This topic was split from PC faggotry topic. -moderatorQuote from: Andrew McIntosh on December 11, 2012, 04:26:32 AM
Quote from: online prowler on December 11, 2012, 03:11:37 AM
http://www.journaltimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/deadbeat-dad-sentenced-to-probation-ordered-not-to-procreate/article_50347514-3d80-11e2-9eee-0019bb2963f4.html (http://www.journaltimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/deadbeat-dad-sentenced-to-probation-ordered-not-to-procreate/article_50347514-3d80-11e2-9eee-0019bb2963f4.html)
This is a great idea. I'm all for it. There should be severe restrictions on certain people breeding.
Not that I disagree, but courts are very biased against male defendants. Of course in largely feminist controlled sub genre like noise, men's issues are oft ignored and often thought of as silly and even mocked.
Quote from: jesusfaggotchrist on January 02, 2013, 12:51:18 AMin largely feminist controlled sub genre like noise
How it is controlled? Who is feminist? Bands, labels, organizers, distributors,.. fans? Just about everything what is ever dealt within noise is "mens issues", isn't it?
Not long ago, conservative "right wing" capitalist party youth organization leader in Finland, wrote at facebook that we should not encourage or support breeding of the "weakest element of society". Of course he got lots of shit for this, and in week had to resign from his job. His youth organization is under the party of currently biggest Finnish party and also same were current president belongs. This guy had some jewish background, and media make big deal how jew could talk about "weak element in society". No matter how many times he explained it was no racial remark or anything like that, there was no chance he could make things right. One comment at facebook and your "political career" can be over.
I recall his logic was based on child-care. To ensure kids are born wanted. Not because state pays you benefits. Not because you can just drop them to social service when you feel moody, not because you're such wreck that you just don't give a fuck.
Public discussion - as far as I followed - seemed to be more about "should all parents be good looking and rich", and it again makes one think public debate wouldn't be necessary as it leads nowhere. Just sterilize the weak element when it seems accurate choice.
i meant the people involved Mikko, not the actual music itself
Quote from: jesusfaggotchrist on January 02, 2013, 09:34:30 PM
i meant the people involved Mikko, not the actual music itself
Yeah, but that meaning... people of bands, labels, organizers, distributors,.. or fans? And if its not the labels/bands/artists who create this music, how do the fans "control" it?
Quote from: Vigilante Ecstasy on January 02, 2013, 05:04:00 PM
This must be the most ridiculous shit ever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_uRIMUBnvw
Why not follow it up with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2V2QVvJlt4 for a double-dose of ridiculous annoyance. Remember to check your privilege!
Noise feminist-dominated? Hmm, not sure about that. For every hand-wringing liberal guy involved there's a Kyle Nonneman type too. As for most women in noise/industrial culture, they seem to be inspired by the more positive aspects of feminism (not shutting up or playing dumb and embracing creativity) but leave the uptight judgmental PC shit to their 'sisters' in the world of politics and journalism.
as an MRA I never knew there was a positive side to feminism. hm hm...learn something new everyday
MRA... Could it stand for male rights activist of some sort? Such thing has been on steady uprise in Finland for years, and most of all dominated by angry men online. And I dare to say, that bunch of losers includes most likely the biggest of the crybabies out there. When making to real papers, real media, appear as utmost clowns.
Whole idea of "more rights for men", in world as it is, seems culture of modern pussyboys. Traditionally, men don't beg for rights. They take them. That's it. Any male rights groups appear counter-subculture of misunderstood feminism, and becomes very much obsolete.
are we a bit offended by the fact that the tide is turning, Mikko? you know we are everywhere.
just because we don't "traditionally" beg for rights doesn't mean we don't deserve them. statisically speaking, men die sooner, drive longer commutes, work longer hours, are not favored in most domestic violence cases, alimony or child support cases. that's why i find it hysterical when women complain about the wage gap and so-called 'oppression'. the law and goverment have been on your side for awhile and your branding of us as "angry white neckbeards" has become tiresome and redundant. so people are finally figuring out the balance of power in europe and in the rest of the western world. congratulations, pat yourselves on the back....remember evry movement that starts off as a way to even things up eventually becomes a way to get back. i mean, look at the NAACP.
not to mention we serve twice as long in prison for the same offense, and women never have to fight on the frontlines or register for the selective service. feminists, smug as always, call this "male privilege"
Quote from: KMusselman on January 03, 2013, 09:33:25 AM
MRA as in
\int G_{bip}\, dt = 0 (1)
\Delta \Phi = \gamma v_x \Delta m_1 (2)
?
wow, i never thought i'd see a post here relating to latex of the non-rubber type. kudos
Quote from: jesusfaggotchrist on January 03, 2013, 09:42:47 PM
are we a bit offended by the fact that the tide is turning, Mikko? you know we are everywhere.
I'm not offended by any turning tides as I see none happening in favor of "MRA".
Men lead in just about any field of human culture. Men as gender need absolute no additional "rights".
These men who advocate things like "mens rights" ask for things they do not often deserve - as men. They are not the sharpest pen or brightest diamond, but the mud what ought to be cleaned from boots that should trample them. This whining about lack of equality in this and that case, from my perspective is just nonsense. I do not believe in equality that would be obtained by undeserved rights.
"My side" is not the side of feminist, nor "MRA". I believe in type of state or politics, where such nonsense is irrelevant as genders have their natural role how they flourish (or don't if they don't have ability).
In same amusing way as political correctness is, I think perhaps male rights movement is slightly interesting. But perhaps male rights should be topic of its own. That people like that are everywhere, is no wonder. It is unfortunate state of contemporary society. In very same way like basic western spoiled brats complaining of lack of everything when they live in abundance beyond wildest imagination of even kings merely few dozens years ago... Quality what they really lack, is unfortunately something what can't be given by
rights.
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on January 04, 2013, 01:48:15 AM
Quote from: jesusfaggotchrist on January 03, 2013, 09:42:47 PM
are we a bit offended by the fact that the tide is turning, Mikko? you know we are everywhere.
I'm not offended by any turning tides as I see none happening in favor of "MRA".
Men lead in just about any field of human culture. Men as gender need absolute no additional "rights".
These men who advocate things like "mens rights" ask for things they do not often deserve - as men. They are not the sharpest pen or brightest diamond, but the mud what ought to be cleaned from boots that should trample them. This whining about lack of equality in this and that case, from my perspective is just nonsense. I do not believe in equality that would be obtained by undeserved rights.
"My side" is not the side of feminist, nor "MRA". I believe in type of state or politics, where such nonsense is irrelevant as genders have their natural role how they flourish (or don't if they don't have ability).
In same amusing way as political correctness is, I think perhaps male rights movement is slightly interesting. But perhaps male rights should be topic of its own. That people like that are everywhere, is no wonder. It is unfortunate state of contemporary society. In very same way like basic western spoiled brats complaining of lack of everything when they live in abundance beyond wildest imagination of even kings merely few dozens years ago... Quality what they really lack, is unfortunately something what can't be given by rights.
since when did I say they needed additional rights? please point out where I said that, because I didn't.
Some finnish MRA-activists like Henry Laasanen and Hannu T. Sepponen are more like no-nonsense counter-feminists, academic guys just frustrated to the fact that the feminist lunatic cunts are given so much attention in society, press and media. I think this activity is just very healthy counter-reaction to irritating and aggressive bullshit that the marxist "intellectuals" shit out so eagerly, basically just defending common sense from this twisted smug victim-mentality.
But yeah, men hopping in to this victim-trend and just absorbing this crybaby mentality of scoundrel who has only rights and no obligations isn't very flattering for men. Like my previous boss used to say: "Of course it's ok for men to cry, but it looks very stupid."
Quote from: jesusfaggotchrist on January 04, 2013, 03:53:43 AM
since when did I say they needed additional rights? please point out where I said that, because I didn't.
What's the point of male rights movement? You're after something, what is the rights for men. That's what whole movement is called. You're looking for something which supposedly do not exists in a way they should, otherwise you don't need to call for changing situation. You listed specific cases which are not favorable for men at the moment.
So make a decision. If things are ok, no need to demand "male rights". If you need more privileges and more rights, you can admit so. It would be plain absurd to say you're male right activist if there are no rights you're demanding.
Or would you say that movement is out there just to make some sort of gentlemans deal? Because we fight wars, die sooner and cumulate more income in world, as good will gesture female species should throw in couple freebie rights to compensate. Maybe couple casual rapes and forget the child support demands, hah..
I think the finnish male rights movement, Laasanen and the folks, follows the route of americans like Warren Farrell. When I first read the observations of female sexual power in society and its effects, of course it appears to make sense. From my perspective it is simply doesn't seem to rise much other questions than: so what?
It is the obvious fuel of how world goes around. If men was left to live in world with no women, what exactly would you need? Hand, roll of toilet paper and one room flat? If that? Female sexual power what fuels men to reach stars and build castles and so on. It might create frustration, bitterness, hate, lust and violence - yet is necessary - most of all because that negativity creates plenty of good things in life.
I do not want to see society where myth and power of genders are stripped down in atrocious ways of cultural marxism. I don't see "male rights movement" offer alternative, but seeking pretty much exactly the same. Organizations like Miesten Tasa-Arvo RY ("Male Rights org) appears as repulsive as SETA (sexual equality org) or Vapaa Liikkuvuus...
Certainly I think for those who have never read "counter feminists", I would recommend so.
your boss does not govern all men. both genders can and should be accountable for their actions. I didnt pull those facts out of my ass., ill even post the source when i get off work. what im trying to say is that male priviledge hasnt existed in most forms for about a little more than a quarter of century, maybe more. when it is in fact men still carried the brunt of responsibilities way before feminism was institutionalized. where do you think the phrase 'women and children first' came from? feminists certainly didnt invent that phrase.
Quote from: jesusfaggotchrist on January 04, 2013, 06:45:56 PM
where do you think the phrase 'women and children first' came from? feminists certainly didnt invent that phrase.
No, that was made up by frail bourgeoisie males ridden by gentleman-romanticism, an ideal that probably never was made into action. Maybe by some romantic warriors, but most of the time, men have gone first. But I guess most of all, the rich and privileged have gone first. http://www.nek.uu.se/Pdf/wp20128.pdf - that's only in a handful of ship-wrecks (and even though the researchers are male economists, they're still probably possessed by feminism!), but where else would that phrase be put in action? When spoils of war are sold as sex slaves perhaps... hah!
Men were traditionally sent to war sooner than women because A) they are stronger, B) they are traditionally considered stronger and should therefore protect the Nation and the weaker pride of the Nation (children and women) from becoming spoils of war. Dying in battle is a privilege, dying in sickbed is dishonourable!
Suppose I could use both some MRA and feminism in my daily life, since my field of work has a 80/20 ratio women/men and the patrons more often than not choose to approach my female colleagues, with a traditionally low salary despite high education (since women are paid less, generally; the male proletariat earn a lot more than I will ever do!).
This thread is hilarious.
This post is me resisting posting pages of sarcasm and tearing certain utterly laughable, nonsensical statements to tiny shreds, because I promised myself I'd be nice on this board for some reason.
Have fun.
I saw something not too long ago about the Titanic & there was a mention of women/children being pushed aside by crew members, etc. EVERYONE just went into panic-mode & got the hell off without stopping or holding the door open for anyone else. I would expect most people would act this way, esp. today. It isn't in the nature of most people to be brave or stop and think before reacting.
Quote from: jesusfaggotchrist on January 04, 2013, 06:45:56 PM
I didnt pull those facts out of my ass., ill even post the source when i get off work.
No need. I didn't doubt the facts, I simply deny their importance.
These same facts, with their statistics are used by male rights movement of Finland.
What are among top agenda? Over here for example:
1) Military service (mandatory for all male citizen, optional for women)
2) Gender studies (women have their schools for womens studies).
3) Parenting (women get to keep child much more likely than men in divorce)
4) Cash compensations of state (all sorts of benefits)
5) How much money state spends on healthcare of women vs. men (women having more issues that needs to be taken care, simply biological fact of our species)
6) Rights of breeding (single men or fags not possible to get kids)
7) Life expectation (women live longer)
8) boys are becoming less successful in school than girls. For what reason exactly, who cares, but gender based nevertheless.
9) men getting more jail time for crimes, and more men being in jail in first place
10) men not getting laid because culture trains women to be too picky.
and so on...
What of these appear as "real problems" what need urgent attention in world of today? Absolutely none.
I don't need uncle sam type of character to wipe my ass. I'd rather need lightbearer to uplift the spirit what brings out the best in man.
We know how we don't get long jail sentences. We know how we can live longer. We know how we can get kids. We know how to go to army or not - whether it's supposed to be mandatory. We study all our lives of issues of men. Thank god there wasn't option for additional "mens studies". We (should) know how to get ladies if we want to. etc etc. If we are given few paper written "rights", what then? Because we are men, there are many laws that go beyond what can be given.
Quote from: Cementimental on January 04, 2013, 07:23:39 PM
This thread is hilarious.
This post is me resisting posting pages of sarcasm and tearing certain utterly laughable, nonsensical statements to tiny shreds, because I promised myself I'd be nice on this board for some reason.
Have fun.
I could exclude this topic from strictly uptight general line of forum. No funny pics, but no need to be sensitive as it's male issues now ;)
i know it pains all of you to swallow that big red pill. but in 50 years youll wish you had. i know practically no one is on my side, but just let it sink in. and those are real problems, however pedantic you "feel" they may be. its not about what you "feel", but what you "know". thats all I have to say regarding this topic, im sure ive long overstayed my welcome here. this is why i stay in the music forum. no use discussing a topic that you all "feel" you "know" about.
Quote from: ARKHE on January 04, 2013, 07:20:52 PM
Quote from: jesusfaggotchrist on January 04, 2013, 06:45:56 PM
where do you think the phrase 'women and children first' came from? feminists certainly didnt invent that phrase.
No, that was made up by frail bourgeoisie males ridden by gentleman-romanticism, an ideal that probably never was made into action. Maybe by some romantic warriors, but most of the time, men have gone first. But I guess most of all, the rich and privileged have gone first. http://www.nek.uu.se/Pdf/wp20128.pdf - that's only in a handful of ship-wrecks (and even though the researchers are male economists, they're still probably possessed by feminism!), but where else would that phrase be put in action? When spoils of war are sold as sex slaves perhaps... hah!
Men were traditionally sent to war sooner than women because A) they are stronger, B) they are traditionally considered stronger and should therefore protect the Nation and the weaker pride of the Nation (children and women) from becoming spoils of war. Dying in battle is a privilege, dying in sickbed is dishonourable!
Suppose I could use both some MRA and feminism in my daily life, since my field of work has a 80/20 ratio women/men and the patrons more often than not choose to approach my female colleagues, with a traditionally low salary despite high education (since women are paid less, generally; the male proletariat earn a lot more than I will ever do!).
I'll never die for a country that screws its citizens time and time again, repubs or dems in office. flipsides of the same shit encrusted coin. I don't see how that's dishonourable, esp. when you have a president (Bush AND Obama) who will bend over and take it in the ass from another country to the tune of a billion or so dollars. it all boils down to money. I'd rather die peacefully, thank you very much. and as far as the second one, goes, yes true, but that's generalizing.
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on January 04, 2013, 10:21:23 PM
Quote from: Cementimental on January 04, 2013, 07:23:39 PM
This thread is hilarious.
This post is me resisting posting pages of sarcasm and tearing certain utterly laughable, nonsensical statements to tiny shreds, because I promised myself I'd be nice on this board for some reason.
Have fun.
I could exclude this topic from strictly uptight general line of forum. No funny pics, but no need to be sensitive as it's male issues now ;)
:D man that means a lot to me but tbh even with special dispensation I dunno if I can do justice to this thread.
Quote from: jesusfaggotchrist on January 04, 2013, 11:10:36 PM
i know it pains all of you to swallow that big red pill.
How old we're you when The Matrix came out?
So, I just want to ask, Mr. faggotchrist, did you happen to lose a child in a custody hearing or something? I thought the MRA ranks were filled solely with sore child losers, with an emphasis on the loser part. There used to be a website made by a guy in my hometown called timmins101.com that purported to expose the corruption of our local police force, but was mostly just a guy ranting about how some female judge granted custody to his ex-wife. It had the worst web-design ever. I always meant to email him and say "Maybe you lost your kid because you're obviously fucking retarded" but never got around to it as I was to busy laughing my ass off at how pathetic and crazy the website and author were.
MRA's are good for a laugh, and that's about it.
EDIT: It's still there: http://www.timmins101.com/ I'm going to check it out again, it's been about 12 years or so. I'll report back if I find anything funny. I see off the bat that he got rid of the horrible wallpaper. I'm pretty sure it was computer generated stars or something.
EDIT AGAIN: I guess it was a male judge, and a female, feminist lawyer.
HA! He has another website called www.Permitted-PURGERY.com
EDIT: Unfortunately, that link is broken.
I found a rather furious and enjoyable attack on MRAs at http://jezebel.com/5967923/fuck-you-mras - at first enjoyable anyway, until the sheer joyless anger of everyone involved from whatever perspective begins to overwhelm you.
As for crazy dads who didn't get custody go, my all-time favourite is this Canadian gentleman - http://www.trustchristorgotohell.org/
Those MRA's are a real winning bunch, I can see why some would think the tide is turning in their favor. Unfortunately that timmins101 site is all but dismantled. It used to have a ridiculous amount of text all on one page. I think he lives in the city where I currently reside. Maybe I'll try to track him down and see what he's up to these days.
Christ Almighty, http://www.trustchristorgotohell.org/ , is fucking NUTS!
I love "CANADA IS A SPIRITUAL SHIT-HOLE!"
personal favorite
(http://www.trustchristorgotohell.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/CANADAS-FAGGOT-FLAG-666-JOHN-HOMO-BAIRD-666-HEXES-FUGLY-300x151.jpg)
Quote from: bitewerksMTB on January 06, 2013, 12:03:46 AM
Christ Almighty, http://www.trustchristorgotohell.org/ , is fucking NUTS!
I love "CANADA IS A SPIRITUAL SHIT-HOLE!"
Yeah, there's some pretty good stuff on there. Here's a tidbit I thought particularly funny in the comment section by who I think is the author of the site, VINDICATOR OF YAH: " Although my faith is quite under attack, you are spot on about our faith in God keeping us sane. I am encouraged that you have chosen God over Satan. I bless you in Jesus' Holy Name." I'm sure glad that his faith in God is keeping him sane.
Quote from: Cementimental on January 05, 2013, 04:21:08 AM
Quote from: jesusfaggotchrist on January 04, 2013, 11:10:36 PM
i know it pains all of you to swallow that big red pill.
How old we're you when The Matrix came out?
I'm 30. let's not discuss pedantic bullshit such as age. none of that shit matters.
Quote from: Jordan on January 05, 2013, 04:26:39 AM
So, I just want to ask, Mr. faggotchrist, did you happen to lose a child in a custody hearing or something? I thought the MRA ranks were filled solely with sore child losers, with an emphasis on the loser part. There used to be a website made by a guy in my hometown called timmins101.com that purported to expose the corruption of our local police force, but was mostly just a guy ranting about how some female judge granted custody to his ex-wife. It had the worst web-design ever. I always meant to email him and say "Maybe you lost your kid because you're obviously fucking retarded" but never got around to it as I was to busy laughing my ass off at how pathetic and crazy the website and author were.
MRA's are good for a laugh, and that's about it.
EDIT: It's still there: http://www.timmins101.com/ I'm going to check it out again, it's been about 12 years or so. I'll report back if I find anything funny. I see off the bat that he got rid of the horrible wallpaper. I'm pretty sure it was computer generated stars or something.
EDIT AGAIN: I guess it was a male judge, and a female, feminist lawyer.
I didn't lose custody of anyone and maybe you should calm down instead of calling people retarded. I may be MRA but I'm pretty much a humanist, and if MRAs are good for a laugh, so are feminists. wouldn't want to give anyone special treatment, now would I?
Quote from: KMusselman on January 06, 2013, 06:14:30 AM
QuoteI'm 30. let's not discuss pedantic bullshit such as age. none of that shit matters.
ah... you're just a young pup. get off your high fucking horse because no one here really gives a shit.
its hard to see the positioning of anyone when your head is so far up your ass that all you see is Uranus. look, just let me have the last word, and be done with it. I've been banned from many message boards simply because of views on things, wouldn't care to add to that list if you want to keep it up. I don't give a fuck.
remember folks: DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. I'm here to discuss music, if you feel like disrespecting my views, keep it to yourself.
A pro-male group is quite big in Switzerland. I do not recall the name, they started as a male-devorcees rights group (with which I can fully agree considering how many kids I have seen given into custody to lunatic ex-wives that played the victim in court while having several affairs and heavily disfunctional behaviours) then they started proposing to show pornography (even extreme) in schools in order to educate kids to a safe approach to sex.
Recently they got back in the news thanks to their link to extreme right groups and some antisemitic stances.
This is the most renown Italian antifeminist group... the few pictures speak for themselves
http://www.maschio100x100.org/
http://www.antifeminismus.ch/ (I am not sure these are the guys I mentioned, nice logo by the way)
some infos about them
http://jezebel.com/5683282/so+called-first-international-antifeminism-meeting-held-in-switzerland?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+jezebel/full+%28Jezebel%29
Quote from: KMusselman on January 06, 2013, 07:33:56 AM
just curious, but what are you trying to achieve with your "views?"
nothing in vain, but for the greater good of humanity. hope we will not have a need for MRAs and feminists in the future, and it will just be "human rights". a true libertarian I am.
Quote from: jesusfaggotchrist on January 06, 2013, 06:03:59 AM
Quote from: Jordan on January 05, 2013, 04:26:39 AM
So, I just want to ask, Mr. faggotchrist, did you happen to lose a child in a custody hearing or something? I thought the MRA ranks were filled solely with sore child losers, with an emphasis on the loser part. There used to be a website made by a guy in my hometown called timmins101.com that purported to expose the corruption of our local police force, but was mostly just a guy ranting about how some female judge granted custody to his ex-wife. It had the worst web-design ever. I always meant to email him and say "Maybe you lost your kid because you're obviously fucking retarded" but never got around to it as I was to busy laughing my ass off at how pathetic and crazy the website and author were.
MRA's are good for a laugh, and that's about it.
EDIT: It's still there: http://www.timmins101.com/ I'm going to check it out again, it's been about 12 years or so. I'll report back if I find anything funny. I see off the bat that he got rid of the horrible wallpaper. I'm pretty sure it was computer generated stars or something.
EDIT AGAIN: I guess it was a male judge, and a female, feminist lawyer.
I didn't lose custody of anyone and maybe you should calm down instead of calling people retarded. I may be MRA but I'm pretty much a humanist, and if MRAs are good for a laugh, so are feminists. wouldn't want to give anyone special treatment, now would I?
If you could see the website as it was in all it's glory, I'm sure you would agree that it and it's author were in fact retarded.
The S.C.U.M. Manifesto and similar feminist texts are quite good for a laugh, although I've come to appreciate Dworkin's literary efforts more than I would have ever imagined.
Quote from: ConcreteMascara on January 06, 2013, 12:30:12 AM
personal favorite
(http://www.trustchristorgotohell.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/CANADAS-FAGGOT-FLAG-666-JOHN-HOMO-BAIRD-666-HEXES-FUGLY-300x151.jpg)
I lived in his riding for like three years, and there was at least a couple elections in that time. Baird is a regular sight at gay bars in this city.
as far as i'm concerned Andrea Dworkin is a hatemongerer
Quote from: jesusfaggotchrist on January 08, 2013, 09:29:25 PM
as far as i'm concerned Andrea Dworkin is a hatemongerer
She's a fine author as well.
Quote from: jesusfaggotchrist on January 06, 2013, 05:59:17 AM
Quote from: Cementimental on January 05, 2013, 04:21:08 AM
Quote from: jesusfaggotchrist on January 04, 2013, 11:10:36 PM
i know it pains all of you to swallow that big red pill.
How old we're you when The Matrix came out?
I'm 30. let's not discuss pedantic bullshit such as age. none of that shit matters.
Yeah sorry, you have a fair point, that's really trivial and unimportant... MUCH LIKE THE "MALE RIGHTS" "MOVEMENT".
Quote from: KMusselman on January 03, 2013, 09:33:25 AM
Quote from: jesusfaggotchrist on January 03, 2013, 03:07:07 AM
as an MRA I never knew there was a positive side to feminism. hm hm...learn something new everyday
MRA as in
\int G_{bip}\, dt = 0 (1)
\Delta \Phi = \gamma v_x \Delta m_1 (2)
?
!
\newcommand\smiley{%
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\fill[fill=yellow,draw=black] (0,0) circle (2ex);
\draw (210:1.3ex) arc (210:330:1.3ex);
\draw (210:1.1ex)--(210:1.5ex);
\draw (330:1.1ex)--(330:1.5ex);
\draw (135:1.1ex) circle (0.2ex);
\draw (45:1.1ex) circle (0.2ex);
\end{tikzpicture}}
Quote from: jesusfaggotchrist on January 06, 2013, 07:15:13 AMlook, just let me have the last word, and be done with it.
Quote from: jesusfaggotchrist on January 06, 2013, 07:22:39 AMif you feel like disrespecting my views, keep it to yourself.
Sorry, but you've got a lot more in common with your feminists foes than you realise.
I would say male rights movement is feminism in disguise.
It certainly reeks of cultural marxism - even if some of the supporters probably like to see exactly opposite.
Certainly guy who has alias of "jesusfaggotchrist" under e-mail of "killallhipster" isn't in position of asking anyone respect anything, hah.
I wonder if any MRA's have contributed anything as valuable to literature as say, Dworkin. Sure, there's Sotos, Mailer, Burroughs, etc., etc., but what about someone who self-identifies as an MRA? I mean, that trustinjesusorgotohell.com site is pretty great, but I mean truly valuable literature.
why does everyone associate MRAs with christianity? not all of love that gay jew jesus.
anyways, sure some parrellels can be drawn between my beliefs and those of post-modern feminism, we're just using the same dirty tricks they used to undermine the movement. the only reason I was getting defensive and arrogant was because I stand alone, I don't think anyone on here is going to see it from my perspective. but that's ok, I expect that. and Mikko, I would be offended by your pointing out of my username and other signifier but that's ad hominem and has hardly anything to do with the subject at hand.
Quote from: jesusfaggotchrist on January 06, 2013, 07:22:39 AM
if you feel like disrespecting my views, keep it to yourself.
Quote from: jesusfaggotchrist on January 12, 2013, 01:12:27 AM
not all of love that gay jew jesus.
the only reason I was getting defensive and arrogant was because I stand alone
Mikko, I would be offended by your pointing out of my username and other signifier but that's ad hominem and has hardly anything to do with the subject at hand.
Yes it has, it was comment related to Andrews message above. You clearly adapt the victim role of feminism and political correctness, but additionally rejecting whatever sense there may have been in those movements. Having words like "gay jew christ" and "I would be offended.." said in same short message simply shows the cluelessness. This is the male rights movement prototype. Offensive and vulgar simple brutes crying for understanding and rights they wouldn't give to others and what doesn't manifest in their own behavior.
Those who believe in equality, probably exclude offensive vulgarity and see the other angle.
Those who do not believe in equality, probably exclude the pathetic crybaby element as it hardly belongs to role of people shaping the world.
You should know how to represent male rights movement from good perspective. If you do not, then you're simply not worth of those rights. It is as simple as that.
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on January 12, 2013, 09:17:51 AM
Quote from: jesusfaggotchrist on January 06, 2013, 07:22:39 AM
if you feel like disrespecting my views, keep it to yourself.
Quote from: jesusfaggotchrist on January 12, 2013, 01:12:27 AM
not all of love that gay jew jesus.
the only reason I was getting defensive and arrogant was because I stand alone
Mikko, I would be offended by your pointing out of my username and other signifier but that's ad hominem and has hardly anything to do with the subject at hand.
Yes it has, it was comment related to Andrews message above. You clearly adapt the victim role of feminism and political correctness, but additionally rejecting whatever sense there may have been in those movements. Having words like "gay jew christ" and "I would be offended.." said in same short message simply shows the cluelessness. This is the male rights movement prototype. Offensive and vulgar simple brutes crying for understanding and rights they wouldn't give to others and what doesn't manifest in their own behavior.
Those who believe in equality, probably exclude offensive vulgarity and see the other angle.
Those who do not believe in equality, probably exclude the pathetic crybaby element as it hardly belongs to role of people shaping the world.
You should know how to represent male rights movement from good perspective. If you do not, then you're simply not worth of those rights. It is as simple as that.
since when was I offended? never. even if equality existed, why would excluding vulgarity change anything? fuck this privilege bullshit, everyone has the right to be offended, but no offense should be taken because in the larger picture it doesn't matter, freedom of speech is freedom of speech, and criticism, even vulgar criticism, is not hate speech. hate speech was just a term used by uppercrust liberals to place themselves in a special place. nobody is special, we should all revel in the filth because it builds character. intolerance is law.
Quote from: jesusfaggotchrist on January 08, 2013, 09:29:25 PM
as far as i'm concerned Andrea Dworkin is a hatemongerer
So you are uppercrust liberal?
I guess topic has time to end before we turn into total troniks misc... ;)
Of course he is a liberal. It's impossible to be so rah-rah about anyone separate group, gender, person/personal liberties this much and not be considered, by definition, a liberal. Not to mention this whole "movement" being spoken of here began it's life as a joke on one of the most leftist, liberal gigantic shit generators ever:
http://www.reddit.com/r/mensrights
I'm pretty sure the "movement" goes back a lot further than Reddit. I first heard of it on a documentary on our state TV channel here in Canada over ten years ago, but it seems to at least go back to the seventies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_rights_movement
Yes, that's true. It probably goes back even further than the 60's-70's. Maybe what I should have said is that the major reproduction and proliferation, especially on the internet (outside of shit Angelfire, Lycos type sites in the early 00's), popped up there.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/26/davidfickling (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/26/davidfickling)
Old news, but a blast from the Men's Rights past. John Abbott used to run a rehearsal centre in Brunswick called the Dane Centre. Lots of punk bands used to rehearse there and I can remember rehearsing there too a couple of times with an abstract music band. Ironically, Conflict, on their first Aust. tour, where to play their only all ages gig there but they pulled out because of another (pathetic) story.
Anyway, Abbott was right into the whole fascist look and whacko religious attitude.
http://violentangrymen.blogspot.com.au/2009/03/john-abbott-melbourne-blackshirts.html (http://violentangrymen.blogspot.com.au/2009/03/john-abbott-melbourne-blackshirts.html)
There was a good interview with him in the colour supplement of a weekend edition of The Age I recall, where he basically explained his anguish at being divorced and not having access to his kids. So he formed The Blackshirts, complete with uniform and masks, to make public actions. They'd picket courts but also hang around the houses of recently divorced women and their kids, until a lot of people in Brunswick got sick of it and started protesting him. Last I heard the Dance Centre is still running but under another management. Never heard what happened to Abbott after that.
Quote from: RyanWreck on January 25, 2013, 10:27:48 PM
Yes, that's true. It probably goes back even further than the 60's-70's. Maybe what I should have said is that the major reproduction and proliferation, especially on the internet (outside of shit Angelfire, Lycos type sites in the early 00's), popped up there.
If the movement is worth anything at all, I'd say it is solely on account of those angelfire websites.
Quote from: Andrew McIntosh on January 25, 2013, 11:29:16 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/26/davidfickling (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/26/davidfickling)
Old news, but a blast from the Men's Rights past. John Abbott used to run a rehearsal centre in Brunswick called the Dane Centre. Lots of punk bands used to rehearse there and I can remember rehearsing there too a couple of times with an abstract music band. Ironically, Conflict, on their first Aust. tour, where to play their only all ages gig there but they pulled out because of another (pathetic) story.
Anyway, Abbott was right into the whole fascist look and whacko religious attitude.
http://violentangrymen.blogspot.com.au/2009/03/john-abbott-melbourne-blackshirts.html (http://violentangrymen.blogspot.com.au/2009/03/john-abbott-melbourne-blackshirts.html)
There was a good interview with him in the colour supplement of a weekend edition of The Age I recall, where he basically explained his anguish at being divorced and not having access to his kids. So he formed The Blackshirts, complete with uniform and masks, to make public actions. They'd picket courts but also hang around the houses of recently divorced women and their kids, until a lot of people in Brunswick got sick of it and started protesting him. Last I heard the Dance Centre is still running but under another management. Never heard what happened to Abbott after that.
that's awesome, he sure trolled those fucks.
Quote from: RyanWreck on January 25, 2013, 06:55:02 AM
Of course he is a liberal. It's impossible to be so rah-rah about anyone separate group, gender, person/personal liberties this much and not be considered, by definition, a liberal. Not to mention this whole "movement" being spoken of here began it's life as a joke on one of the most leftist, liberal gigantic shit generators ever:
http://www.reddit.com/r/mensrights
for every action, there is an equal or greater opposing reaction. they brought it on themselves. any public forum that is one sided is bound to bring detractors out of the woodwork. surprised that hasn't happened to 4chan. also, the correct term is libertarian, not liberal. and you're thinking of a leftist, which may be authoritarian or libertarian.
Quote from: jesusfaggotchrist on January 27, 2013, 05:54:44 AM
Quote from: RyanWreck on January 25, 2013, 06:55:02 AM
Of course he is a liberal. It's impossible to be so rah-rah about anyone separate group, gender, person/personal liberties this much and not be considered, by definition, a liberal. Not to mention this whole "movement" being spoken of here began it's life as a joke on one of the most leftist, liberal gigantic shit generators ever:
http://www.reddit.com/r/mensrights
for every action, there is an equal or greater opposing reaction. they brought it on themselves. any public forum that is one sided is bound to bring detractors out of the woodwork. surprised that hasn't happened to 4chan. also, the correct term is libertarian, not liberal. and you're thinking of a leftist, which may be authoritarian or libertarian.
Liberalism - if only mouthwash could talk... To hear it told by modern, American capital-L Libertarians, libertarianism is just a continuation of the classical liberal project, even though the first use of that term to refer to a political philosophy was firmly in the context of anarcho-communism, and was coined as an alternative to Proudhon's more individualistic vision of anarchism. Until then, the word libertarian had been used to describe free-thinkers, or free-thought.
Still, modern day libertarianism, in the sense that I'd imagine you to be using it, and at least how that word has been used in the media, especially in the last half decade, does bear an uncanny resemblance to classical liberalism. So it's not so far off to describe philosophies as such with an emphasis on civil liberties and equality, even if they emphasize laissez-faire, free-markets and property rights, as liberalism.
"Liberals in the 19th century wanted to develop a world free from government intervention, or at least free from too much government intervention. They championed the ideal of negative liberty, which constitutes the absence of coercion and the absence of external constraints.[37] They believed governments were cumbersome burdens and they wanted governments to stay out of the lives of individuals...." - from Wikipedia
I like Libertarianism, which, is what Liberalism started out as. I mainly keep up with John Stossel's show on the Fox Business channel and reason.com
From the Etymology section of the wiki entry on Libertarianism:
QuoteThe word stems from the French word libertaire. The use of the word "libertarian" to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, libertaire, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.[11] Hence libertarian has been used by some as a synonym for left anarchism since the 1890s.[12] The term libertarianism is commonly considered to be a synonym of anarchism in countries other than the US.[9] Albert Jay Nock and H.L. Mencken were the first prominent conservatives in the US to call themselves "libertarians," which they used to signify their allegiance to individualism and limited government, feeling that Franklin D. Roosevelt had co-opted the word "liberal" for his New Deal policies, which they opposed.[13]
Not the best source I know, but I'm feeling to lazy at the moment to walk over to the book shelf and type up a better history of the term.
I lean more towards Stirnerism and European-style individualist anarchism, though I don't like to describe myself in those terms, or any reified role generally. I read Reason (though I don't really like John Stossel) and there are many American style Libertarians that I have enjoyed reading, and often absorbed much of into my own weltanschauung/analysis, such as the aforementioned Mencken, Szasz, Karl Hess, Gerry Reith, Robert Anton Wilson, L.A. Rollins, etc. etc. etc. I don't know, I could go on and on, but probably shouldn't.
Robert Anton Wilson once said "I would call myself a Libertarian, but I just can't bring myself to hate the poor." and I can definitely understand where he was coming from. Curiously, towards the end of his life, he advocated a system of worker controlled, anarcho-syndicalist factories/industries trading with each other in an anarcho-capitalist free-market system. Murray Rothbard used to go on and on that no left-anarchist he had ever met could answer the "Auban question" put forth in John Henry Mackay's novel
The Anarchists, which in essence asked the left-anarchists: in their proposed free society, would people who wanted to own private property and engage in free market transactions be permitted to do so, and if they weren't to be permitted, how could you call them free? Robert Anton Wilson, probably drawing on Rothbard's repeated use of the Auban question to dismiss non-capitalist anarchists as authoritarian, seems to have answered it quite nicely, but nobody seemed to notice.
But yeah, I've drawn inspiration from the works of anti-authoritarian thinkers of all stripes, especially if they espouse an unorthodox or heterodox version of anti-authoritarianism. I've taken inspiration from many authoritarian theorists as well, I just usually find much less of the totality of their works useful to my thinking.
This is what I found for the RAW quote: "Once, summing up why he didn't vote for the 1980 Libertarian Party candidate, he explained, "I am not that kind of Libertarian, really; I don't hate poor people." " (from http://boingboing.net/tag/raw-week)
I haven't looked up the '80 LP candidate yet.
Hating the poor is how liberals seem to consider libertarians (or anyone that has a different viewpoint) b/c they want entitlement programs cut. Any cut to liberals is the worst thing in the world...
RAW said more or less the same things over and over again throughout his career. I haven't read anything by him in a long time, though I did check out some interviews and shit on youtube when he died. Pretty sad situation at the end of his life, if you check out the fundraising pleas that Douglas Rushkoff was putting out for him, it paints a pretty bleak picture considering how well known he was in so many circles. Pretty good argument for social security. Ha! I guess RAW would push for a GNI though. Incidentally, the guy who wrote the most well known translation of The Ego And It's Own was a former Georgeist.
A really good RAW work that has held up is Natural Law, Or Never Put A Rubber On Your Willy. He drops the New Age stuff and puts out a fairly well reasoned critique of the natural law arm of libertarianism, which I guess would mean Spooner et. al. I don't know, it's been at least ten years since I've read any of this stuff.
Although I have my lapses, I think it's best to stop arguing, petitioning, legislating -- even demanding liberties -- and to just take them.
EDIT: I was pulling that quote from memory, which I do perhaps too often considering the ease with which these things can often be pulled from google, but I know for sure that he's said it, or something very close to it, closer than the one you found in the context of the Libertarian Party ticket. I'll check my issues of Trajectories later, though I have a pretty long backlog of things I need to check in my personal library, usually to settle arguments. Since this doesn't have the pressing nature of an argument, I'll probably put it on the back burner for a while.
All this nonsense from one idiotic link?! However entertaining read this verbal fencing is, it is all turning out like a crack whore søkking a sad limp cock.
Though I'll say there is one interesting aspect with this thread reading it back-to-back so far: Experiencing how much feminist ideology is integrated in today's mens role, versus the cellar onslaught of those whom disapprove this.
A large part of the concept of men's rights seem to spring from '70s liberal culture and politics, which feminism plus the equal rights movement was a part of. In my eyes
the concept and notion of men's rights is as an extension from this heritage, and can in this context be understood as a cultural and political disempowerment of the identity of MAN / MEN. With paranoid humour glasses it almost can seem as the war of the sexes from the feminist standpoint includes a strategy of divide and conquer. Anyway I see points and ramblings made in both camps, and I'd like to give JFC kudos for his stayer attitude in this thread.
Enough said, may my initial procreation link inspire a hateful and sordid PE text titled Feminism=Confusion.