Categories
empathy deficit entitled babies hate speech have you no humanity irony alert Islamophobia men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny racism rape rape culture rape is good actually reddit

White women have too many rights and need to be raped back into equilibrium, MGTOWs suggest

I’m rapidly using up my quota of “nope” gifs

It’s an all-MGTOW Saturday here on We Hunted the Mammoth. First, let’s meet a repugnant little gang of Men Going Their Own Way sharing their thoughts on rape, and how it would probably be a good thing if white women started getting raped a lot more often than they already are.

In a MGTOW subreddit discussion of the proposition that “White Women are clearly the most priveleged [sic] group to exist in the history of the human race,” several Reddit MGTOWs suggest that this terrible problem may soon solve itself, with rape.

hiper4 21 points 1 day ago* Well they are probably going to go from most priveleged to most raped in the not too distant future. If the pendulum goes to one extreme like we are seeing with western women at the moment than it will naturally overcompensate to the other extreme in order to find balance again... so women and girls got something coming. permalinkembedunsavereportgive goldreply [–]SixteenthRiver06 6 points 1 day ago All of the "embrace Muslim refugees!" Will be the pendulum swinging back for them. Trust. permalinkembedsaveparentreportgive goldreply [–]MRALawyer 2 points 1 day ago They're getting their just desserts.

Naturally, all these comments have gotten upvotes, because, in case you’ve forgotten, Men Going Their Own Way is a straight-up hate movement.

Why does Reddit give these guys a forum for this shit?

115 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
4 years ago

Oh, good, now Victoria’s snipe trolling. Lovely.

Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
4 years ago

@Judas

Nice try. I’ve faced down violent fascists and bled for it. And you?

Which are you madder about? That she spoke out of turn and not in accordance with her station relative to yours as befits your… heroism. Or the idea that she hasn’t been viciously attacked by fascists. Which would you prefer? That she not speak to her betters in such an impudent fashion. Or that she goes and courts a beating first, just so she has the credentials. Don’t answer, there’s no good answer
https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7aTpVyQCkQKfekVy/

Ellesar
Ellesar
4 years ago

You wouldn’t dare say that the threads where woman think they live in a patriarchy and are constantly oppressed should be censored.

Merlyn – I seriously would LOVE to know how women talking about oppression and patriarchy is in ANY way similar (and therefore should not be given a public forum) to men saying that women should be raped more because they are so ‘uppity’. PLEASE TELL ME!

Bmaccnm
Bmaccnm
4 years ago

I’ve heard a little about MGTOWers and only recently started reading this blog, but dayyuum, these are some disturbing people. My adult self reminds me they are lonely, socially awkward and feel themselves to be completely without power. My adult self frequently allows strangers to engage me at bus stops because they seem to need to practice engaging other humans. My inner self says, “What a bunch of zit-faced losers,” and wonders if there is some way to track these jerks 24/7.

JS
JS
4 years ago

SFHC, I like your description of freeze peachers. Mine left out the off-line type by accident.

Sister Bat'leth of Rational Discussion
Sister Bat'leth of Rational Discussion
4 years ago

Why does Reddit give these guys a forum for this shit?

Because Reddit is a pit run by shitfuckers. They’ll ban someone for posting movie spoilers, but they go all Freeze Peach about incitement to rape and murder, not to mention flat-out threats and doxxing.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
4 years ago

My adult self reminds me they are lonely, socially awkward and feel themselves to be completely without power.

MGTOWs are not necessarily any of those things. “Lonely,” “without power,” and especially “socially awkward” are not diagnostic for “asshole,” and assholes do not have to be all or any of those things.

kupo
kupo
4 years ago

@EJ

Presumably these good feminists stay demurely at home, barefoot in the kitchen, letting their husbands tell them what to be feminist about.

And there goes coffee up my nose.

Buffalo Headroom (it doesn't have to make sense)

I wonder how much they can try to top each other in horribleness before one of them tries to do awful shit outside of the subreddit just to prove himself.

Fishy Goat
Fishy Goat
4 years ago

@Victoria And how is that relevant in this case?

ColeYote
ColeYote
4 years ago

Why does Reddit give these guys a forum for this shit?

Because the admins are either spineless or scum.

Brandy Turing
Brandy Turing
4 years ago

@SFHC, thank you genuinely for the willingness to engage with me. I think different people here use it differently; I was curious specifically what *you* meant.

I’m not going to defend people who say or do bad things. My position on hate speech and free speech generally is based upon the notion that as much authority we give to governments to police speech based upon its content is precisely as much authority as will be used against the speech of traditionally marginalized groups.

In other words, start with laws against hate speech, mix in a little of the new fangled “religious freedom restoration” shibboleth, and you have a recipe for criminalizing LGBTQ advocacy.

If you’re of the opinion that we can craft and codify those kinds of laws and somehow assure that they aren’t turned against traditionally marginalized groups, I will agree to disagree. I don’t think that’s how the system works.

Zatar
Zatar
4 years ago

Brandy Turing:

Canada has anti hate speech laws and we have not ended up criminalizing LGTBQ advocacy. In fact it could be argued that are greatest flaw is that we don’t enforce those laws enough.

ChimericMind
ChimericMind
4 years ago

@Fishy Goat: Victoria is bringing that up in regard to the exchange between SFHC and Judas Peckerwood. He found her verbal abuse of him to be overly-aggressive, which in turn set her off further. Then he decided to macho-posture back to shore up his anti-fascist bonafides as it descended into them both being dicks to each other.

For the record, I agree with SFHC and others that people who are able to say “I don’t agree with what you say but will fight to the death for your right to say it” about hate speech generally aren’t those that are already being threatened with death BY those speakers. This is what is meant by privilege. You can afford to be virtuously above-it-all because at the end of the day, you aren’t a target (yet).

For the record, I also agree SFHC decided to flame and challenge Judas’s integrity and adherence to cause for daring to deviate from her political orthodoxy, while other people showed that yes, you can get her basic point across in a much more effective way.

And already, I can tell that this will get people angry about “tone policing”: Why does the woman always have to be the “nice one” to coddle men’s hurt feelings? And that’s a relevant complaint in a lot of interactions. People shouldn’t have to be kind when another person is being an ass. However, Judas hadn’t said anything rude (only politely misguided) up to that point, and SFHC went into immediate attack mode, likely because of patience being exhausted by other people who were actually trolling/disingenuous, or perhaps just the day-to-day exhaustions of her life. He responded by expressing his own anger and bewilderment, which was partly justified and partly not, and kind of being a swaggering, flexing jerk about it.

And then sides get chosen up. And fractures and schisms happen. And people that are basically on the same side spend more time waging a jihad of purity on each other than real threats. Or everyone can step back, breathe, and appreciate the basic decency of each other, work past the flaws, and be stronger for it.

Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
4 years ago

@Chimeric

waging a jihad

Could you don’t, pls? Cos that’s uncool…

Brandy Turing
Brandy Turing
4 years ago

Judas Peckerwood called out Feline in my defense on this:

However, should you start whining about how neo-nazis are unfairly outlawed in Germany I am not likely to give even a singular fuck about any claims of yours pertaining to your lack of allegiance to neo-nazi ideals.
Or any similar petulant whine about the legalities of speech in nations where masturbating to the lionized idea of the founding fathers of the US is treated as the weird fetish it is.

It’s strongly worded, but I wasn’t bothered by it. It would seem hypocritical to say that I support free speech and then get all pearl-clutchy because someone uses strong language at me.

If Feline’s conditionals *were* meant to imply that I’m the kind of person who whines about neo-nazis in germany or the kind of person who places the founding fathers of the US on a pedestal, defending free speech because of allegiance to constitutional originalism — and I don’t think they were — then that implication would be false.

I took them at face value as conditionals and neither describes a thing that I would do.

kupo
kupo
4 years ago

@ChimericMind
There was no verbal abuse hurled at Judas Peckerwood. Your whole rant is flawed and makes it look like you side with Judas and feel personally attacked by the discussion.

Or everyone can step back, breathe, and appreciate the basic decency of each other, work past the flaws, and be stronger for it.

The problem with this is that the people who are already oppressed, who are vulnerable to the negative effects of hate speech are actively harmed by this “compromise” while the “free speech” advocates lose nothing by simply not engaging in their “philosophic” wankery.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
4 years ago

For the record, I also agree SFHC decided to flame and challenge Judas’s integrity and adherence to cause for daring to deviate from her political orthodoxy, while other people showed that yes, you can get her basic point across in a much more effective way.

What in the almighty flying fuckcopter are you talking about? I make no bones about being righteously yet rightfully abrasive, but I’ve only directed one post at Judas so far and it was 25 words long.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
4 years ago

Wait, I think I get it, you’ve confused either me with Dali or Judas with Brandy.

Lucrece - Officer in the Secret Grammar Police
Lucrece - Officer in the Secret Grammar Police
4 years ago

@Kat

Mammotheers, read the above quote and marvel: This MGTOW correctly spelled both “they’re” and “their” and “desserts.”

Going into English teacher and grammar nerd mode here, but it is more correctly spelt “deserts” as the derivation is from “deserve” which has a single ‘s’.

I’m all for receiving my just desserts though – bring on the chocolate mousse!!!

Feline
Feline
4 years ago

@Judas Peckerwood:

Well that was a hostile and completely disproportionate response. I might even go so far as to characterize it as asshole-ish.

And you’re welcome to your opinion as well. And I am well within my rights to disapprove of the demands of a great many “free-speech advocates” that I agree with them that their absolutist conception of freedom of speech is the only legitimate one. And consider these demands quite asshole-ish, indeed.

@EJ:

Here, you’ve chosen not to comment on what Feline said, but instead focused entirely on the tone she said it in. This is called tone policing, and should be avoided. There’s two reasons why you shouldn’t tone police:
[…]

While your analysis isn’t wrong in the abstract, there are a couple of reasons why it’s a bit off-base in this specific case.
First, it’s predicated on an assumption of a certain fact which I have not disclosed: my gender.
Secondly,

In this case, you gave offence to Feline, and she responded appropriately.

is not accurate. I responded to Brandy Turing, but not out of any sense of specific offence, but rather to give a kicking to a behaviour that commonly follows assertions of “I don’t think hate speech should be a crime”, viz. “and any legislative body that disagrees with me is wrong-wrongity-wrong-wrong, and also illegitimate.”

@Brandy Turing:

I took them at face value as conditionals and neither describes a thing that I would do.

1: Indeed they where, if formulated somewhat splenetic.
2: I am glad.

EJ (the Scheming Liberal Race-Traitor)

Thank you for the correction, Feline.

dashapants
dashapants
4 years ago

Is it just me or has the atmosphere in here gotten significantly more touchy and defensive over the last couple of months (I’ve lurked for years), resulting in more and quicker snappishness? Is it Trump? Extra trolls? Can we maybe abstain from angry backbiting so characteristic of our ideological opponents? Or am I out of line?

kupo
kupo
4 years ago

@dashapants
You’re getting dangerously close to accusing people of being too emotional. I don’t see anything different now than previously. People react proportionately to the combination of offense and pushback/doubling down.

%d bloggers like this: