Categories
debate drama hypocrisy lying liars paul elam Uncategorized violence against men/women

>Debate Drama: Dalrock is a Lying Liar

>

Debating Men’s Rights Activists can be a lot like arguing with a kid who puts his hands over his ears and shouts “la la la I can’t hear you!”

During my abortive debate with Paul Elam on Domestic Violence, I had a hard time getting him to respond to my arguments; instead, he devoted much of his energy to arguing against experts I never cited and arguments I never made.(EDIT: See all my debate posts and some commentary here.)

Now the blogger “Dalrock” has decided to weigh in on the debate — despite the fact that by his own admission he didn’t actually read the whole thing. Not surprisingly, he completely misrepresents my argument:

His argument was that since he could point to more studies showing the orthodox feminist view, his perspective must be right.

Either he didn’t read more than a paragraph or two of what I wrote, or he’s incapable of understanding logic, or, well, he’s a lying liar.

At the moment I’m leaning towards the first explanation; I’m being generous here.

But it’s hard to see the next bit as anything but, well, that lying liar thing.

Mentioning my post responding to Elam’s disgraceful “Bash a Violent Bitch Month” post, which was not even part of the debate proper, Dalrock ignores Elam’s obnoxious provocation and brings up a similarly obnoxious, similarly disgraceful Jezebel post from several years back, in which several Jezebel staffers and a host of commenters there gleefully admitted to beating up boyfriends. (Elam and I both mentioned it in our posts; it was Elam’s excuse for writing his post in the first place.)

According to Dalrock, my response to the Jezebel post went roughly as follows:

The feminist looked like he might come to just in time to avoid the count.  He started mumbling incoherently that the link didn’t prove anything, and there weren’t that many women eagerly recounting tales of abusing their boyfriends.  Besides, the women were probably lying and had really just been defending themselves.  And none of the comments looked that bad to him anyway.  Most of those guys probably eventually recovered with proper medical treatment.

Even aside from the dopey boxing metaphor, this is simply fiction. Let’s break it down.

He started mumbling incoherently that the link didn’t prove anything, and there weren’t that many women eagerly recounting tales of abusing their boyfriends. 

I didn’t say that.

Besides, the women were probably lying and had really just been defending themselves.

I didn’t say that.

And none of the comments looked that bad to him anyway.  Most of those guys probably eventually recovered with proper medical treatment.

I didn’t say that. He’s simply making shit up. Or, as some might put it, lying.

If you want to know what I did say, you can see it here.

When I pointed all this out in Dalrock’s comments, he responded with:

You mean you weren’t really unconscious in a boxing ring knocked out by a commenter, and came to just before the final count?

Yeah, the fact that you made a dumb boxing joke means it’s totally ok to lie about what I said.

To my regular readers: Sorry about all the drama here. To paraphrase Bob Dole, I’m just trying to get these guys to “stop lying about my record.”

Also: Elam himself poked his head up in the comments to Dalrock’s post to offer a response of sorts to my final debate post; needless to say, it’s pretty feeble. You can read it here, and if you skip down a few posts you should be able to read my response to it; I will also be appending it to my original post.

42 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
bishopsinister
12 years ago

>@LunaTEC1. You don't get under my skin. You're just evil. I don't know whether it's deliberate evil, but you are evil none the less. About the mancession you state "Did it ever occur to you that men got hit in the recession because *gasp* it's still common for women to be the primary caregivers? In fact, it's almost as if the group with more jobs, lost more jobs. That's just weird. Better attribute it to feminazi conspiracy!"Dear God. Let me try to simplify it for you. A hurricane occurs and many people lose homes, however Group A loses far more homes than Group B. Group B then goes to the government and says, don't give money to Group A for homes give it to Group B. The government does so and when Group A complains, you say well Group A started out with more homes in the first place so fuck them. So Group B is lounging in their second home while the men of Group A live on the street. Do you really think that is fair? Are you that reptilian? And you actually wonder why more and more men hate feminists? You also lie here and state: "And RB you have posted some pretty fucked up stuff about rape so really, I wouldn't go on about hang nails vs. limb amputations given you systematically dismiss rape as a crime. Go read about Russell Williams and his sick twisted acts and then maybe we'll compare notes."What did I say about rape that is fucked up? Show it to me.As for the insults I've called you, aren't you the one with the baby penises crack? Pot meet kettle. Or is it that whole I can insult people cause I'm a woman but anyone who insults me is a bitter misogynist? Furthermore, put your mind at ease I have no desire to threaten you with rape especially since most feminists are rather, let me put this delicately, mannish, well the female ones at least.As for hating gay men, I have far less a problem with gay men (David Futrelle not included) than I do with feminist man haters like yourself. TEC states that I, Random Brother called her: "1. Crazy 2. Lesbian3. Liar4. Man hater5. Greedy6. DumbHmmm, it's almost like you're using shaming tactics… but wait, don't MRAs disapprove? Oh, right it's only "wrong" if it's used against MRAs. Just like rape and DV is only wrong if it's against men, doesn't exist if it's on women right?"1 It's not a shaming tactic if it's true IMHO, and secondly nice non sequitir with the rape canard. I would be shocked if you could go through a whole post with out using "RAPE!!!!!!!(TM – Manhater inc.)" to try and prop up your arguments. TEC said "Oh but I'm so-so scared! What's next? Calling me a slut? Or ugly? Or fat? Or threatening to rape me? Please. It's been done. I can't be intimidated especially by your pathetic paltry attempts."There you go with the rape thing again. RAPE, RAPE, RAPE! RAPERAPERAPERAPE!!!!!! I said rape, so pay no attention to the weakness of my argument! RAPEY, RAPE, RAPINGHAM, with a coke and a side order of. . . . . . . . . . . . . .RAPE!!!!!!! Jesus, get some new material honey.TEC said: "Here's a thought: actually post something that isn't just a ripe off other people's insults. Or is that too much of a challenge for you?"You forgot to mention rape. Why don't you form a cogent argument around, well anything you've screeched out on this board. That would be nice. Then maybe we could have a rational debate.Random Brother

Pam
Pam
12 years ago

>"It's not shaming language, but sure, the truth hurts.""It's not a shaming tactic if it's true IMHO"ROTFLMAO!! So, if a feminist says something negative about MRAs, whether he/she can prove it or not, it's shaming language; but if an MRA says something negative about a feminist, whether he/she can prove it or not, it's "The Truth".Thank you, MRAs, for defining reality for us and then claiming that it's the female mind that is eternally solipsistic.

bishopsinister
12 years ago

>@PamWay to miss the point dear. I know it means nothing to you feminuts but the truth should matter.Random Brother

Eoghan
12 years ago

>Pamshaming language refers to female shaming language thats an attempt to manipulate men, its not simple name calling.egmen that question feminism have small penissman are afraid of independent womenmen are afraid of commitmentyou are not a real manetc

David Futrelle
12 years ago

>"you are not a real man"Oh, you mean like people who call feminist men "manginas?"

bishopsinister
12 years ago

>David,What you, Pam and LunaTEC fail to understand is that context matters.If a man says I think that feminist laws hurt men and a woman responds, you just can't get laid! That is shaming language. It's an attempt to kill the conversation with no logical counter to the argument. Also, how are you David going to complain about being mocked by being called a mangina when the whole point of your blog is to mock MRA's?

Tec
Tec
12 years ago

>@Bishop, EoghanPam and David have already pointed out how it's shaming tactics. My point was that they were completely unoriginal and factually untrue and incredibly hypocritical of MRAs who apparently never use such shaming tactics. (last part, total sarcasm) In fact, the only reason why he said it was simply because he thought it would work but his efforts were incredibly obvious and pathetic, which is why I pointed them out.Fortunately, not being a 12 year old, I don't care if you use shaming tactics on me. 😛 Not gonna make me go away. FYI, another shaming tactic: calling me ugly or "mannish". So, as I count it, you've made 7 specific slurs against me: that means I guess I can make 7 against you, bishop:You're a pathetic excuse for a man (1). You will never have a girlfriend/wife (or a boyfriend/husband)(2) and it's likely you're in jail for being a rapist(3) or a batterer(4) or a child molestor(5) or all three. Your definition of "normal sex" probably constitutes your hand/fleshlight (6), whacking off at gay porn and MRA sites(7). I'd also like to point out that my comment about MRAs having tiny penises was made after what (I at least perceived) as a sexual slur against me which I regretted after posting, so apologies.

Eoghan
12 years ago

>Yeah David, calling men manginas is shaming language. When mens movement people are talking about feminist shaming language, its a standard set of derailers that a large number of them will predictably use in lue of a rational argument, usually ego attacks and sexual slurs. As we saw here the other day, MM people are not above it either. Im not keen on the term mangina as part of MM rhetoric but I think that white knight is useful, women playing the victim and men automatically rushing in to help is an old scam that needs to be exposed, feminism makes good use of this old, sexist standard, I think mangina is a term for a man that falls for it hook, line and sinker.

Pam
Pam
12 years ago

>@Random Brother,Way to twist the point. You're not claiming something to be the truth in that particular instance because the truth matters, but as a means to defend and veil your hypocrisy.I don't fail to understand that context matters, and I don't believe that David and Tec fail to understand this, either. What you know darn well but are unwilling to admit is that when a man responds in like manner to what a woman says in support of feminism or not in complete agreement with what the man says, it's also an attempt to kill the conversation with no logical counter to the [email protected],Shaming language, no matter who is using it, is an attempt to manipulate.– women who are pro-feminism are anti-male, man-haters, etc.– women who are pro-feminism are lesbians…man-hating lesbians (assuming that this will produce the requisite amount of shame intended based on a belief that women who are homophobic have the same intensity of homophobia as men who are homophobic)– women who are pro-feminism are ugly…more probably fat and ugly– women are innately stupid and irrational (moreso if they are pro-feminism)– women are greedy gold-diggers– you are not a real woman– etc.The terms "white knight" and "mangina" are tossed at any man who questions or is not in complete agreement with everything an MRA says. Like any shaming language, it's meant to whip them back into line.

David Futrelle
12 years ago

>RB and tec, can we dial down the slurs and personal attacks here? tec, I know you were doing it to make a point, but in the end I think it's counterproductive to take that route.

bishopsinister
12 years ago

>Here's what I'll do. Since Mr. Futrelle requested it, I will answer THIS post with nary an insult, though I doubt the feminists on this board will do the same. Firstly about shaming language. This whole "you guys use shaming language to!" in my opinion is just spin. MEN are the ones who when they start discussing men's rights issues are called gay. MEN are the ones who are told that if they are pro men's right's it's because they can't get laid. So when men use harsh language in response to their enemies, feminist play the rubber glue game. It seems to me that you want a situation where feminists can insult and degrade men, but men must bite their tongue in response or you call them hypocrite. You want me to follow rules that you will not follow. No. Just no. Further the vast majority of time when MRA'S insult feminists after or prior to the insult there is an argument a point, usually, IMHO, true. On the other hand rarely if ever do feminists do the same. For them the insult IS the point. Secondly on the lesbian "slur." Do feminist organizations not ally themselves with lesbian groups? Are there not many notable lesbian members? And have not these lesbians called for the death of men and or claimed that all heterosexual sex is rape? If so and these organizations pass laws that harm men. Disenfranchise men. Pass laws that make traditional male female relations more difficult, then what am I to think about the people in those organizations? That they are man friendly lesbians? Come on! Furthermore when men lose their jobs and these feminists ensure that they are left out in the cold, (which is part of my previous post that you ignored) are men supposed to think these lesbians in the group like men? If that's like give me hate any day.If I passed a law that took away tons of jobs from women, would you say that was an act of kindness on my part? Of course not. And this is not even getting into all the slurs about men being inferior and all sex being rape. Whenever men critiize this feminists use one of the most vacuous arguments ever and claim there are approximately 8 trillion types of feminism, so you can never dislike feminism because the thing you're mad at is the "other" feminism. So calling a member of a group that has many lesbians, spouts anti male, pro lesbian relations and opposes anything the helps straight men seems to me not in the least a stretch. Random BrotherNow insult free!

bishopsinister
12 years ago

>@ PamNo. What I want in these debates is to win the argument AND let the feminist know how much she disgusts me for even thinking something that is so fundamentally flawed. I want her to see the crack in her logic and how awful she is for not seeing it in the first place.Random Brother

DarkSideCat
12 years ago

>"Secondly on the lesbian "slur." Do feminist organizations not ally themselves with lesbian groups? Are there not many notable lesbian members? And have not these lesbians called for the death of men and or claimed that all heterosexual sex is rape? If so and these organizations pass laws that harm men. Disenfranchise men. Pass laws that make traditional male female relations more difficult, then what am I to think about the people in those organizations? That they are man friendly lesbians? Come on! "Okay, let's break this down claim by claim. "Do feminist organizations not ally themselves with lesbian groups?" Some do, some don't. Some feminist groups have historically been explicitly anti-lesbian, referring to lesbians as the 'lavender menance' in one notable case."Are there not many notable lesbian members?" A few, but there are also notable hetero members."And have not these lesbians called for the death of men and or claimed that all heterosexual sex is rape?" No, the vast majority of feminist lesbians have not said this. You are confusing a position called 'radical lesbian feminist seperatism' with feminists who are lesbian in general. The vast majority of feminist lesbians are not now, nor have never been, rad fem seperatists."If so and these organizations pass laws that harm men. " Last time I checked, rad fem seperatist orgs were not their own nation states. In fact, most seperatists are strongly anti-government, as many governments are generally disproportionately male or were established by males. Seperatists like to set up their own exclusive societies when possible, not to try to work with a male influenced government (I am not a rad fem, or a rad fem seperatist, but this is how they generally think and work)."Disenfranchise men." Please point out to me one nation where men may legally not vote and women may. Just one. I would really like to see that."Pass laws that make traditional male female relations more difficult" See the point above about seperatists and governments. Also 'traditional male female relations' are oppressive and sexist, not positive, so if I actually thought seperatists had been good at this, it would be a plus, not a minus. It should also be said that the vast majority of those who object to traditional patriarchy are not seperatists, and may or may not be lesbians, but do include many heterosexuals."what am I to think about the people in those organizations" What organizations? Feminist organizations in general? Because the majority of these are not rad fem seperatists. "they are man friendly lesbians" There are plenty of man friendly feminist lesbians. Feminist lesbian and radical feminist seperatist are not equivalent, and the latter is an incredibly small fringe minority.

bishopsinister
12 years ago

>@ DarksidecatYou responded to my quote about feminists being allied with lesbian groups with DSC: Some do, some don't. Some feminist groups have historically been explicitly anti-lesbian, referring to lesbians as the 'lavender menance' in one notable case.RB: Okay, fine. So it should be simple to show me say 5 feminst organizations that are anti lesbian, today, right? Please do so. If not then, currently, in the time period that I live in what I state is true. DSC: No, the vast majority of feminist lesbians have not said this. You are confusing a position called 'radical lesbian feminist seperatism' with feminists who are lesbian in general. The vast majority of feminist lesbians are not now, nor have never been, rad fem seperatists.RB: But the tacitly support it. The vast majority of Germans didn't give speeches supporting the killing of jews, but they had no problem with their leadership doing so. DSC: Last time I checked, rad fem seperatist orgs were not their own nation states. In fact, most seperatists are strongly anti-government, as many governments are generally disproportionately male or were established by males. Seperatists like to set up their own exclusive societies when possible, not to try to work with a male influenced government (I am not a rad fem, or a rad fem seperatist, but this is how they generally think and work).RB: You do not have to be a seperate nation state to get laws you want passed, you just have to be able to subvert the political system enough. By claiming that all men are violent predators your leaders have done so, IMHO.DSC: "Disenfranchise men." Please point out to me one nation where men may legally not vote and women may. Just one. I would really like to see that.RB: From this site. http://www.yourdictionary.com/disenfranchise See definition #2. dis·en·fran·chise (dis′in fran′c̸hīz′)transitive verb disenfranchised -·chised′, disenfranchising -·chis′·ing1.to deprive of the rights of citizenship, esp. of the right to vote2.to deprive of a privilege, right, or powerDSC: Also 'traditional male female relations' are oppressive and sexist, not positive, so if I actually thought seperatists had been good at this, it would be a plus, not a minus. It should also be said that the vast majority of those who object to traditional patriarchy are not seperatists, and may or may not be lesbians, but do include many heterosexuals.RB: I'm not even going to get into this with you because we'll never in a trillion years agree over what constitutes a traditional relationships and whether or not they were/are oppresive. DSC: "they are man friendly lesbians" There are plenty of man friendly feminist lesbians. Feminist lesbian and radical feminist seperatist are not equivalent, and the latter is an incredibly small fringe minority. RB: I don't believe this at all. Also, I am specifically talking about straight men, not gay ones, who IMHO, are treated like some kind of mascot for feminists. Random Brother

bishopsinister
12 years ago

>@ DarksidecatYou responded to my quote about feminists being allied with lesbian groups with DSC: Some do, some don't. Some feminist groups have historically been explicitly anti-lesbian, referring to lesbians as the 'lavender menance' in one notable case.RB: Okay, fine. So it should be simple to show me say 5 feminst organizations that are anti lesbian, today, right? Please do so. If not then currently, in the time period that I live in what I state is true. DSC: No, the vast majority of feminist lesbians have not said this. You are confusing a position called 'radical lesbian feminist seperatism' with feminists who are lesbian in general. The vast majority of feminist lesbians are not now, nor have never been, rad fem seperatists.RB: But the tacitly support it. The vast majority of Germans didn't give speeches supporting the killing of jews, but they had no problem with their leadership doing so. DSC: Last time I checked, rad fem seperatist orgs were not their own nation states. In fact, most seperatists are strongly anti-government, as many governments are generally disproportionately male or were established by males. Seperatists like to set up their own exclusive societies when possible, not to try to work with a male influenced government (I am not a rad fem, or a rad fem seperatist, but this is how they generally think and work).RB: You do not have to be a seperate nation state to get laws you want passed, you just have to be able to subvert the political system enough. By claiming that all men are violent predators your leaders have done so, IMHO.DSC: "Disenfranchise men." Please point out to me one nation where men may legally not vote and women may. Just one. I would really like to see that.RB: From this site. http://www.yourdictionary.com/disenfranchise See definition #2. dis·en·fran·chise (dis′in fran′c̸hīz′)transitive verb disenfranchised -·chised′, disenfranchising -·chis′·ing1.to deprive of the rights of citizenship, esp. of the right to vote2.to deprive of a privilege, right, or powerDSC: Also 'traditional male female relations' are oppressive and sexist, not positive, so if I actually thought seperatists had been good at this, it would be a plus, not a minus. It should also be said that the vast majority of those who object to traditional patriarchy are not seperatists, and may or may not be lesbians, but do include many heterosexuals.RB: I'm not even going to get into this with you because we'll never in a trillion years agree over what constitutes a traditional relationships and whether or not they were/are oppresive. DSC: "they are man friendly lesbians" There are plenty of man friendly feminist lesbians. Feminist lesbian and radical feminist seperatist are not equivalent, and the latter is an incredibly small fringe minority. RB: I don't believe this at all. Also, I am specifically talking about straight men, not gay ones, who IMHO, are treated like some kind of mascot for feminists. Random Brother

David Futrelle
12 years ago

>rb, your comments keep getting caught by the spam filter; they should all be posted now.

David Futrelle
12 years ago

>RB, where on earth do you get your information on lesbians? The Big Book of Shit About Lesbians That Isn't Actually True? Have you ever met an actual lesbian?Here's how my last interaction with a lesbian went:Sweet old lesbian lady at table next to me in cafe, with her sweet old lesbian partner: Hey, is that a root beer float?Me: Yeah, they're really good here.Lesbian lady: I didn't know they had them. Maybe I'll order one.

%d bloggers like this: