Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The Harkovast Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
New World's Worst People; Because people asked for it....
Topic Started: Mar 7 2012, 11:48 PM (974 Views)
Harkovast
Member Avatar
The cause of all this silliness (sorry about that!)
[ *  *  * ]
I like to insult and offend a wide range of people (except the welsh), but when you are looking for hilariously unpleasant ass holes doing humiliatingly dreadful things... no body can out do the American right wing whackos.
Why is it? Perhaps because they dont actively kill people like the islamic militant assholes (people being murdered isn't funny). They instead just say stupid shit, so my wordy responses are more appropriate.
Perhaps it is because they set themselves up as the guardians of morality and decency and invariably prove themselves to have neither. Hypocrisy is like turbo charge juice in the gas tank when you want to write angry articles like this.
Maybe it is because they live in a civilised, educated, first world nation and so really have no excuse not to know better.

But whatever the cause of their entertainment value, they really are total pricks.
Case in point-

RUSH LIMBAUGH!

Rush is the original right wing ass hole on the radio.
None of the others, O'Reilly, Glenn Beck or any of the rest of those wankers would be where they are today without Rush setting the ball rolling.
His listeners mindlessly and unquestioningly agree with everything he says, and are known as "ditto heads" because of their unflincing uniformity in accepting whatever he says.
(In case you haven't heard me mention it before, I am not insulting them there. The name ditto heads is what they call THEMSELVES to describe how much they agree with Rush.)
Rush periodically lets slip racist, homophobic or sexist remarks of varying ugliness.
He has that paper thin veil over his more unpleasant views that you often find with right wing talking heads, which periodically breaks to let slip the true flood of filth that constitutes this man's opinions.
He was briefly a host doing match analysis about American Football on a sports show...until he said that a black quarter back was only on his team because of reverse racism.
In the past he has also shown his utter hypocrisy when he was found out to be filling out false prescriptions for pain killers to feed his drugs habit.
So a real post boy for right wingers out there.
As Family Guy observed, the two symbols of the republican party are an elephant and a fat white guy who is threatened by change.

Rush Limbaugh is not an elephant.

Whenever rush insults someones kids, or insults a race, or a gender or anything else, the shitto heads (you see, NOW I'm insulting them) always rally around their master. They pile on every excuse and qualifier to justify the truly repulsive behaviour and attitudes of their leader, viewing anyone who dares question him as an evil tool of the on going vague liberal conspiracy they believe has been secretly controlling American for as long as anyone can remember. (Seemingly it still controlled things when Bush was in power and controlled all three branches of government...but I digress.)

His influence is so great that when he said he wanted Obama's presidency to fail and republican's rightly said they disagreed with the comments and thought it was incendiary and ugly....they then apologised to him and made clear they had never meant to "diminish his voice or his leadership."
Yes, we had republican politicians (including the republican national committee chairman Michael Steele) grovelling for forgiveness from a fat, racist radio personality.
Never has the tail been so clearly wagging the dog.

But what, I pretend to hear you cry, has Rush done lately to bring him to Hark's attention?
Well if you live in America you will probably already have heard this story, but for the rest of you, here is what happened.

Sandra Fluke is a student at Catholic College Georgetown University. She appeared at the hearing about a new health care bill arguing that the bill should cover contraception for women.

Rush did not agree with this concept.
He expressed this disagreement by calling her a "slut" and a "prostitute".
Here is the quote-
"What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex -- what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex."

I just wanted you to see that I am not taking him out of context or saying he implied she was a slut...he just flat out said it.
He went on to say parents must be embarrassed or ashamed of her.

There was outrage that Rush would use such misogynistic language to demean a young woman with crude and offensive language.

But Rush simply responded in the way he had before- with arrogant confidence.
After all, this is a man who could have politicians practically crawl to him on their knees to ask forgiveness, so why should he worry?
The next day he went on to say that Fluke should post videos of herself online for him and his listeners to watch so they could be sure they were getting their moneys worth.
Rush knew what would happen, he had been here before.
The liberal left would cry and bemoan him, his ditto heads would close ranks to defend him and more moderate republicans would keep their heads down to avoid his scorn.

But this time...something went wrong.
It seemed calling a politically active female student "a slut" was a step too far for El Rushbo and he started to suffer with the people he loved most.
No, not his moron fans.
No, not the republican party or some right wing figure he looked up to.
And if you guess something stupid like "the founding fathers" then go to the back of the class.
Rush started to get heat from his sponsors.

Rush is right wing in the sense that he likes to make large amounts of money and anything that impedes that mission is clearly unchristian and unamerican.
So finding the sponsors for his show dropping out started to shake him.

And so Rush issued an apology.
I pained, straining, half apology, that was mainly focused on explaining how right and valid his point was before giving a couple of lines at the end that his choice of words were "not the best".

Fluke didn't accept this feeble apology (which was on the level of "I am sorry you got upset about it.") and the advertisers continued to flee. After all, who wants their product associated with this kind of sexist, bullying, ignorance?
At the time of printing this forty (yes FORTY) sponsors have jumped ship.

Rush has now fallen back to his regular mode, relying on race baiting and illogical arguments that other people do worse things and so that makes it okay, pointing to black gangster rappers who get away with saying degrading things about women all the time. Remember, if someone else is a pig, that makes you being a pig okay! That is how it works!
He also implied it was all a left wing conspiracy and plot to undermine him.
Yes, Rush. The left is forcing you be an ignorant, sexist twat.

I suspect Rush will whether the storm and stay on the air (his is probably a bit more resilient than Glenn Beck was under similar circumstances.) But I think its been refreshing to seen the odious pile of human filth that is Rush feel some repercussions for his vile views.

During his "apology", Rush said that he didn't mean to personally attack Mrs Fluke.

So, in that spirit, here is a link to a song I found online about Rush Limbaugh.
Remember as you listen to it, its not meant as a personal attack....

Feel free to sing along.
"The details escape me right now." -Sir Muir on life.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renard
Member Avatar
Kiwifox
[ *  *  * ]
Yeah... I hate a lot of things, but that man is near the top of my list.

I hope he accidentally gets shot in the knee by some fascist headcase, the only casualty of a failed one-man campaign against the Liberal New World Order (as reveled by the wise Rush Limbaugh).

That's really the only way I can think of the man coming to harm without becoming some sort of martyr for his own "cause".

That or getting busted with a bunch of crack .


Either way, I don't think that there was any way he could have properly defended his statements after the shitstorm he kicked up. I just find it funny that he didn't budge on his stance even when Republicans called him a rat (and in fact took things even farther), but began a sort of half-hearted backpedaling when he saw that his sponsors didn't like being associated with that sort of vile stuff.

The American Constitution protects the right to freedom of speech, but it always strikes me (sad? infuriating? confusing? I'm really not sure how exactly I feel about it) when people take that and run with it, pushing to see just how much they can get away with insulting and threatening others before the courts are allowed to reign them in.

I enjoy having freedom of speech, but that freedom shouldn't allow people to impose upon others. No Americans would be in favor of putting limits or guidelines on their freedoms, but who can really blame them for that? It can prove to be difficult trying to balance protecting the right to freedom of speech and protecting people from being unduly insulted and harassed.

All the same, I'm not sure if some of the truly vitriolic things these pundits say would be entirely legal to air here, some of it might actually fall under the laws regarding hate crimes in my country.
5020 Harkopoints
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canuovea
Member Avatar
Pictured: Hungover Weasel
[ *  *  * ]
Yet more clues as to where you live, Renard.

Also... well...

Some people have been saying that Fluke may have a case for Libel and Slander or something.
Resident philosophy and history nut. And amateur swordsman.

"Purple swords? Darsai are weird." -Elyssa

I have: 3861 Harko-points +1000
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Harkovast
Member Avatar
The cause of all this silliness (sorry about that!)
[ *  *  * ]
We can only hope, canuovea, we can only hope.
"The details escape me right now." -Sir Muir on life.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frostwolf18
Member Avatar
The Watcher
[ *  *  * ]
freedom of speech does not mean that you can't get backlash for what the hell you say.

it is things like these that make me annoyed to be in america, oh i love america, but if i ever go to the other side of the world, i am gonna be met with either shit smiles, get laughed at, or get yelled at, probably get called a fat lazy slob (i am lazy and chubby, but i am not like the worst people)

looking at America, you see things that alot of the world has not accepted or is slowly starting to accept, but we have just, fucking stupid people in all the wrong places, i don't mean as the voters (though there are plenty of those, i still believe some people vote for a guy for a reason like "He's a follower of mah religion" or "He agrees with my view, i'll vote for him even though he hasn't said how he will fix it") but in the seats of power themselves.

a wise man once said "A politician is a person who can talk for hours, and not say anything" when i was little i didn't understand this, now that i see the debates going on now, i have to say "Are we stupid?" no seriously "Are we?" they barely ever answer the damn questions, bring out their personal views more so than what is best for the country (not sure if that is a point) oh and they slander their opponents.

when i was a kid i was told not to mock others, i should have replied "But the important people do it all the time to get your attention long enough so you think you may like this person to vote for so that he/she (female is possible, but i am starting to doubt it) may become the next person to make the big ass mistakes that you will be bitching about in the future. you're not solving your problems, you're just changing the name you start cursing." sadly i wasn't clever as a kid.

i only hope to god, that he never even tries to run for president, and if he somehow does, have someone kill him before he does anything, he will fuck us up.

actually, you know what, i am going to try and write a speech for my graduation, and possibly have someone else read it if need be, to ask the class in how we will work with this world when we become of age to be allowed those seats of power. with all the knowledge we have seen in our lives, how will we try and change the world, or will we try and become worse
lets see
amateur writer, anime fan, rock lover, freedom seeker, not an otaku, history lover (i love it but it hates me), and.... crap

435 points
more shall come
mwhahahahahaha

IT'S A MADWORLD! REVEL IN IT!!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tiberia
Member Avatar
White Wolf
[ *  *  * ]
what is it with people and rebooting serieses?
the last Spiderman movie wasn't that long ago, and already they're rebooting it.

The Last "worst people thread" isn't even a year old, and you've rebooted it. And before that the first one wasn't even a year old before it got rebooted.
There is less and less creativity around. What ever happened to originality? All we get now is reboots, remakes, and rehashes.
You are the worst.


(F.Y.I. I don't actually think you're the worst, I just really wanted to poke fun at you for doing a reboot so soon, when the other one is still on the forum.)
current Avatr is from the Cyborg series of commisions by Strype. check him out
Favorite pony- RAINBOW DASH
"F*** Nihilism"
960 harko-points
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renard
Member Avatar
Kiwifox
[ *  *  * ]
I forgot we still had that floating around.

This one is better because it's new and shiny. Change for the sake of change!
5020 Harkopoints
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Harkovast
Member Avatar
The cause of all this silliness (sorry about that!)
[ *  *  * ]
Hahah, Tiberius, you got me!
Have 100 Harko points.

I just couldn't be bothered to go find the old one so I just went for fresh start.


More Rush News-
He has issued another apology, this time more sincere sounding...but byt this point who gives a fuck?
Initially he didn't apologise, he actually said even more.
Then when he realised he was in real trouble and gave a pained, grudging non-apology.
Only when this fell flat did he offer another, more heart felt apology.
Anyone who believes this shows real remorse can buy a bridge from me in Brooklyn.
He did absolutely everything BUT apologise for as long as he could.
Had advertisers not pulled out there is no chance he would have taken back what he said.
And even while apologising he (and his minions) continue to throw about claims of left wing conspiracies and double standards to try to deflect flak from his horrendous, sexist values.

News flash, ditto heads-
If you had to be forced to make an apology...you are not really sorry.
"The details escape me right now." -Sir Muir on life.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renard
Member Avatar
Kiwifox
[ *  *  * ]
How is it a Liberal Conspiracy that people are genuinely insulted that someone would call a woman a slut and prostitute, and demand that she post videos of herself having sex, simply for arguing in favor a proposed piece of legislation?

It's one thing to say that you disagree with them and to state your reasons for that (even if it comes down to a moral or religious objection), but it's something else entirely to make personal attacks (and there is no way to argue that what he said was anything but a personal attack). When you start making personal attacks it means that you either can't come up with a proper argument against them, or that you aren't creative enough to come up with an argument that doesn't revolve around defamatory and outrageously offensive statements.
5020 Harkopoints
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canuovea
Member Avatar
Pictured: Hungover Weasel
[ *  *  * ]
I might sound a bit like Tiberius here...

But there can be a bias. Rush isn't the only one to have used words like that before, or to have personally attacked individuals.

You know, "Worst Person in the World" thing? Isn't that on a "liberal" channel with a "liberal" host? And calling someone the worst person in the world this week, or whatever it is, is a pretty personal attack.

And these people haven't been called out as much.

Though that might be because Rush crossed the line a whole lot farther than others. Still, he isn't the only one who has crossed that line. I mean, some nasty things were said about Sarah Palin, and even Hillary Clinton, by the "left".

This doesn't excuse Rush, far from it, but we need to recognize that there are people who also deserve scorn over this.
Resident philosophy and history nut. And amateur swordsman.

"Purple swords? Darsai are weird." -Elyssa

I have: 3861 Harko-points +1000
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Harkovast
Member Avatar
The cause of all this silliness (sorry about that!)
[ *  *  * ]
Renard-
Rush preaches to the choir. Ditto heads by deffinition agree with what ever he says uncritically and unquestioningly. As long as his argument is presented confidently they will just accept it.
"He says shes a slut? Then she obviously is and deserved it. Oh Rush is so clever and witty!"
it doesn't matter if his points make no sense, are childishly stupid or little more than insults, the fact he is making the point is enough to persuade his acolytes to nod like the plastic dogs people put in the backs of cars.


Canouvea-
What marks rush out is that he is not just insulting a woman, because its perfectly valid to insult women sometimes, just as sometimes its valid to insult men (like Rush) but that he is going after a relatively unknown woman and branding her with sexist insults. This is a man who (for better or worse...mainly worse) a lot of people look too as their moral guide and leader, who is making it quite clear that he thinks the way to deal with a woman you don't agree with is to degrade her with sleazy insults and reference to her sex life.
When he got called on it he went further and only made any attempt to make amends when it started to affect his sponsorship, making him spineless and two faced as well as a sexist pig.

I think criticism of Palin tended to be more valid pointing out things like she didn't know what the bush doctrine was, claimed to read magazines but could not name one of them, claimed being able to see Russia from Alaska was foreign policy experience and didn't know what the vice president of the USA's job involved (the job she was running for.) See what I did there? I am perfectly capable of insulting Sarah Palin for her idiocy and laughably stupid views, without having to resort to sexist comments about her love life. If I can do it, so can Rush...or he would be able to if he was not a worthless sack of crap.

I am not aware of another public figure behaving in such a piggish way so openly and being proud of their moronic behaviour. I have nothing but contempt for anyone who has, but that has no bearing on Rush Limabughs behaviour.
That defence is akin to saying "well someone else did a murder and got away with it a few years back...so how come I have to go to prison?"

But if you can bring me example of sexist behaviour elsewhere I will be sure to lay into them as well. Give me some specifics to investigate and I will be glad to spout some hate. Sexism is one of my bug bears and I will not willingly tolerate it.

There is a segment on a show with Kieth Olberman called worst person in the world.
I was not thinking of that when I started these threads, I was actually just wanting to express what a bad person molotov mitchell was to a wipe audience. We dont actually get Olberman's show over here so I have only seen it occasionally on YouTube...and its pretty shit. He's just kinda boring, sitting at a desk looking stiff and telling me that republicans are jerks all the time.
Kieth Olberman is not the worst person...but he is a pretty shitty TV presenter.
"The details escape me right now." -Sir Muir on life.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canuovea
Member Avatar
Pictured: Hungover Weasel
[ *  *  * ]
Hark, I don't agree with everything this woman says... but:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012...ollow-suit.html

And a follow up.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012...i-misogyny.html

Yes, some of what she quotes is... not all that outraging, I mean, some of it meant that people insulted a woman... but is calling Sarah Palin something like "empty headed" really all that "sexist?" Not really. Some of the other stuff? Definitely pretty bad.

And she isn't defending Limbaugh either, I should make that clear.

Oh, and here is something that makes Limbaugh look even stupider:

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccal...im-and-hip-hop/
Resident philosophy and history nut. And amateur swordsman.

"Purple swords? Darsai are weird." -Elyssa

I have: 3861 Harko-points +1000
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Harkovast
Member Avatar
The cause of all this silliness (sorry about that!)
[ *  *  * ]
Some of those are sexist, but as you say some are just insults.
The vast majority dont seem nearly as bad or as sustained as Limbaughs behaviour.
Also the reason no one is outraged about a lot of those people is that no one has heard of them.
I don't know who Ed Schultz is, and Matt Taibi may be a darling of the left but I would know him if I bumped into him.
As I mentioned before, no one gives a fuck what Kieth Olberman has to say. He WISHES he was significant enough to actually cause outrage.
As I think my lists were originally called "worlds worst human", a title I should stick to to avoid Olberman comparisons, since he has never inspired anyone in his entire life, let alone me.
Whats more, a lot of those people had to issue grovelling apologises and were pernalised by their employers (Ed Shultz was, I just read). So the cries of double standard dont hold up to me.

RUSH UPDATE!
In 2006 Rush Limbaugh was returning from a trip to the dominican republic when he was detained at the air port for 3 hours because he had some viagra in his suit case for which he did not has a perscription.
(This is true, I am not making any of this up, that actually happened)
The dominican republic is a third world country with little to offer visitors...except visitors interested in doing sex tourism, in which is has a booming illegal trade.
This also helps fund people traficing to send those forced into the sex industry to europe to earn more money for hte gangs that control this lucrative business.
Why would a recently divorced man be returning from sex tourism hot spot with viagra left over in his case?
Fluke is not the slut...Rush is!

Another interesting point is that Rush is either lying on purpose or terminally stupid in his argument. Lets put aside the fact that he is trying to dismiss a woman's opinion by using sexist language to demean her (the equivilant of saying "Why should we listen to this black guy? He's just a typical angry nigger!") Let's give rush a free pass and pretend he chose his words better as he claims now he wishes he had.

What was his argument?
That Fluke wanted Tax funded contraception.
This was a lie.
She wanted insurance companies to be forced to cover it, and not able to reject it on religious grounds.
Rush was, as usual, defending big business (the insurance industry), not tax payers.

Rush also claimed that she was a slut because she was having so much sex because she needed all this birth control and tax payers had to fund it.
This is not how birth control pills work.
Female birth control pills are not something you pop just before sex (unlike another type of sex pill Rush might be familiar with.) They are a course you take continiously.
A woman having no sex at all but who was sensible enough to take precaution in case she wanted to in the future, and a woman who was going at it every night would use exactly the same amount of birth control.
For a man who claims to be against abortion and against high taxes it seems odd that he does not understand how female contraception works, is apparently against helping women to avoid getting unwanted pregnancies in the first place and againt the obvious savings the government would make by encouraging women to take precautions rather than having to pay for costly procedures later (namely the abortions Rush claims to oppose.)

The more you learn about Rush, the more you see he is a fraud, an idiot, a liar, a scum bag and (as the song said) a fat, pathetic putz.

But if gangster rappers are juvenile, sexist, violent morons who spout expletives and hate then that makes it okay for the rest of us to act that way....right?
I am off to embezzle millions of pounds now from the company I work for. Enron did it...so it must be okay for me to do it.

And yes, this does mean that Rush Limbaugh cant get it up.

(Canouvea, have 50 harko points for challenging my views and proving that Harko fans are not ditto heads.)
"The details escape me right now." -Sir Muir on life.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canuovea
Member Avatar
Pictured: Hungover Weasel
[ *  *  * ]
I'm just pointing out that there has been stupid shit said by both sides.

And yes, I recall hearing about Rush's little trip. Fortunately for him, but unfortunately for humanity, "slut" is a specifically female term. Amazing what even vocabulary can tell us about society, isn't it?

I think you're outline of Rush's "argument" isn't exactly accurate. Or at least the situation isn't accurate.

First off, he isn't protecting insurance companies. Those guys are more than happy to include birth control... because it actually saves them money in the long run!

Secondly, it isn't so much about tax funded contraception as it is about insurance generally. If you contribute to insurance you are technically paying for someone else's medicine, cars, house, whatever. It is collective. So yes, you do pay for someone's birth control if you pay insurance. Also, in a sense, you are paying for your own medicine, whatever, as well... so you are paying.

Thirdly, as I said, it isn't the insurance companies complaining. It is employers. Under the new bill thing, employers have to provide insurance. Now this may be unconstitutional. But the specific issue of contraceptives makes things interesting.

Some employers are complaining about being forced to pay for contraceptives via insurance. These tend to be the Catholic organizations at the moment, you know, like several hospitals and all that. Of course, it isn't as if they are even employing 100% Catholics... and plenty of Catholic women choose to use birth control. Fluke is at a Catholic university, which didn't cover birth control as part of its student insurance, which in turn caused problems for one of her friends. (Though the university has supported her against Limbaugh, I should point out).

Of course, the reason that these Catholic employers are throwing such a hissy fit is that birth control of any kind is bad according to the Church and is technically a sin. Yes yes, cue "every sperm is sacred" from Monty Python. They are arguing that forcing them to offer insurance that covers birth control is infringing on their religious freedom under the constitution. This is bullshit, of course, it would be unconstitutional if they were forcing individuals to buy birth control. Big difference. But as I said, forcing anyone to offer/buy health insurance may be unconstitutional, it gets confusing.

So into this wanders Ms. Fluke and Mr Limbaugh. I'm not entirely sure Limbaugh understands the situation as I showed it, though. He is lamenting the fact that birth control is actually covered by insurance... and the arguments that it should be. Nevermind the fact that another pill Mr. Limbaugh is more familiar with that also has to do with sex is also covered by insurance. Fact is, he seems sadly misinformed, but there is a larger framework here that is a tad more complex.
Resident philosophy and history nut. And amateur swordsman.

"Purple swords? Darsai are weird." -Elyssa

I have: 3861 Harko-points +1000
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renard
Member Avatar
Kiwifox
[ *  *  * ]
You're just throwing Harkopoints at everyone these days, aren't you? Obviously I'm not incredible enough by the virtue of my existence to merit an unending cascade of points.

So I'm going to look at taking a quick trip to the UK so I can brand "READ HARKOVAST" on the PM's forehead.


Tourism in Dominican isn't known mostly for sex tourism, the mainstream tourism industry is very important to their economy (employing 15% of the working population). But the fact that he was divorced and coming home from the Caribbean with a bag full of Viagra does raise red flags.


I think the thing that gets Limbaugh going the most here is that he doesn't like The Enemy coming up with ideas, especially ones that might offend members of the American Right. Once that happens it doesn't really matter if he fully understands the arguments and background of the whole situation, he just has to scream "Blue murder! The Democrats will sell out our religion, way of life, and economy to the commies, faggots, and towel-heads!"
5020 Harkopoints
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canuovea
Member Avatar
Pictured: Hungover Weasel
[ *  *  * ]
You mean like this?

Posted Image

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

PS: Sorry if you like the guy, I don't know much about him. But he'd make a great advertising banner! Plenty of media attention.
Resident philosophy and history nut. And amateur swordsman.

"Purple swords? Darsai are weird." -Elyssa

I have: 3861 Harko-points +1000
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Harkovast
Member Avatar
The cause of all this silliness (sorry about that!)
[ *  *  * ]
Renard...sorry man. I want to give you points here but while you talked the talk, canouvea is walking the walk!
100 points for Canouvea.
"The details escape me right now." -Sir Muir on life.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canuovea
Member Avatar
Pictured: Hungover Weasel
[ *  *  * ]
You do realize, Hark, that Renard might take that as a challenge...
Resident philosophy and history nut. And amateur swordsman.

"Purple swords? Darsai are weird." -Elyssa

I have: 3861 Harko-points +1000
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Harkovast
Member Avatar
The cause of all this silliness (sorry about that!)
[ *  *  * ]
I want to apologise in advance to David Cameron and make it clear that we here at Harkovast do not endorse branding public figures as a means of webcomic promotion!
"The details escape me right now." -Sir Muir on life.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renard
Member Avatar
Kiwifox
[ *  *  * ]
I'll carve it into the backs of virgins, a lucky number, thirty-eight score and seventeen in total!

I'll slit Canouvea's nostrils, cut out his liver, and nail his head to the floor! Any other challengers, I'll tear them a new arse in the back of their skulls and stuff it with crushed peppers!

I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds!
5020 Harkopoints
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Harkovast
Member Avatar
The cause of all this silliness (sorry about that!)
[ *  *  * ]
Renard you can have 10 points to calm down and take some deep breaths.
"The details escape me right now." -Sir Muir on life.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renard
Member Avatar
Kiwifox
[ *  *  * ]
Fine.
5020 Harkopoints
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canuovea
Member Avatar
Pictured: Hungover Weasel
[ *  *  * ]
Careful Renard. Last time I checked both cutting and slitting required a bladed weapon.
Resident philosophy and history nut. And amateur swordsman.

"Purple swords? Darsai are weird." -Elyssa

I have: 3861 Harko-points +1000
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renard
Member Avatar
Kiwifox
[ *  *  * ]
I'm a firearms/military enthusiast, I have several bayonets the length of my forearm and an old black stiletto sharp enough to shave with.

Don't think that I'd threaten to carve advertisements into virgins and disfigure you if I didn't have the means to do so.
5020 Harkopoints
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canuovea
Member Avatar
Pictured: Hungover Weasel
[ *  *  * ]
Oh, I just find it odd that you would threaten me, of all people on this forum, with bladed weaponry. You'd have better luck with guns.
Resident philosophy and history nut. And amateur swordsman.

"Purple swords? Darsai are weird." -Elyssa

I have: 3861 Harko-points +1000
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renard
Member Avatar
Kiwifox
[ *  *  * ]
Bayonets are big knives that you can stick on the end of a rifle.
5020 Harkopoints
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canuovea
Member Avatar
Pictured: Hungover Weasel
[ *  *  * ]
...I know what a bayonet is.

Did you know that the Geneva convention, or something like it, outlawed slashing bayonets? I don't know why anyone would bother to use one, personally, they just seem... well... they turn your gun into an axe, which is silly. I mean, not only is an axe a terribly inefficient weapon, but swinging your gun about like that can't be good for the gun.

Now, turning your rifle into a spear makes much more sense!

I've been held at knife point before and it didn't phase me. I'm not particularly intimidated by bayonets as I have a much more versatile weapon with me. For some reason, knives don't particularly scare me.
Resident philosophy and history nut. And amateur swordsman.

"Purple swords? Darsai are weird." -Elyssa

I have: 3861 Harko-points +1000
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Harkovast
Member Avatar
The cause of all this silliness (sorry about that!)
[ *  *  * ]
Renard take deep breaths! Remember your ten points!
"The details escape me right now." -Sir Muir on life.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renard
Member Avatar
Kiwifox
[ *  *  * ]
You're missing the point, the bayonet is on the end of a loaded firearm.

Slashing bayonets weren't banned (all bladed bayonets can be used to deliver a slashing attack), triangular and cross-sectional spike bayonets were banned because the wounds inflicted were difficult to close, so they were deemed inhumane.

That doesn't mean that some places stopped issuing them. I know that many Chinese SKS and AKM copies had cruciform spike bayonets up until they started replacing those rifles in the '80s, and the British had at least one version of spike bayonet during WW2 that had a cruciform design, but they destroyed most of them because they violated the Geneva Convention.
5020 Harkopoints
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canuovea
Member Avatar
Pictured: Hungover Weasel
[ *  *  * ]
Really?

Turns out I got it the wrong way round, memory does that.

Harder to close, you say? Small swords (and I can't wait to get my hands on one of those) are cross section and the fencing epee is triangular. I think the small sword is the most dangerous of the duelling swords, but I'm somewhat biased.
Resident philosophy and history nut. And amateur swordsman.

"Purple swords? Darsai are weird." -Elyssa

I have: 3861 Harko-points +1000
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Harkovast
Member Avatar
The cause of all this silliness (sorry about that!)
[ *  *  * ]
I dunno if Rush is really a deep cover liberal, trying to scupper the republican election chances with insider sabotage...but he referred to a women's rights orgnisation as "nags" the other day.

Seriously... is he trolling the Conservative Right?
"The details escape me right now." -Sir Muir on life.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renard
Member Avatar
Kiwifox
[ *  *  * ]
I seriously doubt that he's actively trying to scuttle the Republican Party.

This is a man who would probably like it if anyone who voted Democrat was gassed, or at least that Democrat supporters receive compulsory sterilization, in line with the latest knowledge about political eugenics (because the Democrats would have handed over the Great USA to faggy Europeans or the Japs long ago).

If he has any hate for the Republicans, it's probably that they aren't right-wing enough. He hates liberals for supporting economic controls and regulations, and for what he sees as their constant attacks on the rights of (white Christian) people in the interests of terrorists, criminals, and perverts (see: anyone who "looks Arab", Hispanics, Blacks, homosexuals, and feminists).

His attacks aren't meant to be some sort of over-the-top dig at American conservatives, he's voicing what he honestly believes to be a valid, well informed, and well intentioned opinion (although he sometimes seems to get "opinion" confused with "facts"). I'd imagine that if you asked him in person what he's doing, he'd probably tell you that he's helping fight a crusade against the liberals, opening people's eyes to the threat that they pose to the American way of life.

He's just an awful, bigoted, ignorant windbag of a man, and while there are thousands of others like him, he's one of the privileged few with broadcast capabilities.
5020 Harkopoints
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Harkovast
Member Avatar
The cause of all this silliness (sorry about that!)
[ *  *  * ]
Of course you are right Renard (have 10 Harko-points), but my faith in the human race keeps making me doubt if he can be for real!
"The details escape me right now." -Sir Muir on life.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renard
Member Avatar
Kiwifox
[ *  *  * ]
And my cynicism allows me to accept that the human race is full of people who believe that racial hatred, sexism, homophobia, and ill-informed elitism are just and righteous weapons to be used in the patriotic crusade against liberalism and human rights.

There are warlords in Africa who encourage mass rape, mutilation and crippling of civilians (usually cutting off arms), and employ children as slaves and soldiers.

The slave trade is alive and well on every continent.

What's so hard to believe about one vitriol spewing American pundit?
5020 Harkopoints
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canuovea
Member Avatar
Pictured: Hungover Weasel
[ *  *  * ]
True and all.

That doesn't mean he isn't undermining the Republican Party.

I love the use of double negatives in the afternoon. Looks like confusion.
Resident philosophy and history nut. And amateur swordsman.

"Purple swords? Darsai are weird." -Elyssa

I have: 3861 Harko-points +1000
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Harkovast
Member Avatar
The cause of all this silliness (sorry about that!)
[ *  *  * ]
The Amazing Atheist

Finding a decent target of my contempt amongst the more politically liberal has never been easy for me.
Micheal Moore is a sack of self righteous shit...but he hasn't done anything for ages that anyone gave a shit about. Also he is annoying in more of a "general douche" way rather than a specific moment that stands out for me to attack.

Bill Maher made some insulting comments about Sarah Palin that right wingers point to in order to excuse Rush LImbaughs behaviour...but they didn't get anywhere near the level of Limbaugh and mostly focused on her being a moron...which she is.

Slim pickings for a bitter bastard like me.

But fortunately, I've found an appalling fuck wit that is just ideal for my wrath...and his videos are anti-religion and anti right wing whackos!

The Amazing Atheist (Real Name- Terroja Lee Kincaid) is a git you might remember from my old rant against a sexist extremist feminist moron that was widely referred to as Deve around here.

She had laid out a list of conditions under which we can judge a man to be a "rape supporter", with criteria that basically made every hetrosexual man on earth a rape supporter by definition!

The Amazing Atheist posted an ranting response in which he debunked her stupid list of idiocy.
His videos often make valid points against religion and various right wing tossers...if you can get past what an intensely irritating dip shit he is.
His rants are full of screaming, insults and unsubstantiated attacks.
Even when I agree with him on his general point...often he just lowers the tone of debate so much that I end up wishing I didn't.

But as we should know by now, just being an ass is not enough to get you on my list here.

The reason he is on the list here....is because he is a rape supporter.

Huh? What's this? Am I agreeing with Deve?
Well the sun even shines on a dogs butt some days, and in this case, by incredible coincidence....she was right.

Now how can I say something so shocking about Amazing Atheist?

I will let him speak for himself.
Here are some quotes from him when he got into a debate about the issues around rape on an internet forum-

"I will make you a rape victim if you don’t fuck off."

When someone he was arguing with said they had been the victim of rape-

"Yeah. Well, you deserved it. So, fuck you. I hope it happens again soon. I’m tired of being treated like shit by you mean little cunts and then you using your rape as an excuse. Fuck you. I think we should give the guy who raped you a medal. I hope you fucking drown in rape semen, you ugly, mean-spirited cow. Actually, I don’t believe you were ever raped! What man would be tasteless enough to stick his dick into a human cesspool like you? Nice gif of a turd going into my mouth. Is that kind of like the way that rapists dick went in your pussy? Or did he use your asshole? Or was it both? Maybe you should think about it really hard for the next few hours. Relive it as much as possible. You know? Try to recall: was it my pussy or my ass?"

He followed that up with-

"BTW, you have to admit, when I told you that I hope you drown in rape semen, you got a little wet, didn’t you? It’s okay. We’re friends now. You can share."

Brilliant points, expertly made, this guy is the best debater since Mel Gibson.

When people started complaining he went and made a video bitching about how unfairly he was getting treated.

Amazing Atheist is a big believer, it turns out, that society is rigged into a big conspiracy against men.
He frequents sites with other men where they bitch about how evil women are for ruining how awesome society used to be by wanting crazy things like equal treatment or the ability to decide who they have sex with. They put this crap under the heading of "men's rights" and whine about how terrible their lot is.
But don't worry, Amazing Atheist is here to fight the power!

Here is a section from an online book he wrote, about his reaction to a chat room that was described as being for "rape survivors"

"Rape isn’t fatal. So imagine my indignation when I saw a chatroom called “Rape Survivors”. Is this supposed to impress me? Someone fucked you when you didn’t want to be fucked and you’re amazed that you survived? Unless he used a chainsaw instead of his dick, what’s the big deal? . . . The word survivor applies to people who are alive after being stabbed 73 times with an ice pick or mauled by rabid wolverines, not to a woman who gets dick when she doesn’t want it. Just because you got raped, you have to rape the English language? You vindictive bitch! Also, don’t you ever get tired of being the victim? How many failed relationships are you going to blame on a single violation of your personal space?"

Yeah! Whats the big deal? You just got raped! Get over it! You tell em AA! Those rape victims need to be taken down a peg!

He also tells a hillarious anecdote about a female friend rejecting a guy because his penis was too small.
"I told her "Your lucky it wasn't me. I'd have busted your fucking nose and raped you."

Hahaha, what wit and charm this guy displays!

To defend himself against accusations that he is supporting rape he explained
the following-
"Here’s an M. Night Shymalan style twist for you, PZ. Something that shatters your narrative of me as a would-be rapist just looking for the right bush to hide in. I’m a submissive. As in, I like to be dominated. Spanked. Humiliated. As in, the exact opposite of what you’re portaying me as."

Yes....that was his defence.
Now the thought of this fucker having sex in any context is bad enough, we now know he likes to be the gimp.
What he does in his own time is completely up to him...but why did he feel the need to share this knowledge?
Is he claiming that getting spanked during sex means men cant be sexist?
Visiting a dominatrix means you can say rape is okay?
As long as you are submissive in the bed room you can call women cunts as much as you want?
At this point he manages to achieve a perfect balance of 100% embarassing and 100% stupid as this argument is totally irrelevant to the criticism of his disgusting attitudes.
Strange to see someone who derides religion for using illogical and unsupported arguments suddenly forget the basic structure of logic and debate when he gets put on the spot.

He also argues that men should be allowed to stare at women as much as they want if they find them attractive. If you like a woman's tits and want to stare at them...you should! Why not? It's not like there is a victim there or anyone who might not like it. The man will enjoy it....so clearly its win/win for all concerned.
If a woman objects, she is probably just an evil feminist (strange how AA and Rush's views, that once might have seemed so different, on this topic seem to merge.)

I find it remarkable that a guy who lays out these kind of views could be so self absorbed as to be unable to see that he is part of the problem.
It is these kind of sexist, woman hating views, ( trivialising sexual violence as something people should just shut up about and get over etc) are part of the reason that rape, sexism and misogyny continue to plague our world.
The Amazing Atheist is amazing only in that I am amazed someone can be this far up his own ass.
By some great cosmic irony, he really is the kind of sexist, woman hating, rape supporting pig that Deve was decrying.
He didn't offer any kind of apology for any of this. His only response was to double down an whine about how unfairly he (and by extension all right thinking males) get treated.
The two of them should really hook up.
They are made for each other.
"The details escape me right now." -Sir Muir on life.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canuovea
Member Avatar
Pictured: Hungover Weasel
[ *  *  * ]
Well, the funny thing?

I watched AA's little "rebuttal" to Deve... And... no, he didn't rebut anything well at all. That is one of the reasons that I decided to get back into it and read what Deve was saying more thoroughly. By the way, Deve's logic was that if you support the patriarchy in any way, then you support rape. This means, by some applied understanding of logic and consequences, that she is also a rape supporter. Rape supporter in the way that if you pay US taxes you are a supporter of the War in Iraq. Essentially, Deve wasn't thinking so much on an individual level as on a systemic level.

AA managed to miss this completely. No. Instead he managed to just rant and rave without understanding the point. Sure, the point was inflammatory, but if you can't look at things logically... don't bother trying to rebut that thing.

But basically this fellow it the equivalent of a Glenn Beck or Rushy. Not O'Reilly, who at least makes a pretence of calmness.

He also seems to lack an understanding of empathy. Never mind having it himself. In some ways, that was what Deve was accusing men, generally, of lacking.

I suppose him being a "sub" would make him less likely to be a rapist. In some ways. It doesn't make him less likely to be an asshole. Which he is.
Resident philosophy and history nut. And amateur swordsman.

"Purple swords? Darsai are weird." -Elyssa

I have: 3861 Harko-points +1000
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Harkovast
Member Avatar
The cause of all this silliness (sorry about that!)
[ *  *  * ]
Canouvea I have learned to take your judgements on who is a total piece of shit very seriously.

Though lets face it...no one could have predicted that this guy is quite as big a piece of shit as he actually turned out to be!
I mean seriously...wow!
"The details escape me right now." -Sir Muir on life.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canuovea
Member Avatar
Pictured: Hungover Weasel
[ *  *  * ]
I've watched a few of AA's videos. They've come up.

Sometimes he has decent points. But the tendency towards ridicule is there pretty much constantly.

I suppose I know what some Conservatives feel like sometimes. Say they watch Glenn Beck, and Beck says something about the need for less government. They agree and think that Glenn Beck has a point. BUT a lot of them think that the obnoxious, nasty, way the point is made is too much.

And to be fair, I've gotten caught up in some of what AA has said. I believe it was he who I heard make an excellent point about atheist morality. You know, personal responsibility stuff. And sometimes you just tune out the negative part of it and think "Hey, this guy has a point! He's right!" And that can just keep going, if you forget to evaluate each and every thing someone says because "well, they've been right before". That is the problem with these talking authority figures. Though the problem isn't so much them, but us and how we see them.

That all being said, AA may have good points some times. So did Hitler (not to compare them directly), I mean, Hitler thought smoking was terrible. He was right.

Here's the thing, I'd say AA is "right" a decent percentage of the time. But that is because I have a similar view of things. He just doesn't say his points nicely, and tends towards ridicule and condescension. Condescension, as in "isn't it obvious I'm right? And these people are just stupid." And damn, if you agree with his point, it is very tempting to make that leap towards the condescension. So very dangerous.

As for his reaction to Deve... he fell into the mistake of equating "rape supporter" with "rapist" surprisingly quickly. In the middle of his rant. Yes, I know "rape supporter" is longer to say than "rapist", but the meaning is different for Deve. Kinda important.

And, Hark, thank you for the compliment.
Resident philosophy and history nut. And amateur swordsman.

"Purple swords? Darsai are weird." -Elyssa

I have: 3861 Harko-points +1000
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renard
Member Avatar
Kiwifox
[ *  *  * ]
That level of misogyny is a bit unsettling. I can't say as I've ever heard too many people get into a debate with a rape victim and finish it off by essentially calling them a whore (except in parts of the Mid East). Obviously this fellow doesn't like to debate so much as insult his opponents until they leave, and if he takes things too far and insults people then he thinks he's being bullied.

Isn't this guy from the UK? I'll be in country around Christmas time, so maybe I'll see about having my way with him, see what he thinks about it.

As for that part about being allowed to stare at women openly, I'm in favor of that, but only as long as women learn judo from age 5. It's a win/win situation then as well; the man gets to stare at her chest for a second, and she gets to vent her anger by tossing him around like a rag doll.
5020 Harkopoints
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Harkovast
Member Avatar
The cause of all this silliness (sorry about that!)
[ *  *  * ]
The guy is American and from Louisiana.
And that one guy in that video was really good at judo...though the guy getting tossed around was presumably a bit worse at it.
"The details escape me right now." -Sir Muir on life.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canuovea
Member Avatar
Pictured: Hungover Weasel
[ *  *  * ]
Unless its a demonstration video... and the other guy is letting the thrower throw him.

In which case the tosser may actually be less skilled then the tossed. After all, landing in such a way as not to hurt yourself too much is difficult.
Resident philosophy and history nut. And amateur swordsman.

"Purple swords? Darsai are weird." -Elyssa

I have: 3861 Harko-points +1000
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renard
Member Avatar
Kiwifox
[ *  *  * ]
Or I could introduce him to a girl I know; she's tall, very pretty, rather meek (the sort of personality assholes like him like to target), weighs as much as some small men, can carry me around, and (apparently because the shy ones are dangerous) trains in one of the most brutal (currently legal) sports in the world.
5020 Harkopoints
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frostwolf18
Member Avatar
The Watcher
[ *  *  * ]
is anyone else getting a wee bit tired of this gender role crap anymore? i know i am.

when i was young, i was told to be nice to girls, and never treat them like i do my friends, i did that, this made me stay away from girls most of the times, and the only girls i could ever really talk to were tomboys

people always want equal rights, so far from what i see, they don't want equal rights, they want more fucking rights.

Women want to be treated equally, ok fine by me, but in doing so, while you gain advantages, you should consider losing things like, "Women and children first" which is annoying when someone complains they didn't get it.
they want their cake, and they want to eat it too
so far, i am understanding that feminists believe women are greater.

look i support some feminist views, also i will admit i am a submissive
doesn't mean i support stupidity, and pulling shit out of the hat when you can't give a retort
the Rape card, The Racism card, The RELIGION card
fucking. tired. OF. IT
people complain, they try to pull shit to make you feel sorry for them and guilty so you will do shit for them, throughout my ENTIRE life i go through this stuff in the learning system,
Slavery (yes it was bad)
Racism (i get it, you hate being mocked for what you are. does that mean you are ashamed at what you are?)
Sexism (god damn it, prove the guy wrong)

may be a little off topic, but have you noticed that most books written by black authors usually involves racist elements? if not please tell me which stories, cause this is all i find when i am given this crap, Hell if i was the kind of person who based entire ethnic groups on my experience, i would say black people are the biggest complainers in history, the jews and native americans didn't complain that much, and they had the holocaust and trail of tears (not trying to sound racist)

look i am all for strong women, but in all honesty, people today are starting to sound all gothic and emo. yes talking about your problems helps, but CONSTANTLY talking about them, as a way to justify an action, and then NOT DOING ANYTHING about them....just annoys me.

i have probably fallen into that category myself, it is easy to complain, and i hate myself a little for that. though this is probably why people complain on forums (no offense if there was any)

i want to treat people like they aren't any different from one another, but deep down i can't. whenever i am around a minority, i am always worried about accidently insulting them. whenever i am around a girl, i am always worried about not sounding like a pervert (to be honest i was one in middle school, heck even starred at one of my friends bosom at times) i guess it is the whole, "I don't want you to think i am a terrible person" thing i have going on, though my answer is that i rarely speak out, which is bad for me.

sorry, i just really hate people shouting out their hatred over whatever the hell i am has done, (being white, and a guy, it happens alot)
people seem to forget that, like them, the people they point at are their own self.
and on the amazing atheist
good god, shut up, i am tired of sentient stupidity, this makes me wish i never take my add meds, cause then i would be in lovable ignorance, but nooope, i hear this crap every day

people. SHUT UP!!!! and WAKE UP!!!!
probably went off topic, don't care, really pissed off at english short story class
Analyzing short stories sucks, i hate reading this crap
lets see
amateur writer, anime fan, rock lover, freedom seeker, not an otaku, history lover (i love it but it hates me), and.... crap

435 points
more shall come
mwhahahahahaha

IT'S A MADWORLD! REVEL IN IT!!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frostwolf18
Member Avatar
The Watcher
[ *  *  * ]
Renard
Mar 21 2012, 11:44 PM
Or I could introduce him to a girl I know; she's tall, very pretty, rather meek (the sort of personality assholes like him like to target), weighs as much as some small men, can carry me around, and (apparently because the shy ones are dangerous) trains in one of the most brutal (currently legal) sports in the world.

i should really try and learn that some time
that or aikido, where i just redirect the attacks and throw the bastard
lets see
amateur writer, anime fan, rock lover, freedom seeker, not an otaku, history lover (i love it but it hates me), and.... crap

435 points
more shall come
mwhahahahahaha

IT'S A MADWORLD! REVEL IN IT!!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Harkovast
Member Avatar
The cause of all this silliness (sorry about that!)
[ *  *  * ]
Canouvea I want you to know that tosser in England means something different to what I think it means in Canada.

I imagine that being the tosser would take a lot of skill...especially if the tossing is being done during a judo match.


Frostwolf if someone was to blame all men for crimes committed against women, or all white people for crimes committed against black people, they would be wrong. I have already demonstrated this with the veritable disection that Deve received for her sexism.
However, I think you are on dangerous ground implying that all black people collectively are playing at being victims. There are millions of Black People in America (as I assume its black people in America who are the issue here) and to characterise the entire group as exhibiting one particular behaviour is misguided.
If a lot of black peoples writing is about racism, that implies that is a part of their everyday experience. I would say that is a pretty worrying trend if it was true as it would imply black people are all experiencing active racism all the time.

To use America as an example, gay people are not allowed to marry and have candidates for president saying they are immoral.
On the radio there is active sexism against women with ditto headed morons nodding in agreement. Rapes occur everyday and there is STILL a large number of people who blame the victims for it.
Black people have a lower life expectancy, lower literacy, higher rates of poverty then most other major racial groups in America. Black men are far more likely to end up in prison and far more likely to end up on death row compared to whites.
I use america as an example but I could just as easily point to a laundry list of injustices across the world in all nations (my own included.)
You are not to blame for these facts, neither am I, or any other individual.
But these are still problems we need to address.

If someone is making you feel you are to blame, then that is wrong of them. But dont interpret people wanting to talk about and learn about these issues as an attack on you or your group.
If we dont take action and gain awareness of these problems they will continue to exist. They are not nice to hear about, but its not nice that they are happening.
The fact is that racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and a whole host of other evils still plague us as they have since the human race began.
Have we made progress? Yes, immeasurable progress, but its an on going process that is far from complete and we all need to be aware of it so we can break out of the harmful ways of thinking that have hamstrung our species for so long.
"The details escape me right now." -Sir Muir on life.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renard
Member Avatar
Kiwifox
[ *  *  * ]
Some people just like to feel victimized, it gives them a cause, something to crusade against.

However you need to remember that even in the first world (including the US) discrimination is rather widespread, even though it isn't out in the open.

Like Hark said, it isn't exactly something that every individual is responsible for, it's a societal thing.

I've encountered people who would immediately call me racist, sexist, or homophobic the instant I disagreed with them, sometimes when I was winning the argument, and others at the first sign that I didn't agree with them.

At the same time I've known and worked with plenty of people from different countries (some from third world countries) and even when I disagreed with them on the way they did something, or on how something should be done, I never once had one of them accuse me of being a bigot simply for not seeing eye to eye with them.

You hear the same argument about being discriminated against from some white men as well, but they often have nothing to base their argument on and are quite rightly regarded as ignorant, racist, sexist, and lacking in the concept of perspective.


Muay Thai is geared toward offense as well as defense. You don't have to wait for them to strike so your can redirect attacks, you can lash out with and elbow across the jaw, a fist to the chin, a ankle/shin to the side of the head, or a knee to the kidney and guts.

I'm not much for martial arts that require high kicks though, you risk losing balance that way, your opponent can throw you off, and you can harm yourself if you don't do it right.

Analyzing literature sucks in general; just let me read it and leave me alone!
5020 Harkopoints
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frostwolf18
Member Avatar
The Watcher
[ *  *  * ]
i don't believe all are, honestly i just find that alot of stuff i have been given does seem like it

as i like to point out, i believe in the individual, not the group, i do not judge people based of the actions of another, if that was the case then i would think all white guys are like rush

bad example, but yeah, i get tired of the complaining though, yes it helps raise awareness, but in all honesty, alot of people simply don't care

maybe i am just depressed, maybe i hate humanity,
though i don't, nor do i hate sentience, for everything we describe, all horrors we fear, all justices we fight for, we create
we created our reality
we live in it
and we fight it
good god i am starting to sound crazy now
lets see
amateur writer, anime fan, rock lover, freedom seeker, not an otaku, history lover (i love it but it hates me), and.... crap

435 points
more shall come
mwhahahahahaha

IT'S A MADWORLD! REVEL IN IT!!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renard
Member Avatar
Kiwifox
[ *  *  * ]
I assume that those things you've been given to read were given by the school system? The problem there is that they're trying to teach you a (sometimes ham fisted) lesson, so they're libel to give you as much fiction about racial inequality and teen angst as they can find.


You don't sound too crazy. I spent about 30 minutes looking at a piece by a concept artist I like; it was a sort of modern take on the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, and I was trying to figure out which horseman was which based on the modified passages from Revelations that he included in the notes (since the Horsemen weren't shown riding their horses).
5020 Harkopoints
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frostwolf18
Member Avatar
The Watcher
[ *  *  * ]
yeah your right, school system

guess i can't really do anything about what i am assigned to read

i don't get what was to great about "Shiloh" though

lets see
amateur writer, anime fan, rock lover, freedom seeker, not an otaku, history lover (i love it but it hates me), and.... crap

435 points
more shall come
mwhahahahahaha

IT'S A MADWORLD! REVEL IN IT!!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renard
Member Avatar
Kiwifox
[ *  *  * ]
What's it about?
5020 Harkopoints
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frostwolf18
Member Avatar
The Watcher
[ *  *  * ]
from what i can tell,
a trucker get in an accident, and can no longer do long hauls, so he is with his wife more often, though since they never saw much of each other as much due to his job, they are uncomfortable, the guy feels like his marriage is falling apart, so he thinks he should build a log cabin that he thinks will help them stay together, he gets this idea from the models he has been making in his spare time.

the mother of the wife suggest they go to shiloh which has a lot of log cabins, and was a civil war battleground

in the end the character realizes that a log cabin is really an empty house, and his marriage is falling apart

there is also mention of the fact that they had a child, but it suffered from sudden infant death syndrome in the middle of Dr. Strangelove drive in movie,

might not be the best description, nor was i the kinda person to enjoy this story, i am sure others do, but i am not one of them

i think it was written by Bobbie Ann Mason
lets see
amateur writer, anime fan, rock lover, freedom seeker, not an otaku, history lover (i love it but it hates me), and.... crap

435 points
more shall come
mwhahahahahaha

IT'S A MADWORLD! REVEL IN IT!!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renard
Member Avatar
Kiwifox
[ *  *  * ]
I've never heard of it.
5020 Harkopoints
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frostwolf18
Member Avatar
The Watcher
[ *  *  * ]
when first heard the name, i thought i was going to read a story about a boy and a dog, movie with the same name
lets see
amateur writer, anime fan, rock lover, freedom seeker, not an otaku, history lover (i love it but it hates me), and.... crap

435 points
more shall come
mwhahahahahaha

IT'S A MADWORLD! REVEL IN IT!!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renard
Member Avatar
Kiwifox
[ *  *  * ]
Hey! Do you know what you ought to read? The Road.

It's rather wordy, but it's by far one of the most powerful, frightening, and beautifully written books I've ever read. If you've seen the film (which was pretty good) the novel is so much better.

I've been trying to talk this lot on the forum into reading it for some time now. That includes you Hark, especially you. You have children, so I'd imagine that it would get to you more than us childless folks.
5020 Harkopoints
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frostwolf18
Member Avatar
The Watcher
[ *  *  * ]
i watched a review on the road movie actually, the reviewer mentioned how something that in the book took a huge amount of description, takes less than 30 seconds on screen


i could read it, when i finish the other books i am reading
and i will finish those the next time i go on vacation

because i can only read in planes, or when i am not driving
lets see
amateur writer, anime fan, rock lover, freedom seeker, not an otaku, history lover (i love it but it hates me), and.... crap

435 points
more shall come
mwhahahahahaha

IT'S A MADWORLD! REVEL IN IT!!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renard
Member Avatar
Kiwifox
[ *  *  * ]
I assume that you're not driving right now? Why aren't you reading?!
5020 Harkopoints
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frostwolf18
Member Avatar
The Watcher
[ *  *  * ]
because i am at the computer

i can't sit down and read at my house, i just get the need to do something, so when i truly can't do anything else, i read

unless i find the book really good, then i read it at home
lets see
amateur writer, anime fan, rock lover, freedom seeker, not an otaku, history lover (i love it but it hates me), and.... crap

435 points
more shall come
mwhahahahahaha

IT'S A MADWORLD! REVEL IN IT!!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canuovea
Member Avatar
Pictured: Hungover Weasel
[ *  *  * ]
Hark, I know that "tosser" can be a "bad word." And I think here too. Though I wasn't sure what it meant until I looked it up just now. Suffice to say, I thought I was being witty. You know, punny.

And, Frostwolf...

Yeah, I understand. Hearing people complain continuously is annoying sometimes, even if it is valid.

And people who just assume things about you, or target you, because of which groups you belong to are just bloody obnoxious.

And yeah, I've also had those moments of "Okay, don't want to seem like a pervert or offend someone or whatnot." And so I waste my time thinking "okay, look over here, not in that general direction." And that is bloody annoying. Personally, I think that I'm not doing someone a favour if I treat them that way.

Though I was not always entirely clear on what you were saying.

And, really, everyone sounds a little crazy.

A word on "feminist" though. It doesn't really mean anything now, almost. A feminist can mean someone, of any gender, who thinks men and women should be treated equally. It can mean someone who believes that but thinks that there is a "male" and a "female" way of doing things. Sometimes it can mean someone who thinks that there is a male and a female way of doing things, but the female is superior. It can also mean someone who hates men.

I'm a feminist of the first type, you probably are too, from the sound of it.
Resident philosophy and history nut. And amateur swordsman.

"Purple swords? Darsai are weird." -Elyssa

I have: 3861 Harko-points +1000
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Harkovast
Member Avatar
The cause of all this silliness (sorry about that!)
[ *  *  * ]
If you dont like complaining...some parts of this forum must seem a bit depressing!

Don't let my rants get you down! I enjoy mocking the assholes of the world (or the tossers as canouvea calls them), thats all.
They are thankfully not the majority or the norm.
"The details escape me right now." -Sir Muir on life.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canuovea
Member Avatar
Pictured: Hungover Weasel
[ *  *  * ]
Huzzah for making fun of Judo!

From now on, I shall refer to the person throwing the other person around as the "Tosser" and the person being thrown as the "Tossee" and the world shall once again be at peace.

Not really, but can't blame me for trying.
Resident philosophy and history nut. And amateur swordsman.

"Purple swords? Darsai are weird." -Elyssa

I have: 3861 Harko-points +1000
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canuovea
Member Avatar
Pictured: Hungover Weasel
[ *  *  * ]
If anyone is interested, Deve made a new post. First in a while.

We all remember Deve, yes?

Now, thing is, she often does have some interesting thoughts worth considering. This starts with prostitution and moves on to a point about consent.

Read here:http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/quantum-consent/

And here is another interesting, and pointed, piece. I worry about the assumptions made, but given those it is a good read:

http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-bl...ut-being-maced/
Resident philosophy and history nut. And amateur swordsman.

"Purple swords? Darsai are weird." -Elyssa

I have: 3861 Harko-points +1000
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renard
Member Avatar
Kiwifox
[ *  *  * ]
I'll have to read these later; the few paragraphs that I read of the second one do make some good points, but something still seems a little off.
5020 Harkopoints
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canuovea
Member Avatar
Pictured: Hungover Weasel
[ *  *  * ]
There are some really good points in that one. And some in the other one too. I wrote a response, but it won't get posted. Too long.

"In response to: http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/quantum-consent/

I found this well reasoned to a point, and certainly a good explanation about the problems with prostitution. There are a few things I would like to bring up, however.

"Nowadays, “sex positive feminism” has given us Yes Means Yes, based on the idea that we wouldn’t have rape if only men recognized that women can like sex, too."

- I'm not entirely sure this is clear. I at first misinterpreted the "Yes Means Yes" to be what I'm familiar with, namely, "Only "Yes" Means Yes". At least that is what I thought until I checked the link. Having not read the book, I'm not certain what to make of it, but the argument seems unlikely. Anyway, moving on to more important topics.

"Discussions on prostitution, pornography, and BDSM have suffered from this as well. Even in some “feminist” spheres, where people should presumably want to analyze how these predominantly male-profiting and female-utilizing fields are functioning in and affecting society, the discussion usually focuses on the women’s “agency.” If the women “want” to do it, in sex-positive circles, we will not look at the man behind the curtain."

- While perhaps "predominately" is a good word choice, I'm curious about what you make of those instances that involve prostitution, pornography, or BDSM that is not male-profiting or (necessarily) female-utilizing. For instance, say a lesbian couple who use BDSM or females using male prostitutes (a reverse of the situation here).

So, why are there male prostitutes? There are far fewer of them, but they do exist. If this narrative is correct, how do they fit in? And if, only if, there are male prostitutes who are consenting and happy to be in that position, could there not possibly be a female equivalent? Given certain preconditions, which probably don't exist in our society. If that is the case then could that be supporting evidence for a kind of "Yes Means Yes" argument?

Another thought, while on the topic, how does drawn pornography fit in? It only involves an artist, male or female, and can target several different demographics. It does not require sex trafficking at all, nor does it violate any persons consent. One could make an argument against specific content, but I mean on principle.

"To consent is to agree to something which has been proposed, not to make a proposal."

- Would you agree that making a proposal implies consent to that which is being proposed? Of course the seriousness of the consent involved still needs to be ascertained, which seems to be the topic at hand.

"The real problem with prostitution, pornography, BDSM, and – to be quite frank – all sexual acts involving at least one woman and at least one man, is the lack of concern men are taught to have about even the low bar of consent."

- While a generalization, I find this to be, sadly, quite true far too often.

"Her appearance of agreeableness may be legitimate. It may not be. It may be both. You have no way to tell.... So why are you fucking her?"

- Completely agree up to this point. 100% pertinent to prostitution and even with important implications for sex generally.

"...if we were going to classify his actions, his level of knowledge or intent, what distinguishes him from a convicted rapist?"

- Perhaps that the john, as opposed to a straight out rapist, doesn't necessarily know that the woman was not consenting (as they would see it). I find it unlikely that most rapists believe that consent was given. Then again, I've heard the (para)phrase "get him drunk enough to consent" used before, so perhaps my own experiences contradict that.

Moving on.

"And neither is the consent of a woman who is underage, no matter how much she might “want” sex."

- I don't see it so much as a woman who is underage giving consent because of coercion of some kind. I simply do not think minors can give consent. At all. Partially due to power and maturity differences, which, I think, partially proves your point.

"And, for that matter, neither is the consent of somebody who is suffering from certain emotional difficulties, or who cannot effectively withhold consent for social, cultural, financial, or psychological reasons... Almost all women are socially conditioned not to directly say no to men, or to depend on men financially/emotionally. Does this mean that almost all heterosexual sex may have a problem with quantum consent?”

- This is where disagreement on my part appears. Partially due to generalization, I think. So I'm going to try make my problems clear as I can.

Men can, and do, suffer from certain emotional difficulties, etc, so I am glad that is a gender neutral statement being made. But what, and to what degree, must these problems (etc) actually be before they are considered a major factor? Agency is a tricky thing, and suggesting that certain issues are going to override someone's ability to make a clear decision is dangerous. I'm worried about the fine line between determinism and free will, is I think what my concern is.

Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, is my understanding of a relationship. I see a meaningful relationship between two completely independent entities to be practically impossible. It is not about a woman being financially/emotionally dependent on a man in a relationship; rather it is about both parties being dependent on the other emotionally or, as is often the case these days, financially as well. Hence, if both (or all, whatever floats your boat as it were) parties are mutually dependent that is fine. Again, as I see it. When one party has a monopoly on dependence (say, like in a cult) then there is, or is likely to be, a problem.

As for women being socially programmed to not say "no" to men, well, some. But that statement would probably enrage quite a few women who find themselves quite happy to say "no" to men (I believe I know a good many). And maybe even men who find it hard to say "no" to women (I may know a few of those too, but I can't be sure). This doesn't change the fact that there are women in that kind of situation, but there are women who are not.

"Except without sex trafficking, there would be no prostitution."

- There may be male prostitution. And I'm not convinced by this argument that stopping sex trafficking would put an end to any and all female prostitution either. I do think that it would put a considerable dent in the profession, however.

"And seriously, what would be the point of shelling out all the money to buy a prostitute if she could say no?"

- Status or ego boosting, perhaps? Something similar to the "Companions" from the "Firefly" series could exist, I suppose. Very much fiction, but they were able to choose their clients and reject or ban other candidates from the system entirely. Fiction, again, but the closest thing I've seen to "female friendly" prostitution even in fiction. Closest doesn't mean that it was, of course, but customers tended to be in it for status as much as anything (relating back to the point of shelling out money to buy a prostitute if she could say no).

"“Wait!” some more feminist-minded male readers might object... Congratulations! You’re starting to figure it out. You can blame your forefathers and the patriarchy! It might be a bit of an inconvenience to you to not get to have sex with whatever woman you want while she painfully and laboriously tries to overcome her life-long psychological conditioning and begins to doubt every desire, fantasy, and self-identification she ever had, but I’m sure you’ll manage somehow"

- Yes, ha ha. Lets all take a dig at possibly sympathetic male readership in the meantime. It was not particularly appreciated, by the way. Yes, I'm male, though that was probably already guessed at this point. I'm fairly sure that I waited around eight hours, including the hour or so it took to write this response.

Anyway, interesting read and good points made even if I think the conclusions sometimes overreached their effective bounds."
Resident philosophy and history nut. And amateur swordsman.

"Purple swords? Darsai are weird." -Elyssa

I have: 3861 Harko-points +1000
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renard
Member Avatar
Kiwifox
[ *  *  * ]
Prostitution will always exist because there will always be a market for sex, even if trafficking (and I'm not entirely sure what her exact definition of trafficking is) were to be completely eliminated.

Prostitution is one of the oldest professions in the world, and has always existed because some men are willing to spend their money to pay for sex, and there will always be someone who will accept this money in return for sex.

While it would be ignorant to say that all women are willingly involved in prostitution, that none are forced or otherwise coerced into that line of work, there are women who are in that line of work (either independently or working for a pimp) who only turned to prostitution because of drug problems.

I only bring that up to make the point that we can't always blame trafficking and the male-dominated establishment for the existence of prostitution.

She also makes the assumption that BDSM is inherently about using women, and always without their actual permission and consent (she makes it very obvious that women can never willingly consent to any sexual act that is or has any relation to BDSM). But some women are into that, and some are dominant. Would it still be male-profiting, female-utilizing if the woman is "utilizing" the man? Somehow I can see her explaining that it is, due to the male-dominated patriarchal society.

I can vouch that there are women who have no problem saying no. One of my friends turned me down, she called me a drunk and told me to fuck off (admittedly this was after 7 pints and two shots of Jaggermeister, and I immediately apologized for making an ass of myself), another girl I know told me about one fellow who thought that being really insistent might help her change her mind, apparently the stupid sod ended up with a black eye and a cut from her ring that left him bleeding like a stuck pig.

Women can say no, and there are plenty of women who aren't afraid to, so that generalization doesn't really work, and I don't think that it's healthy to blame absolutely every problem (real, perceived, or exaggerated) on the "male-dominated patriarchy".


Either way, my biggest problem with Deve is that some of her statements seem to suggest that women are helpless and ignorant. They've been conditioned by the male-dominated society to be exactly what men want, to always do as they're told, to ignore that practically all sex is rape... on several occasions in all of the posts that she's made (that I've read) she has herself been pretty condescending to women.

I know that there's probably an actual name for this, but I'll call it a "crusader complex". Essentially the activist makes the people that they are trying to save/enlighten seem like defenseless and/or gullible idiots, that they've been tricked and railroaded at every turn (and maybe their whole world view is a sham), and that the activist is there to save them with their superior knowledge and unclouded vision.

The closest thing I can find to what I mean is the Mighty Whitey trope; white man shows up and saves the lesser races from a problem that only the superior white man could solve. Very similar, and equally insulting.

Deve essentially implies that most women are fragile and inept creatures that require the careful shepherding and protection of feminist watchdogs, such as herself.
5020 Harkopoints
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
StyxD
Member Avatar
Undead Wolf
[ *  *  * ]
Well, the first one was interesting, all right. I pretty much agree with her. Perhaps too much, since the prostitution issue is probably not as black and white, but as a world with no sex trafficking will probably never dawn, we won't find out.

I loved the potshot at her male, uh, fans? I mean, she doesn't even say "to some men that might be reading this", no, she says "my many male subscribers", aka people who regularly read what she writes, presumably liking it and agree with her at least partially. Shouldn't she assume they're going to be sympathetic?

Maybe she's a bit like a dojo master, imparting her wisdom to her lowly disciples who're still Not Yet Worthy and have a long training still before them.

Or... maybe she thinks her male subscribers are actually mostly haters, who read her posts just to quarrel, troll, and repost what she says in their corner of the Internet to mock it...
Wait, Canuovea, what's the name of this thread again?

Canuovea
 
I'm not entirely sure this is clear. I at first misinterpreted the "Yes Means Yes" to be what I'm familiar with, namely, "Only "Yes" Means Yes".
Actually, I'm certain I've seen this phrase used in this meaning in another feminist blog - that instead of consent being implicit unless denied ("no means no") it should be assumed to be nonexistent unless explicit. I'm all for it, it worked well in programming. Ahem.
Having said that, the book's description does make it sound like bullshit. I've never heard of that book.

Canuovea
 
So, why are there male prostitutes? There are far fewer of them, but they do exist. If this narrative is correct, how do they fit in?
Actually, I'm afraid, male prostitutes still carter mostly to male clients. At least those on the streets. So I heard.
Those that service women are mostly of the high-class "companion" type. Or chippendales, but that may not even count.

Canuovea
 
Another thought, while on the topic, how does drawn pornography fit in?
Yes, please, think of the furries :unsure:

Canuovea
 
Perhaps that the john, as opposed to a straight out rapist, doesn't necessarily know that the woman was not consenting
Yes, because for at least a century, portrayal of prostitution in media was nothing but rainbows and unicorns, and not as something that's done out of poverty and desperation or enslavement.
There's really not much to excuse prostitution clients, and she's right about that.

Canuovea
 
There may be male prostitution. And I'm not convinced by this argument that stopping sex trafficking would put an end to any and all female prostitution either.
Note, that she later expands it to include "if women had equivalent financial status and power as men". At this point all that would be left would be posh high-class courtesans, who take in only rich and well behaved clients. Yes, it wouldn't completely end the act of prostitution (and Deve doesn't say that it would), it would probably continue on an particular, individual level, but the *industry* (or, let's put it more bluntly, da pimps) would be pretty much wrecked.


The second article was... weird. Besides the author spectacularly Not Getting Statistics near the beginning, she seems convinced that every women constantly evaluates men for danger. I feel paranoid now that all the women around me are constantly watching me *shudder*.

Or did she mean only while dating? Then I'm safe.

Besides, I would find that unconditionally creepy if somebody would compliment me randomly on the bus, even if I'm not a woman.
2500/9001 Harko-points
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canuovea
Member Avatar
Pictured: Hungover Weasel
[ *  *  * ]
StyxD,

Yeah, Deve (Daughter of Eve) can be fairly convincing.

And I put this in this thread because the first time Hark posted anything about Deve was in response to her assertion that almost all men are rape supporters. In all honesty, I think Deve wasn't entirely clear about what she meant and that caused some confusion. Though she has had some rather crazy shit she's said. Anyway, Deve was first mentioned by Hark in the thread with this original title, ergo I put this here.

I'd be interested to hear Tiberius' take on the subject, but he probably won't even bother to read this because he is a much more positive person than the rest of us and just doesn't like this section of the forum (and I'm not trying to be snotty with that).

Basically, I go with both "No means no", meaning that the "presence of a "no" means stop whatever the heck you are doing and back away", and "Only yes means yes", meaning that you only do something if consent is obviously stated. Furthermore, a "no" after a "yes" still means "no." I'm not sure there is a decent way to argue against that.

"Actually, I'm afraid, male prostitutes still carter mostly to male clients."

True, but I'm interested in the exceptions as well. Mostly doesn't cut it for me. Though male/male prostitution is an interesting topic as well. If Men are supposedly more powerful than women, but there are still male prostitutes (regardless of whom they are for) then how will equalization of the genders mean no female prostitutes?

"Yes, because for at least a century, portrayal of prostitution in media was nothing but rainbows and unicorns, and not as something that's done out of poverty and desperation or enslavement.
There's really not much to excuse prostitution clients, and she's right about that."

I'm not saying she is wrong about how bad prostitution is, I'm just saying that equating a john with a rapist isn't quite a proper comparison. Similar, true, but there is a difference.

"Note, that she later expands it to include "if women had equivalent financial status and power as men". At this point all that would be left would be posh high-class courtesans, who take in only rich and well behaved clients. Yes, it wouldn't completely end the act of prostitution (and Deve doesn't say that it would), it would probably continue on an particular, individual level, but the *industry* (or, let's put it more bluntly, da pimps) would be pretty much wrecked."

I'm afraid I'm going to go with Renard on this one, StyxD. I was referring to the "if women had..." part of the argument as well. Not saying that such a case is not possible, but that the argument has not demonstrated it.

Then there is the problem with the phrase "equivalent financial status and power as men." After all, even if generally it were all equally leveled out, there would still be men and women of a lower economic or power class. So there will always be men with greater power over women, and women with greater power over men, if there is inequality generally. Coming back to male prostitution, even for other males... if men apparently have an advantage, yet are still prostitutes, what have we got?

And I do believe that Deve does say it would get rid of prostitution. Though I would think that the Pimps and co. would be dealt a serious blow if not eliminated... but you admit that an individual level would be present. Perhaps we don't actually disagree here.

The second article does have as its most basic premise that all women are constantly evaluating all men around them as possible rapists, yes. Not just men they are dating.

Now, in my response (which I only recently realized won't be published because it is too long) I attempted to keep the personal out of it. But heck, I'm here now, right?

My girlfriend was livid with this piece, near the end of it anyway. We both agreed up to a decent point, but things turned around. The idea that she didn't know what she was about because of some kind of social control really didn't go down well. And it bothered me too. I think she had a similar response to Renard about how it makes women look weak. And she is quite happy to tell men "no" whenever she feels the situation warrants it, thank you very much.

She also perceived an attack on me she didn't take very well too. That didn't bother me too much, but... as I said in my response, I think a relationship depends on both people being emotionally dependant on each other. Her being emotionally dependent on me, to some degree, isn't bad. After all, I'm very emotionally dependent on her as well.

I know a Lesbian who is in to BDSM. I find it unlikely she is being exploited by men, and highly unlikely that she is just tricking herself into it because of her socially programmed need to please men.

Then that example I gave about getting this guy "drunk enough to consent" was a true example as well. The attempted rapist (who I think qualifies for that title) was a person with the body of a woman but who identified as male. Transgender, so I'm not so sure where he fits in, but Deve doesn't exactly have a record of thinking highly of the transgendered community.

As for my retaliation to this little dig: ""“Wait!” some more feminist-minded male readers might object... Congratulations!..." well she does single out her more "feminist-minded male readers" for attack. Which I think kinda undermines her entire cause. As does her openly rabid sexism, demonstrated here. I had been somewhat sympathetic with her until I read that little tid bit. Now I could go into how, by her own logic and criteria, this kind of crap makes her a rape supporter, but I've been long winded enough about this topic. (which means that I'll only continue ranting if someone wants to take the conversation in that particular direction).

Summary: She is right quite often, but then goes and takes it way too far.
Resident philosophy and history nut. And amateur swordsman.

"Purple swords? Darsai are weird." -Elyssa

I have: 3861 Harko-points +1000
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renard
Member Avatar
Kiwifox
[ *  *  * ]
She isn't right and takes things too far. She's right, then either misses the point of her own argument, or goes completely off the rails into something pointlessly vicious (as in the post about how men should die).

If my government opened a unit of the national police service that hunted down rapists and killed them/took them into custody using whatever force the arresting officers deemed acceptable, I'd be one of the first men to sign up for that (although part of that is because I'm a nasty person). I'm attracted to both men and women, but I think men are usually twats. If there's one thing I hate it's rapists and men who assault or otherwise harm women physically and psychologically.

I support violent action against rapists, I think men tend to be knobs, and I can't stand sexism, yet I'm still a target of Deve's ire. I do agree with some of her arguments, but I find that she can be outright insulting at (many) other times.

Her criteria for actually believing in equal rights for women, and supporting feminism at any extent with actual conviction, seems to be dependent upon being born with a uterus. She seems to imply that men who claim to support feminism are either frauds, or that they are less important than a woman who supports the cause.

She claims to believe in equality of the sexes, but more often than not her idea of equality discriminates against men.

My only real problem with that stance is that if one is going to claim "equality" as their cause, be true to it and don't discriminate, otherwise it defeats the purpose.
5020 Harkopoints
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canuovea
Member Avatar
Pictured: Hungover Weasel
[ *  *  * ]
Perhaps that is so.

Then there is the logic of oppressors and oppressed that fits in with the class (in this case, gender class) based systemic world view she endorses. And what bothers me about that is the "us and them" mentality that it depends on and encourages. Painting with broad stokes leaves out the details, and damn, that can be especially annoying. Particularly for those details.

That isn't to say that there is no "Patriarchy", but that things are not so black and white as "men=bad" and "women=good". Or, in certain cases "only women I agree with=good". You remember the Matrix? How killing people who haven't been "awakened to reality" is okay if necessary? We can often end up in people seeing their situation in a similar way.

Blah.
Resident philosophy and history nut. And amateur swordsman.

"Purple swords? Darsai are weird." -Elyssa

I have: 3861 Harko-points +1000
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
StyxD
Member Avatar
Undead Wolf
[ *  *  * ]
Canuovea
 
True, but I'm interested in the exceptions as well. Mostly doesn't cut it for me. Though male/male prostitution is an interesting topic as well. If Men are supposedly more powerful than women, but there are still male prostitutes (regardless of whom they are for) then how will equalization of the genders mean no female prostitutes?
Yes, but the article in question seems to dismiss those exceptions. She seems only interested with the institutionalized prostitution, and never says that ALL prostitution anywhere would end.

I wonder, if by some magic (or Renard's rampage) pimps and prostitution gangs were to disappear, but there still would be poor women on the street who make a living by selling their bodies, would she consider the situation "fixed"?

Canuovea
 
I'm not saying she is wrong about how bad prostitution is, I'm just saying that equating a john with a rapist isn't quite a proper comparison. Similar, true, but there is a difference.
What exactly makes it not proper? Payment?

Canuovea
 
Then there is the problem with the phrase "equivalent financial status and power as men." After all, even if generally it were all equally leveled out, there would still be men and women of a lower economic or power class. So there will always be men with greater power over women, and women with greater power over men, if there is inequality generally. Coming back to male prostitution, even for other males... if men apparently have an advantage, yet are still prostitutes, what have we got?
Yeah, I'm afraid I made a logic leap here, following the author.

There may be truth to worse financial situation, of many women, that forces them into prostitution, being caused by patriarchy (I'm no sociologist, so I don't know for sure), but surely, there's more than that. Are there more poor women or poor men?

I think this is where demand comes in. For a woman in a bad situation prostitution is an option for making a living. For a man, not so much, even if he would take it. There's simply too small market for male prostitutes. Similarly, the trafficking gangs assault women because that's what makes money. I'm sure they'd start taking men if they thought they could make a profit from it.

Because the market is biased that way, we can't really say for sure whether prostitution is caused mostly by gender or economic inequality.

As to why 99.9% of prostitutes' clients are men, when supposedly both sexes have a similar desire for sex, well, that would be no doubt interesting and disturbing study (or is there one already?). I'm sure Deve could have a field day with that.

As for the phrase "equivalent financial status and power as men", I can't speak for Deve, but I guess she thinks that either a) men=power, women=oppressed, and that's that, or b ) since there are almost none male prostitutes, if women had such status as men, then there would be a similar number of female prostitutes.

I'd surely want to see her reaction if somebody brought up male prostitution. But I guess she'd either accuse them of trying to hijack the discussion to be about men, or say that they're not a significant enough problem to consider (we've already established she's classicist).

Canuovea
 
The idea that she didn't know what she was about because of some kind of social control really didn't go down well. And it bothered me too. I think she had a similar response to Renard about how it makes women look weak.
Well, like most extremists (that is, people holding an extreme worldview), Deve has her vision of reality, to which the majority was not enlightened yet. Including other women. Of course, the idea that something makes you act like you do and in a perfect world you wouldn't, even if you made a choice to act that way, is ever controversial.

I actually have a little gripe with it. For what is worth, I've seen feminists actually uncover to people (i.e. me) things that are not noticed, but shape the world in general, like patriarchy, rape culture (horribly un-PR name, since it makes every man who hears it squat in a defensive position and shout "But I'm not a rapist!", but there's something to what it actually defines). It's clear to me, that there are things we don't see that affect the way we act.

Now with Deve, I think the problem is easy. She just doesn't give a shit about who a person is as an individual. It was apparent in her "Die, men, die" rant. Men, women, they're just a building blocks making up her vision of an evil world order. All men oppress, all women are oppressed, and if you are one that aren't - well goodie, do you wan a candy for that? - but it doesn't affect the system as a whole, and certainly system is all we need to care about.
Just how boneheadedly she was using statistics in that rant shows that she thinks so.

It makes me think of communism for some reason (hence I describe it as classicism and not sexism, since it isn't just saying that men are inherently bad and women good).

(And yeah, I went on a tangent. I wanted to write some of this as a comment to Hark's initial post about Deve, but Drunk Duck went down at that time.)

(Also, did Canuovea write pretty much the same thing as me here in his last post? Well, now I feel like I wasted time explaining the obvious.)

Canuovea
 
As for my retaliation to this little dig: ""“Wait!” some more feminist-minded male readers might object... Congratulations!..." well she does single out her more "feminist-minded male readers" for attack.
I don't find that passage that offensive. Aggressive, yes, but not really directed against those "feminist-minded male readers". Of course, she does take a potshot at them at the end anyway.

But yeah, basically what Renard says. That's pretty common for extreme feminists. Even if they don't think male feminists are frauds, they either think they do it mostly to feel complacent and absolve themselves of their class-crimes with this single act, or that since they never, *ever* will know how utterly awful it is to be a woman (actually, I felt a bit of that vibe from the second article you linked here, but at least that one was polite), so they had best just shut up and stop bringing attention to themselves, since obviously they didn't "earn" the right to be titled as feminists. And don't get those women started on MtF transgendered people...

Canuovea
 
You remember the Matrix? How killing people who haven't been "awakened to reality" is okay if necessary? We can often end up in people seeing their situation in a similar way.
It's like this with any revolution, really.
2500/9001 Harko-points
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renard
Member Avatar
Kiwifox
[ *  *  * ]
I never really look at this from a "class struggle" and "classism" standpoint, but that seems to fit her arguments just as well as "feminism" and sexism do; change a few words and throw in proletariat and there we have it.


I got around to reading that second article in full, and I get an odd vibe from it.
5020 Harkopoints
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mrs Vast
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Frostwolf18 from page 3 said:
probably went off topic, don't care, really pissed off at english short story class
Analyzing short stories sucks, i hate reading this crap

Short stories are amazing but get ruined all the time by professors/teachers trying to analyze them and look for the 'allegory' etc. They should be interpreted by how you think they make you feel not by how the professor thinks the author should make you feel. One day you might read them without having to translate them and you may like it.

As for being a woman and demanding more than men...if I was the mother of a small child and the small child had the right to be removed from a sinking boat first the small child is entitled to have its mother with it. Arguably the father should come along too. But if the woman is breastfeeding the baby only she can provide that.

I'm not asking any more than what men get in this world. Heck, we have the best kind of sanitary pads science can buy. I open doors for men as much as they do for me, and they never do it for me because I'm a chick, but because they can see I have my hands full with a double stroller and four kids. Women do the same. Hurray for people who are nice!

:rolleyes:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canuovea
Member Avatar
Pictured: Hungover Weasel
[ *  *  * ]
StyxD,

You know, the advantage of having several different people thinking on the same subject became clear to me with your last post.

"She just doesn't give a shit about who a person is as an individual."

That is basically what I was getting at with my talk of systemic worldview, but you said it in such a clearer way. So don't worry about overlap, in cases like this it seems to be a clarifying effect.

"What exactly makes it not proper? Payment?"

The equivalency is not there. One could argue that payment makes it different, in a manner of speaking. But I don't really think so. What I do think is that 1) Prostitution is seen by society as more acceptable than rape, giving the impression of a distinction. 2) A person who is sexually assualted, in a manner where no appearance of consent is given, is different than a person who is sexually assualted in a manner where "fake" consent is given (not removed) and accepted by the assualter. It may mean the assualter was stupid for not thinking it through enough to be fooled. There is a level of difference involved here, is all I'm saying.

"I wonder, if by some magic (or Renard's rampage) pimps and prostitution gangs were to disappear, but there still would be poor women on the street who make a living by selling their bodies, would she consider the situation "fixed"?"

I doubt it. But I doubt she could blame it on the patriarchy. Well, not if women suddenly were given, as a class, equality and all that.

"Are there more poor women or poor men?"

Depends on where you are looking. Over here there may not be exponentially more, but the first nations women have it the worst generally.

"I think this is where demand comes in. For a woman in a bad situation prostitution is an option for making a living. For a man, not so much, even if he would take it"

I agree. There most certainly is a higher demand for female prostitutes, and that is reflected. For the average male? It isn't so much an option. Similar to pornography. When Porn isn't based around sex-trafficking it has to be realized that female actors are more in demand than male ones (because the male ones are dime a dozen?) and actually make more money. Is that an advantage the system gives women (along with the negative consequence of objectification and being demeaned. I'm not saying Porn is a good thing)? I almost want to say this all comes down to biology, but I'm sure culture plays a role as well.

"Because the market is biased that way, we can't really say for sure whether prostitution is caused mostly by gender or economic inequality."

Oh, I think both play a large role. Removing one, but not the other, would not stop prostitution on its own. It would reduce it, probably. Of course, is getting rid of the entire capitalist system worth it? Especially if there may be another way to fix the issue?

"As for the phrase "equivalent financial status and power as men"..."

Deve means both, I think. I'm not sure. But she definitely sees the men as oppressors. I think it isn't quite that simple. Working with only two classes is too simple.

"it makes every man who hears it squat in a defensive position and shout "But I'm not a rapist!""

That is what happened when she accused most men of being rape supporters. You must have read that earlier when DD was down because you mention wanting to post about it. But I eventually came to the conclusion that if you do anything that supports the patriarchy then you are a rape supporter. Which is different from a rapist. The logical statement was so weak (all encompassing) that it equalled (and she admitted this): You support the war in Iraq if you pay US taxes, even if you don't morally support it. Since she defined it as only men (just ignored the women, saying this wasn't about them. She didn't say that women couldn't be rape supporters but that this post was only about men), it wouldn't really do to shout at her that she is a rape supporter too.

Basically, something like that makes for a negative reaction without actually understanding what is exactly meant. Kneejerk reaction, which is what the Amazing Atheist responded against Deve with. He just didn't think it through. Which, according to Hark, isn't new.

"It makes me think of communism for some reason (hence I describe it as classicism and not sexism, since it isn't just saying that men are inherently bad and women good)."

Because, just like Marxism, it is an ideology that focuses around the use of classes to define the world and how it works. A systemic interpretation as well. Marxist interpretation is flawed (though useful in its own way) partially because of this. Painting with big brushes it dangerous.

"they never, *ever* will know how utterly awful it is to be a woman"

I hate that style of thought. Yes, women have it bad sometimes. Very true. But I can't help but read that in a way that seems condescending to women. Not to mention a horrid generalization.

"It's like this with any revolution, really. "

Yup.

Mrs. Vast,

Yay! People who are nice! And who can be nice regardless of gender, race, or financial status!
Resident philosophy and history nut. And amateur swordsman.

"Purple swords? Darsai are weird." -Elyssa

I have: 3861 Harko-points +1000
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renard
Member Avatar
Kiwifox
[ *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Over here there may not be exponentially more, but the first nations women have it the worst generally.

Are you listening to yourself? Women in the first world are almost always better off than nearly everyone in the third world.


Quote:
 
"they never, *ever* will know how utterly awful it is to be a woman"

I hate that style of thought. Yes, women have it bad sometimes. Very true. But I can't help but read that in a way that seems condescending to women. Not to mention a horrid generalization.

Call me callus, but the instant I hear someone in the first world, who has a roof over their head, food on the table, water, electricity, a career, family, friends, and doesn't live in constant fear of their entire country being plunged into a war with their neighbors, extremists, drug lords, warlords, or civil war, or being shot by any number of armed groups 24/7 start talking like that, I tune them out.

Do women have it perfect in the first world? Not by a long shot. But some people need to take things into perspective before they cry "Woe is me!" and say that they, as a North American woman, have the most to fear. There are many places in the world where men have more to fear than the average woman does in the first world, to say nothing of the women who live in such places.

I'd rather be a woman living in nearly any American city than a man living almost anywhere in Africa, most of the Middle East, and parts of South America.
5020 Harkopoints
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canuovea
Member Avatar
Pictured: Hungover Weasel
[ *  *  * ]
"Are you listening to yourself? Women in the first world are almost always better off than nearly everyone in the third world."

Nope Renard, not the case here... (Kidding)

Okay, so I didn't mean "generally" in the sense that it meant "the whole world". I meant it more as in "In Canada" or "In my region." I used generally because I'm talking about classes and it is possible that there is one poor white male who is very very bad off, perhaps more so than all first nations women (though I doubt that), but on a whole... no, generally the poor first nations women, as a classification, are the worst off segment of society where I live. That is what I meant by "Depends on where you are looking. Over here..."

"Call me callus, but the instant I hear someone in the first world, who has a roof over their head, food on the table, water, electricity, a career, family, friends, and doesn't live in constant fear of their entire country being plunged into a war with their neighbors, extremists, drug lords, warlords, or civil war, or being shot by any number of armed groups 24/7 start talking like that, I tune them out."

Though to be fair, quite a few of the homeless population doesn't have that over here. Sure, their country isn't going to turn into a warzone, but their neighbourhood may. Not quite that bad, perhaps, but still quite bad.
Resident philosophy and history nut. And amateur swordsman.

"Purple swords? Darsai are weird." -Elyssa

I have: 3861 Harko-points +1000
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renard
Member Avatar
Kiwifox
[ *  *  * ]
There is usually a difference between a gang war and an actual military conflict, and if a gang war in your area is comparable to a military conflict then you are likely living in a third world hellhole to begin with.

Okay, maybe the women in your part of the first world are in a bad spot, I don't know Vancouver very well, but I'm not quite sure how you think that there can't be one man worse off than women in a first world country.

I'm missing something here.
5020 Harkopoints
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canuovea
Member Avatar
Pictured: Hungover Weasel
[ *  *  * ]
Oh, of course a gang war isn't the same.

Look up Robert Pickton. Look at the composition of his victims.

My point is that as a demographic, the poor first nations women are in a bad spot. More so than most.
Resident philosophy and history nut. And amateur swordsman.

"Purple swords? Darsai are weird." -Elyssa

I have: 3861 Harko-points +1000
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renard
Member Avatar
Kiwifox
[ *  *  * ]
Canada is first world, Somalia is third world. Explain to me why I should feel more sorry for women who live in the first world, as opposed to women who get out of bed, open the shutters, and see these bastards rolling down the street because they own the place by virtue of having the most and biggest firearms?

Posted Image

Why should I feel more sympathy for women from first world nations?
5020 Harkopoints
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canuovea
Member Avatar
Pictured: Hungover Weasel
[ *  *  * ]
More sympathy? Not necessarily. But some sympathy? Certainly.

Though perhaps I wouldn't say "women" so much as the downtrodden, who, contrary to popular belief, do exist in first world nations.

Disabled (physically and mentally), drug addled, and homeless people tend not to be well off, even in a first world country. And as I said, look at the Pickton case.
Resident philosophy and history nut. And amateur swordsman.

"Purple swords? Darsai are weird." -Elyssa

I have: 3861 Harko-points +1000
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renard
Member Avatar
Kiwifox
[ *  *  * ]
I know that people can be down on their luck in first world countries, but what you were saying a few posts ago made it out to be that of all people the women in first world countries have it the worst:
Quote:
 
...but the first nations women have it the worst generally.

You can't say that first world women (who are down on their luck) are the worst off because of serial killers. There are people in other countries who also kill innocent people, but they tend to have firepower (or machetes) and receive orders in a quasi-military fashion.


I refuse to have sympathy for drug addicts. There is no excuse for being addicted to illicit substances, therefore there is no reason for me to feel anything but contempt. I don't give a rat's ass that they suffer because of it, and I certainly don't care that their standard of living is less than mine as a result of it; unless someone forced to take a drug, and that resulted in their addiction, then I only see an almost criminal weakness and ignorance.

On the other hand I do have respect for people who can get help and overcome their addiction, but I actively hate people who either refuse to straighten themselves out, or who relapse into addiction (and God help those who make a habit of recovering and relapsing).

I believe in hard labor for people like that, it might not help them get cleaned up, but for repeat offenders I think harsh punishment is more important.
5020 Harkopoints
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Random Nonsense · Next Topic »
Add Reply