a voice for men antifeminism I am making a joke I'm totally being sarcastic lying liars MRA video

JohntheOther: I totally didn’t lie about Rebecca Watson, Take Two

Totally not a liar. Whatever is coming out of his mouth here, it most definitely is not a bunch of lying lies.

Hey, you remember that thing the other day, when A Voice for Men’s second banana JohntheOther said some awful things about evil feminist atheist Rebecca Watson because she made a joke at a conference and he didn’t realize it was a joke?

And then he said he didn’t realize it was a joke, even though she explicitly revealed it was a joke in the video of hers he said he watched ? And so then he tried to pretend explain that he hadn’t watched the whole video, even though he had clearly downloaded the whole thing and incorporated parts of it in his video?

Well, now it turns out that some of the parts of her video he used in his video, well, they included the bit where she revealed the joke. Only – OOPS! – John just happened to edit that part out.

Unsophisticated folks might conclude from this that JohntheOther is a lying liar who lies about his lies. And that maybe he should henceforth be known as JohntheLiar.

But no. Apparently, as JoththetotallynotaLiar explains in a new video, he was just so, so convinced that Rebecca was a mean evil sociopath that he just didn’t realize what she was saying! He basically thought she was babbling nonsense, making a complete non-sequitur, so he cut it out of his video.

I mean, a feminist making a joke? Instead of being a mean evil sociopath? Beep Boop does not compute! His complete inability to understand the words that were coming out of her mouth? That was just good old confirmation bias at work, he explains in the video.That’s his actual explanation: he’s not a liar, just someone — to phrase it a bit more bluntly than he is willing to — who is so blinded by his own ideology that he cannot tell that a joke is a joke, even when someone announces that it is a joke.

He goes on to explain that it would be “illogical” to conclude that he is a liar because, come on, who would lie so blatantly, knowing that they would be caught?

And then he eats a baby.

Oops! My bad! I watched the video again, and it turns out he does not in fact eat a baby. Instead, at this point in the video, he apologizes to Watson for calling her a sociopath. I blame confirmation bias for causing me to misinterpret the video at this point.  The apology seemed like a total non-sequitur to me, so naturally I saw it as him eating a baby.

In reality, what happens is that he apologizes to Watson, and then he eats a baby.

Here’s the video.

Oops! Mea culpa! Here’s the video, for reals:

EDITED TO ADD: It turns out that after eating the baby apologizing to Watson for calling her a sociopath in the video, John told one of the commenters  that he still thinks she’s a sociopath. So his apology wasn’t really much of an apology after all, was it? It wasn’t even a “sorry if you were offended” fauxpology. Since he was apologizing for saying something that he still believes and that he went on to repeat, it’s really more of a liepology.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
10 years ago

Bizarre is an understatement:
they walk around naked in Mark & Spencer because of (unmoderated) comments on a website (if the numbers are true, 70 angry comments on a website that has 30 000 a day). Since the article say that their usual MO is dressing up as super heroes, I think they just like silly protests. But seriously dudes, drop the metaphors. If you don’t take any risk (and you don’t except maybe getting cold) that’s in no way a guerrilla and some mothers saying mean things about you is as much the apartheid as someone stepping on my foot is an holocaust.

10 years ago

When I talk about radfems I mean the things Andrea Dworkin has said in the 80s. But to what extent did she and other radfems change the laws? she spoke against pornography but I don’t see any laws against it

Dworkin, and McKinnon (at the very least) made common cause with the Moral Majority to get porn banned (IIRC, Alabama) on the theory that, as it was a purely masturbatory aid it had no public value.

Ignoring the side effect that it also outlawed vibrators and dildos (and that they made a special pleading for them being exempted, because they were different from images of women having sex: it’s not that they were hypocritical, they had a different baseline argument about the harms of porn, and theirs was such that dildos and vibrators weren’t actually a harm), one of the things that happened was an odd sense that feminists weren’t sincere in their principles because they were willing to join anyone who was willing to; for whatever reason, support them.

Even if those people were doing other things that were (and remain) really harmful to women.

%d bloggers like this: