The twenty comments in my moderation queue

I want to clear out the twenty comments I have pending moderation — the only twenty comments to hit moderation since I joined Freethought Blogs. These comments came from people who have earned “bans” (which, around here, means they can post but only I see it) for various reasons, and in one major case, from someone who wanted to keep arguing long after he was blocked for threadjacking, thread hogging, mistreating me and basically every commenter, and being a general douchenozzle. I post these not to legitimize anything anyone’s said, but because I actually care a significant amount more about free speech than some of these aforementioned douchenozzles seem to believe. I don’t particularly like any of the lines of argumentation proffered by the people in question, but I don’t, also, want to simply black-hole them because that just ain’t my style.

So, I’m going to post these comments here. Think of this more as my having stopped people from shitting on the rug, forcing them to shit in the chamber pot, where I’ll now dump out the contents for any interested parties to see. If you dislike anti-feminist sentiment, misogyny, specious argumentation, or DavidByron, I strongly recommend you skip this post. If you’re just looking for whargarbl, there’s plenty to be had here.

Goes without saying — expect the possibility of triggering language from misogynist fuckwits. Funny that it’s only them who landed there.


43 approved

Tough crowd.

No worse than I am used to. At any rate I don’t have any interest in being taken off moderation since you appear to be the one on the board worth talking to; all the others are mostly noise with the possible exception of tawaen. I don’t mean they are stupid or uninteresting. I just mean they are closed.

I know the dynamics of partisan groups like this. Philip is trying to protect the group (especially the women) from me as he sees it. He will do what he sees as a good thing but it will have the effect of destroying any exchange. Most of the rest throw in their barbs periodically. They are openly hostile to me but at the same time expect me to be completely civil of course. As if the first reaction of a cornered animal attacked by a pack is to be civil….

I took a long time figuring this out because – it’s not that I am anti-social but I just don’t “get” angry like that. I figured people were just having fun insulting me so I was fine with it. I made it easier for them. Fun. I played the same game. People often *said* they found me funny. But in the end I think there was something else very dark going on. I am very reluctant to believe this. I still don’t really except on an intellectual level. To me it just makes no sense to hate someone and get that angry with someone that you literally don’t know anything at all about. Just a black slate. Like getting angry with an inanimate object. Not to say I don’t get angry but mostly at concepts not people.

But it’s just human nature. It’s what happens when a tight nit group has an outsider come along and they are a threat. I think that’s especially true if the group feels under attack anyway. You know when I started this debating feminists there were no MRAs around. Or hardly any. Times change gradually and it’s a good thing generally because god knows men’s rights need a voice. (I am not it)

Apart from Philip the others will have serious questions every now and then. But its probably not worth the extra chaos. But I leave that to you. By chaos I mean it would approximately double the length of the thread.

I really hate that people’s brains can be taken over by this stuff. Like a cancer. Of course it’s all there because it was functional at a certain point in evolution. Now it is dysfunctional and we’re stuck with this shit in our heads. I have it too. But I have the “advantage” of not having any group of like minded people to feel I have to “protect”. I still get confrontational in an argument the same way, although I think I am better now than I was.

I hadn’t really thought in terms of “skepticism” as a concept but it matches a lot of what I have thought independently. It’s a good word. Here is what I think: people are not good at seeing things from different directions. They are very good at one direction. But trying to do two is very hard work. There’s an easy solution which is to get two people together with different views. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. That is how you learn to think better. That is why I go to places to meet people I know I will disagree with because I want to know more stuff and have better thoughts.

But people apparently just NEVER do this so instead I am a “troll”. Since when does a troll type out ten page comments?

People ought to do it but they do not. You ought to be on FreethoughtKamapala right now, debating that guy who I am sure is a much nicer person than me and won’t insult you or tell you about his pet theory that predicts you are in a hate movement. OTOH I do have more original material 🙂

And I deliver to your door.

I don’t understand though, why skeptics do not do this already. Is it because there’s too much science not enough philosophy? Maybe you do visit eg. religious boards but just don’t know how to handle being on the other end of things?

I tell you this because I want you to know that talking to people isn’t easy. It’s hard. It’s very hard. It’s so hard that we are probably not going to be able to pull it off. I happen to think if it’s even 1% likely then I’ll give it a try.

Did I mention it’s hard?

Incidentally in case it is not clear (apparently it isn’t) I am not MRA and have no interest in discussing men’s rights per se. I am an anti-feminist specifically not incidentally. I have a criticism of feminism as what you call “woo” is it? And darker than that. I can talk about men’s rights but you ought to invite some MRAs to talk if you wish to discuss it. And don’t treat them like shit if they come. Because unlike me they do have a movement and people to protect and they do feel under attack.

There have been suggestions that a change of format might make an exchange of ideas easier. For example anything where people don’t directly address each other can reduce acrimony. But I don’t think there’s much out there (beyond debate rules / parliamentary rules). I don’t know of any “technology” for talking to people you disagree with in such a away as to promote productive exchange. There is a need but I guess there’s no motivation because its easier and more satisfying to just call someone an asshole or whatever.


43 approved

Thanks for letting my apology through. I thought it was likely you’d hide it to make me look worse.

Instead to my surprise you made yourself look worse by vomiting all over my apology with some petty crap. Yay! I score points.

(yes that was a joke)

How about we just cool the insults down between us? It’s just a waste of space. Shit is long enough already.

Look I KNOW I am tough to read. I KNOW I write a huge amount. I KNOW how bad it sounds when you got someone screaming at you that you’re in a hate movement. I’m sorry but there’s no easy way to bring this message. I wish there was. If there was another better way, I’d use it.

Most feminists gleefully go to bat for sex segregation.
You did not.
That does count for something with me.

I look at it in absolutes. You’re here and equality is still over there and you need to be told that. You don’t say about segregationism, “Oh gee maybe… Im not opposed to equal access on principle…, maybe it could work.” I wont patronise you. You’re better but you are not at equality on that thing so I tell you so.

Ok nvm that…

The reason btw I write a lot is at least partially because I am bringing an opinion that folks have often not heard, or if they have they’ve had a garbled MRA version of it, they hate it, and there’s ten of them all throwing stuff at me. If answer everyone it’s “he’s monopolising the board” if I miss any of them it’s “Oh look he can’t answer that”. Normal debates you have a mix on both sides so no one person has to hold up half the conversation. I don’t get that luxury. If I don’t say it then it doesn’t get said. If you can think of some way around this problem I would be grateful.

I could cite stuff btw. I don’t because I found that nobody believes it if I link to it. If you find it for yourself then you believe it. If I give it to you then its some “trick”. Somehow it doesn’t count. That’s my experience.

Like how you started off saying male DV were very rare and then found you were wrong?

Prefer this message not be made public (but either way is fine).


43 approved

You still haven’t answered if you are for or against segregation.

Why is this a hard question? If someone asked you if you were for or against race segregation would you um and ah and then say “well maybe if the concerns that led to the race segregation in the first place were accounted for….”

My answer is simple: I am for equality and therefore think segregation is always wrong. It is institutionalised discrimination (apartheid).

Honestly — and I know you’ll want to dismiss this — you honestly sound like a segregationist to me. I AM NOT TRYING TO INSULT YOU. Maybe this is easier for you to answer without the audience?

Look the “real issues” which led to segregation to begin with are bigotry. Feminists hate men and said that any male presence should be banned because men are evil. Why in the fuck else do they ban 14 year old kids, Jason? It’s not because they think someone’s kid is going to turn out to be someone else’s abusive husband.

This is why the formulation of your answer is so ambiguous (at best).

You said:
“To reiterate, if you can address all the concerns that led to domestic violence shelters being sex-segregated to begin with”

By definition obviously you cannot do so ever, because the whole point of segregation WAS SEGREGATION. THAT was the “concern”. Yuch. I don’t want brown people around me. Yuch. I don’t want male people around me.

Now do you think that is a legitimate concern or don’t you? Do you think segregation is discrimination, or don’t you?

This is NOT complicated.


43 approved

Jason I see you’re taking my advise about banning first and THEN lying. That should show everyone your integrity!


43 approved

Why did you tell that guy that the essay on privilege wasn’t gendered? It only talks about male privilege. It mentions female privilege only to say it doesn’t exist. What I find interesting is that the female author is a classic example of what she herself criticises. Of course because of her privilege she can’t see it.

She says:
“Here’s where he becomes an asshole: the minute the gecko says, “look, you’re hurting me,” and he says, “what? No, I’m not. ….”

But earlier in the article that is exactly what she has already done towards men. She hears the complaint of men,

“I would love if a group of women did that to me.”

That is a complaint of female privilege by men. What is her response? Does she respond to her privilege being pointed out with empathy? No. She attacks the victims. She says “Huh no I am not”. She is exactly what she is preaching against.

Now perhaps you can see a problem here which she apparently couldn’t. Perhaps you’ll say well how can we know who is right? One says this is your privilege and the other says the same thing. But in the essay she is clear that the mere STATEMENT by someone that they are being un-privileged should be enough to make the case. Now I think that’s just dumb, but that is the rules she laid down and according to that set of rules she is guilty of her female privilege in that very essay.

Reality check.

All sorts of people bitch and complain. Merely the fact that you are complaining is no guarantee you have anything to complain about. Those who complain most are not necessarily worse off.

And that is not just theory. In fact people who complain most tend to be best off, not worst. You can see this in terms of race (eg white women tend to report DV more than say Hispanics) but it happens for all sorts of stuff including gender where men complain less (“be a man” vs “eek, a spider!”). As I said before, a rich man in a 5 star hotel and a homeless bum sleeping under a bridge — who complains more about not being able to sleep? People in power learn that complaining is functional — people leap to satisfy their desires, even if those complaints or desires are clearly irrational. The powerless learn that complaining just gets ignored or even makes their plight worse.

Of course for feminists the concept that you never have to provide any evidence that privilege actually exists is very useful because they want to claim women are under privileged and have no evidence to back it up.

As it is then “privilege” is a meaningless word like “terrorist” and is simply used to denigrate the movement’s enemies (ie men) in an evidence-free manner in the same way the US empire denigrates its enemies with the “terrorist” label.


43 approved

On the privilege thing again: basically I would say it’s all bullshit like the word “terrorist” because I never see anyone paying attention to privilege in the one area where it would be very easy to measure privilege and do something about it which is money.

If you have a group of feminists going to lunch do they tend to say “Well OK who earns the most (or husband earns the most) and that person ought to be aware of their privilege and pay for the rest of us who are not so wealthy”

Or some more detailed schema.

In fact why stop there? If people really cared about this they could just say “Well let’s pool all our money and then divide it equally”.

Money is a super obvious source of power that everyone can see and agree is a privilege. And it can be measured very exactly. Its very easy to transfer too. If you are not dealing with financial privilege then I think it is safe to say that any other privilege you talk about is pure bullshit.

If you really wanted to genuinely deal with privilege you’d start with the one that was (1) most obvious and widely recognised (2) easiest to measure and (3) easiest to rectify.

Feminists largely ignore wealth as an issue of privilege and instead have a laser like focus on utter trivia which they use to attack men with. So-called privelge that is (1) highly controversial and disputed, (2) impossible to measure objectively (3) very hard to do anything about.


43 approved

It’s not true.

This is one of the subjects I researched investigating feminism. The movement promotes minor historical figures simply because of their being women. In doing so it exaggerates (lies about) their contributions.

Think about it. Even if what she did counts as programing a computer there were various people ahead of her including several male students of Babbage and of course Babbage himself. The guy invents a computer in his head but he apparently he’s not smart enough to write a noddy program? Come on. It doesn’t pass the smell test.

Investigate the matter if you don’t believe me. Buy one of her autobiographies.

Feminist say that men get mentioned in history just for being men but the exact opposite is true. Ada is more famous than Babbage to say nothing of the male students who were all ahead of Ada. Because they are male…. crickets. They get nothing.

Grace Hopper deserves her recognition – she really did do the things credited to her whereas Ada did not (although she was impressive in her own right – Ada did stuff but she was not the first programmer). But even so there were men around doing the same stuff as Grace Hopper but who knows any of their names?


43 approved

What is Ada Lovelace day anyway? Is this another bigoted day for helping out the gender that already has far more privileges in education? And by privilege I don’t me some stupid shit. I mean women go to college about 60% more than men do in the USA. Don’t know if it so screwed up in Canada.

As a result of their far higher attendance at universities young women are earning more than young men of course (men still have to buy the drinks of course – because of all their “privilege” don’t you know).

So why have a day to help the gender that is already a long way ahead? Or I should say yet another day. There’s already bring your daughter (not your son) to work day.


43 approved

“DavidByron’s still throwing rants against the moderation wall”

I was hoping that having my comments hidden from the others would allow you to cease being so childish with these petty insults but I see that is not working. That’s not really a problem but per se, but you’re also not thinking about anything I am saying. That’s fine you were not a very interesting example anyway…

If you want to continue the conversation say so otherwise you’ve basically just banned me in a pretend-I-don’t sort of way.


43 approved

aspidoscelis is basically saying that he finds your terminology offensive – just as I have been telling you.

“patriarchy” is offensive.
“privilege” – as feminist use it – is offensive.
“feminism” itself as a word is offensive.
“all men are potential rapists” is incredibly offensive.

Ask him what he thinks of your saying that all men are potential rapists. Basically you go around trolling people all the time and you don’t even realise what an asshat you are being because you’ve convinced yourself that if anyone objects to your assholery it’s their problem not yours.

If this guy keeps posting you’ll probably have to ban him too. Note the dynamic about him having to post a lot of stuff. If other people engage him directly that will double.


43 approved

“Disclaimer: I don’t really mean any of this, please don’t hurt me women!”

Funny stuff.

This has been instructive and I’ll remember this for future discussions. Whereas I’ve always asked feminists to try and name any issues they can think of facing women today, and found that almost none of them ever could… I’ve not thought to ask them if they can name any issues facing men.

I’m pretty sure they couldn’t have done it in the early years but these days it seems they have been educated somewhat by the numbers of MRAs going about. In fact if you are much of a gauge the average feminist can easily name far more issues facing men than women.

Btw? Going on about “the patriarchy” is very offensive. You don’t seem to care at all how much offensive stuff you say but I’ll tell you anyway. Our society is not in any sense a patriarchy. By using this word you are simply attacking men. You know it, your audience knows it. Cut it out.

“The man has been fighting feminists for 20 years so I fully expect that most of this bile comes from simple hatred”

You probably mean hatred of women since you feminists see everything in terms of the sex war. Men vs woman always. I’m a man so I must hate women. Of course it is ridiculous. Most men love women and most women love men. I am no exception to this general rule (ie I’m heterosexual). Both sexes most generally have their worst fights with people of the same sex, who are their gender competitors, with the exception of their very closest relationship if they are married (again I’m talking heterosexuals). Close relationships are always fraught with both happiness and strife. But in general for example a man in charge means that he treats the men under him worse and the women under him better. This is the exact opposite of the feminists “sex war” view which pretends that all women are on one big team and all men are buddies fighting them. This is observed in eg analysis of sentencing under male vs female judges. Although both treat women better a female judge does a much better job of treating women worse. This is well known to defence lawyers and prosecutors. So yeah… another cornerstone faith of feminism turns out to be utter rubbish. There’s no sex war, no sisterhood fighting a conspiracy of evil men, and if a man is in charge men tend to be worse off not better.

It is possible you mean that I hate feminists. That would be more rational. It is not true though. I have a lot of empathy for them. To me you are basically caught in an evil cult that you can’t get out of. If you really want to know (and I’d rather you did NOT mention this if that’s OK) I often feel pretty upset about it. So many people who would have such fine minds if it were not for this cancer they were subjected to, like they were brain damaged. I guess you might feel the same way about religious people but frankly that’s not as bad, because at least they are not told to hate people although the USA version of christianity is pretty godawful as I understand it.

Anyway I don’t hate feminists and I don’t appreciate you lying about me like that, although I suppose its just a drop in the bucket. If you’re going to make yourself look good by attacking me (to make up for daring to say men have issues too) I’d prefer you pick some other insult please.

Also although its been 20 years I semi-retired after about 10. Since about 2001 I moved more to criticising imperialism and militarism because it was obviously going to become a far more serious issue in terms of suffering. You may have noticed a lot of my material is from the 1990s, and in some respects may be dated as things have improved for men I think.

“Our patriarchal, patrilineal Western society”

Our society is neither patriarchal nor patrilineal.

“With the importation to the New World of the patriarchal society”

Nothing to do with feminism but you’re wrong about Native Americans. There seems to be a thing among some parts of the so-called left in North America that has these dewey eyed view of Native Americans. As if, before the white man came, they all just sat around singing and playing the guitar. They were not stuffed dolls. They were people. They did things people do. Including all the nasty shit. Yes, they were patriarchal too — as all known primitive tribes are/were. They fought wars and they kept slaves. They did not treat their women equally. They didn’t buy the world a coke. They were just ordinary human beings.

Your view of the Europeans is silly too. Based on sex war of course you see all men as somehow the same. So for example you completely ignore class differences which are the most important aspect of understanding any society. Rich men are not the buddies of poor men. Neither are rich women the buddies of poor women. Class war is the basis of understanding society not your fictitious sex war. So no “men” couldn’t be politicians. Just as today 99% of men couldn’t be politicians. Because they were poor. And incidentally? Rich women were often leaders. European royal houses accepted queens as heads of state and that often happened. Society was not turned on its head when the gender of the monarch flipped in case you were wondering. Society MIGHT WELL be turned on its head if a poor person ever became king / president. That’s why OccupyWallStreet terrifies the elites. And btw, as I understand it women could stand for election in the US from the earliest times. They just couldn’t vote (usually). In some cases they could but of course it never made any difference to anything anyway because contra the feminist ideology of sex war, men and women have broadly similar political beliefs and goals, including significantly for us, similar beliefs about how society ought to treat women differently from men. For example most women opposed women’s right to vote – just the same as most men did. Class, not gender is the division of society.

“the cry of “women and children first” was intended in part to maximize the number of people saved due to women and children being smaller and requiring fewer resources, and in part to preserve our species by ensuring the commodity of women’s collective uteri and child-rearing skills are not lost.”

Absurd. What possible justification for that statement do you have? If the first was a concern they’d save thin people before fat, and if the second was a concern they would have approved of polygamy. Women and children were considered morally pure and therefore were protected by men, even at the cost of a rich man’s life to save a poor woman. That’s an incredible statement of female privilege.

“even on the topic of rape, where women are victims a marked majority of the time, men do not comprise a small proportion by any measure, at roughly 10% of all victims.”

Actually the best source on this is the NVAWS which estimated the rate of male rape (within the last 12 month period) at one third of that of women (outside of prisons and jails). Look it up. You ought to know that survey like the back of your hand if you want to do this stuff. basically the NVAWS (National Violence Agaisnt Women Survey) was funded by congress because feminists complained that the usual crime surveys under-counted rape victims by priming respondents to think in terms of crime. Since many victims were socially conditioned they argued, to not see rape as a crime, they did not report.

So the NVAWS was seen as the most accurate methodology for gauging rape figures at the time and what they found was quite interesting. They found minorities under reported more often than white women. Everyone reported more rape but minorities “benefited” from this type of survey more. Men benefited the most. In other words men were the minority group least inclined to see their rape as a rape and least inclined to report it in the usual crime surveys.

Kind of an own-goal for the feminists then. But they got around it by always quoting NVAWS figures when they wanted to just mention a big number of estimated rapes (shhh! never mention the male numbers) and they quoted the original crime survey stats (ie the National Crime Victimization Survey) whenever they wanted to compare men and women as victims.

Or they do as you’ve done and use actual reported as crime stats which are even more biased towards over representing white women (as the most privileged group) compared to either minority women or men, even compared to the crime surveys.

“These of course discount the possibility of obtaining consent under false pretenses, or circumventing consent by the use of drugs or alcohol on the person, or any manner of coercion that does not involve violent assault.”

Well as for drugs according to feminist theory any time two drunk people have sex the woman is raped and the man is not. But you missed the most obvious category of rape which is simply threatened violence. eg threatening to slit someone’s throat when they sleep, or to stab the kids when hubby is at work.

“It has been suggested that dividing domestic violence shelters up into ones that serve men and ones that serve women is a form of “sex segregation”.

You do know what the word “segregate” means, right? I did mention that feminists in the USA fought _successfully_ to create laws which explicitly said that no male victims of domestic violence could be helped by any facility receiving federal funding (ie almost all of them)? At least blacks got a water fountain. Feminists said “nothing for men”. You omitted this in your story of how its not really segregation blah blah blah.

You know I always like to see how feminists react to that story. Because if they actually believe that feminism is an equality movement it would be scandalous or literally unbelievable, to hear that most feminists in the 1990s were lobbying for an explicitly discriminatory law which was shitty enough to block people who were suffering abuse from getting help just because they were born male. That’s a real shithole move by feminists that one.

And you reaction was : nothing at all.

By the way if some white person got mugged by a black person would you advocate that eg, they be placed in a special hospital where no black people can go because it might “trigger” fear in the white person? Or would that be obvious racism in your view? If a group of white people got together to lobby congress to make a law that banned black people from getting medical treatment would you reckon that was a bit racist?

“[people like me are] more often interested in stopping feminism [than doing any good for men]”

Apparently you just can’t understand why anyone would think stopping bigotry and sexism might be considered an important goal in its own right. That’s a bit odd since you claim that you yourself consider stopping bigotry and sexism to be an important goal in its own right.

Anyway at the conclusion of that long essay, your problem is that even though you missed a lot out, you did a pretty decent job of listing many issues for men. Compare this with how badly you suck at doing the same for women. Why does this glaring contrast not give you pause for thought?

Your view that women are worse off is an article of ideology that is unfalsifiable. If it was falsifiable then the exercise you just undertook (trying to mention issues for both separately and coming up with far more issues and more sever issues facing men) would have falsified it.

And you’re not even familiar with issues for men. You specialise in issues for women so it is clear that if you actually spent any time looking into MRA stuff you’d add considerably to the length of issues for men as you gained some knowledge of the field.

What does it take? Can you think about that please? What the heck would it take to convince you that you’re wrong? If your answer is “nothing would” then you got a big problem.


5 approved

“While I strongly suspect her post this morning is at least in part due to a legal challenge by Meggitt and his friends and family”

Nice presumption of guilt you got going on there. Then again, one can hardly accuse you of being inconsistent, at least.

“I accept that she has been shown somehow that the evidence she thought she had against him was incorrect.”

Well, the guys obviously guilty of SOMETHING, right? So lets just string him up and be done with it.


5 approved

I suppose you’ll expect me to conduct peer-reviewed studies to counter your scientifically rigorous claims. Even though I don’t expect any of this to make it through your moderation, let’s consider the following claims:

1) “Breast-fetishism”

Oh fuck no. No man likes tits. Therefore, no market for breast enhancement of any kind. Zero. Nada.

2) “Science isn’t PC”

Evolution? Climate change? All accepted not only by the vast majority of scientists but also by the general populace, not to mention politicians. If only.

3) “Most geniuses are men”

Okay, let’s start counting backwards in history and consider all the people who are generally accepted as “geniuses”. Again we might consider the fact the empirical claims are of how things ARE, not how they SHOULD be.

You seem too accustomed to peddling feminist crap to actually even consider it possible to be challenged upon it. This is sad and I’m embarrassed that you’re a part of a blog network with some very prominent freethinkers but them’s the breaks I suppose.

Evolutionary Psychology Bingo Card


1 approved

Jason; who initiated the exchange between Zvan and i above? Think about it.
I have screenshots that I would be happy to present to a tribunal/courtroom and which would clearly show slander regarding Zvans threats to out me, and unfounded accusations.
Communicate to Zvan that she is not to mention me, nor harrass me in comment sections of other peoples blogs.


18 approved

” I’d recommend you not attempt to contact Stephanie anywhere unless you are doing so through your attorney.”

I had no intention of doing so as she’s shown herself to be unbalanced far too often. If you re-read the comments here Jason, I was addressing you and Zvan jumped in.

“Here, she was able to control the amount of engagement with you, because this is not her blog. If she asks you something, I wouldn’t ban you because you answered. I would, however, ban you for making it explicitly clear that you post here AS A WAY TO GET TO HER, which you have.”

It seems strange that she has more control on someone else’s blog. I don’t understand that. But really Jason, where have I made it “explicitly clear that you post here AS A WAY TO GET TO HER”? This is absurd hyperbole and framing in a dishonest manner. Skepticism?

I answer her and it’s “harassment” creeper etc. which although the predictable MO, could be taken as serious accusations, as can threats to out my RW identity, accusations that I’m at the forefront of a smear campaign etc.
Fortunately, your clique doesn’t bear taking seriously in the least. I wash my hands of the both of you. (unless of course more blog posts about me with unfounded accusations appear)



5 approved

More recently I have noticed a trend among men in my communities, you seem to have been told that you’re awful and need to change. Again, apparently because your genitals imbibe you with an inescapable assholism.

Wait, wasn’t that supposed to be a strawman? Now I’m confused…

Brian Macker

8 approved

Many guys I know are not as patient as I am in explaining stuff. They want to respond but don’t take the effort because, perhaps wisely, they understand that someone like you who has clearly not convinced themselves of something rationally won’t be swayed by reason. Having this want and knowing reason does work they might jusst mock you and post something like, “You need a good fuck”. It’s a vulgar insult, and more so if the issue is sexual. If you got such a response would you automatically assume they hated men?

I ask because there are many women making these kinds of insults on this subject. according to them not opposing the nonsense because they are being irrational. No, it is because supposedly I’m either a loser who can’t get a fuck or a rapist. He’ll just assuming I oppose because I hate women is an insult. Much like those guy who counter feminist arguments merely by accusing them of being lesbians.

Worse, apparently pointing out faulty logic in one instance by one woman is the same as assuming every woman everywhere is an irrational bag of emotion at all times, and that is further proof of woman hate. Any woman who strays from the narrative on tHis is getting hammered. It’s disgusting and part for the course in leftist politics. Same thing happens in far right politics. Hell, all extreme ideologues do it.

You are behaving like an ideologue. Stop it!

Der Gegner

0 approved

There is no option three.

Who knows? The hosting companies might disagree. Only time will tell. The abuse reports have been sent…

Phil Giordana, FCD, aka Schroedinger’s Dog

25 approved x

Can I get a rational to that poloitic, or did you get PZ’d?


0 approved

You bunch of kids.

This, by the way, could be the only time I’ve ever agreed with Munkhaus. Though, I suspect he didn’t mean the other denizens of the chamberpot.

The twenty comments in my moderation queue

16 thoughts on “The twenty comments in my moderation queue

  1. 3

    Brownian, bet you’d recognize Der Genger if he wasn’t in a sockpuppet form. KvdH, a.k.a. Kristoff, a.k.a. Chris, who spammed Pharyngula with German song lyrics once.

  2. 5

    Yup, says he’s been fighting with feminists online for over a decade. And his argumentation has never evolved one whit, from what I can tell.

    Macker’s not “with them” as far as I can tell. Just pissed me off one day and I threw him in moderation til I could deal with him later, and never got around to it.

  3. 6

    How cute, David Byron made especial reference of my partisanship without calling me a “white knight”.

    Ms Daisy, Brian Macker is the only one I fail to recognise either.

    Der Gegner, like David Byron, obviously had a particular bee in his bonnet about a particular word and the idea associated with it, to the extent he felt it necessary to go chasing round the Internet to introduce his important counterblast. I left a few examples of this at Stephanie’s place.

    That might be something David Byron actually got right – that these “people’s brains can be taken over by this stuff”.

  4. 7

    Oh, I recognised his style, Jason. Like Ms Daisy and Philip Legge, I didn’t recognise Macker.

    (And Giordana is almost a treat to read. Banning him is akin to taking a pair of kitchen shears from a clumsy toddler.)

  5. 8

    Brian Macker is a one-man infestation, often found over at Hemant’s (Friendly Atheist). I’m not sure if he sincerely believes what he vomits forth, nor do I care, because DO NOT WANT.

    Much like a broken watch, though, he is occasionally known to make a decent — even a good — point. (See the recent ado about the “racist” billboard, again, over on FA.)

  6. 9

    Just like when you clean the cat litter, and the cat decides to immediately take a dump right then, there are three new comments in moderation from Phil, John Greg, and Munkhaus. None are worth showing to you guys.

    I will, however, answer one question by Phil: yes, I published email and IP info. On the right, in the Contact Me form, “I reserve the right to publish any contact, especially if it’s hateful or ridiculous”. The “email will not be published” on the comment field is telling you that it will not be added to your comment on the post itself, not that it will never be published under any circumstances.

    IOW: go fuck yourself with your rules-lawyering.

  7. 13

    So that “Mail(will not be published)(required)” is a bald-faced lie?

    Next time you whine about how society doesn’t trust atheists or why an atheist will never be elected as a US president, well…

    I’m amazed by your self-righteous dishonesty.

    Aren’t your readers proud!
    Make sure your comments don’t clash with Lousy’s. He’s a free speech zealot after all! Nothing is “sacred”. There are no such thing as journalistic ethics.

    Be sure to screen cap, forward all resulting spam to your attorney.

  8. 14

    BTW, I’m female and expect not to be cyber-stalked or harassed for calmly advising you, “don’t do that”
    “I mean, I don’t know what else to day…um how incredibly uncomfortable it makes me feel to be dox’d”
    Just like a policy for conventions, a policy for safe commenting ought to be enforced. Right?

  9. 15

    Well, I explained it (very patiently) a dozen times now, but regardless of what you Thunderf00t fans think, the situations are not at all analogous. There is nothing personally identifiable about any of the email addresses, nor necessarily the IPs since the majority of them come from TOR onion routing (e.g. anonymizing) proxies. And you’ll note that I was given that information legally and completely morally unimpeachably — they commented on my blog with full knowledge that they were giving me that information. This is dissimilar from how Thunderf00t obtained all the backchannel emails that he’s using to try to smear FtB.

    And failing, at that! Notably because we haven’t actually done any of the things he’s used “Chinese whispers” as he puts it to allude to (and what a racist fucking term that is). Ask Michael Payton just how much FtB wants to destroy his career! Go ahead, ask him how much damage we’ve done by saying “dude, he just dismissed all of us at a fell swoop, that’s kinda uncool”.

    There’s a huge gulf of difference between publishing spammers’ IP and email addresses, along with the unexpurgated comments that they really wanted published on my blog in the first place, and essentially wire-tapping a private conversation channel to see if you can find dirt with which to smear a whole network full of loosely-affiliated bloggers.

    And despite all that, I’ve had a change of heart about this. I’ll delete the email addresses and IP addresses on this, not because there was anything wrong with my publishing them for the purposes of giving others the information so they could auto-moderate them themselves (that’s what you do with serial spammers!), but because it’ll get you assholes incapable of nuance off my damn back.

    But I’ll tell you what. If any of you want to email me — via the email link which launches an email with my own personal email address on the right, just above where I said “I reserve the right to publish any email, especially if it’s hateful or ridiculous” — and asks for the information for moderating purposes, I will gladly give it all to you, no questions asked.

Comments are closed.