Comments

  1. serious troll says

    So, you’re using complex algorithms and psychological analysis to determine our personalities, and perhaps underlying thought disorders?

    Interesting method, especially using the Internet.

  2. Crip Dyke, MQ, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Well, when I read it, I thought:

    What the F* is this person pratting on about? And once we determine what the pratting is about on the surface, should it be taken *merely* satirically, or reverse satirically in a kidding-on-the-square sort of way?

    And since it’s completely unclear, it seems a waste of space.

    Especially so since the Rorshach test isn’t used in the way you apparently believe it to be. Even further: we could have had and have had similar comment discussions sparked by much more interesting and useful posts.

    You provided a space for yammering: what a glorious public service. next time, you might wanna try to actually add something to the discussion.

  3. says

    From your link…

    “Some skeptics consider the Rorschach inkblot test pseudoscience,[10][75] as several studies suggested that conclusions reached by test administrators since the 1950s were akin to cold reading”

    Thanks for starting a whole bunch of arguments over nothing.

    • mas528 says

      Really?

      So a woman dressed in a tight skirt is asking for molestation?

      The filmmakers are responsible for the behavior of the protestors/murderers in the middle-east?

      No, I don’t think so. The commenters are solely responsible for their stupid comments and for not recognizing the attempted murderers vision.

      • says

        (this time in the right place)…

        I have no idea where you got that out of my comment.

        “The commenters are solely responsible for their stupid comments”

        Nothing I said says commenters aren’t responsible for their comments.

        “and for not recognizing the attempted murderers vision.”

        I have no idea what that even means.

        I still see little purpose in posting an argument you don’t believe in just to see who you can rile up with it. If you want to argue why there is a greater purpose or why I am wrong can you please string an actual argument together.

  4. says

    Much ado about nothing. Lighten up- this is a humorous post. Some of your comments were really, really raw – if you don’t know by now, Edwin is very witty and satirical. Enjoy his humor, and then let it go.

    • trucreep says

      I think he showed that a lot of people that blog and comment on blogs need to check their egos and remember that Socrates quote about being wrong…

      It’s just weird that people in a community that’s supposed to be about free thought and the exchange of civil ideas based on evidence and rationality can be so petty!

      I thought it was a great way to demonstrate that :)

  5. hjhornbeck says

    From the link:

    It has been employed to detect underlying thought disorder, especially in cases where patients are reluctant to describe their thinking processes openly.

    I can’t decide if that makes the previous post ingenious, or redundant….

  6. insipidmoniker says

    Last I checked there was already a term for posting positions you don’t actually believe just to get responses. It’s a bit less flattering than Rorschach, however.

    • says

      Theists indoctrination their kids is child abuse so they should be sterilized by force and put on child predator list?

      Atheists don’t believe in god so they don’t have a source of morality and killing their neighbor and raping his wife is ok?

      Trolling arguments long torn apart or thoughtful Rorschach tests of the comenters? We report, You decide!

  7. Feline says

    Oh, so you’re just a mendacious incompetent, then. Well, that’s good to know. Didn’t know if you were planning on writing something useful in the future, but now I’ve been shown.

  8. Bob says

    You win the internet sir. The only people who would get offended by your previous post are the ones looking to be offended.

  9. steveschulers says

    Yes, satire is an amazingly selective and discriminating blade when properly wielded. Only those deserving of it’s cut and the resultant sting are thus affected when they encounter it.

    Hand well played, sir!

    • insipidmoniker says

      Yelling “Psych!”, isn’t quite the same as satire. The previous post would qualify, although I would characterize as a clumsy and inaccurate attempt, but any hint of satire has been destroyed by this intellectually lazy dodge. Claiming a written post with clearly stated ideas is equivalent to a deliberately ambiguous inkblot is absurd.

  10. nohellbelowus says

    Kagin should be jailed for misuse of free speech.

    Parodying feminism on FtB is like yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater.

  11. Egbert says

    I remember when atheism used to stand for reason. Now it’s filled with suckers agreeing with each other and their leaders.

  12. Christopher Swing says

    And the DramAtheists are fully pissed that they’ve been taken… yet really happy inside because they get to have even MORE drama in this post, and be angry some more. XD

    Well played. :D

  13. valeriekeefe says

    1. Not much of a Poe if you’re paraphrasing the SCUM manifesto, and the work of most of the second-wave. (Yeah, they still haven’t disavowed that morally mandated out of existence bit)

    2. When telling people that you were joking all along, it helps to have secreted this revelation elsewhere on the internet, time stamped, in advance of the launching of your little jape. This reassures people that this was your intent all along and you’re not stumbling into non-apology apology territory.

    Just a couple of thoughts.

    • Christopher Swing says

      The people who need reassuring of the obvious (and who weren’t laughing at the people getting bent out of shape, as they were probably bent themselves) will refuse to believe it anyway. Too mad at being had, and probably not worth reassuring anyway. XD

    • Stacy says

      Yeah, they still haven’t disavowed that morally mandated out of existence bit [SCUM manifesto]

      lolwut?

      Who is “they”?

      You’re really claiming that a huge amorphous politically heterogeneous grass-roots movement that encompassed probably most of the women of my generation, a movement whose most recognizable leaders were the likes of Gloria Steinem, needs to “disavow” an over-the-top self-published piece by one mentally ill woman, which 99.9% of feminists, never “avowed” in the first place and which .89% of the rest assumed was satirical?

      God, your posturing is transparent. (Or you’re just dim.)

      @Edwin:

      The only problem with it (I admit I didn’t read many of the comments so I could be wrong) is that nobody seems to have taken it seriously enough. You’re a man and not associated with feminism, so nobody believed you meant it. It would have been funnier if you’d presented it as a piece of writing by some unknown person who might have really meant it. Then we could have watched the MRAs heads explode. :)

  14. Randomfactor says

    It is a literary Rorschach test.

    Analogy fail. Unless you’re saying that psychologists spend time carefully painting the “ink-blot” pictures to put all those breasts and penises in.

    “I’M obsessed with sex? YOU’RE the one with all the dirty ink-blots!”

    • jamesfrank says

      Yeah, it’s not exactly the height of ‘witty satire’ when it gets so much wrong. I’m sure those who want any reason to hate on the rest of FTB will continue to gloat about a “victory” only achieved in their warped perspective of reality.

  15. Happiestsadist, opener of the Crack of Doom says

    So, you’re bad at analogies, and resort to trolling yourself for attention? Man, you’re pathetic as hell, Kagin.

  16. didgen says

    So I was right in comparing the last post to Palin, it made no sense intrinsically, the reader needed to supply any meaning.

  17. says

    I have no idea where you got that out of my comment.

    “The commenters are solely responsible for their stupid comments”

    Nothing I said says commenters aren’t responsible for their comments.

    “and for not recognizing the attempted murderers vision.”

    I have no idea what that even means.

    I still see little purpose in posting an argument you don’t believe in just to see who you can rile up with it. If you want to argue why there is a greater purpose or why I am wrong can you please string an actual argument together. Feel free to take write a short paragraph or two to flesh out your idea.

  18. thetalkingstove says

    Interesting, I suppose. And telling that there are people posting who haven’t understood, and are still happily convinced that it was a humorous satire on feminism.

Leave a Reply