a voice for men antifeminism are these guys 12 years old? drama drama kings grandiosity hypocrisy internal debate irony alert kitties men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny MRA narcissism no girls allowed paul elam

Manosphere Civil War: AVFM fires back at the MGTOW rebels. Also, kitty pics.

Dude against dude. Not sure why the dogs are floating in midair.

Manosphere drama is always a bit surreal. You may recall my post the other day about the feud developing between two sites that are regular sources of material for us here at Man Boobz: MGTOWforums and A Voice for Men. As you may recall, the folks at MGTOWforums were working themselves into a lather because AVFM was committing the cardinal sin of allowing women – sorry, “cunts” – to post articles and comments. The horror!

Now AVFM has fired back. In a thread on AVFM’s relatively new forum, head cheese Paul Elam lashes out at the “MGTOW Forum Fuckwits,” declaring them a bunch of shit-stirring “piss ants” and announcing his plans to turn the AVFM forum into MGTOW central.

I see an opportunity here, This forum is very user friendly to MGTOW’s. MGTOW Forums is the largest one of its kind, but it is run by children. I will happily siphon off as many of the men they ban and shame for not measuring up to their cliquish little band of alpha wannabe’s as I can.

God knows [MGTOWforums admin] Nacho and his bootlickers run them off as quick as they come in.

AVfM is already a more traveled site than their forum, and as time passes the MGTOW presence here will eclipse their little circle jerk.

Speaking of circle jerks, here’s Paul, in an unrelated thread on his forum, banning a dude for having the temerity to suggest that “Reddit, not, is the most important online resource for Men’s Rights Activism.”

BANNED! Nothing must challenge the supremacy of PAUL ELAM!

Naturally, I found out about this by reading about it on MGTOWforums, where A Voice for Men is now being dismissed as — I kid you not — “A Vagina For Manginas.”

Still, the strangest development in this civil war is this: some MGTOWers who’ve been banned from AVFM’s forum have set up an alternative forum of their own, which they’ve rather confusingly named “AVFMforums.” Yes, that’s right, it’s a battle between the AVFM forums and … AVFMforums. How can you tell them apart? Well, when the latter group uses the acronym AVFM they mean “Alternate Voice for Men” rather than the original “A Voice for Men.” Also, the dudes at AVFMforums think that AVFM’s Elam is “a lying hippocrite [sic] with no credibility.”

If this is all a bit confusing, perhaps this brief video clip will help elucidate some of the issues here:

Also, for no particular reason, here are two new pictures of Sweetie Pie Jonus, one of my kittens:

Actually, the combatants in this latest mansophere civil war could learn a thing or two from my kittens. They fight, but always seem to end up licking each other’s heads. The kittens, that is. I’d love to see Paul Elam and his critics doing the same.

373 replies on “Manosphere Civil War: AVFM fires back at the MGTOW rebels. Also, kitty pics.”

Lastly, I appreciate everyone who still thinks that there was no need to make slavery illegal after the war because it was already in the amendment.

And we appreciate the fact that you’re not even seeing things that would interrupt your self-righteousness.

Yeah, I was ignoring that to make the point that with the widespread corruption she’s talking abut, another law outlawing slavery wouldn’t have made such difference.

Usually, that would be fair enough. With a weasel like this, though, my instinct is not to give an inch. Things said for the sake of argument have a way of becoming established facts for the next round of the argument.

The existence of slavery, as an institution, requires certain laws–known, in the antebellum South, as the slave codes. A constitutional ban on slavery necessarily forbids states from enacting a legal framework to support slavery–i.e., states can’t make laws to the effect that certain people can be owned as property. What this did not do was prevent the states from reducing the nominally freed slaves to a state of de facto slavery through debt peonage, denial of civil rights, etc. Still, I doubt anyone at the time felt the need to enact a statutory ban on slavery, since it was common knowledge that slavery required the backing of the state to function as in institution. No slave codes meant no slavery, at least as it existed in the South before the Civil War. And states were at least theoretically forbidden from enacting slave codes by the 13th amendment.

And, when the states of the former Confederacy attempted to reduce the black population of their states to quasi-slavery with the Black Codes, the response from the Federal Government was the 14th amendment–guaranteeing (in theory) equal protection under the law–and the imposition of military rule in the South. Again, outlawing slavery statutorily, in the way one might outlaw murder, was unnecessary, since slavery was always a socio-political institution that could not exist without the support of the state, rather than the act of individuals.

Having just spent a very long time reading the entire thread, I would like to ask Angela one very simple, yes or no question.

Did the South secede from the Union specifically over the issue of slavery? Yes or no? I keep seeing you say things that amount to “those terrible Northerners didn’t fight to free the slaves”. But you never, ever, address what those Southerners were doing. Were they fighting to defend the slavery, or not?

I know you’ve said they seceded over State’s Rights. You’ve said that over and over. But was the primary State’s Right that they seceded to defend the right to own slaves, or was it not? If it wasn’t, what State’s Right was so very, very important to them that they felt they had to leave the Union to preserve it?

And if it was, why use the whitewashing phrase “State’s Rights” when you know they really meant “The Right To Own Slaves”?

Ok, so it’s more than one question. It’s two. One Yes/No question, and one followup essay question.

1) Did the Confederacy secede primarily over the right to own slaves. Y/N
2a) If they didn’t, what specific State’s Right was the most important one that they felt they had to secede to maintain?
2b) If they did, why are you almost exclusively using the same phrase that racist Confederacy apologists use to pretend that it wasn’t?

Angela: Your citations are shit. You are ignoring my citations. You aren’t even being polite enough to admit I made them.

Question: Who declared war?

But there was a massive need.

No, there was no need to make it illegal. IT WAS ILLEGAL What was needed was enforcement.

But you don’t care. Hundreds of thousands of words, on the part of the participants, about how slavery was the lynchpin on which it turned. The shift in focus in the North, as the war went on. The crusading zeal that took over.

You ignore those. You keep repeating that we need to watch (again, as some of us have watched it, when it came out) a video. We keep pointing out the video is moving, and irrelevant, because the source material (i.e. the writings of the people who went to war, and the Contitution, and the NW Ordinance, and the Peonage At of 1867, etc.) all make plain the error of your central position.

Here are your specific statements:

the idea that the war ended slavery is simply not true.

False. The War ended slavery. After the war it was illegal to own slaves. Were there people who broke the law? Yes. There are also people who steal, and commit election fraud, and counterfeit money.

It doesn’t mean those are legal activities, it means there are criminals.

And I’m not saying slavery wasn’t a factor of states rights, but it wasn’t the reason.

It was the reason. It was The Right, which the states were fighting to keep. It wasn’t the right to secede. It was the “Right” to keep slaves.

But more importantly, slavery might have been the fourth grade test answer to why the Civil war was fought. Those precious white Christian men died over states rights, and in fact the civil war didn’t end slavery as slave owning northern states were still allowed to own slaves after the war.

In those Nothern States it was, by state statute, illegal to own slaves. The only way to own a slave in Massachusetts was to be a citizen of a state like Alabama.

Are you arguing Ohio, Massachussetts, New York, New Hampshire, Kansas, Calif., etc. passed laws to make Slavery legal after the war; when it was on the books as illegal before the war?

Really? Because that’s the only way that works. The Missouri Compromise specifically dealt with admitting Slave/Free States. It’s what “Bloody Kansas” was all about. It was the repeal of that, “balance” which caused the South to leave. Because in the “North” slavery was illegal.

And the Northern States were flouting the Fugitive Slave Act; which deprived those states of their rights. If a slave-owner from Georgia showed up in Calif. and said, “I think my slave ran away and came here” the locals were requried by law, to help him search. That was a unique circumstance when it came to, “ambulatory property”.

But there was a massive need. You’ve missed the whole point about the arresting officers and the courts being paid off by the corporations that were in need of a work force.

No, I didn’t. I actually made a point of that being a large part of how Reconstruction was dismantled. But that doesn’t make the rest of your conclusions correct. Was there abuse? Yes. Were there “vagrancy” and “employment” laws which were exploitive? Yes.

And guess what, the company store, and shanghaing were also awful. They weren’t slavery. They were a different sort of abuse. Really, you need to read Debt, and 1861, if nothing else. When you’ve done that, you’ll be a better place to try and have this conversation.

If you still think I’m wrong, just keep rereading that last paragraph until it sinks in

How to properly deal with the ignorance and arrogance of this.

I suppose I could just recast it: “If you still think Jerry Falwell is wrong you just need to read John 3:16 until it sinks in….”

But that really doesn’t some up just how rude, offensive, and insulting your implication that I am too stupid to actually have thought it through. That thousands of hours spent studying the subject somehow failed to bring me to the, “proper” understanding; one which is contrary to the facts on the ground.

I also think you won’t see the comparison, that just because you believe it doesn’t make it so, and my rereading the same argument you’ve been making (and we’ve been refuting; with citations, and explanations) is going to somehow, magically, work just because I read it, again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, again….

So, I’ll just say it this way.

Fuck you, and your arrogant ignorance.

I’m sorry, I was less than clear in my wording. The Fugitive Slave Act deprived the Free States their rights, because it forced them to obey the wishes of the individual citizens of the Slave states, and required those citizens in Free States to enforce the laws of another state; even outside that state’s jurisdictional boundaries.

For those keeping track at home, I’ve written between 5,500-5,750 words in reply to Angela (I’ve got a total count of 6,200; from which quotations of her comments need to be subtracted). 1,100 of those were outside source quotations (the VP of the Confederacy as to why there was a war, Federalist 78, etc.).

Thats what she says is, “nothing but me saying, “you are wrong”.

Just for some context. That’s without hellkell, thebewilderness, Seraph, et. al, adding, and citing, and quoting.

She’s offered up an interesting (and unique) legal theory, a mis-statement of the facts on the actual legalities of slave-owning (as well as an historical mistatement about laws against the exploitive post reconstruction laws), and a video.

The video, apparently, is hot stuff. Anyone who doesn’t see it and decide she’s write is lacking in heart, soul, and brain.

And that’s really all she’s offered.

I somehow doubt she’s going to change her method, or her manners, as she continues.

Flying Spaghetti Monster, is this argument still going on? I gotta admire everyone’s endurance in this one. I obviously checked out a couple of days ago to go look at anti-suffragist kittens.

Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederate Republic, said that secession was over slavery, in his own words. It was from his cornerstone speech. So whose word should people take, the actual Vice President who explicitly stated the reason for the war was slavery, or some random person on the Internet?

Cornerstone speech

The rich elites at the time explicitly said they were seceding over slavery. Some of the poor soldiers might have believed they were fighting over “states’ rights” but just because they may have believed it, doesn’t make it true.

The war and slavery were shameful parts of southern history, but that doesn’t mean people should try to cover them up. People can still take pride in where they live and their culture without rewriting history to hide all the bad parts. Take pride in the good thing, like southern hospitality, the charming accents, and wonderful comfort food, not a flag that
stands for racism and oppression.

Angela: Some notes on the Civil War:


Howell Cobb, Secretary of the Treasury, was the most influential member of Buchanan’s Cabinet and a power in the lower South. …decided to publish an address to the people of Georgia and resign his position.1

Arouse, then, all your manhood for the great work before you, and be prepared on that day to announce and maintain your independence out of the Union, for you will never again have equality and justice in it.” This conclusion was based upon an analysis of the principles of the Republican party, and of the prospect of the permanent ascendancy of that party in the federal government. That party had its origin in hostility to slavery and continued hostility was its strongest bond of union. It regarded the institution of slavery as a moral and social evil, unrecognized by the Constitution. It maintained that slave property was not entitled to protection by the federal government, nor to the privileges and rights accorded to other property outside the limits and jurisdiction of the several states. It claimed that Congress should prevent the admission of any more slave states into the Union, and encourage the decline and ultimate extinction of slavery where it already existed. It had secured control of the executive department of the federal government by appealing to the abolition fanaticism of the Northern people. It would never recede from its advanced position.

On the subject of the Slave Trade:

The African slave trade was opposed by the people of the lower South primarily on the ground of public policy. It was generally conceded that any objection to the slave trade on grounds of morality applied more forcibly to the sale of negroes from the upper South to the lower South than to the foreign traffic. Behind the whole controversy which had raged over the question of the rights of slavery in the territories was the fear of slave increase and greater danger of insurrections. Moreover, Europe and the United States condemned the trade on moral grounds, and maintained a strict surveillance of the high seas to prevent it

The Republican Candidates for President, 1860

The Republican Nomination, 1860.–Four names were especially mentioned in connection with the Republican nomination for President. These were Seward, Chase, Cameron, and Lincoln. Seward was the best known of them all. In the debates on the Compromise of 1850 he had declared that there was “a higher law” than the Constitution, namely, “the law of nature in men’s hearts.” In another speech he had termed the slavery contest “the irrepressible conflict.” These phrases endeared him to the antislavery men. But they made it impossible for many moderate Republicans to follow him. Senator Chase of Ohio had also been very outspoken in his condemnation of slavery. Senator Cameron of Pennsylvania was an able political leader. But all of these men were “too conspicuous to make a good candidate.” They had made many enemies. Lincoln had spoken freely. But he had never been prominent in national politics. He was more likely to attract the votes of moderate men than either of the other candidates. After a fierce contest he was nominated. The Republican platform stated that there was no intention to interfere with slavery in the states where it existed; but it declared the party’s opposition to the extension of slavery. The platform favored internal improvements at the national expense. It also approved the protective system.

Some quotations from the actual acts of secession:

In the Virginia Ordinance of Secession it was stated, the Federal Gov’t had, “perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slaveholding States.”

In Georgia they were more verbose:

The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections– of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice.

“Equity and justice” demanded that they be allowed to expand the role of slavery. Why? Because without that slavery was going to be outlawed.

They even said so:

Such are the opinions and such are the practices of the Republican party, who have been called by their own votes to administer the Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States. We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard its plainest obligations. If we submit to them it will be our fault and not theirs. The people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this contract; they have never sought to evade any of its obligations; they have never hitherto sought to establish any new government; they have struggled to maintain the ancient right of themselves and the human race through and by that Constitution. But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity.

Those were the reasons they gave for secession.


n the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

They are saying it’s about slavery.

Even the argument S. Carolina made about, “state’s rights” was only about one right, that of slavery.

We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River….

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

It was about slavery, and moreover, it was a plain fact the Republican Party was vehemently opposed to Slavery.


The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions– a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith….

a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color– a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.

By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.

They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a ‘higher law’ than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.

They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.

Again, the grievance all boil down to… “They are going to strip us of our slaves”.

That’s the “right” the states were defending. That’s what you deny.

And, not to put to fine a point on it, when you say it wasn’t about Slavery, but rather about, “states’ rights” you are saying they had a justifiable claim to secede, you are justifying their desire to keep slaves; under the idea that it was about some abstract notion of, “states rights”. It was about States’ Rights, but it wasn’t at all abstract; it was the concrete right to own slaves, and pretending it wasn’t makes them look better, more noble; it makes them look like Washington, and Adams and Jefferson, and Franklin.

And when you say, “Oh, but they let slavery in, their hands are just as foul,” go and read the acts of secession… none of those states would have joined the union if they weren’t allowed to practice slavery. They would have refused the idea. They did, in fact, refuse it. Add “1776” to your list of things to take in (it’s a movie, so it’s about 2 hours, you can do it), because it makes it plain; using texts to make the script. If they could, they would have done away with slavery, but The South had them over a barrel.

ONE: @Angela: I just don’t think the north fought to free the slaves. Some did, I’m sure of it, but I don’t think they could have filled up their armies with enough people who viewed people of color as actual people.

Well, except that there were Black Soldiers in the Civil War in the UNION Army.

Angela: People on both sides enlisted and fought (I say people because women fought in the Civil war) for many reasons.

Intent doesn’t fucking matter: the IMPACT does.

Did the Civil War end all oppression and exploitation based on race (and class)?


Did it make one TYPE of slavery illegal (and repeating everybody else: lack of enforcement is not the same as legal–and holyfuckinghell, people in this country break laws all the time–passing a law ain’t making shit stop–or we wouldn’t have drunk driving, rape, murder, etc.)?

Yes, it did.

Was life perfect?

No, it wasn’t.

It’s time for you to mature beyond a grade school morality and understand the world isn’t fucking fair.

The Civil War did make a change, not enough of one, and not right away, but as I tell my students, an institution that existed for hundreds of years (well before the establishment of the U.S.) is not suddenly removed, and all of its cultural effects removed, overnight.

And one of those cultural effects/narratives, which you are pimping as hard as you can, is that the “War of Northern Aggression” was fought over “states’ rights.”

You remind me of certain (thank heavens a minority) number of my white students who are suddenly faced with one story or image (like that video which I refuse to watch because 1) time, and 2) I want footnotes to anything making any sort of complex argument) and realize that OMG horrible things happened in the past.

They then flip into this total white guilt, and this total messianic zeal, to go forth and tell everybody else just how OMG HORRIBLE THINGS happened in the past, isn’t it HORRIBLE.

Of course, they often think that by this guilt/zeal they are exempting themselves from the current exploitation and oppression that still exist and that in the U.S. are still based on the systematic racism and sexism and classism of the past.

I’ve seen the same thing online; what’s really heartbreakingly horrible and hilarious at the same time is when these white people attempt to whitesplain to people of color just how horrible and awful slavery is (by the way, are you assuming that everybody posting on this thread is white, and has never heard/dealt with these issues before? If so, if you did at the start, I hope you see a bit differently now).

I am white, but I have also been working to learn and teach and deal with racist systems since the 1990s–because I am a white woman, I started focusing on gender oppressions during the 1980s, not realizing my own white privilege.

So now I ask what I often ask the trolls (and I do see you as that): what do you hope to get out of posting here?

Do you really THINK that you’re helping any of those who suffer today by these displays here?

You’re not convincing anybody.

You won’t convince anybody.

If you continue posting, it’s simply for trolling purposes — and at some point, some will stop responding to you.

Others will continue to enjoy mocking you, that is YOU, not the global exploitation and oppression that today’s types of slaveries still impose, disproportionately on the human beings who were victims of past colonization.

I haven’t read any of the new comments and I’m not going to. I’m just going to say that everyone here is obviously an intelligent person. But even intelligent people have their off days.

I’ve always been able to accept new pieces of information even if it flies in the face of everything I thought I knew. The fact that slavery remained unconstitutional and yet not actually illegal enough to be arrested for practicing it for so long after the civil war was such a piece. It alarmed me. I assumed it was wrong, but it made all the times I tried to find records of someone actually being arrested for owning slaves an impossible task.

It’s an upsetting piece of history and I don’t blame being met with scorn because I was the one who presented it. Just, be aware that no matter how intelligent you think you are, there’s always someone else who may have had access to more information than you’ve had.

Go vote.

It’s an upsetting piece of history and I don’t blame being met with scorn because I was the one who presented it. Just, be aware that no matter how intelligent you think you are, there’s always someone else who may have had access to more information than you’ve had.

Go vote.

Oh, please. You weren’t met with scorn because of the “information” you presented. If you really think that, you are dumb. You’re being met with scorn because you are fractally, factually wrong, arrogant, and proud of your ignorance in the face of facts.

Since we’re all smart people here, we certainly don’t need assbags like you telling us to vote.

In short, fuck you.

Angela: I haven’t read any of the new comments and I’m not going to. I’m just going to say that everyone here is obviously an intelligent person. But even intelligent people have their off days.

So you are an asshole.

You went on, and on; challenged us to read your words, ignored our efforts, our citations, and our expertise.

Then you challenged us some more.

We responded, and you are saying all of that is because, “even intelligent people have off days,”?

Never mind that you don’t know what we said. You are right, we are wrong, QED we must be having an off day.

That’s offensive. That’s more offensive than a “fuck you” and a slap in the face.

And you’ll think you are being, “polite”.

You aren’t. You are being a passive aggressive little shit.

I’ve always been able to accept new pieces of information even if it flies in the face of everything I thought I knew.

Not demonstrated here.

It’s an upsetting piece of history and I don’t blame being met with scorn because I was the one who presented it.

Yes, you do, and you scorn those who told you something you didn’t want to admit.

Just, be aware that no matter how intelligent you think you are, there’s always someone else who may have had access to more information than you’ve had.

Words for you to live by.

Bye, Angela! Don’t forget to pick up the Confederate flag that your arguments here have earned on your way out the door.

Interesting how she did her flounce immediately after I asked her, in so many words, whether she believed the South had gone to war to preserve slavery, and, if it didn’t, what specific other State’s Right it went to war to preserve. I guess she didn’t want to answer. Since, you know, the South and the North were equally culpable .

Cally: I think it was the swamping. She was going gang-busters when it was only me… with one flounce. Then lots of people came in, and even more evidence was presented.

She could either leave, or try to refute it. No way to do the latter, ergo…

I was actually rooting for Angela to come around right until that last comment. Good grief.

Nobody here was refuting the fact that horrible things were done in the post-civil war South, or that the Federal government vigorously turned the a blind eye to the needs of vulnerable citizens. And no one exploded any Truth Bombs on me, at least. I’ve spent most of my life in the deep South; I knew all of that shit before I was even done with high school. Now that I think about it, I’m actually surprised that someone could reach adulthood and not know about chain gangs, company stores, and good old fashioned abusive sharecropping.

I’m also surprised that out of the entirety of U.S. history, Angela has only been shocked by the actions of the U.S. government TWICE. My public school history education could be described by that pithy phrase “Fuck yeah, America!!!” And still I learned about the Trail of Tears, American colonialism, and consent-by-silence to abusive labor conditions in the nineteenth century. A little independent reading after I graduated turned up such joys as the WWII Japanese-American internment camps and American Indian boarding schools. And that’s not even taking into account the U.S.-backed human rights violations I’ve witnessed in my own lifetime: propping up corrupt dictatorships, drone attacks, torture, extraordinary rendition, and endless imprisonment of foreign nationals.

I’d say that if you’re just now discovering the horrors of U.S. history, you haven’t been paying much attention.

I’m sorry if I can’t get worked up to Angela’s satisfaction about the terrible injustices that Angela just discovered. I’m still angry and sad that they happened, and I’m even sadder that people still suffer because of the lingering racism and classism from that era. But since I learned about that stuff in detail when I was sixteen, and I’m now thirty-two, the outrage has had time to mellow. I’m more worried about trying to get my state to stop disenfranchising people, about housing and feeding people who’ve fallen through society’s cracks, and about making sure that the rights I now enjoy will still be there for my daughter when she’s of age. I just don’t have the desire to convince someone on the internet that I’m angry enough to please her.

That outrage is pretty useless in a debate based on fact, anyway. You can scream “Wake up, sheeple!” all you want, and it still doesn’t change first-person accounts of secession, Constitutional law, or criminal law. We may be cold, unfeeling automatons to Angela, but we’re cold, unfeeling automatons with references.

All right, annoyance exorcised. I’ll let this thread go back to well-deserved sleep.

PS – ithiliana, you can’t see me, but I’m giving you a standing ovation right now.

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.