Fight amongst yourselves - I'm outa here!

Started by Tigerman, May 28, 2009, 05:39 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

Tigerman

I've been unhappy with this forum for a while now - hence my fewer posts etc. To me we should be OUT there taking the argument to the wider world not sat in here 'preaching to the converted' etc. I now post in pretty hostile forums and in the comment sections of some major online Newspapers where the feminist 'perspective' is the one that is predominant. That is where the 'coal face' is - not in this goldfish bowl or 'right wing rules' in MRA politics etc. Now I know some of you DO get out there and I have known some of you longer than this forum has been  in existence - I admire your patience for putting up with much of the small minded bickering that goes on in here when someone arrives whose 'politics' don't fit.
Well the treatment given to Andrew Usher in here has finally disillusioned me - it smacks too much of bullying to be frank and one thing I cannot abide is BULLIES.
Bye all.

The Gonzman

When your left wing pseudo-MRA buddies throw you under the bus - like they always do - you were warned.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the Shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for I am the MEANEST son-of-a-bitch in the valley.

Mr. X

Disagreement is not bullying. Why do some people resort to that label when they are disagreed with. If you want to be unchallenged then by all means chat with the people who believe in equality of outcomes.

Ideologies are not interchangeable. There are no turns. There ARE thinking that is morally wrong. Using bigotry and racism to accomplish ones goals IS WRONG regardless of the intent and that is the basis of equality of outcomes which is the basis of liberal progressive thinking.

We're not ignorant rubes who just stumbled onto this stuff. I am well closing on 50 and was a liberal from many years of my life. I know the ideology inside and out and all the arguments... and they are flawed. They destroy liberty and practice the thing that they claim to fight. I am white male and liberalism is inherently anti-white male. Why would I support an ideology that makes me into the bad guy? Can you name one aspect of liberalism that includes me in a positive way? Its a blame whitey club.

So sorry I and others here complain about liberal progressivism. Most of the anti-male laws created are based on equality of outcome thinking which is based on progressive ideals.
Feminists - "Verbally beating men like dumb animals or ignoring them is all we know and its not working."

PaulGuelph

Unsubscribe, when I am presenting my views in other places on the web, I am told many nasty things including death threats.

Since you also have experience on feminist forums, I would think that you would agree with me that SYG is actually very tame.

I also feel some impatience with the left/right debate, since I feel that men's issues are bigger than that.  And we should be more accommodating to newbies (unless they are trolls).

But I see SYG as a shelter from the storm, a nice place to duck into where people have (mostly) shared POVs.
Men's Movie Guide:  http://www.mensmovieguide.com   The Healing Tomb: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B081N1X145

BRIAN

Okey doke.

You may sleep soundly at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence upon those who seek to harm you.

Quentin0352

Since I was polite to Andrew at first and just asked he meet his own standarrds for reseaarch that he demanded as well as back his stated claims only to have him attack ME, then all i can say is sorry and don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you!

BTW, his initial salvo on this board was pretty nasty to us all and then HE brought up the left and right junk which I stayed out of because he tended to argue like a feminist where his points could not be questioned and his sources were impeccable but no one else could bring a counter point he would actually debate. just ignoring and insulting those who actually brought up honest issues of disagreement is the way feminists argue and we complain there so why would I let him get off doing that here?

SIAM

Andrew Usher lost me at calling Thailand "primitive".  I didn't "bite" back at that comment, but another member on here picked it up.  He comes out with brash, absolute statements like that which are meant to provoke and offend, and they do.  So it's no surprise he has people's backs up here.   Do a search on Google for his email address - he's done this over dozens of forums, not just SYG. 

Unsuscribe (Tigerman?), it's easy to look at the tail-end of a thread here and you see Gonz having a go at Usher, but you need to see how the whole thing got to this point.  He just antagonises members rather than debates them. 

As for commenting on other forums, good on you.  I think you comment a lot in The Guardian forums, right? These are the places to be.  I also put my comments across in metafilter.com, reddit.com, digg etc.  All mainstream websites (actually metafilter is still quite left of centre, but it's been amazing how acceptable men's rights has become there in the last 7 years I've been a member there).

Virtue

Something about a door comes to mind.
Imagine waking up tomorrow to find
that unbelievably rape is now legal.

You would be freaking out, telling everyone you ran into this is crazy- something needs to be done... now!!! And then every man you told this to just very smugly and condescendingly says...

"Hey... not all men are 'like that.'"

Andrew Usher

I had better respond.

I pretty much agree with the OP here. I would use the word 'bullying' only of Gonz, though, not the other critics of me.

Mr. X, I don't know why you keep using certain stereotypes at people that don't agree with your politics. We're not all interchangeable liberals. I don't know what you mean by "equality of outcomes", so I can't tell you if I believe in it.

I'm not trying to be a troll. It's just that some people, especially Mr. X, seemed to inject libertarian politics in a divisive manner and I felt obliged to respond to that. If I've been unnecessarily 'nasty' to anyone (other than Gonz) I apologise, I try not to be.


neoteny


It's just that some people, especially Mr. X, seemed to inject libertarian politics in a divisive manner and I felt obliged to respond to that.


Well, you seem to inject leftist/socialist politics in a divisive manner and people, in particular Gonz, felt obliged to respond to that.
The spreading of information about the [quantum] system through the [classical] environment is ultimately responsible for the emergence of "objective reality." 

Wojciech Hubert Zurek: Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical

The Gonzman

Bullying?  What a hoot.

Wake up, boyo. I have no power here.  I'm not admin or moderator.  The only "power"  I have is in not letting you get away with your baloney.  Of calling you on it, correcting you, pointing out your errors of logic and bombastic and unsupportable claims, hookum, and nutbar conspiracy theories.

If you look like an idiot, it's because you (a) plow ahead in spite of evidence to the contrary, or (b) ignore inconvenient challenges to your POV.  Your call.  Nobody makes you play the fool.

Your notion that you can somehow have a statist and free society simultaneously is so parochially simplistic and naive that its absurdity screams to the heavens.  Leftist methods, philosophy, social policy, and economic theory are so closely intertwined that the ridiculous notion you can somehow pick part of it out, cafeteria style, and intermix it with other philosophies is a claim so fantastic and extraordinary that it demands similar proofs.  It is incoherent.  It is self contradictory.  It is laughable in the extreme.

Liberal economic and social policies rest upon each other.  Once you remove group identity and victim politics from it, it falls apart.  Socialists since time immemorial have done similar things, and one of the foundational modus operandi is to select a group, name it the devil, and blame all of societies ills upon it in order to justify an ever expanding set of state powers to set things aright.  The Marxist socialists of the USSR did it with "capitalists."  The National Socialists of the Third Reich did it with Jews.  Feminists do it to males.  And they all wind up at the same Final Solution.

Feminism is socialism.  Period.  It is one bad actor among many attempting to implement socialist policy.  The proofs are obvious, as much as they are irrefutable.

You cannot name a feminist of any influence who is not wildly left wing.  You cannot name one who has converted to being right wing who has maintained an iconic status in the cult of Feminism.  You can barely find one who attempts to maintain their status as a Feminist, and those are assailed as sellouts and not true feminists.  Camille Paglia.  Tammy Bruce.  Wendy MacElroy.  Al regarded as fringies, whackos, traitors, or "Not Real Feminists."

Can't be done.

Feminism serves a left wing agenda.  Name blogs or websites run by feminists who do not endorse wholeheartedly a left wing agenda.

Can't be done.

Feminism has had ample opportunity to defend women against their victimization by left wing groups.  They savaged Sarah Palin.  Savaged Condaleeza Rice - hell, they used "Mammy" and "Aunt Jemima" characterizations to mock her - WHITE feminists - never called on it by the left wing, who HOWLED at George Allen's "macaca" comment.  The savaged any woman who spoke out against Left Wing Bill Clinton.  He was proven guilty of sexual harassment by any standard, he humiated his wife with numerous affairs, and has been credibly accused of Rape.  Rape, sirrah.  RAPE.  What do the "women never lie about rape!" crowd - the usual suspects - do?

Well, Jessica Valenti, of Feministing, gets her picture taken with him in her best "Look at my tits!" outfit and pose for one thing.

They base their entire - ENTIRE - raison d'etre on eliminating such things from society, of defending women against such things - and when left wingers are guilty of it, what do they do?  What do they do when it is provable and undeniable?

They DENY!  They make excuses.  They give them a PASS.

So riddle me this - gird up your fucking loins like a fucking man and give answer, if you have understanding - how can it NOT be that the true aim of feminism is not "women's liberation," but implementation of far left, socialist policies?

They are another socialist bad actor.  Against all things either white, or male, or christian, or heterosexual, or traditional in any values whatsoever they wish to cast down.  You don't have to be all.  You just have to be one of them.

You oppose them by opposing them.  Firmly. Resolutely. In Toto.  Not with half measures. And most of all you don't become them.

And as the father of a daugher who I have raised, with great opposition from your precious state, to be a devout anti-feminist (And I assure you, Andrew, she stands Six Foot Four, weighs in at 220 pounds of Amazon model with a third degree black belt which I have trained her to, and if you called her a feminist your ass would be jelly on toast more so that if you pinched her on the ass - in which case my son in law would shoot you) for you to stand there and throw shit around like "all women" is a personal attack on her.  She doesn't post here except rarely through my account precisely BECAUSE of people like you.

So give answer.  If you can.

Which I am not holding my breath on.  You've yet to demonstrate the manhood to respond on point, so starting now isn't really something I am anticipating.

But the lurkers will see your avoidance, once more, of facts and questions inconvenient to your closed mind and pathetic philosophy.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the Shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for I am the MEANEST son-of-a-bitch in the valley.

Andrew Usher

Gonz, I will start replying to your arguments if you can stop the belittling, patronising, lying, and maliciousness. Let me note, though, that the argument you do give in this post is a faulty syllogism, to wit:

Premiss 1. Andrew is a socialist.
Premiss 2. Feminism is inherently socialist.
Concl. Andrew is a feminist.

This is an elementary fallacy.

The Gonzman

#12
May 28, 2009, 10:58 PM Last Edit: May 28, 2009, 11:01 PM by The Gonzman

Gonz, I will start replying to your arguments if you can stop the belittling, patronising, lying, and maliciousness.


If you had anything, this wouldn't make any difference.  And I could address you in a protocol fit for the Court of St. James and you'd move the goalposts to dodge the question further, like you have done with any other person who has attemted to engage you politely.

I just skip the aggravation of trying to play nice with a person who argues in bad faith to begin with.

As for "belittling, patronising, lying, and maliciousness"  I have never pretended to be anything but mean as a fucking snake.  So as for three out of four, I say, "Dear Pot; Yes I am Black."  You, however do pretend to be other than that, so wear liar your damn self. I am, however, honest about it, and given your dismissive, intellectually dishonest, and petulance to anyone and everyone who has challenged you, your claims to Marquis of Queensbury rules is contemptible, at best.

Answer the fucking questions.  If you're man enough.

Quote
Let me note, though, that the argument you do give in this post is a faulty syllogism, to wit:

Premiss 1. Andrew is a socialist.
Premiss 2. Feminism is inherently socialist.
Concl. Andrew is a feminist.

This is an elementary fallacy.


Let's also note that Gonz never made any such conclusion, making your claim what we who know anything about logic a "Strawman."

The conclusion is that by supporting the goals of feminism you aid and abet feminism, regardless of whether your anti-feminist protestations are in good faith or not, and as such your proposed solutions are no solutions at all.

The accusation is that you are pushing for a masculist socialism that differs from a feminist socialism only in that your "Jews" have different genitals.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the Shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for I am the MEANEST son-of-a-bitch in the valley.

Andrew Usher



As for "belittling, patronising, lying, and maliciousness"  I have never pretended to be anything but mean as a fucking snake.  So as for three out of four, I say, "Dear Pot; Yes I am Black."


Then you do not belong in a civilised discussion.

Quote
The conclusion is that by supporting the goals of feminism you aid and abet feminism,


Guilt by association.

Quote
regardless of whether your anti-feminist protestations are in good faith or not, and as such your proposed solutions are no solutions at all.


This doesn't follow, unless you mean by 'no solutions' that they aren't consistent with your vision, which is evident.

Quote
The accusation is that you are pushing for a masculist socialism that differs from a feminist socialism only in that your "Jews" have different genitals.


I have no idea what this might mean.

The Gonzman


Then you do not belong in a civilised discussion.


What a hoot.

Quote
Guilt by association. 


Guilt by association would be if you hung out and asociated with feminists.  That you support many of the same goals of feminism, and would fight to achieve those goals is not a matter of dispute.  However you rationalize it.

Quote
This doesn't follow, unless you mean by 'no solutions' that they aren't consistent with your vision, which is evident. 


It does indeed follow, Andy.  If you maintain the same system that created the mess, namely, socialist policies, they remain.  All you've done is put someone else in charge of it, and call it "different."

It's not.  Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Quote

I have no idea what this might mean.


Then you're being willfully obtuse.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the Shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for I am the MEANEST son-of-a-bitch in the valley.

Go Up