Ohhh, padewan. You act as if you've discovered something new and shiny, a splinter of rage to haul out and shine in the sun for other Keyboard Kommandoes to rally around and sharpen their pitchforks against. That post is older than Tumblr, my friend. Older than SRS. Older than the banning of /r/creepshots, older than /r/creepshots. It has been quoted out of context again and again and again and again and again to the point where the White Knighting associated with it has become a part of the fabric of the Internet Universe. You are, in effect, sharing the tragic story of Animal Crossing: ...without recognizing that it's a very specific parody of a game you've never played that's dependent on understanding that "mom" piles shit on you when you're not playing the game.
Let's examine the post for what it is: 1) A deliberate, over-the-top, Tucker Max/Maddox-grade insult fest. Can you think of anyone outside of Lee Ermey that starts "serious" discussions this way? So to anyone with a sense of irony, it's pretty clear from Sentence One ("Waah, waaah, waaaah. And you fuckers wonder why you're Forever Alone") that we're in the land of the deliberately offensive. 2) An argument for understanding based on the extreme positions held by either party. You know what quote never gets thrown in my face on this one? It's always been funny to me that nobody has ever given me shit for accusing women of being quixotic, insensate, antagonistic and denigrating to men. It's a much more offensive passage, yet for some reason the Keyboard Kommandos of the Internet have never cared. I suspect it's because White Knights do picture women this way so they don't get bent about it. On the other hand, every third virgin on the internet always quotes your favorite phrase up there, and always with the same "emphasis added" that you used. 3) A response to a woman-hating circle-jerk that changed the discussion completely. It's interesting to me (that's a lie - it's dreary, predictable and entirely expected) that you didn't mention the image I'm responding to. It's interesting to me (also a lie yadda yadda) that you decided to quote other reddit users - total strangers to me - as if I were somehow responsible for their content. Using your rules, you are now responsible for the content of this comment. 4) Factually accurate. Let's change the emphasis a bit, shall we? We'll do it in sentence order, which is the grammatically correct emphasis for the passage: It's that "a half-dozen generations ago you bitches were de-facto property" that always gets the virgins upset. But you know what? Let's take a generation as 20 years, since that's kind of statistically accepted. It's 2014 - I wrote that comment in 2010 but we'll spot you 4. "A half-dozen generations" is 120 years, or 1894. Can you guess the date of universal women's suffrage in the United States without looking it up? I'll give you a hint - It's less than five generations ago. Here's an equally old Reddit post about relationship hacks. I wholeheartedly welcome any attempts you wish to make to paint me as a misogynist from this one - at least you'd be treading new ground. Do me a solid and read it first, though - "wedding rings" came about in the 1930s (4 generations ago!) because women weren't being bought and sold like cattle any more. And if you look at that thread, you'll discover that a preponderance of dating miscues are related to one simple fact: A half-dozen generations ago, women were de-facto property. ___________________________________________________________________ So. rage-quit. Know that you'll be the fifth person, that I know of, to have QQ'd social media because I am such a misogynist (such power!). Know that I'm the only person - that I know of - to have tripped the troll filter in both /r/mensrights and /r/radicalfeminism. And know that it's absolutely not necessary to: When simply correcting you is so much more satisfying. Know what would be novel? Know what would be something new under the sun? Apologizing for mischaracterizing my statements for fun and profit. 'cuz nobody has ever done that before.Lemme talk to the chowderheads with peckers real quick here. You chowderheads with pussies - you're next. But first, the testicled:
"The pooty is up for grabs. In order to claim it you must satisfy the arbitrary set of standards put forth by me, put forth by my mother, put forth by my culture, put forth by my instinct and put forth by my genetics to the satisfaction of all of the above. What those standards are is theoretically and factually irrelevant - the only thing that matters is your dexterity and willingness to run the gauntlet."
I also want you to consider this: Your entire sexual mentality is based around ritual, flirtation, compromise, subterfuge and other things straight out of a Danielle Fucking Steele book. Our sexual mentality, on the other hand, is grab & fuck. Not to put too fine a point on it, but a half dozen generations ago you bitches were de-facto property.
Flame me, ostracize me from Hubski, whatever,
In the context of this thread, assuming that someone uses the same username on a different website, (and "research" aka comment history indicates that they do) I hope you find this link as rich as I do
All that needs to be said about that. I do think this isn't something that should have been posted here. What happens on reddit shouldn't really have much relevance and while you clearly weren't the first one to dig up an old quote, that's not particularly a reason to do it all. It's not uncharitable, it's just pointless.I craft. I find it useful.
Right, so you're expecting me to be a mind-reader (I'm not even remotely familiar with Tucker Max beyond him being known for being a dickhead) and to have played Animal Crossing (I'm not a gamer, never really was). Good job. There are much more illustrative ones. I don't need to use that one. See that again? Not only expecting to be a mind-reader and a gamer but also a virgin. I'm not, but I didn't see that as relevant. I saw it. It's dreary, it's stupid, but it's just a couple of people being morons and expecting people - in this case, men - to read their minds when in fact people's actions aren't always THAT telling of their motivations. Subtext only goes so far. I didn't think it was worth commenting on, for my own part. What WAS worth commenting on was your response in which you, I guess, expect people to stretch their necks through the internet and understand you crystal-clear. It's trite as fuck to note this, but that's because it's true - sarcasm carries poorly on the internet, and in this case, were it not for you TELLING me that this was a satire, it really does look for all the world like an idiot complaining about another set of idiots and everybody's idioting for different reasons. Now let's get to this last point: Original highlighting reproduced. Notice that I did not highlight the first two sentences. Also, I highlighted the last one. There it is again. And I said this: So I ask you again. Is it? You are remarkably full of yourself. You know what quote never gets thrown in my face on this one?
every third virgin on the internet
you didn't mention the image I'm responding to
I also want you to consider this: Your entire sexual mentality is based around ritual, flirtation, compromise, subterfuge and other things straight out of a Danielle Fucking Steele book. Our sexual mentality, on the other hand, is grab & fuck. Not to put too fine a point on it, but a half dozen generations ago you bitches were de-facto property. If we wanted in your pantaloons we'd fucking ask your dad, not you. So next time you get all catty and bitchy about shit, remember that we're dealing with our instincts in your world and try not to be too fucking complicated about it. 'cuz you know what? We might just decide you aren't fucking worth it.
So next time you get all catty and bitchy about shit, remember that we're dealing with our instincts in your world and try not to be too fucking complicated about it. 'cuz you know what? We might just decide you aren't fucking worth it.
Is a world where both sexes are treated like people suddenly a world belonging to women?
No, I'm expecting you to read my writing, rather than cherry-pick it for things to take out of context so you can be outraged. We've interacted enough that you owe me at least that small amount of introspection. The Animal Crossing dig was for your "TIL that something you like CAUSES CANCER" approach to the subject:Interesting; I didn't know kleinbl00 was a bit of a raging sexist 3 years ago.
I saw the paragraphs below the horizontal line, too. It's still not immediately apparent from the writing itself that you're making some kind of convoluted joke. You tarred both sexes - not just women - with a broad brush. Similarly, the 'domination games' you talk about are not what I'd call equal - 'try to interpret my nebulous and ambiguous signals tee hee but I'm not forcing you to keep coming after me' is, I would say, a good bit less dominatey than 'fuck you bitch your freedom exists because we allow it to and if we wanted we could go back to me buying you from Daddy and once we're married I can rape you whenever I want'. I mean, if the difference isn't blatantly obvious to you I don't know how to help you. Most importantly, you're not really decrying it and you're merely reinforcing it, a 'sorry, kiddies, this is how it be, you better take part in it'. EDIT: I get it. I'm not 'hip to the interwebs' after reading more of the commentary here. I've heard of Maddox, but if I'd bothered looking more at his stuff I would have recognized the references. I don't know about Animal Crossing or the references. Neither have I seen Full Metal Jacket. This reminds me a bit of the 4chan debacle where FOX News and Oprah claimed it was a den of pedos because they didn't understand. I'm beginning to see where they were coming from. There's a certain myopia on both sides of the argument. FOX and Oprah didn't take the time to actually get to know 4chan, and 4chan and Reddit expected FOX News and Oprah to immediately know every little intricacy of the site when they were basically strangers to it.
So Sundays I like to walk with my toddler. Roll out the stroller, pop in an audiobook, and venture down on the beach. I'm currently cranking through Max Tegmark's Our Mathematical Universe, which is spectacular, and the day was truly lovely: But today, instead of plumbing the more controversial depths of cosmology, I spent the entire five mile walk trying to come up with a response to you. Feel flattered or horrified as you see fit. The only way to respond, I think, is in three parts. Those three parts are interrelated, unfortunately, and that which should come first dialectically is not that which should come first rhetorically is not that which should come first logically. So don't see this as a list, see it as three points determining the plane of a discussion that we really didn't need to have, but here we are. Those three parts are: - Your lack of rhetorical rigor - Your lack of logical merit - Your lack of manners Let's get started, shall we? ______________________________________________________________________________ Here's the timeline of the discussion above.
1) 8-bit, last night: question about original content and social media 2) Refugee, this morning: comment pointing to a good discussion held several months ago 3) You, an hour later: clumsy segue about my hyperoffensive bombast on another forum to another audience on another subject three years ago This didn't go over well. You seem to suspect it's because there's a Kult of Kleinbl00 around here or something. Let me reassure you: a photo of me raping baby pandas with a drywall saw would have accomplished about as much. It's not that people have rose-colored glasses when it comes to me, it's that this isn't about me. It was a useful and interesting discussion but is no more - I intended to add something this morning because the question interests me and I was too tired last night to say something rational. But that opportunity has been lost. 4) Me, an hour later: patronizing discourse on your self-serving misrepresentation of my argument On Reddit these days I would have ignored you because I no longer give a shit about Reddit. On Reddit three years ago you would have gotten a thermonuclear beatdown that would have cost you hundreds of downvotes. Not a brag; it's a skill I refined - you seem to suspect my writing style represents my emotions rather than my environment when in fact it’s the other way ‘round. Thus, in this forum, it was more useful to give you an answer and a back-door to civility. Civility is the default here. That's one of the reasons I stick around. "Patronizing?" Patronizing because the amount of invective you threw at me can't go unacknowledged no matter how civil the environment, and "patronizing" is the least inflammatory way to answer your onslaught. Moving on: 5) You, an hour later: I don't get your reference. My hair is a bird. Your argument is invalid. Which, in places where people don't think very hard, can sway the argument. In discussions where your opponent isn't very clever, can change the subject. Here? With me? It only shows that you want a fight, not a debate. Which I pointed out in 6), an hour later. So now here we are. You've gone from hey guise feel bad for this thing that has nothing to do with you or the subject at hand to although we are now arguing nuance where before I called you "a raging sexist" you are still in the wrong here for not addressing your argument directly to me, directly to my level of understanding and directly to the framework I choose to humor. ______________________________________________________________________ It's shit like this: I never said that. You even quoted what I said: Our mentality. Men's. "Grab and fuck." That’s a direct and unquestionable insult to men,, not women. "A half dozen generations ago you bitches were de-facto property." A truth you could have attempted to dispute, but didn't. "If we wanted in your pantaloons" - ...are you wearing pantaloons? Have you ever? Have you ever known anyone who did? Have you ever so much as seen pantaloons for sale? - See, that's the problem: the sentence, stripped of its obnoxiousness, is "Men aren't innately acquainted to the modern sexual dynamic where you have any real power because 'modern romance' is exactly that from a sociological perspective." Now - can you imagine that sentence resting peacefully in a giant, steaming pile of bro-speak? Could that, perhaps, be the reason the language is phrased the way it is? And to that you bring “Oprah” and “Fox News” and “4chan.” “There’s a certain myopia on both sides of the argument.” Nobody is arguing but you. You’ve been answered, point by point - on a discussion that doesn’t belong here that nobody here was a part of on a completely different forum three years and more ago. You’ve been responded to calmly and kindly. You’ve attempted to triangulate - twice - to some corner of the world where you can still win, without recognizing that this isn’t a battle anyone needed to have.
_________________________________________________________________ Which is a dick move. Sorry. No better way to put it. I recognize that you are just now learning that I’ve said offensive shit in my life. Sorry that comes as a shock to you. The reasonable thing to do, however, would be to respond to me. Or respond to that post. Or send me a message. Or start a new discussion. Derailing this one? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over. And see, we’ve had a chat or two. You could totally have upbraided and berated me, your abused trust in my sense of decency held up for all to admire. You could have asked me what the fuck I was thinking, saying such horrendous things on a forum known world-wide for sensitivity and kindness (not). If you had, I would have said Sorry my words offended you And we could have had a dialog. See, I’ve had that discussion before, too. One very nice girl, in fact, was deeply hurt because she’d been raped. Okay, that sucks. Did I rape her? No. Am I sensitive to her situation? Yes. Do I think it’s unfortunate that I included “trigger language” in an Internet forum where the original poster was attempting to tar all women with the same disparaging brush? Believe it or not, I do. However, expecting to walk into that discussion and not see “trigger language” was pretty naive. Which is also a discussion I’ve had. So explain this part to me: How does anyone - including yourself - benefit from having THIS discussion HERE and NOW when there are so many more valuable, more satisfying, more interactive and more useful ways to do it? The only real answer is you wanted to stir up shit in a clumsy and ham-handed fashion. Which I resent, and which embarrasses me. There are people I care about here, discussing things that matter to me, and now it’s about me. And by attempting to match me bombast for bombast, all you’ve accomplished is demonstrating that I’m better at words (and given jacobvirgil an opportunity to whinge, for which I’m sure he’s grateful). So kindly cut that shit out. For all of us. We can all ignore you, we can all mute you, but the world will be a better place if instead you choose to keep it in your pants next time. And if not, ask me. I probably have an answer.
you talk about…’fuck you bitch your freedom exists because we allow it to and if we wanted we could go back to me buying you from Daddy and once we're married I can rape you whenever I want'.
Our sexual mentality, on the other hand, is grab & fuck. Not to put too fine a point on it, but a half dozen generations ago you bitches were de-facto property. If we wanted in your pantaloons we'd fucking ask your dad, not you.