement is largely a reactionary movement; with few exceptions, Men’s Rights Activists (or MRAs) are pretty rabidly antifeminist, and many are frankly and sometimes proudly misogynistic. Those who oppose the MRM are generally not against men’s rights per se; they are opposed to those who’ve turned those two words into a synonym for some pretty backwards notions.
MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way: As the name suggests, MGTOW is a lot like lesbian separatism, but for straight dudes. MGTOW often talk vaguely about seeking “independence” from western and/or consumer culture, and a few MGTOW try to live that sort of zen existence. But most of those who embrace the term have a deep hostility towards and/or profound distrust of feminists and women in general. Many MGTOW refuse to date “western women” and some try to avoid women altogether. I think the Man Going His Own Way acronym MGHOW adds another layer of confusion to an already awkward acronym, so I use MGTOWer instead.
Some other terms and acronyms you’ll run across here:
Anglosphere: Countries in which English is the primary language, or, more narrowly, those countries that used to be British colonies. They are full of evil Western Women (see below).
Incel: Involuntarily Celibate. A term, and identity, adopted by some dateless guys (as well as some women, but it’s the men we’ll focus on here). While there is nothing shameful about being dateless, or a virgin, or having a really long dry spell sexually — most of us have been there at some point — the term “involuntarily celibate” seems to suggest that the world owes incels sex, and that women who turn down incel men for dates or sex are somehow oppressing them. For those (male, straight) incels who are genuinely socially awkward or phobic, this can be a self-defeating stance that can lead to bitterness towards women. And often does.
Mangina: Derogatory term used by MRAs, MGTOW, etc. to describe guys who disagree with them — e.g., me. You can figure out the various connotations of this term yourself.
The Manosphere: The loose collection of blogs, message boards, and other sites run by and/or read by MRAs, MGTOW, and assorted friendly Pick-up Artists. The primary source of material for this blog.
NAWALT: Not All Women Are Like That. Dudes in the manosphere make so many ridiculous and untrue generalizations about women that they’ve come up with their own little acronym to describe the most common reaction to their nonsense: “not all women are like that.” Remarkably, many seem to think that making a reference to NAWALT is actually some sort of clever rebuttal of their critics.
PUA: Pick-up Artist. PUAs are obsessed with mastering what they see as the ultimate set of techniques and attitudes — known as “Game” — that will enable them to quickly seduce almost any woman they want. There is a vast literature on “game” online, though PUA (insofar as it is not complete bullshit) is at its essence simply a male version of the age-old ploy of “playing hard to get.”
Western Women: Also known as WW. Evil harpies, at least according to many in the manosphere. Contrasted with “foreign women,” a term that (in the manosphere, at least) sometimes refers to all women outside the Anglosphere, but often refers to a subset of these women from poor and/or Eastern countries, mostly Asian, who are regarded as more pliable and thus more desirable to haters of “Ameriskanks” and other WW.
Oh, wow. I would have almost bet money on the satire thing. Because I figured nobody could possibly think that was a good idea…
Okay. Trust no one: especially not the one giving you aphorisms.
Yes, I insist on the truth. To do otherwise is to be, at the very heart of it, sick in your soul.
Are you sick in your soul?
There are so few people who areopenly anti-intellectual honesty and pro-deception. Activechambers was not, however very good at deception.
“The soul is a sickness in itself”
Talacaris: what do you believe? And why?
“On original thoughts, is it so that you are against plagiarism too?”
Enough that I’ll note the “artist use lies” line is from V for Vendetta, citations, they be needed (thought that one was obvious, but it feels weird to claim citations are important while not citing that)
And yes I am against stealing another’s thoughts or words and claiming them as your own, as Howard said — “To do otherwise is to be, at the very heart of it, sick in your soul.”
Pecunium — “I figure that if God is so all-fired hot to make a woman pregant, God can make her BC fail, and so the Church is denying God’s agency, which is a sin.” — excellent! That’s the perfect argue with their own beliefs to complete my usual “you know condom fail right?”
ithiliana — “I nominate Talacaris for TROLL OF THE MONTH” — seconding that nomination, he’s far funnier than the other troll here
Plus I give him points for noticing that Aktivarum was a Swedish phrase–the title of a Swedish rape-apologist blog, naturally. Sure, that’s information you can glean with Google, but that implies some degree of intellectual curiosity.
There is no need for beliefs to utter statements (if by belief, you refer to a sincerely held opinion) Maybe I don’t believe in beliefs ( but isn’t that a contradiction (No, problem to contradict yourself repeatedly is not a problem (but isnt’t that a belief I have ( no problem by circular reasoning (too many nested parentheses, i dont want to count’em))))))))))))))))
His first quote was funny but he’ll get old really fast. I’ll take Tom Martin over him for Troll of the Year any day.
This is true, which is why I asked, not incidental at all to it. Because you have a series of statements that don’t appear related at all to you, as a person. And if we’re actually going to talk about ideas I’d rather know about you as a person, because your ideas are rather… off-putting.
That works quite well as a general definition. I don’t think I disagree with that at all.
Maybe you do. Maybe isn’t an answer, it’s a hypothetical.
…if you say so.
That’s nice. What isn’t a belief you have? That you don’t believe in beliefs, that it might be a contradiction, or that it isn’t a contradiction?
Maybe. We’ll look into that later.
There were only five, BTW.
talacris has slipped into self-parody. Sad to see an old acquaintance sliding into the doddering-phase of life.
It’s time to show talacaris that we believe in our beliefs as much as he…doesn’t…believe in his beliefs!
“I’ll take Tom Martin over him for Troll of the Year any day.” Maybe hars chairs is A REALLY big problem, (or the hemorrhoids are really big”
BTW , I have a question for the people who know law. Is it perjury if you make up case-law and reference non-existing cases in your pleading in court?
I believe perjury is only possible while under oath; but it might be contempt.
But IANAL.
Also not a lawyer, but I happen to be talking to a law student — contempt and sanctions = yes; perjury = not technically, that only applies to testimony; I’m assuming you aren’t a lawyer? Don’t try it if you are unless you want a disbarment hearing.
Going out on a limb here and assuming that once talacaris starts spouting his lines about how lies are beautiful and there is no such thing as logic, any self-respecting judge would throw his ass out of court post-haste.
It’s not perjury. It’s contempt of court, and will go badly if the judge discovers it.
Perjury is a pretty technical thing. The elements (at least on the federal level, though I am pretty most of the state laws are much the same) are:
One is under oath.
One tells a knowing falsehood
About a material fact.
It is not, contra the people who go all foaming at the mouth that, “Clinton committed perjury too, so who cares about Scooter Libby?!!!??!!!?!!!!!”, merely lying, while under oath.
If I tell someone I am only 35 years old, it’s not perjury, unless I am claiming that I therefore can’t be expected to remember anything which happened 36 years ago (when I would have been more than old enough to remember any number of things).
But a false citation… contempt at the very least, disbarment a possibility, sanctions certain to be entertained; and a judge you never want to appear in front of ever again.
But I can’t imagine you have any meaningful reason to ask the question.
Talacaris, try this: http://answers.yahoo.com/
(Say “Hi” to Antz for us!)
“But I can’t imagine you have any meaningful reason to ask the question.” — define meaningful? Could be about to go sovereign on us…
Re lying about your age, it’d also be material in things like a stat rape case. Clinton pulled a very tricky line there, but that’s the republicans fault for not being able to imagine what sort of sex act she can keep her clothing on for (that is the line right? not to meta this, but I was too young to really get it)
katz — depends on the context, if he’s not being dangerous he’ll probably be allowed to stay because of rights to defend yourself and what not (eg that “the court is a pirate ship” guy) — contempt is meant to change the person’s mind, if that’s never going to happen there’s no point in doing it. Manson only got himself thrown out when he jumped over the table and lunged at the judge though, and even then he got to watch via CCTV, it’s really hard to get yourself flat out physically removed from most sorts of legal proceedings (now, try it for a traffic ticket, and you just lost, but you can stay while you’re told that)
@Katz: Troll of the YEAR sure, but I think we ought to consider troll of the month.
After all, we chew ’em up and spit ’em out so fast, they often don’t last.
And our two (in my awareness of things), NWO and DKM aren’t really mustering up much of anything new.
And while Tom was quite fun, he didn’t last.
Troll of the Moment, but he went outta here pretty darn fast.
Though I admit chairs, penguins, and all his attempt to cite stuff was sorta fun. *happy sigh*
Sorry for being ‘way for a while but i just read up on some freeman stuff. Appararently your name and the name in capital letters is not the same, the latter is a strawman created by the guv’ment through birth certificates. You can even distance yourself from the strawman even more by chosing a calling of the form X of the family Y. Then you can remove consent to governed by admirality law,which is apparently commercial law or vice versa. Interesting..
And gold-fringed flags mean it isn’t a real court, so don’t worry about committing perjury or being in contempt — the judge is really a pirate!
clou:diah(c)
You should also say “under duress” when boarding hir vessel. Maybe also demand a ransom in gold, so your inalienable rights are intact.
Surely if you’re in contempt of pirate, it would be worse? I mean, they’d just get angry and shoot you.. i’m not sure judges are allowed to do that. :O
Argenti: The entire Clinton mess was so many ways of screwed up.
The claim is that no one could honestly say that the relationship Clinton had with Lewinsky wasn’t sexual.
That’s one of the issues.
Even if his answer hadn’t been legally true, per the terms of the deposition (and it was, the lawyers for Jones allowed Clinton’s lawyers to keep the definition fairly narrow, but I digress), the question was out of line, as it had zero bearing on the issue at hand.
So even if the answer had been a blatant lie e.g:
Atty: Did you, President Clinton, ever allow Monica Lewinsky to fellate you?
Clinton: No
There would have been no perjury, because his relationship with Lewinsky wasn’t material to the case.
All of that is without going into why that case should never have been being heard, at that time.
If Clinton hadn’t been able to get it postponed until he was out of office (a not completely unreasonable claim; as being president is time consuming, and a lawsuit is time consuming, and it’s not hard to see that the one being well done might outweigh the other being heard just then), he ought to have defaulted.
Because there is no way his opposition wasn’t going to use the proceedings as a stick to beat him with. His hubris, thinking he could defend the case, do his job, and not get sandbagged in the course of one, or the other, was what tripped him up.
He was too proud to say, “I am the President, I have been elected to represent all of your interests, while I would like to contest this baseless charge, and attain vindication in court, I cannot do that and properly fulfill my responsibilities to you, The American People, and so i am choosing to put your interests before mine… yadda yadda yadda”, and it would have all blown over.
Instead he gave his opponents both opportunity, and means, to badger him, and badger him, and make him look small, and weak, which is part of how we got to the present mess.
And only sign in red ink, red is the color of blood and means you’re signing as flesh-and-blood you, black is the strawman (I don’t get why, sorry) and blue is admiralty law.
They don’t get that under admiralty law the captain has duties to zir passengers, like safety and paying if the boat sinks and shit.
I’m debating going “the court is a pirate ship!” the next time I’m in court, as it’ll be a disability hearing to prove I’m nuts — it’s just too perfect, and I don’t normally go for performance art but this is really tempting.