Categories
actual activism antifeminism atheism manginas misogyny MRA rationalization hamster reddit self-congratulation

Reddit MRA upvote brigade to the rescue! Or, the Battle of the Urban Dictionary Atheism+ Definition

Reddit MRAs, heeding the call to service, once again prove what dedicated activists they are. Check out the upvotes on this baby!

Today Urban Dictionary, tomorrow the world! (Also, check out those tags!)

Oh, and in case you were wondering, Reddit MRAs also wield a mean downvote; see definition numero dos.

Of course, Man Boobzers reign supreme where it really counts: the Rationalization Hamster meme!

200 replies on “Reddit MRA upvote brigade to the rescue! Or, the Battle of the Urban Dictionary Atheism+ Definition”

At some point Manboobz needs a poetry slam. My contribution will be “I Heard a Fly Buzz When Feminism Died” from way back in the “like a fly spreads germs” thread.

Hellkell: Are you being stupid on purpose? I’m saying the reason I brought it in was because he brought it up. That doesn’t translate to “he started it” in any measure of reality or world I live in, but merely that I responded to what the hell he was saying. I was addressing it. I understand that because you’re a sycophant you feel the need to defend David, but in this case you’re unnecessarily obtuse. It’s what you do. David questioned me about TAA and Todd, I responded. That’s called an exchange. Learn to spot the difference.

@lauralot There’s been some great poetry here, which I’m trying to document on my parasitic blog. I’ll have to dig up your poem and post it there! (Unless you object.)

Pitchy: Are you obtuse, otiose, mendacious or just stupid?

I didn’t read the entire thread. Why should I? You claimed there was a specfic charge. You gave what you purported to be evidence in support of your claim. I read it.

Are you defending piegasm’s insinuation that a male rape victim would be better off dead than raped?

I didn’t see such an insinuation. Perhaps if you linked to the specific comments I’m supposed to be appalled by (as I said, show your work).†

I see you reading that, but I also see you with a propensity to read what you want in things, viz. In other words, better to be dead than raped. I’m not surprised at your obfuscation.

I didn’t say one was better off. I said there is no aftermath to being murdered. Show me where I said it was good/bad; one to the other.

† though to be honest, I don’t think I can say anything; other than pretending I agreed with you, which you would accept as honesty on my part. You obviously have a strong opinion, not to be swayed by argument, and aren’t really hear to present a case, but rather pursue an agenda; which is to put up a wall of, “facts” and then complain that we aren’t convinced by them, purely because of our idolatry of Dave, and our desire to please him with our sycophantic obsequities. You may even choose to bookmark the page so you can use it as evidence the next time you are challenged to prove your credentials of manliness.

Good luck with that.

Pitchy, we don’t really want to know about the world you live in where you dance on dead children’s graves and ejaculate on stranger on the street.

@cloudiah: Feel free! I don’t think it was that great, but if you like it, definitely.

@PitchSchtickGuyWhatever:

Are you being stupid on purpose?

in this case you’re unnecessarily obtuse.

Oh the irony.

Cloudiah: Look, I completely understand that you people are willing to overlook important context to make a point, or to get that “gotcha” moment. It’s what you people do; like modern art. It’s shit and no one understands it but you. However, for those who are not keen to remain ignorant all their lives would examine the situation closely and objectively figure out what is wrong with Jen McCreight’s comment. The most important aspects are these;

Homeless.
No home.
No privacy.
Little food.
Little water.
Maybe mentally deficient.

These aspects are to be considered before you make a judgement call.

Jen McCreight did not consider these aspects. In fact, it’s very clear in her Twitter messages that she did not consider these aspects. First of all by being so disgusted by this homeless person that she had to tweet about it without pity for the man being homeless and in what state of mind you would have to be to do not masturbate in public. Secondly, she makes the immensely remarkable statement that the homeless person should ask for her consent. What? The arrogance and narcissism that goes with that statement is unreal. Thirdly, he’s fucking homeless. He has no home. He has no privacy. Along with the other aspects I noted, where is he going to go to have a wank? I mean, are you fucking kidding me with your comment? The moral relativism in this place is amazing.

Do I think it’s fine for anyone to masturbate in public? No. But I think I would have some pity or at least an understanding if a *homeless person* did it. Furthermore, I wouldn’t feign my disgust about it on Twitter for attention, I would report it to the police so he’d get picked up and given a warm meal, which is more than what Jen “I care about social justice” McCreight did.

Does that answer your question?

Look, I completely understand that you people are willing to overlook important context to make a point, or to get that “gotcha” moment.

At this point, he’s got to be engaging in some sort of social experiment, right? No one can possibly be this dense and unaware.

Apparently now homeless people cannot jerk it in bathroom stalls or other places out of view; no, they have to make sure other people see them, too, cuz homelessness. And now one moderator saying a shitty thing stands for all of atheism+.

But, ya know, schticky pitch here is real concerned about balance.

So you think being hassled by the cops, maybe arrested; and perhaps put on a sex-offender registry (which happens to be something I am strongly ambivalent about: I happen to think making them public ought to be criminal), is worth it, in the hope they get a “hot and a cot” for the night.

You also know that any disgust mentioned is, “feigned”.

Tell me Carnac, what else do you know? Could you give me the numbers for this weekend’s Powerball drawing? I’ll give you ten percent of the winnings?

Tell me Carnac, what else do you know? Could you give me the numbers for this weekend’s Powerball drawing? I’ll give you ten percent of the winnings?

When I am more awake I think this will need another screenplay treatment.

I’m not sure what the connection is between little food and water, and public masturbation. So let’s leave those aside, okay?

I am pro-masturbation. I am anti-inflicting your sexual activities on other people. Unlike food or water, sexual release is not a necessity for survival. Privacy, while it can be hard to come by, is not impossible to find if you’re homeless, as others have pointed out.

You say maybe the guy is “mentally deficient.” What does that mean, and what is your evidence of that? How do you know that when the person who was actually there did not? Is it not the case that you are simply taking the most uncharitable view possible of offhand remarks made by someone you have a beef with?

I’m not sure what the connection is between little food and water, and public masturbation.

Well, now clearly, you’re overlooking the important context that starvation and dehydration lead to an insatiable need for sexual gratification. You feminists will just dismiss anything for a “gotcha,” won’t you?

Pecunium: Well, I’m not surprised you don’t see that kind of insinuation even though it’s right in front of you. I’ll repeat what I said,

the rape victim very clearly outlined his propensity for being dubbed a potential rapist. Piegasm chimes in that in a woman’s point of view, the possibility that the man is a rapist is 50/50 to which Cuduggan2K2 says this is whack and asks piegasm if he/she thought this about murderers as well

Leading, again, to the following exchange,

Cuduggan2K2:
“Agreed, but does it increase it beyond that of murder? If you are murdered, you cease to be, surely that is a higher cost than having been the victim of something with no recourse.”

piegasm:
“You just said it. You cease to be after being murdered, thus you’re not continuing to endure any costs related to having been murdered.”

So since this seems to be difficult to decipher, I’ll break it down. They talk about the threat assessment of rapists, and Cuduggan questions this and asks if this would apply to murderers as well and piegasm says no. Piegasm goes on to claim that rape is a higher cost to pay than being murdered. Basically, they rated the threat assessment based on what is the higher cost. Rape is the higher cost according to piegasm, which means, in the context of Cuduggan’s question of murderers being seen with the same threat assessment, if Cuduggan had been murdered instead and not murdered he would have paid less cost. Which if you read between the lines would mean that piegasm implies that that Cuduggan would be better off dead (murdered) than raped.

As for the specific comments, they’re all in the same thread, I said so. But since you’re too lazy to even go back a page, I’ll just link to the specifics here,

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=22246#p22246

You’re welcome.

Oh hey, look what schticky pitch wasn’t telling us:

Staff notice: We made a big mistake here. Piegasm misread a real life account of rape, and assumed it to be a hypothetical scenario presented for rhetorical purposes. Due to this misunderstanding, she treated Cuduggan2K2 extremely unfairly. We have apologised to Cuduggan2K2 for this mistreatment, and are extremely grateful for his gracious acceptance of this apology.

CRUSADER FOR BALANCE AND SOCIAL JUSTICE AND STUFF

So since this seems to be difficult to decipher, I’ll break it down.

Awww, it’s like watching a three year old think he’s outsmarted his daddy by knocking his Brussels sprouts onto the floor…while his parents are watching. It’s so adorably fruitless.

Lauralot: Idiot.

Cloudiah: For the love of all that is good in the world, what the hell are you babbling on about? Little food and water, a shortage of food and water, maybe drinking foul remains from droplets in the street or rummaging in garbage cans to find something salvageable to eat wouldn’t be healthy, and could potentially lead to tempororary dementia. It’s possible. I didn’t say I had absolute 100% evidence that this was the case, I said it were aspects that you would need to consider before making a judgement call. Especially when it’s a homeless person. The man was masturbating in public, apparently not caring that people walked on by as he was doing it; how far gone would he have to be mentally to do that?

Also, seriously, again, what are you talking about? Sexual release is obviously not a necessity for survival, but at the risk of sounding like a broken record; he’s fucking homeless. Maybe he had been homeless for quite a while. Maybe his sanity had begun to break. Maybe he just didn’t care anymore. I don’t know. Moreover, what evidence is there that he even was masturbating? Moreover, what evidence is there that he was masturbating to Jen McCreight? As stated in the tweet, she happened to walk by. How much of a narcissist does she have to be to make it all about her in that situation? Maybe instead of using it a crutch for attention seeking, subsequently using it to create more drama, she should’ve cared about the homeless guy with the apparent mental instability to masturbate in public.

You aren’t linking to the specifics. This is the comment you direct linked to:

Re: Schrodinger’s Rapist (derail of Arguments to Avoid)

Postby emptyell » Wed Oct 03, 2012 4:28 pm

Stephen T wrote:

Given that the risk of violent crime is significantly lower for women than men, what causes women to have either an increased reaction to the risk level of these situation or a higher perceived risk level of these situations or both?

If you read the earlier thread it actually does address the statistics.

But short answer – SR is about rape and sexual assault. If you’re a man, and you manage to stay out of prison, your chance of being raped or sexually assaulted is tiny compared to a woman’s. So women are going to be cautious. SR, remember, isn’t advice to women, it’s advice to the good guys. Women have no way of knowing who is a good guy, SR says, “guys, act like this and women will be more likely to think you’re a good guy.”

Yes. SR is word to the guys. Not threat analysis for gals. Also…

It is different because “boys will be boys” and victim blaming (and all the other crap that makes it clear to women that they are on their own when it comes to dealing with this stuff) are not typical of other crimes and threats.

Did anybody read my bit earlier about Schroedinger’s Burgler (and why it is not a thing)? I though it was a pretty clear counter-analogy. Was it good, bad, meh?

Now, to what passes for analysis in your comment.

1: Schrödinger’s rapist is a model. Is 50/50 a good ratio? No. There is no ratio. A person is either a rapist, or the aren’t. It’s a binary state.

For a different take on it, I made a comment to someone else on the subject: my take on threats

To proceed. You are, still, misreading the comments you are quoting, and my response.

Two different metrics are being used. Is being dead worse than being raped? Depends on what you are measuring. If being alive is of crucial importance, then yes. But there is a phrase, often used of rape; perhaps you’ve heard it, “A fate worse than death,”.

But if one is measuring ongoing trauma, then being raped is worse than being dead. Once you are dead, nothing more can happen to you.

But you are conflating those two metrics (and as I said before, piegasm did a poor job of explaining it).

That you continue to pretend I am equating those two things, is asinine. That you also pretend I am, at the same time, equating them; well, my previous question about you still stands unanswered.

Tulgey Logger: No, I very clearly informed you of this further up. Still, I don’t see how it makes any difference. In one instance, piegasm tells a rape victim that he’d be better of dead than raped. In the second instance, being ignorant of Cuduggan being a rape victim, piegasm tells someone who he/she doesn’t know is a rape victim that he’d be better off dead than raped. The only difference being that if the situation had been purely hypothetical in Cuduggan’s case, piegasm would still have told someone they would have been better off dead than raped. It’s not better anyway you slice it. Except for, you know, the people who are keen to shift the goalposts.

Pitchy: The man was masturbating in public, apparently not caring that people walked on by as he was doing it; how far gone would he have to be mentally to do that?

Not at all. I’ve seen dudes wanking on the beach. Not homeless, not drunk, just not giving a shit.

. Moreover, what evidence is there that he even was masturbating?

So which is it? She should have him arrested, so he can sleep warm, with a hot meal (have you ever been in jail? Dinner on intake is a sandwich, just sayin’), or he wasn’t, and she was just being offended over nothing?

Make up your mind.

Uh did you miss the part where I agreed it was shitty or?

The point is, there was an apology and it was accepted. But here you are on some other forum typing out paragraphs late at night without any indication as to what the people in question actually want. Why wasn’t piegasm removed? Well, what does Cuduggan think? What does the rest of the community think? Why are you waging your little crusade so far from Gotham?

Maybe his sanity had begun to break. Maybe he just didn’t care anymore. I don’t know. Moreover, what evidence is there that he even was masturbating? Moreover, what evidence is there that he was masturbating to Jen McCreight? As stated in the tweet, she happened to walk by. How much of a narcissist does she have to be to make it all about her in that situation?

Wow, you’re a real piece of work. You acknowledge you don’t have any evidence about the homeless guy’s state of mind, but out of the blue suddenly you DO have the authority to decide that McCreight was saying that he was masturbating to her from the fact that she said he was watching her, and further you have the temerity to claim, again without evidence, that she is an attention seeking narcissist while still maintaining that she needz moar evidents to claim anything at all.

You are a strange, sad little person.

Pecunium: No, the comment I direct linked to was piegasm’s comment responding to emptyell. I guess the direct linking failed.

What I’m equating is you defending piegasm’s remarkably stupid statement. Which is what you do. Is rape a fate worse than death? According to Cuduggan, no, it isn’t, and he said so in the thread and was vindicated for it. He says if he had been murdered, he wouldn’t have experienced [very good, moving things] and he also says that for piegasm to say he should feel that way is telling him to have a victim mentality – which he doesn’t agree with. It seems that for rape victims themselves to feel they shouldn’t have a victim mentality is a grievous error, at least to piegasm.

I’m beginning to get a handle on the level of vitriol that made McCreight take her hiatus. She can’t even complain about people watching her while masturbating in public without people dedicating paragraphs to persecuting her on completely unrelated fora, calling her a narcissist without evidence for the crime of being upset that people are masturbating in public while watching her.

Maybe dogs have the keys to my car. Maybe my curtains are plotting against me. Maybe rear view mirrors see into the future. Maybe incandescent light bulbs open a portal to the 5th dimension. Maybe the 5th Dimension is the best band that has ever existed. Maybe “What is hip today may soon become passé” is the most important wisdom that has ever been passed on to humankind?

So many maybes, Pitchy. What are you babbling about, you babbling little brook you?

Pitchy: What I’m equating is you defending piegasm’s remarkably stupid statement.

Accept that your presentation of it (that piegasm said someone would be better off dead) is wrong.

So I can’t be defending that. Piegasm didn’t say it.

Piegasm said one thing, it was said badly.

Cuduggan misunderstood it (see above, re said badly).

You choose to persist that it was meant as misread.

So the answer is either otiose, or mendacious. At least we’ve narrowed the choices.

See all the other arguments you were so hot about; and that you came here to wage your little war against the evils of A+ (instead of talking about it there, with the people involved), and to abuse the locals on a different blog for not condeming it… I’m going for mendacious.

Pecunium:
Not at all. I’ve seen dudes wanking on the beach. Not homeless, not drunk, just not giving a shit.

Which is obviously equivalent to one another.

So which is it? She should have him arrested, so he can sleep warm, with a hot meal (have you ever been in jail? Dinner on intake is a sandwich, just sayin’), or he wasn’t, and she was just being offended over nothing?

Make up your mind.

I’m saying there is no evidence that he was masturbating. However, if he was, or she thought he was, why not call the police and have him picked up? If she was so damned offended by it, why not do something about it? It’s only logical that some other poor woman (I’m saying woman to appeal to Jen’s sensibilities, but it could be anyone, I suppose) (or a child, to appeal to cloudiah) would see him and then they’d be “violated.”

Tulgey Logger:

Did you now? I only see where you quoted piegasm’s gaffe and then made a sarcastic comment about it.

She said she walked by. Only later did she add that he looked at her, but then it could’ve been circumstantial. Evidently he wasn’t following her around, stalking her. It seems to be quite narcissistic to make that situation all about herself and then say he needed her consent. Remarkable stupidity all around.

I never realized how narcissistic I was to insist that people get my consent before involving me in their sexual activity… So which is it, Pitchy, did the masturbation never happen or was it just unimportant because the dude was hungry and “mentally deficient”? And what should the punishment be for insufficiently correct tweeting by a feminist?

Did you now? I only see where you quoted piegasm’s gaffe and then made a sarcastic comment about it.

I quoted piegasm’s gaffe? What alternate thread are you reading?

Only later did she add that he looked at her, but then it could’ve been circumstantial. Evidently he wasn’t following her around, stalking her. It seems to be quite narcissistic to make that situation all about herself and then say he needed her consent. Remarkable stupidity all around.

Here is the extent of the evidence you’ve presented for her “making it all about herself”:

http://bitchspot.jadedragononline.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/JMcC7.jpg

Remarkable stupidity all around, indeed. But hey, it’s enough to diagnose her with narcissism on the Internets!

Oh, I see, it’s the whole consent thing you don’t understand. I’m going to explain this very slowly and loudly:

THE HOMELESS MAN INVOLVED HER IN HIS SEXUAL ACT WITHOUT HER CONSENT BY MASTURBATING IN PUBLIC. THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT WAS ALL ABOUT HER. IT MEANS HE INVOLVED HER, AND POTENTIALLY OTHER PASSERS-BY, WITHOUT OBTAINING CONSENT.

Remarkable stupidity all around.

Pecunium: Oh for crying out loud, it’s as clear as day. What is so difficult to grasp?

As for A+, you’re joking, right? They are not tolerant of dissent. There have been several threads on Schrödinger’s Rapist and the questionable nature of Atheism Plus and all of them are sickeningly moderated to the point where you’re pounced on if you should have even a little disagreement. I dare you to find a thread that questions Atheism Plus that doesn’t have any of the mods accusing people of derailing, concern trolling, tone trolling, etc, etc, und so weiter, and that’s just the mods; the primary culprits (Grimalkin, cipher and ceepolk) are foul-mouthed sycophants walking in lockstep with the moderators, attack dogs hoping to get a bone or two and they’re given free reign to whatever they please.

However, a single comment out of place and bam! Expelled. Matt Dillahunty? He exposed a flaw in their moderation policy that could only have been detected going in incognito and what they do instead of thanking? They expunge him for sockpuppeting and request, nay, demand an apology for him should he wish to return to their good graces. No, I will not venture over there. Why would I? It would be pointless. They wouldn’t listen, they wouldn’t accept feedback, it would be a waste of time.

Pitchy: Which is obviously equivalent to one another.

No… this is the same shit you are doing re murder/rape, taking two differnt things,and pretending they were addressing the same thing.

You said, The man was masturbating in public, apparently not caring that people walked on by as he was doing it; how far gone would he have to be mentally to do that?

I answered, with personal experience.

Not at all gone. Completely stable.

It’s pretty simple. You ask a question. I answer it, as asked.

Then you pretend it was something else altogether.

I begin to see a pattern.

David: What I did in the Amanda Todd thread was attempt to provide a bit of *balance.* You know, when you’re trying to not just speak from one side. The funny thing is I *did* clarify; I don’t agree with his comments about Todd, I don’t agree with his particular view on it, but I was *trying* to give you some perspective.

Who the fuck are you?

You’re in here, frothing at the mouth and leaving a slime trail of butt-hurt indignation because David moderated you in a different thread? And not just any thread mind you, but one in which he made clear his intention to moderate and/or ban the kind of post you tried to make. Nobody cares about your half-assed defense of TAA. Who gives a shit if you don’t think he’s a terrible person? Who asked you for your “perspective”? Who sought your opinions on “balance” and “objectivity”?

And you’re calling McCreight a narcissist?

Really, dude, who the fuck are you?

Pitchy: You dare me? What the fuck is this, middle school? Newsflash… this is MANBOOBZ, not Atheism+.

If you want to bag on the community here… use the community here. If I don’t give a shit about how a place I don’t hang out does things… that’s my business. If I don’t care that you are upset about it, that’s not my problem.

I’ll look after my own house.

If you want to bag on A+, take it there. If they are so all-fired intolerant as you say, then they will dwindle to insignificance. Then you “win”.

But if you keep trying to pretend we are awful because we aren’t marching in the streets to make them change their ways… I direct you to the header. This isn’t about fixing all the worlds problems, it’s about mocking a certain brand of stupidity.

Sometimes, as a bonus, fools come in here to tell us we are doing it wrong.

They’re not tolerant of dissent?

Odd, here’s a 164 post thread centered around disagreeing with the forum’s position on the Dillahunty affair:

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1647

I have zero idea what the whole Matt Dillahunty thing is about, but I find your characterization of what goes on there to be pretty misleading on its very face.

Nobinayamu: He’s Pitchguest, The Dark Knight. He is out, in the seamy-underbelly of the Social Justice spaces in the web: bringing BALANCE,and PERSPECTIVE, to those who suffer from the blinkers of compassion, and the stifling burden of logic.

Because it’s so bloody hard (ha!) to get, I do not condone masturbating in public. However, if I should see a homeless man masturbating in public as I happened to walk on by, I would still not condone it but not judge it before considering all the variables. The key words here are: happened to walk on by. As I said, the homeless was looking at her but it could have been circumstantial, i.e. she happened to walk into his field of vision as he was doing the deed and he looked up. It’s not that fucking hard. Besides, how many other people happened to walk on by this man masturbating? Many, I imagine. So if I happened to walk by a homeless man masturbating along with several other people, why would I make it all about myself just because he happens to look at me?

And you would be so hoity-toity to request for a possibly mentally ill homeless man for consent to masturbate?

You know, long before David ever wrote anything about Atheism +, that …schtick jackass was here whining like a kid who dropped their ice cream cone. Is this just going to be a thing now?

The standing request I have is that anyone who wants to involve me in sexual activity should get my consent. Schticky, can you explain what is narcissistic or “hoity toity” about that?

So Pitchy why are you trying to make this all about yourself? You don’t like A+. Got it. Thanks for sharing.

You even showed us what you think their faults are (which puts you head and shoulders above most of the fools who try to “set us straight”).

But, on reviewing the evidence, we don’t agree. Why are you going on about it? You’ve said you think we are Lying Liar McLiarsons, nothing but lickspittle sycophantic worshippers of the Great Futrelle.

So what’s your point? You’ve share, “The Truth” with us, and told us what purblind morons we are, and taken us to task for being knee-jerk ideologues.

Why are you continuing? You’ve pretty much run through the entire playbook. If there’s something left undone, get to it man. If not, and you’ve made it to the end of the script, let the curtain fall.

Pecunium: Look, man, it’s simple. The homeless man is probably either a) starved b) dehydrated c) mentally disturbed, or d) a mixture of the three or all of the above. It’s not guaranteed that he’s any of these things, but being homeless with no income, no home, no medicine, it’s very probable. Now you want to make an equivalent comparison between a healthy, probably not starved, not dehydrated, and not mentally disturbed random guy on a beach and someone who’s homeless. The situations are not even close to being the same.

Nobinayamu: Butthurt? Really?

Well, why the fuck wouldn’t I give my opinion? It’s an open blog. What does it matter who I am? Who are you to order me around? All I did in that other thread was to provide a different perspective to David’s obvious and delibarately biased narrative — politely at first, I might add — and then I got pissed off when he just deleted it outright. I haven’t demanded anything of David Futrelle; I offered an objective view of someone who was deemed ‘an all terrible person’ on a controversial topic. Speaking of which,

[VIDEO DELETED BY DF]

Tulgey Logger:

Yeah, have you read that thread, mate? You might want to read the whole thing.

Pitchy: Ever been homeless? Because I have, 1: You are full of shit, and 2: You are moving the goalposts.

You said someone had to be “pretty far gone” to be having a wank in public. I said I’d seen people who weren’t having a pull.

Now you are trying to say that isn’t what you said. Own your words, like a grown-up.

Well, why the fuck wouldn’t I give my opinion? It’s an open blog. What does it matter who I am? Who are you to order me around? All I did in that other thread was to provide a different perspective to David’s obvious and delibarately biased narrative — politely at first, I might add — and then I got pissed off when he just deleted it outright. I haven’t demanded anything of David Futrelle; I offered an objective view of someone who was deemed ‘an all terrible person’ on a controversial topic. Speaking of which,

Horse-pucky. Dave said he wasn’t going to put up with certain types of comment. His blog, his rules.

Then you come in here, making demands of people who are regular contributors; people who don’t know you from my Great Aunt, and tell us we are doing it wrong. You say Dave was unfair to you, because he did what he said was unfair to you, when all you were doing was, “offering perspective”.

And then you embed a link (which I’m not going to click) trying to do it again?

You want to offer persepctive… start your own blog. It’s easy.

If I were Dave, I’d be swinging the ban-hammer about now. Not for being rude (you are). Not for being stupid (you are), but for being a butthurt titty-baby who thinks he’s entitled to shit on the rug, and get a cookie for it.

Nobinayamu: Butthurt? Really?</blockquote?

Yes. Butthurt. Really. Take a look, dipshit:

All I did in that other thread was to provide a different perspective to David’s obvious and delibarately biased narrative — politely at first, I might add — and then I got pissed off when he just deleted it outright.

Well, why the fuck wouldn’t I give my opinion? It’s an open blog.

It’s not an open blog, dumb ass. It’s David’s blog. He gets to choose what he will and won’t post. If providing “balance” and “perspective” in defense of TAA is soooo important to you then you should either find a space/community that doesn’t state explicitly that it has no interest in that opinion or start your own fucking space/community in which to do so.

This blog’s discussion of Amanda Todd was sympathetic, empathetic, and filled with people who have been the victims of bullying, sexual harassment, slut-shaming and had thoughts of suicide. Your “perspective” was neither solicited nor welcome. And you were told that. Directly.

Like I said, you’re leaving a slime trail of butthurt indignation. And you calling someone else a narcissist moves right past irony straight into parody.

Pecunium: Anyone with a modicum of honesty, integrity and humility would dislike A+ and what its proponents are doing. It started with Jen, escalated with Richard Carrier and now the moderators at their own designed forum is taking it a whole a new level. Pitiful.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.