Never forget


Today is the 23rd anniversary of the Montreal Massacre.

The killer, 25-year-old Marc Lépine, was armed with a legally obtained Mini-14 rifle and a hunting knife: he had earlier told a shopkeeper he was going after "small game". Lépine had previously been denied admission to the École Polytechnique and had been upset, it later transpired, about women working in positions traditionally occupied by men. Before he opened fire, Lépine shouted: "You’re all a bunch of feminists, and I hate feminists!" One student, Nathalie Provost, protested: "I’m not feminist, I have never fought against men." Lépine shot her anyway.

The gunman then moved through the college corridors, the cafeteria, and another classroom, specifically targeting women to shoot. By the time Lépine turned the gun on himself, 14 women were dead and another 10 were injured. Four men were hurt unintentionally in the crossfire.

I remember following the events of that day intently, horrified that there are people who will kill women simply because they are women. And these anonymous monsters on the internet who shriek affrontedly about women and feminists and moan that any feminist allies are ‘manginas’ — to me, every one of them has the name Marc Lépine, and is just hiding it in shame and fear and hatred and cowardice.


Since it was mentioned in the comments, here are the names of the murdered women:

Geneviève Bergeron (born 1968), civil engineering student
Hélène Colgan (born 1966), mechanical engineering student
Nathalie Croteau (born 1966), mechanical engineering student
Barbara Daigneault (born 1967), mechanical engineering student
Anne-Marie Edward (born 1968), chemical engineering student
Maud Haviernick (born 1960), materials engineering student
Maryse Laganière (born 1964), budget clerk in the École Polytechnique’s finance department
Maryse Leclair (born 1966), materials engineering student
Anne-Marie Lemay (born 1967), mechanical engineering student
Sonia Pelletier (born 1961), mechanical engineering student
Michèle Richard (born 1968), materials engineering student
Annie St-Arneault (born 1966), mechanical engineering student
Annie Turcotte (born 1969), materials engineering student
Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz (born 1958), nursing student

Comments

  1. Nepenthe says

    @Caine 494

    Well, one can only get through so much in eight minutes. I’m sure if the misogynist 1A could spread properly, that would be the next point.

  2. Esteleth has eaten ALL the gingerbread! Suck it! says

    Chadgething, Stonewall is indeed an organization dedicated to LGBT rights.

    It is named after a bar.

    Famous for being the site of a riot.

  3. Mattir says

    Janine – I have to set a bad example for the Spawns. After all, one of the pit folks once suggested that social services should look into my family since I thought Pharyngula was a fine place for my teenage kids to hang out.

  4. Nepenthe says

    Also, you mention Stonewall and the Sufragettes. Stonewall in the UK has been fantastic with non-violent and hard-hitting factual campaigning.

    Hah! Hahahaha! Hahahahahah! HAHAHAHA!

    Do you fucking know why Stonewall is called Stonewall, you curly-tailed buffoon?

  5. Wowbagger, Antipodean Dervish says

    chadgething, you are coming from a position of privilege.

    You have the option of just shrugging your shoulders when someone disagrees with you and getting on with your life.

    Not everyone does.

    So, bear that in mind when you want to criticise other people for getting angry, or swearing, or insulting people. For them it’s not merely about a difference of opinion, something on which they can ‘agree to disagree’ and walk away unburdened by concern.

    Don’t tell other people how they should feel or act until you can actually grasp why they’re feeling or acting that way.

  6. Pteryxx says

    I was showing that it is possible to disagree with PZ without being an apologist to the murder, rape or assault of anybody, female or male. There does not need to be a closet hatred of women to hold that position,

    […]

    As for the use of profanities, I think you missed my point. When someone is using insults aimed to hurt, it is to be condemned.

    Condemning insults because someone might feel hurt, check. Condemning misogyny because someone might GET hurt, can’t do that. Might offend misogynists or agree with PZ or some such consequences.

    —–

    Expanding on this:

    There is no difference in philosophy and doctrine between Lepine and Joe Shithead MRA man, the only difference is that Lepine took it more seriously.

    MONTREAL – Jean-Claude Rochefort, the man who defended the actions of killer Marc Lepine on his blog failed in his attempt to be released from jail Wednesday.

    The court noted in its judgment that Rochefort’s blog “invited men to kill women solely because they are women.”

    Rochefort, 61, defended his blog, which sung the praises of Lepine, the shooter behind the 1989 massacre that killed 14 women at Montreal’s Ecole Polytechnique. Lepine committed the shooting after multiple failed attempts to get into the school himself. He blamed feminism for ruining his life and disagreed with women being allowed to work in jobs that had been traditionally reserved for men.

    “I am in no way a danger to women,” said Rochefort. “I am an older man, born in Montreal, who criticizes women without being angry at them.”

    http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/03/31/13429581-qmi.html

    December 6 is celebrated around the world in English speaking countries as

    International Marc Lepine Day

    It seem that almost every week some distraught suicidal young man takes a rifle or pistol and shoots people at a school, a shopping mall, or a city. These are called horrible events by our media, and invariably used as reasons to hate men by the feminists, their blue gun thug Gestapo, and their talking head lackeys. The young men are almost always emotionally distraught, driven to desperation by a feminazi society that has tried to trample him into dust.

    Every year, every month, every day, every hour, men are driven to suicide by the evil feminazi hate machine…

    http://thestar.blogs.com/broadsides/2009/12/the-fword.html

    “Even if the Mad Killer epithet will be attributed to me by the media, I consider myself a rational erudite that only the arrival of the Grim Reaper has forced to take extreme acts. For why persevere to exist if it is only to please the government. Being rather backward-looking by nature (except for science), the feminists have always enraged me. They want to keep the advantages of women (e.g. cheaper insurance, extended maternity leave preceded by a preventative leave, etc.) while seizing for themselves those of men.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_L%C3%A9pine#L.C3.A9pine.27s_suicide_statement

    By the way, Lepine’s letter contains no swearing, unless the term ‘virago’ counts.

  7. says

    #495 sorry to disappoint you but if my daughter, (not a fan of the term spawn) is subject to any profane insult, I will determine my response from the context of the situation. That is the reasonable thing to do.
    Also you mention Islamist rhetoric. It would be perfectly fine to be a Muslim whilst decrying the actions of the deluded terrorists. I also have said nothing in support of anti-feminist rhetoric other than posit that the landscape may not be black or white. I gave an example. This may be similar to that which y mention on Islamist rhetoric. Again, all I’m saying is that for some people, there may be a conversation to be had.

    Also, just a general point. It was remarked earlier about me perhaps not having had experience of the last 2 years. Would that justify me being treated aggressively from the start? If I was new to the party, shouldn’t I be granted some leeway to explore the arguments behind the discussion? How would a newbie feel entering this discussion and being immediately rounded upon? Will that convert a lost soul or drive them away? This is exactly why I have said that we should rely on our arguments and not our invective.

  8. mildlymagnificent says

    QFMFT. I’ve been an active feminist for 41 years now. Back in the ’70s and ’80s I was all optimistic that we’d be past this shit by this time. Colour me silly.

    I really thought after all that mind numbing work in the 70s – and I got maternity leave, twice!, in the 80s and there were male midwives ‘n’ everything – that we were motoring along nicely.

    And here we are. Colour me the same. (When I’m not puce with rage.)

  9. bobo says

    Remember guys, if you want to change opinions…

    don’t demonize the pro-lifers, they aren’t all bad!

    don’t demonize the MRA’s,they aren’t all bad!

    don’t demonize the neo-nazis, they aren’t all bad!

    don’t demonize the southern racist gentlemen, they aren’t all bad!

    Be nice to them, talk to them! Whatever you do, if you are the target of their hate, don’t show any emotion, b/c then you might hurt their feelings! Just remember that as an inferior, if you want to change their minds, you gotta kiss ass! :P

  10. Nepenthe says

    Will that convert a lost soul or drive them away? This is exactly why I have said that we should rely on our arguments and not our invective.

    Poor dear, xe thinks we’re here to make converts.

    I don’t know about anyone else, but I created this Internet alter-ego to blow off steam from having to be so fucking nice to people like you in my real life. I couldn’t give a flying fuck about whether I “convert” you.

  11. says

    Nepenthe:

    Poor dear, xe thinks we’re here to make converts.

    Yes, the sugary drivel is getting thick. I’d rather spend time in a paddock with a shoop than listen to more of it.

  12. consciousness razor says

    #462 I don’t understand your issue with me saying I prefer a debate to a hate-fest.

    How about that. I prefer a debate to a hate-fest too. I’m pretty sure most of us here feel that way.

    Do you think we wanted a bunch of hate-spewing delusional assholes to come here to start a hate-fest?

    Do you think it’s possible to conduct some manner of civilized “debate” with a bunch of hate-spewing delusional assholes?

    I didn’t equate any levels of badness from either side, merely pointed out that it degenerates quickly. I think that is a shame.

    Yep, somehow things sure do seem to escalate awfully fast, when a bunch of hate-spewing delusional assholes show up. It certainly is shameful of them. What do you propose we do about that?

    Perhaps my prose is of poor quality but by “non-shouty” arguments, I meant reasoned discussions as opposed to resorting to “well fuck you” responses.

    Discussions happen two ways. The responses should be, well… you know… proportionately responsive to whatever input they’re given. If someone has nothing but crap “arguments” (or isn’t even making arguments, just saying useless crap), then how could you get a “reasoned discussion” out of that?

    Would it not be better if their arguments were meticulously disproven to the point that they had nothing further to contribute?

    Are you suggesting there are any of their fucking arguments which haven’t been “meticulously disproven”? Because I don’t see any.

  13. says

    mildlymagnificent:

    And here we are. Colour me the same. (When I’m not puce with rage.)

    That too. And if all this shit wasn’t enough, one ‘ericyoungstrom’ has shown up on Chris’s post to repeat the same old shit we’ve been dealing with in this one.

  14. Wowbagger, Antipodean Dervish says

    chadgething wrote

    It would be perfectly fine to be a Muslim whilst decrying the actions of the deluded terrorists.

    Are you honestly comparing Islam – a profoundly complex cultural artifact – to misogyny? Really? You don’t see how that’s a completely inappropriate analogy?

  15. rocketman says

    Man…well–My basic instincts run counter to the grain here for the most part. I am technically a misogynist myself. But there is a time and a place for that kind of discussion. It isn’t on a web page speaking of a massacre of women by a deranged man holding similar, though far more extreme views. Any discussion is instantly polarized by the very nature of your statements. It does nothing constructive and falls directly into the fear, pain and anger that this kind of event rightfully generates. In short–not the place. Show some class. Leave it alone.

  16. says

    #1 & #3 he’s, but the greatest progress has been made long since the riot. Gay rights are beiing achieved through their education campaigns, their peaceful demands for normalisation of LGBT relationships. Challenging prejudice in the courts. Isn’t that what counts? How the progress has been made?

    #4 actually, I don’t really have a position of privilege. I have had to deal with racism and my colour does not go away. What I have done is argued my case rationally. When someone calls you a “black bastard” and your retort is a cogently delivered and rational one, your position is enhanced and the racist is reduced in standing. It is the same with sexism. When I was at university, I did a lot of work for minority rights groups and we shared a common goal, to eventually make our groups obsolete. We would never achieve that by shouting and swearing at people, as this would only entrench their views, but only by educating them as to why their position was wrong in the first place.

  17. Mattir says

    @chadgething – What are the circumstances in which you would be totes fine with someone calling your daughter a cunt? When, if ever, would you think it was over the line? How about a bit of light violence to go with the name-calling? Maybe a demand for tits-or-gtfo? Pulling up her shirt? A slap or two? What about calling her a whore or a dirty slut? A boyfriend passing on sext photos?

    Gah, I feel dirty even contemplating the idea that a parent would think that someone calling their female child a cunt would be nothing to get upset about. I know there are a lot of parents like you around, I just try not to remind myself of that fact most of the time.

  18. omnicrom says

    Chadgething at 498, please reread the last couple dozen posts.

    Your lofty language of “Every repetition of a just argument is a chip in the stone edifice of ignorance. Soon, it will come crashing down” is impossibly idealistic. As has been pointed out there have been Feminists chipping away at the stone edifice of ignorance for over a century now and that big chunk of ignorance isn’t going anywhere. Because it isn’t Ignorance. It’s Malice.

    You’ve been told this several times. You’ve been told that an argument can be loud and “just”. You’ve been told that Misogynists care not for facts and reason and debate. You’ve been told it isn’t about truth. You’ve been told all this.

    Your belief in the transcendence of logical debate beggars belief. You are stupendously idealistic and assuming that Misogynists are arguing in good faith out of naive ignorance. They are not. Every person on the internet who casually suggests raping a woman as a way to keep them from being “uppity” or “bitchy” or whatever other contrived reason they come up with is doing so out of malice. If they were not being malicious and merely misinformed they would have stopped upon being confronted but the number of times that happens is impossibly minute, and it hasn’t happened to any of the 6-10 MRA spokespeople who stopped by this thread. Moreover any person who is genuinely “naive” about how disgusting it is to talk in glowing terms about raping and killing feminists and how all the guys who disagree are “manginas” and still is an active internet user is ignorant out of malice. If they cannot determine on their own from one of the thousands of sites on the web that sexism is bad then it’s by choice.

    So far you have acted like the Platonic Form of the Concern troll, you argue that if only we would be less shrill and angry then gosh darn people would recognize that Women are human beings with the same rights and the same value as men. That hasn’t worked. It’s been tried on and off for 150 years. Fuck that shit: let’s make some noise, let’s expose the ugly seedy sexist bullshit, and let’s call the assholes every single time they wax poetic on Raping someone. Polite Debate like you believe in hasn’t worked, so we’re going to keep on being rude.

  19. heliobates says

    When someone uses such words against my daughters, I will weigh up the situation before acting.

    When someone used language intended to body-shame my daughter I carefully weighed running the little fuck over with his own car. I decided against it because he’s 9 and I can’t figure out what car his parents drive.

  20. says

    #14 that was a direct response to someone else’s comment. I hash tagged the post but didn’t quote directly or name them. I believe I said in my post “You mentioned Islamist rhetoric…” before expanding. I hope that explains my post.

  21. Mattir says

    @Wowbagger – That’s why I specifically made the analogy about Islamist rhetoric, not being a Muslim per se. Just so you know. (Yes, it did sort of sail clear over the head of our troll guest…)

  22. johnmarley says

    Ironic coming from the third or fourth drive-by commenter who has posted pretty much the same idea, using the same dishonest “disagree with him” substitution, in about the same amount of words.

    Skeve
    Tony ∞2012 recipient of the coronal mass erection∞ **
    sc_8a7c315edc3d46ff4ddd1e23af953f65
    Al Stefanell
    peterferguson
    noelplum99
    harryphillips
    ducky1349

    By my count, this argument has been made by eight commenters. Tony stands out as the only one, who, upon having it explained, retracted xis comment and apologized. All of the rest doubled down and made some sort of attempt to defend that crap.

    ** Tony, I’m sorry to include you on this list. Your abilty to admit when you are wrong is a credit to critical thinking. (Damnit, I wanted to use “skepticism” there, but that term has been irredeemably corrupted)

  23. No Light says

    Also, you mention Stonewall and the Sufragettes. Stonewall in the UK has been fantastic with non-violent and hard-hitting factual campaigning. Standing in public saying “I’m gay and proud of it” does not correspond to saying “fuck you”

    AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHH…. *salbutamol break* HAAAAAAHAHAAAAHHHH. *collapses, cyanotic* Phew, paramedics nebulised me just in time, Hashem yerachem BWAAAAAAAHAAAAHAHAHOHMYGODTATCHELL????????

    Oh thank you!! I’ve been depressed as fuck all day, but this is pure solid fried gold.

    Comedy. Gold.

    Privilege, u haz it.

  24. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    After all, one of the pit folks once suggested that social services should look into my family since I thought Pharyngula was a fine place for my teenage kids to hang out.

    Mattir, seriously?

    Even in the boiling madness that is this thread, that made my jaw drop.

    Call a transgendered woman, a poison cunt; all is fine. Express the opinion that Pharyngula is a fine spot for intelligent teens; investigate the family!

  25. bobo says

    chadgething, are you complaining about the fact that:

    1) the denizens of pharyngula are understandably upset over the anniversary and

    2) are not nice to the misogynistic trolls who come by and tell them that they are wrong to be upset?

    that is what it looks like, to be honest

    that they should always be on best behaviour, and working hard to change minds?

  26. anteprepro says

    I just believe that you make more progress with a rational argument that doesn’t include telling people to “go fuck yourself”.

    That’s great. Believe it as hard as you like. No, harder. Now go Spread The Word far and wide, and see how many converts you can get. I’m not sure how many takers you’ll find around here, though. We’ve been hearing this particular message for a long time, with roughly as many specifics and demonstrations of efficacy.

    When one person calmly states a fact, it doesn’t matter how much the other person rants or rages, there will e one person looking foolish and one person who is right.

    You really don’t understand how subjective that judgment is, do you?

    Standing in public saying “I’m gay and proud of it” does not correspond to saying “fuck you”.

    Yes, because it conveniently leaves homophobes out of the equation. And when homophobes counterprotest, I assume anything more passionate than a philosophical treatise would be too vulgar of a response.

    I didn’t equate any levels of badness from either side, merely pointed out that it degenerates quickly.

    Aww. You’re not saying both sides are at fault, you are just saying that the dialog is terrible and conveniently refuse to pin that on the party that is most at fault for that while whining in the general direction of the side that is combatting bigotry. You are So Misunderstood!

    Perhaps my prose is of poor quality but by “non-shouty” arguments, I meant reasoned discussions as opposed to resorting to “well fuck you” responses. </blockquote cite?

    Maybe you should start thinking of "well fuck you" responses as AN ATTEMPT TO END UNREASONABLE DISCUSSIONS THAT AREN'T WORTH HAVING instead of something done completely in lieu of reasonable discussion, then.

    It may not be our responsibility to educate people but if we disagree with them, maybe we owe it to ourselves to put forwards our case and rely on reason. ….Anger in the face of bigotry is not morally low, but again, how you channel that anger makes a difference. To an outside observer, two people trading insults are as bad as each other. One person swearing while another reiterates a just argument does not have the same effect.

    We owe it to ourselves to teach people who are unwilling to learn and to not dare to vent our frustrations with them? No, that doesn’t add up. Your entire argument is basically all about appearances. About tone. Seeming angry or frustrated is something distasteful to you, uncouth. You want us to be calm and polite because it better suits your aesthetics. It is not because being angry is bad for us. It is not because it makes our arguments less effective. If it did, you would show us the fucking evidence. No, it is all about your personal preferences, and your attempt to get us to abide by them. Do you just not understand that there is no reason for us to do so? That not everyone shares your vision regarding ideal dialogue?

    If people leave because they have been berated, is that really a good thing? Would it not be better if their arguments were meticulously disproven to the point that they had nothing further to contribute?

    I’m restraining myself from insult, but an insult is much deserved here. Do you not understand that people are berated BECAUSE their arguments HAVE ALREADY BEEN meticulously disproven? That they are berated BECAUSE they have nothing to contribute? Do you not understand that this is more or less what I originally said?

    I have been called a rape-apologist in the past for saying that men chatting up women does not mean they want to rape them!

    I’m sure you didn’t complete distort the context of your comment at all. Did this happen to be on topic of Elevatorgate that you said this? If so, I know exactly why you were taken to task: Because you weren’t dealing honestly or accurately with the subject. You ignore the time and place, which are important in determining the level of threat, and you also ignore the nature of the “chatting up”. You also ignore that Schrodinger’s Rapist didn’t mean that all men automatically rape, but only that women don’t necessarily know whether or not that is their intention. But that’s just speculative. Either way, suffice it to say, even if things did happen that way, it doesn’t prove anything near what you want it to.

  27. says

    Is chadgething even going to address the hilarity of using Stonewall of an example of being quiet and nice all of the time? Or will that comment be forgotten?

  28. anteprepro says

    By my count, this argument has been made by eight commenters.

    Wow. Thanks for proving my hunch by doing the actual checking I was too lazy to do :)

  29. FossilFishy (Νεοπτόλεμος's spellchecker) says

    No chadgething.

    No.

    I flat out fucking refuse to be civil when it comes to systemic societal issues that result in killings like the one supposedly under discussion here.

    Anger is appropriate.

    Anger is warranted.

    Anger is fucking justified when the remembrance of people who had their lives torn away in a spill of vomit and piss and feces and tears and guts and brains and blood for the crime of being women is hijacked by tone trolling douchetouques and poor widdle menz who’s feelings are hurt by even a hint that their attitudes might be in part responsible for these atrocities.

    So fuck you.

    Fuck you sideways.

    Fuck you all ways.

    Take your straw-vulcan ass away from here until you learn that somethings are worthy of RAGE.

  30. Mattir says

    @Janine – yep. It cracked oniongirl (who knows the Spawns in meatspace and has worked in such agencies) right up. I was very proud.

    And just to clarify, my point about Islamist rhetoric was that the folks who defend misogynistic rhetoric all over the place and insist that it couldn’t have anything at all to do with murders like Montreal are not so eager to jump up and insist that Islamist rhetoric is totes fine because it surely had nothing to do with a gang of deranged thugs bombing bulidings and subways. My point had nothing to do with whether it was okay to be a Muslim, it was focused solely on dangerous and inflammatory rhetoric and the propensity of such rhetoric to contribute to actual real life murder.

  31. says

    anteprepro:

    Because you weren’t dealing honestly or accurately with the subject.

    You’re arguing with a person who claims that there will be times it’s perfectly okay for her daughters to be called cunt. Pretty sure we can place ‘not dealing honestly’ firmly on the table.

  32. says

    #20 I haven’t argued that misogynists are arguing out of good faith and ignorance. I have argued that there is a genuine argument to be had about some points of view. I have never defended threats of violence, rape, murder etc and personally believe that such people who make such threats should be prosecuted (I think most countries now have laws allowing for this). It isn’t my belief that you need to be less shrill so people can realise women are equal, more that it is so much easier to expose an imbecile when you don’t use their language. I don’t know what MRA stands for other than I see it is used as an insult. I don’t know who their spokespeople are, but I am certain that if I was to debate them, I could dismantle any sexist arguments they put forwards which reduced women in standing. My certainty comes not from arrogance but from the fact that I would be arguing from the side of the truth. Women are not inferior. We have moved from a position 150 years ago when most men and many women believed the opposite to a world where to believe women inferior is now a minority few. That is progress and we shouldn’t rest until further progress is completely impossible. I don’t understand why you see me as a troll. I want equality. I just want it in a way more like Ghandi would have wanted it to come about.

  33. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Gay rights are beiing achieved through their education campaigns, their peaceful demands for normalisation of LGBT relationships.

    Tell that to ACT-UP, chadgething.

    Most of us here happen to support both education and direct action.

  34. heliobates says

    it’s perfectly okay for her daughters to be called cunt.

    chadgething is a woman?

    That’s fucked up.

  35. mesh says

    @15

    It isn’t on a web page speaking of a massacre of women by a deranged man holding similar, though far more extreme views.

    See, this is why we have discussions like these in the first place. If the people we’re trying to reason with can’t even see the problem then there is no progress to be had.

    Yours is exactly the kind of attitude that contributes to the problem by shielding the very culture that produces these “deranged men” with “extreme views”. Your attitude is no different than True Christians who distance themselves from abortion doctor killers, ignoring the fact that it is their dogma of “ABORTION=MURDER!!!” that gives rise to such killers in the first place. Just because they’re extremists doesn’t mean their views materialized out of thin air. Cultures that promote hate against marginalized groups inevitably produce “extremists” which, always according to the “moderates”, never have anything to to do with the opinions they espouse. It is the fact that they casually promote and perpetuate the hate that leads such “deranged men” to believe it a completely legitimate reason to kill. And it is the “moderates” who unwittingly ensure that this process continues by defending the cultures that arm them with such hate.

  36. says

    Gay rights are beiing achieved through their education campaigns, their peaceful demands for normalisation of LGBT relationships.

    And just how do you think the way was paved to do so? For every word you type, you’re simply proving yourself to be a shallow idiot.

  37. says

    #35 There may be. I don’t imagine it in the near future because of their age but when she’s an adult, I’m sure she’ll be able to judge situations on their merits too. I am being honest, perhaps moreso than is good for me, in a forum of strangers. Like I said earlier, the word is like a knife.

  38. Nepenthe says

    I don’t know who their spokespeople are, but I am certain that if I was to debate them, I could dismantle any sexist arguments they put forwards which reduced women in standing.

    Yeah, so when Tom Martin calls you whore, because 97% of women are whores, you’re going to calmly dismantle that “argument”. I’d almost like to see that.

  39. No Light says

    Oh and “they”, the queers, are me and many others here. All the backpedalling and “Butbutbut I’m talking about blahwaffleHackneyCouncilbollocks” cannot mask basic ignorance. The riots are the REASON for all I have. Thanks to trans women and drag queens who screamed “NO MORE!”

    Don’t pontificate on what you know shite-all about FFS.

    As for Tatchell? Now there’s someone who actively damages their cause, he’s an idiot. And wash your bloody mouth out before denigrating the sacrifices of the suffragettes. I meant ALL of them, the forgotten ones.

    I hope you’re not a man lecturing about the smashingly notsexist, CofE, as well as straight and gobshiteing about the gays and “their” rights, how the uppity Pankhursts damaged the cause.

  40. says

    #41 Why the need to insult me? Shallow? Idiot? I’ve done a lot of work with the LGBT movement through universities and the Trades Unions movement. What we have learned from the past is that shouting at people got their backs up. Positive role models and calm debate got us much further, much quicker. Gareth “Alfie” Thomas has done more for gay rights by coming out than any amount of shouting in the town centre. He was able to do so with the strength and backing of people in his life, support groups, role models like Nigel Owens.
    None of this is shallow or stupid. Can’t we all stay reasonable?

  41. omnicrom says

    You are either a very dedicated Concern troll Chadgething or incredibly naive and optimistic.

    I don’t particularly feel like defining what a Tone Troll or a Concern Troll is, nor do I feel the need to define what MRA is an acronym for. You are on the internet. If you were too busy with your philosophical treatises on your skill and virtue as a debater to do a search then perhaps consider that the next time you wonder why we’re so mean and hostile.

    Let me reiterate this shit AGAIN. We have tried being civilized. It hasn’t work. It has NEVER worked. Until you can demonstrate that we are genuinely hurting ourselves by confronting misogyny head-on the denizens of Pharyngula are assured to continue being loud. Also pray consider that your concern over our tone is shared 100% by the shitty hateful people you take pains to stress you aren’t related to.

    “There is a genuine argument to be had” in order to win over the “imbeciles”? Let me run this by you again: The Misogynists are not stupid, they’re vile. It’s not a naive innocence that has them arguing for rape to shut women up, it is malice. Do you REALLY think that there are people who are intellectually on the fence as to whether we should treat women as Human Beings or Objects? Do you REALLY think that there are people out there who are innocently mistaken in their belief that uppity women should be raped into submission? Do you REALLY think that there is a reasonable debate about equality?

  42. Josh, Exasperated SpokesGay says

    You know fuck all about Stonewall, chadgething, so shut your ignorant mouth. Drag queens and assorted queers hurled bottles and high heels at the police who raided the Stonewall bar in 1969. Did you not know that? Did you not know why it was called the Stonewall riot?

  43. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Both methods works, chadgething. If anything, both the hotheads who demand change now and those who go the education route are needed.

    You are just tone trolling now.

  44. says

    chadgething, since it seems your fuckwittery knows no end, go to google and search for The Slymepit (linking isn’t allowed) and prove your assertion. Go on, we’ll wait for you to dismantle every single sexist argument they have.

    While you’re at the google machine, search for A Voice for Men – no doubt your sugary goodness will tame the sexist hearts there. Try for a chat with a chap called JohnTheOther.

  45. bobo says

    Out of curiosity, is it ok to shame MRA’s? misogynists? Is it acceptable to shame pro-lifers when the results of their beliefs result in dead women?

  46. says

    #43 It’s hardly an argument but it sure is easy to dismantle! I might start with census data but I am certain his point was rhetorical and he would have ended up looking ridiculous trying to defend it.

    #45 your sexuality is none of my business but you are historically inaccurate in much that you assert. I have no idea why you ran words together on back pedalling through to Hackney Council. But Peter Tatchrll has actually had some success in diverting funding to legal challenges against homophobic institutions and groups. Changing the law is worthwhile.i didn’t lecture on the C of E, just gave it as an argument that I also said could be easily countered. It was a vehicle to make the point that not everything is black and white. As for the suffragettes, I mentioned Emily Davison as one who some feel damaged the cause and Emmeline Pankhurst as a leader and partially victorious campaigner for voting rights. I don’t think that degrades the suffragettes and the fact that many of them do not have their names recorded in history does not undo any of their good work. I also put forwards that the women who worked in the fields and factories were also heroins who showed how ridiculous the stance on women’s place in society was.

  47. anteprepro says

    I have argued that there is a genuine argument to be had about some points of view.

    So basically you’re not a misogynist but think that misogynists might have a good, reasonable point and should be treated nicely, because we look unreasonable otherwise. Riiiiiiight. Why do tips from Team Fencesitter always seem like sabotage?

    I don’t know what MRA stands for other than I see it is used as an insult.

    Men’s Rights Activists. That you tut-tut us for being as bad as our opponents without apparently even knowing who are opponents even are is rather telling.

    I don’t know who their spokespeople are, but I am certain that if I was to debate them, I could dismantle any sexist arguments they put forwards which reduced women in standing. My certainty comes not from arrogance but from the fact that I would be arguing from the side of the truth.

    You vastly underestimate the power of spin and lies, and their ease of use in contrast to facts. You vastly overestimate the rationality of people who observe debates, and overlook the cognitive pitfalls of the average human. Just because you are right doesn’t make you capable of showing it.

    I want equality. I just want it in a way more like Ghandi would have wanted it to come about.

    Because our methods are obviously different. We are totally advocating violence. No, wait, the key difference is that we swear. And haven’t attempted to get results by having people follow the demands of a quasi-messianic figure. I’m fairly certain the former is insignificant and the latter is rather counterproductive if we are going to be pro-reason, anti-religion, etc.

  48. Josh, Exasperated SpokesGay says

    Jesus fucking Christ. Is this what I’m condemned to? “Well-meaning” mealy-mouthed liberals who DON’T FUCKING UNDERSTAND THAT THE STONEWALL BAR UPRISING WAS A RIOT AND TALK ABOUT IT LIKE IT WAS A PEACEFUL TREATY NEGOTIATION?

    Is this what I have to deal with for the rest of my life? God damn, but you’re stupid as shit if you believe that, and you’re willfully ignorant.

    I guess I can take some cold comfort from being in the company of older women who have to put up with Chill Girls who aren’t feminists and don’t hate menz@!!.

    But I’d rather you dumb fucks stop being so stone-ignorant.

  49. Nepenthe says

    @Janine

    *Mr. Burns fingers* Excellent. We need a nice new troll; our old ones are getting worn out.

  50. Josh, Exasperated SpokesGay says

    I’m not letting this go, sorry:

    CHADGETHING!–Do you understand that the Stonewall uprising was a full-on riot with violence that sparked the modern queer rights movement?

    Answer.

  51. johnmarley says

    @46 chadgething,

    It doesn’t matter what you’ve done elsewhere. Right here, right now, you are tone-trolling. These threads get “shouty” because this same fucking argument has been going on since Rebecca Watson said “Guys, don’t do that” a couple of years ago. We’re fucking sick of it. This thread was meant to remember and honor the victims of a horrible act motivated by attitudes shared by MRAssholes and ‘pitters. Some of whom came here to show off their manly correctitude, just like every other post on the subject. Please familiarize yourself with the relevant history before pontificating.

  52. anteprepro says

    Why the need to insult me? Shallow? Idiot? I’ve done a lot of work with the LGBT movement through universities and the Trades Unions movement.

    Speaking of sheep: What is with the “dissenters” in this thread and their tendency to bring up their credentials? It really makes their urge, best summarized as “let’s make this thread about dead women all about ME,” even more obvious.

  53. says

    Janine:

    Caine, be nice and suggest that our cuddly troll visit Man Boobz and try out a safe environment first.

    But I don’t wanna be nice! I want to see a sugary cage match between chadgething and JohnTheOther.

  54. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Caine, I do sympathize with that point of view; it would be fun to see the cuddly troll try to convince JohnTheOther to play nice.

    But I am trying to be CUDDLY as well as having pointy fangs and sharp claws.

  55. says

    Why the need to insult me? Shallow? Idiot? I’ve done a lot of work with the LGBT movement through universities and the Trades Unions movement.

    This is not about you. And it is not about LGBT peoples*, either. That would be you derailing a whole thread because you can’t own up to being a lackwit who thinks misogynists will be converted if you’re just nice enough.

    We’re all floating in your parade of shit as of now. We’d rather not drown in it.

    *Of which I am one, and I’m damn tired of you not knowing shit from shinola on the subject.

  56. Wowbagger, Antipodean Dervish says

    chadgething, I’ll echo what’s turning into a consensus here: if you truly believe you can win hearts & minds through calm, gentle, dispassionate argument, then demonstrate it by going to any of the MRA sites you’ve been pointed towards in this thread and suggest to them they should stop using words like ‘cunt’ to describe women they don’t like.

    Set up a blog, take screenshots of your posts, and the responses you get, and come back to give us the link so we can see how it went.

  57. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    If you are at all interested, cuddly troll, you can find JohnTheOther’s videos on YouTube.

    I fucking dare you.

  58. consciousness razor says

    I have argued that there is a genuine argument to be had about some points of view.

    You asserted it, then rambled about a few irrelevant things. What is your genuine argument for it? Do you not even know what genuine arguments look like?

    It isn’t my belief that you need to be less shrill so people can realise women are equal, more that it is so much easier to expose an imbecile when you don’t use their language.

    Their language? Do you see us using bigoted slurs against them? Do you think “fuck you” is the moral equivalent of dropping the N-word?

    I just want it in a way more like Ghandi would have wanted it to come about.

    Right, because we’re totally being violent with our language, aren’t we? People are dying out there, because I said the word “fuck.” How could I? Someone get the fainting couch!

  59. StevoR says

    @24.mcallahan :

    This thread is not as likely to drop kick the hornets nest because even the most misogynist trolls feel creeped out by that guy…. I think?

    Five hundred and sixty five comments later – famous (not so)last words.

    Geneviève Bergeron (born 1968), civil engineering student
    Hélène Colgan (born 1966), mechanical engineering student
    Nathalie Croteau (born 1966), mechanical engineering student
    Barbara Daigneault (born 1967), mechanical engineering student
    Anne-Marie Edward (born 1968), chemical engineering student
    Maud Haviernick (born 1960), materials engineering student
    Maryse Laganière (born 1964), budget clerk in the École Polytechnique’s finance department
    Maryse Leclair (born 1966), materials engineering student
    Anne-Marie Lemay (born 1967), mechanical engineering student
    Sonia Pelletier (born 1961), mechanical engineering student
    Michèle Richard (born 1968), materials engineering student
    Annie St-Arneault (born 1966), mechanical engineering student
    Annie Turcotte (born 1969), materials engineering student
    Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz (born 1958), nursing student

    Never got to know them. Never got to see what good they could’ve done with their lives and how much better they could’ve made the world. Condolences to their families and friends still living and retrospectively past too.

    Sad occasion deserving of remembrance and refection. Good post PZ.

  60. StevoR says

    @ (5?)53. anteprepro

    “I don’t know what MRA stands for other than I see it is used as an insult.” – ???

    Men’s Rights Activists.

    Otherwise known as Male Rape Apologists or Mayule Supwemacists ((for once not a typo-s) – or just misogynists apologists and rape culture defenders.

    For Your Information (FYI), the anti-Choice lobby, are also more aptly known as the Coathanger lobby too.

    That you tut-tut us for being as bad as our opponents without apparently even knowing who are opponents even are is rather telling.

    Yup. That. Seconded.

  61. anteprepro says

    Otherwise known as Male Rape Apologists

    Win.

    For Your Information (FYI), the anti-Choice lobby, are also more aptly known as the Coathanger lobby too.

    Before I ever heard of the term MRA, I thought anti-choicers should be called FRAs: Fetal Rights Advocates/Activists. I thought it summarized their position nicely with just the right amount of mockery implied.

  62. anteprepro says

    CONCERN TROLL fainted!

    CONCERN TROLLS would be the worst PharynguMon. They’re always fainting. Maybe in next version the programmers will finally make a Fainting Couch and they might finally be useful in battle.

  63. strange gods before me ॐ says

    joed,

    Why the venom and maldiction coming from regular commenters here?!

    joed, I want to appreciate you. I’m going to keep on trying. Here is how I try. I will remind you of how you feel when you make comments like

    this

    and this

    that one

    and this,

    and look, I’m not even linking to all the election-related threads where you called me (and almost everyone else here) effectively a murderer.

    Just try to remember how those threads pissed you off, and how you might react if people had denied even the basic facts.

  64. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Or, wait. Better response: joed, imagine someone making your above comment to a blog community comprised largely of people of color — in effect asking them why they are so bothered by a bunch of casual racists showing up.

  65. StevoR says

    @163. Martin Wagner :

    What’s also disingenuous is suggesting that people who indulge in the vilest misogynist invective, going to the extent of posting “joking” threads about raping Skepchicks, are harmlessly “expressing an opinion.” I mean, strictly speaking, that kind of trolling shit is “expressing an opinion,” sure. But you’d be naive as hell to suggest the “opinion” being expressed isn’t coming from a very real, dark place that provides justification for that rare fringe-dweller who decides today is the day to get even.

    I mean, if all the MRA’s and slimepitters were saying were things like “I disagree with this feminist blogger because [calm and erudite expression of dissenting opinion],” nobody would be having a problem. Instead, what we have is a situation in which, if you were to play a drinking game requiring taking a shot whenever the word “cunt” popped up in an online discussion about the Skepchicks or any prominent feminist blogger, your liver would explode inside of five minutes. And by blithely ignoring the reality of that, you’re kind of giving it your tacit approval.

    Why even brush off these kinds of “opinions,” on anything other than the most general of “free speech” grounds? Think about what it takes to be someone who even thinks that way. Of all the people I’ve despised in all my life — say, Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter, and the like — in all my criticisms of them, I have never once found it necessary or even remotely desirable to express a wish for their violent injury or death, let alone fantasize about committing the deed myself. Even conceding that people who talk aren’t the same as people who do, shouldn’t the fact that there’s probably something deeply fucked up about someone who would even talk about it give you pause?

    (Italics original.)

    Very well said and quoted for truth.

  66. vaiyt says

    I just believe that you make more progress with a rational argument that doesn’t include telling people to “go fuck yourself”. It takes two people to argue. When one person calmly states a fact, it doesn’t matter how much the other person rants or rages, there will e one person looking foolish and one person who is right.

    Or maybe there will be one person who’s angry at something objectionable, and another who is hateful but smug because the issues don’t affect them and they don’t care.

    I have argued that there is a genuine argument to be had about some points of view.

    No. Fuck you.

    Women are people and deserve to be treated as such. Finito. End of discussion. That’s the minimum bar one has to cross before having a point worth discussing.

    Anyone who thinks the humanity of women is a matter of “point of view” doesn’t deserve to even be in the room.

  67. says

    CONCERN TROLLS would be the worst PharynguMon. They’re always fainting. Maybe in next version the programmers will finally make a Fainting Couch and they might finally be useful in battle.

    Maybe they evolve into something interesting if you manage to get them to a high enough level, like Mr. Fish Magikarp.

  68. mildlymagnificent says

    What we have learned from the past is that shouting at people got their backs up. Positive role models and calm debate got us much further, much quicker. ……..

    None of this is shallow or stupid. Can’t we all stay reasonable?

    Jesus H Christ on the pogo stick from the clown car. How long?

    It’s 2012! I was having these arguments in 1972! along with all the ugly, smelly, snarling, irrational members of the same portfolio. Arguing with the men sitting alongside me who got paid more than me for the same job, not about the pay, but about me being there at all. Arguing with other men in the union about any damn thing that crossed their paralysed minds. And keeping my head down as the rape jokes flowed around me. And flowed.

    I argued politely. I cried privately. I shouted publicly. I went on arguing. Other women did the same. Again and again and again …..

    And in the middle of these 40 years, we have Marc Lepine. Along with his enablers and his supporters and all those other men whose manly moral worth can’t expand enough to tell other men that their jokes aren’t funny and their desire to hurt women is a bad thing. They go right on being the schoolyard bystanders who now let grownup bullies literally murder their targets.

    I am fully entitled to say Fuck as loudly and as often as I feel the need.

  69. PatrickG says

    It’s late, and I normally lurk. I’m positively sure that more eloquent people have responded to these shining turds of the prairie of the mind… but maigob:

    you need to be less shrill so people can realise women are equal

    Are you fucking kidding me? Do you not understand the history of the word ‘shrill’ as applied to women? I suggest using your fingers to do some basic research on that fancy thing called “the Internet” instead of commenting. You might learn something.

    I don’t know what MRA stands for other than I see it is used as an insult. I don’t know who their spokespeople are, but I am certain that if I was to debate them, I could dismantle any sexist arguments they put forwards which reduced women in standing.

    Your certainty is noted (noted!). But I again recommend you should consider using the advanced library of knowledge called “the Internet” (I mean, come on, you could have tried using Google) before constructing a pedestal of poorly shampooed rat hair from which to proclaim your received wisdom. Because you know, women are equal, but they need to be less shrill to achieve equality. Ladies, just shut up, and all cognitive dissonance will be resolved! Also, here we have a brave defender of your equality, who will just destroy them in debate, without knowing who they are, or who their spokespeople are.

    For fuck’s sake.

    Again, I just know others have done much more justice to this comment than I have here, but seriously? I just couldn’t go any further. I’m just thankful that the blog commenting system launched me in at the last page, because clearly this shit has been going on for some time.

  70. says

    You may be interested to know about Australia’s famous Mardi Gras – the enormous mainstream Gay & Lesbian festival, parade and party (now slowly explanding to the QUILTBAG spectrum). It’s huge, it’s a massive tourist money spinner, a month long festival of art, theatre, music, parties and one grand party that almost everyone loves, and a parade that millions of people watch on TV or in real life.

    The first one? Also a riot. Arrests. People bashed by police & chucked in jail for protesting.

  71. Matt Penfold says

    @168: Matt, that I would have to explain my reference to ‘the real world‘ as being descriptive between cyberspace and meatspace is actually reflecting your insult right back at yourself.

    So you cannot explain your idiotic comment ?

    Why not just say so, rather than continue to make a fool of yourself.

  72. bruyerecorbeau says

    Another excellent anniversary post and reflection on misogyny .

    Let’s not forget the cybermob of misogynists who ganged up, hard, on Anita Sarkeesian recently – cf. Feminist Frequency. Her TedxWomen talk has a couple of graphic illustrations of the reality of misogyny and the transition from words to actions.

  73. McC2lhu doesn't want to know what you did there. says

    I’m going to ignore all of the wanking by the MRAs, because that’s all they are, incorrigible wankers. What I AM going to focus on, is the names of the women who were murdered. They were all my age, or a little older. I think of the decades of lost engineering and the light of science in each of the women’s minds snuffed out because of the intellectual vacuum that is misogyny. One MRA who couldn’t accept the responsibility of his own ineptitude and had been allowed to maintain this delusion of gender superiority, and used it as an excuse for murder. The degree of tragedy here is stupefying. This is exactly the reason NOT to be polite to sexism and misogyny apologists. There should be no attempt to mollycoddle reinforcement of ideas that transcend bullshit and enter some realm of myopic moronics.

  74. McC2lhu doesn't want to know what you did there. says

    I should point out to Americans as well, that the Violence Against Women Act is going to be voted down by the Rethuglicans within days. Please give your congressjerk a call and shite all over them if they are among the ‘No’ voters. Their objection to VAWA is over language for protection of LGBTs and native women. Yeah, like those groups aren’t being marginalized anywhere.

  75. says

    As a casual observer, I can’t help but notice how polarised and personal these debates seem to immediately become.

    Yeah, I guess there’s nothing personal about you when folks talk about bitches and cunts and how they need to be raped so they shut up.

    I hope they will not encounter sexism or racism (we are mixed race) but wherever there is ignorance about race or gender, I have tried to teach them to educate and explain away the ignorance, as getting angry will not change a bigoted opinion and lowers you to a level unbecoming of an intelligent person. They already show the maturity not to continue arguing with someone who starts shouting at them. They are 5 & 8.

    And already their dad teaches them that they need to be meek and polite to people who actually hate them.

    I do not believe that the Church of England are horrendous apologists to the sorts of abuses being thrown around and discussed on here.

    It’s not our fault you’re ignorant.

    Though the church occupies a misogynistic position, it also finds (and preaches) that violence against others is wrong, regardless of their gender, faith, race and sexuality.

    Ever heard the phrase “institutionalized violence”? Apparnetly not. People with power don’t need to beat people up. It’s enough that they use their power to keep undesired people out of their spaces.

    Ad-hominem is alive and well on these blogs!

    Ignorance about what an ad hominem is, is alive and well.

    I would urge all contributors to resist from these attacks and whenever someone causes your wrath to wax greatly, pause and ask them to state their argument, then dissect their argument fully and forensically

    Just what we need. Another ignorant guy telling the victims of misogyny how to behave.

    Finally, where I am from, a mangina is when a man tucks his bits between his legs to make it look like he is a lady. I don’t think I’ve ever used it as an insult!

    Sure , there’s nothing misogynist about the notion that a woman is a man with cut off bits and that a woman is defined by having a vagina

  76. Emrysmyrddin says

    I do not believe that the Church of England are horrendous apologists to the sorts of abuses being thrown around and discussed on here.

    I missed this earlier – or blocked it out for sheer stupidity.

    Why on earth do you think this ‘rule’ is in place? Christianity teaches that women are inferior to men. That they are not fit to teach the holy jeebus scripture. That they should shut up in church. That positions of authority are, by nature of their sheer femininity, Not Their Place. What trickle-down effect do you think this notion has over 2000 years of entrenched religiosity?

    Your sheer stupidity…does not amaze me. You’re common.

  77. says

    When someone uses such words against my daughters, I will weigh up the situation before acting.

    I’m sure they will appreciate that.
    While they might be crying and sobbing, first daddy explains to her what the right way to behave is. Then daddy goes over and polietly tells the person that this was not a nice thing to say and spends half an hour camly dissecting the viewpoint.

    If you want to share knowledge and eradicate misogyny then you can’t do it by shouting at misogynists.

    Looks like we damn well can. We make it impossibe for them to go on without it being made clear that they’re scum.

    You have to show them why you believe they are wrong.

    I don’t have prove my humanity to anybody.

    When one person calmly states a fact, it doesn’t matter how much the other person rants or rages, there will e one person looking foolish and one person who is right.

    You know what? This isn’t a fucking compettion.

    That isn’t an unreasonable position, is it?

    Wrong, it is. “If you’re angry then you’re wrong is an argument that has always served the opressors and the staus quo.

    Emily Davisons actions in front of the Kings horse at Epsom may have set back the movement,

    Now shitting on the graves of people who died for women’s rights.
    Stay classy. You’re much ruder and more insulting than anybody of us can ever be.

    Would that justify me being treated aggressively from the start? If I was new to the party, shouldn’t I be granted some leeway to explore the arguments behind the discussion?

    Why? It’s your fault you didn’t do your homework. If you step into the discussion between two physicists babbling some nonsense about quantum theory, do you expect them to hold your hand through 2 years of knowledge?

    but I am certain that if I was to debate them, I could dismantle any sexist arguments they put forwards which reduced women in standing.

    White Knight to the rescue!!!

    rocketman

    Any discussion is instantly polarized by the very nature of your statements.

    That’s because you’re a misogynist asshole dipshit who doesn’t see women as people.
    PZ banhammer on this, please!

    chadgething is a woman?

    Not according to his Facebook

  78. Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle says

    I just believe that you make more progress with a rational argument that doesn’t include telling people to “go fuck yourself”. It takes two people to argue. When one person calmly states a fact, it doesn’t matter how much the other person rants or rages, there will e one person looking foolish and one person who is right. Have the courage in the truth of your argument, rather than relying on who has the loudest mouth or the greatest stamina for insult. That isn’t an unreasonable position, is it?

    Yes, actaully it is. This is the wishy-washy, milquetoast horseshit that placates, excuses, and ultimately supports misogyny (any form of bigotry, really). You are shaming WOMEN standing up for themselves instead of BIGOTS deliberately causing harm.

    Therefore, the MRA observing this knows you’ve got his back. he’s allowed to do or say whatever he wants and you’ll do nothing but shrilly nag the targets of MRA bigotry.

    What you believe and how reality works are two different things.

    And, since you throw your support behind bigots, (like an obedient, good woman should, right MRAs?), you can fuck right off. head on over to A Voice For Men. See what sort of company your position brings to you. I hope you like it!

  79. Beatrice says

    Giliell,

    We ladies have to be polite if we want to deserve equality to men. See, a man is born deserving respect, a woman has to earn it by acting properly. No need to shout and demand your rights, if you are nice enough I’m sure men will grant you what they consider appropriate for you.

  80. opposablethumbs says

    [And already their dad teaches them that] they need to be meek and polite to people who actually hate them.

    This. Sadly, this is all too bloody true.

  81. A Hermit says

    chadgething, at some point I have to start wondering why you’re more concerned with the tone of the people objecting to misogyny than you are with the misogyny…

    You’ve spent a lot of time and energy tut-tutting about the tone of the people objecting to mysogyny.

    Have you thought about expending a fraction of that time and energy disputing the nonsense being pushed by all the members of the He-man Woman Haters Club who show up here to complain about the remembrance of a massacre of women?

  82. bobo says

    My dad always used the word ‘shrill’, to put my mother and I down, whenever we raised our voices, or complained about something!

  83. rq says

    Giliell
    With all the yelling you did @87 and 89, I doubt any Real Man would want you… Oh wait. /snark (I am in agreement with you – ‘Be polite’ if someone spews hate at you? Yeah. That’s a solution. /more snark)

    +++

    I was 5 years old when this happened. You’d think the world would be a better place by now.
    Because when I was little, I thought it was an isolated incident (crazy man and all that). Little did I know…

  84. No Light says

    I’ve done a lot of work with the LGBT movement

    “Hai guyz, I’m an ally, I know how this shit werks! Be nice to me cuz I used to wear a badge what said ‘Kill the Clause’*”

    #Come on people now,
    Smile, I’m your brother,
    Everybody get together
    Try to love one another, right now#

    Oh Mighty FSM, I hope you hear my cry.
    Protect this tired dyke from the scourge of bloody ~*~allies~*~
    Grant me the sauce of tolerance, the meatballs of humanity,
    Before I flip my noodle over chadges rank inanity.

    Ramen.

    Chadge – you do not get to tell marginalised people that you’re their ally, or who they should thank for their rights. I don’t give a cartwheeling fuck what you think of Peter Tatchell, because I’m telling you right now that he has some seriously problematic views and ideas. You cannot handwave away those concerns with “He’s done so much good”, any more than you can excuse your behaviour here by listing your ally cred.

    Being nice does not work. Your privilege protects and shields you, and you get to take off your slogans and badges when you get home. I can never stop being disabled, being a woman, being a dyke, being poor, just as you cannot stop being a POC/BME person. I will never experience racism, I do not get to say who’s done the best anti-racist work, and how good POC have it these days.

    You never answered Josh. btw. What do you think Stonewall was about, what happened, how long did it last? Do you know that for almost twenty years prior to the event, community activists tried to use education, information and reason to educate straight America?

    Do you know the history of London Pride, and what kicked it off?

    Do you realise that there’s anger and resentment over what it’s become, that the fight is far from over?

    Do you know anything about the current problems and divisions within the movement? The anger about erasure of certain groups and a growing sense of internalised oppression?

    Course not.

    Our riots aren’t tastefully catered affairs with coordinated outfits, and a soundtrack of pumping house music. Although, to be fair, the Stonewall Girls did form a chorus line.

    So now, time to mourn the fallen. My Canadian sisters, those who were victims of transmisogyny, those killed for daring to act like default humans instead of walking cunts.

    *referring to Clause 28, which banned the “promotion of homosexuality” It wasn’t repealed until November 2003.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28

  85. heliobates says

    @ Gilliell

    Not according to his Facebook

    That’s what I thought. I know there are misogynist women, but everything about chadgething’s reeked of the privilege that comes with never having to personally experiences any of what he’s discussing.

  86. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    I just want it in a way more like Ghandi [sic] would have wanted it to come about. – chadgething

    Gandhi thought the British should not resist Hitler other than by civil disobedience. Is that your position?

    Neither slavery nor apartheid was ended without a lot of people making very shouty arguments indeed. If it was up to idiots like you, they’d never have ended at all.

  87. Ogvorbis says

    I have argued that there is a genuine argument to be had about some points of view.

    Go ahead. Make a genuine argument claiming that women are not full humans and should be treated as such. Make a genuing argument that calling out people who make rape jokes, jokes about killing women, who demean and debase women verbally and in online discussions have absolutely no connnection at all with those who actually treat women as second class humans or kill women. You keep claiming this should be a reasonable discussion. One side makes the heretical claim that women are human beings, the other side jokes about raping women, jokes about killing women, uses things that are innately female as insults, use rape as a political tool to silence women. Where is this rational, calm discussion appropriate? Where is the genuine argument?

    Can’t we all stay reasonable?

    Yes, because we should, very reasonably, be discussing why misogynistic language does not contribute to misogyny. Of course!

  88. Matt Penfold says

    I don’t know what MRA stands for other than I see it is used as an insult.

    Can you explain why you arguing from a position of admitted ignorance ? If you don’t know what you are talking about, and you admit you don’t, why not shut up and learn ? It is just arrogant of you to think you have anything worth saying.

  89. says

    You gotta love it when one side does something shitty, and the other side gets (rightfully) mad at that fact, and then some idiot comes along and says, “BOTH of you need to be reasonable! And YOU, part #2, don’t be so loud and crude! It givez me teh sad.”

    Reminds me of grade school, when a bully would push a kid down, and the kid would stand up for hirself, only to have a teacher step in and punish them both. No.

  90. consciousness razor says

    Can you explain why you arguing from a position of admitted ignorance ? If you don’t know what you are talking about, and you admit you don’t, why not shut up and learn ? It is just arrogant of you to think you have anything worth saying.

    Let’s put it in context with the very next sentence:

    I don’t know what MRA stands for other than I see it is used as an insult. I don’t know who their spokespeople are, but I am certain that if I was to debate them, I could dismantle any sexist arguments they put forwards which reduced women in standing.

    chadgething certainly appears to know that “MRA” isn’t just an insult, but implies someone is using “sexist arguments” which “reduced women.”

    So altogether, I figured that was admitting to being a disingenuous, arrogant asshat. Ignorant, too, of course, at least on many other points. Maybe someone who can’t use google, yet knows so much better than us how to properly debate (other) shitheads, but mostly just an irrelevant dumbass concerned about our tone.

  91. caveatimperator says

    Wow, folks. This is why I come to this blog. Brownian, consciousness razor, Caine, Janine, No Light, anteprepo, and any other names I have forgotten, thank you. All of you argue well and argue passionately. I don’t post often, but others’ statements above about “this blog is going downhill” and all that jazz have made me want to chime in.

    Posts like yours are the reason I keep coming to this blog. No matter how ugly the world gets, it makes me happy to see intelligent people like you fighting the good fight. Thank you all.

    I do want to say two things.
    1. Can we nominate this ENTIRE loving thread for a Mollie?
    2. Can you guys run for public office? You guys would do a far better job than the motley assortment of fools in Congress right now.

  92. Thy Goddess says

    French canadian here, and I’m very touched that you posted about this event. It’s still huge here, every year.

    By the by, I would like to add this fun tidbit of information: on french MRA forums, I have often seen him refered to as “Saint Marc Lépine”. To them, this guy is a model.

  93. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    By the by, I would like to add this fun tidbit of information: on french MRA forums, I have often seen him refered to as “Saint Marc Lépine”. To them, this guy is a model.

    There are times that I really hate my species.

  94. daniellavine says

    @chadgething:

    Having taught high school math I can assure you that it is 100% impossible to teach something to someone when that someone is actively motivated not to learn it. What makes you think the people being shouted at aren’t actively motivated not to learn what the commenters here are trying to tell them?

  95. left0ver1under says

    Was it really that long ago? I’ve always been aware of the incident, but I had forgotten the year…which I shouldn’t, it was the year before I entered college (for the second time).

    Incidents like these are becoming more common in Canada, but at that time, it was almost unheard of. When Canadians lash out in violence over an injustice or perceived injustice, it’s usually by suicide, not homicide as in similar cases in the US.

    http://www.ciws.ca/articles_bc_suicide_kang_worksfe.htm

    According to WorkSafe [British Columbia’s workers compensation agency], 18 claims have been paid for suicides from 1996 through 2005, including three last year and five in 2001.

    “These are claims accepted where it has been determined that a worker took his or her own life due to pain or other complications arising from a previous work-related injury,” said board media officer Donna Freeman.

    Regarding the trolls and idiots, they bring new meaning to the phrase “passive-aggressive”. They “think” that if they’re not aggressive towards women, women will “force them to be passive”.

  96. Emrysmyrddin says

    By the by, I would like to add this fun tidbit of information: on french MRA forums, I have often seen him refered to as “Saint Marc Lépine”. To them, this guy is a model.

    There are times that I really hate my species.

    QFFT

  97. says

    caveatimperator, welcome to the shark tank!

    2. Can you guys run for public office? You guys would do a far better job than the motley assortment of fools in Congress right now.

    These malice stuffed idiots already do damage to my blood pressure. If I was anywhere near congress, I’d go postal.

  98. says

    Thy Goddess:

    I would like to add this fun tidbit of information: on french MRA forums, I have often seen him refered to as “Saint Marc Lépine”. To them, this guy is a model.

    :Quietly retrieves jaw from ground:

    And shallow twitoids like chadgething find it appropriate to admonish us all for having problems with venomous misogynists and the privilege-blinded clowns like Stefanelli continue to tell us of the wonders and splendors of misogynist spaces and how they are wonderful fellas, really truly.

    Shake ‘N’ Bake Christ onna stick.

  99. silomowbray says

    Reading this thread (and many others here on the topic of MRAs and misogyny) has given me hope, because the arguments being carried by Josh and Brownian and consciousness razor and janine et al. are loud and sarcastic and angry and filled with don’t-you-fucking-DARE.

    I have a little girl who means everything to me. So the fight you’re all engaged in is so very important to me, and I am grateful.

  100. says

    This has been a very entertaining thread. If you could see my mailbox now…it has apparently become a meme among idiots that I think everyone who disagrees with me is equivalent to a mass murderer.

    Did you know there are only two possible points of view: you are either a radical feminist, or you are screaming sexist imprecations at women? By expressing my contempt for woman-hating extremists, I have announced that every person who is not out castrating men is an evil monster.

    That’s the way their little minds work, I guess.

  101. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    PZ, I never want to see what gets in your mailbox. Shit like this is bad enough.

  102. Emrysmyrddin says

    You forget, PZ: expressions of subtlety and nuance are for manginas and their feminist OverLadies. Real Men RAWWWWR.

  103. hypatiasdaughter says

    Caine, Fleur du mal
    Hmm, I used to occasionally read Al Stefanelli’s blog, then it was gone.
    Obviously, I missed something. Does anyone have a link to someplace I could get the story?

  104. says

    I have announced that every person who is not out castrating men is an evil monster.

    I’m not castrating anyone until I receive the new, updated, leather-clad agenda. Also, my paycheck is late. *taps foot*

  105. says

    Hypatiasdaughter, I don’t have links, but if you search Strange Gods Before Me in the first page of this thread, he has several links to Al’s, er, problems.

    I believe Al was all upsetty over Thunderfoot’s idiocy, felt that he was being persecuted for being white and having a penis and didn’t wish to be victimized by feminists.

  106. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Oh, I also forgot; he got tired of people trying to make him feel guilty for being white and male.

  107. silomowbray says

    Which is weird, because no one’s ever made me feel guilty for being white and male. If anything, I’m pissed at a lot of other white males.

    Coming to Pharyngula months ago was a wake-up call. I’ve had a serious education here, and now that I’m cognizant of some of the BS surrounding us I’m scared for my kids and angry at society.

    Al’s reaction surprised me. I thought he had a clearer lens than I did.

  108. Ogvorbis says

    I think everyone who disagrees with me is equivalent to a mass murderer.

    But I have disagreed with PZed. Does that mean . . . ?

  109. says

    Silomowbray:

    Al’s reaction surprised me.

    It surprised a lot of people. It’s one more reason we have to constantly work to make misogynistic attitudes flat out unacceptable, but the patriarchal foundation which shelters the sexism we all swim in is a long way from being dismantled.

  110. silomowbray says

    Caine, yes I hear you. This was brought home to me yet again in another forum, where I was told that our entire society is working on giving advantage to women, and pushing down men, because men do all the fighting and risking of lives in the military to protect the womenfolk.

    My MRA detector went batshit and I had to go find my daughter and cuddle her for a bit. Goddammit.

  111. says

    Silomowbray:

    because men do all the fighting and risking of lives in the military to protect the womenfolk.

    Oh gods. We just had a thread (about a moron defending douching) utterly derailed by the idiot king ‘noelplum99′ aka Jim (also seen on the first page of this thread), who decided to use women shouldn’t be in the infantry/combat gambit.

    That whole thing was beyond infuriating.

  112. says

    Sorry to miss out on all the comments. I was at work.

    I seem to have been rounded upon by everyone. I’m being called a cuddly troll and other insults. Sorry, but I don’t align myself with any group so being called an MRA means nothing to me.
    I seem to have been misquoted numerous times. My use of the term shrill was in direct response to a post which contained that term (I did hash tag the post number) and my response was originally pointing out that I was not saying that!
    I also did not originally bring up LGBT issues but was responding to a criticism levelled at me. I have never said there was not a riot that led to the Stonewall movement. I merely stated where I felt the greatest progress had been made.

    I am not a rape apologist. I am not a misogynist. I do not believe men are superior to women. I do not advocate threatening behaviour or language to anyone. I don’t think I can be clearer than that.

    All I wanted was to try and encourage our arguments to stay with the facts. This is why I don’t comment more. I agree with much of what you say, but because I say it in a different way, I get personal insults. I don’t like being called names, unless I know the people are joking. Here, I feel the hate has spilled over on to me.

  113. silomowbray says

    Caine:

    …who decided to use women shouldn’t be in the infantry/combat…

    That’s…I…COGNITIVE DISSONANCE HEAD ASPLODE

  114. says

    Silomowbray:

    That’s…I…COGNITIVE DISSONANCE HEAD ASPLODE

    Oh, it got better on that front. One Renee Hendricks showed up to tell us all that the sexists were right, women really couldn’t cut the mustard in many a military job and she should know, because she had such a job in the military.

    Totally missed how she was shooting herself in the foot. That thread was pure gold.

  115. Ogvorbis says

    I have never said there was not a riot that led to the Stonewall movement. I merely stated where I felt the greatest progress had been made.

    It was the Stonewall Riot. A riot did not lead to Stonewall, Stonewall was a riot. From Wikipedia:

    The Stonewall riots were a series of spontaneous, violent demonstrations by members of the gay community against a police raid that took place in the early morning hours of June 28, 1969, at the Stonewall Inn, in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of New York City.
    American gays and lesbians in the 1950s and 1960s faced a legal system more anti-homosexual than those of some Warsaw Pact countries.[note 1][2] Early homophile groups in the U.S. sought to prove that gay people could be assimilated into society, and they favored non-confrontational education for homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. The last years of the 1960s, however, were very contentious, as many social movements were active, including the African American Civil Rights Movement, the Counterculture of the 1960s, and antiwar demonstrations. These influences, along with the liberal environment of Greenwich Village, served as catalysts for the Stonewall riots.
    Very few establishments welcomed openly gay people in the 1950s and 1960s. Those that did were often bars, although bar owners and managers were rarely gay. The Stonewall Inn, at the time, was owned by the Mafia.[3][4] It catered to an assortment of patrons, but it was known to be popular with the poorest and most marginalized people in the gay community: drag queens, representatives of a newly self-aware transgender community, effeminate young men, hustlers, and homeless youth. Police raids on gay bars were routine in the 1960s, but officers quickly lost control of the situation at the Stonewall Inn, and attracted a crowd that was incited to riot. Tensions between New York City police and gay residents of Greenwich Village erupted into more protests the next evening, and again several nights later. Within weeks, Village residents quickly organized into activist groups to concentrate efforts on establishing places for gays and lesbians to be open about their sexual orientation without fear of being arrested.
    After the Stonewall riots, gays and lesbians in New York City faced gender, class, and generational obstacles to becoming a cohesive community. Within six months, two gay activist organizations were formed in New York, concentrating on confrontational tactics, and three newspapers were established to promote rights for gays and lesbians. Within a few years, gay rights organizations were founded across the U.S. and the world. On June 28, 1970, the first Gay Pride marches took place in Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York commemorating the anniversary of the riots. Similar marches were organized in other cities. Today, Gay Pride events are held annually throughout the world toward the end of June to mark the Stonewall riots.[5]

    The protest/riot led, directly, to the establishment of gay activist organizations in New York City.

    All I wanted was to try and encourage our arguments to stay with the facts.

    Considering your consistent misrepresentation of the facts of the Stonewall Riot, I find that rather funny. I mean, c’mon, I’m a straight, middle-aged, cis-gendered white man with two kids, a big American sedan, a house, a mortgage, two cats and majored in history and even I can figure this shit out.

  116. maddog1129 says

    I appreciate the memorial post very much, because somehow I had never heard of the Montreal massacre before. Thanks to PZ and others for this remembrance.

  117. Rodney Nelson says

    chadgething #129

    I am not a rape apologist. I am not a misogynist. I do not believe men are superior to women. I do not advocate threatening behaviour or language to anyone. I don’t think I can be clearer than that.

    You may not be any of those things but you support them. You sneer and cavil at feminists for being LOUD! and using naughty words and not “educating” misogynists. Your arrogant condescension towards feminists tells the misogynists “look at those bitches, you don’t have to pay attention to them because they’re so uncouth.”

    All I wanted was to try and encourage our arguments to stay with the facts.

    What facts are those? That women are human beings? That there’s a rape culture being perpetuated by privileged people like you? That women are being raped, maimed and killed for being women? Or is the fact you’re most in favor of is that some women and their male hangers-on are impertinent if not down-right uppity when expressing themselves? We realize this last “fact” makes you sad and you wish feminists would be more gentlemanly in their speech.

  118. says

    All I wanted was to try and encourage our arguments to stay with the facts.

    Liar, liar, all flagrante.

    First, you have a blithe disregard for facts and simply make up shit as you go. Second, the rest of us have been arguing with facts. You just don’t like the way we do it.

  119. says

    I am not a rape apologist. I am not a misogynist. I do not believe men are superior to women. I do not advocate threatening behaviour or language to anyone.

    Right. But it might be okay if someone calls your daughters cunt. People would listen to all you silly bitches and manginas if you weren’t so shrill and free with the naughty words. Here in Blighty, all the nasty, sexist words and jokes, well, they have a jolly, friendly feel, wot.

    You are a horrible example of a human being and attempting to backpedal with yet more lies isn’t going to help. Here’s a thought: shut the fuck up. Go put your money where your fingers are – go to the slymepit and A Voice for Men. Let us know when you’ve converted ‘em all.

    By the way, you’re going to make all the baby gods cry with your lying.

  120. consciousness razor says

    All I wanted was to try and encourage our arguments to stay with the facts.

    Because we weren’t staying with the facts? Which fucking arguments and which fucking facts are you talking about? Tell us what they are, or else you can drop this irrelevant bullshit and shut the fuck up.

    I agree with much of what you say, but because I say it in a different way, I get personal insults.

    Nope, that’s not why. You apparently can’t read. You get insulted because your mealy-mouthed insulting bullshit is mealy-mouthed insulting bullshit.

    I don’t like being called names, unless I know the people are joking. Here, I feel the hate has spilled over on to me.

    How sad. Let’s make a thread to commemorate all the terrible things that have happened to chadgething, rather than the murder of fourteen women like this thread is about. I propose we do it next year, on the anniversary of these sad events. For now, maybe chadgething will just have a moment of fucking silence for himself.

  121. Ogvorbis says

    So if people are actively trying NOT to learn what is being said to them, how will shouting change that?

    Sometimes shock, anger, rage, mocking, insults and other non-debate tactics are effective at helping someone reexamine his or her beliefs. I know that being rhetorically slapped upside the face and dragged over the coals here woke me up to the endemic socialized misogyny I carry around. I took a look at what I thought was funny, what I thought acceptable, and realized that my world view dehumanized more than half the population.

  122. w00dview says

    To all people whining that PZ is a big meany for pointing out that misogynist rhetoric can lead to horrific atrocities.

    It is not all about you.

    Seriously, the fact that the main topic of discussion is how persecuted the poor misogynists (oh sorry, “dissenters”) are instead of remembrance of a tragedy that we should all learn from and never repeat is so fucking depressing that it makes me think humans will never learn from the mistakes of history. Christ on a bike, gain some fucking empathy.

  123. dpitman says

    brownian if what I heard is correct- Did you call me chickenshit? What a joke. I just don’t waste my time reading any of your replies because it is a given that whatever you say is going to be 1)stupid 2)childish 3)stupid and childish. You spend your time calling people names and trying to make people fit into your box of thinking. Other people aren’t idiots like you browian, they know there are all kinds of possibilities between black and white. You can’t grasp the concept, that is your problem. It’s almost as if you think the world will become a better place as a result of you sitting on your dumb ass pecking away moronic insults and insight on PZ’s blog. Your contribution is noted browian, great effort, here’s a penis shaped sucker as a reward. The reason you don’t use your real name is probably because even a dimwit like you knows no one gives a shit about anything you have said 5 min after you have said it, your thoughts have no staying power. The only thing about you that stays in people’s minds is the relief that they were not born as god damn dumb as you. That’s what I got brownian or whatever your name is. If I had to guess I think I’d say you go by ‘King of the Virgins’ in real life. The title fits you perfectly. Now go fuck yourself you pathetic socially retarded internet smartass. You got nothin and then some. Oh, and if you didn’t call me chickenshit you may want to do that now, maybe even something worse cause I really am making you look bad… it’s painfully easy to do.

  124. Rodney Nelson says

    chadgething #138

    So if people are actively trying NOT to learn what is being said to them, how will shouting change that?

    There’s two points for you to consider:

    Point the First: There’s an old joke that if you want a mule to do something you have to get its attention. This is best achieved by hitting it with a 2 by 4. Being quiet, modest and genteel does not get misogynists’ attention. Hitting them with a verbal 2 by 4 sometimes works.

    Point the Second: Committed misogynists are not going to be swayed by any argument given in any manner. But onlookers do notice the arguments. They might consider their own behavior, realize their own sexism, and modify how they think and act. Every so often one of these people show up on these threads to thank the Horde for showing how innate sexism is in the World. I speak from personal experience here, because it was reading certain Pharyngula and Butterflies & Wheels threads which caused me to examine my attitudes toward women. I realized I was sexist in both thought and action. I’m trying to do better now.

  125. says

    brownian if what I heard is correct- Did you call me chickenshit? What a joke. I just don’t waste my time reading any of your replies because it is a given that whatever you say is going to be 1)stupid 2)childish 3)stupid and childish.

    Oh, Cupcake? If you don’t read Brownian’s posts, how did you know the content of them? Amazing how you fuckwits repeatedly shoot yourselves in the head.

  126. Brownian says

    no one gives a shit about anything you have said 5 min after you have said it, your thoughts have no staying power

    You mean the comment you’re responding to which I wrote over 20 hours ago?

  127. Emrysmyrddin says

    So if people are actively trying NOT to learn what is being said to them, how will shouting change that?

    It lets all the lurkers in the room know very very clearly that the shit will not be tolerated here, and that you will not be vilified in this space simply for being from a traditionally oppressed group. It creates a safe space for those of us who find the majority of the discourse online to be dehumanising, sexist, racist, shaming of gender and sexuality, etc., etc..

    Years of lurking and then posting on Pharyngula have made me a better person: more aware, more socially-concious, more (gasp!) humanistic. Try listening to the content here, not the tone. You won’t find anyone called out for their inherent traits, their backgrounds, their health issues, all the myriad things that make them themselves. You will, however, hear plenty of stupidity- bashing and bigot-shaming. You see, stupidity and bigotry can (ha, in theory!) be cured. All you need to do is argue in good faith with valid points. People here will attack your ideas, not what makes you you – unlike the rest of the world.

    If you can’t do that, then, well, lurk more.

  128. Brownian says

    You do attract the best and the brightest, don’t you?

    That’s why I’m known as “King of the Virgins”.

    So many petitioners seeking my blessing, so little time.

  129. Ogvorbis says

    Now go fuck yourself you pathetic socially retarded internet smartass.

    With the entirety of the English language to choose from, you choose to use ‘retarded’ to insult someone. Go fuck yourself, asshat.

  130. says

    #137 @Caine

    Really? Where did all that hate come from? I haven’t told one lie, haven’t insulted one person, haven’t argued against equality in any way and yet I am a horrible human being?

    I did not say it was okay to threaten people and call them a cunt. I did not say it was okay to call my daughters cunts. Just because I would judge a situation before acting does not mean I am complicit in any terrible behaviour.

    There is no back pedalling. I stand by all that I have said and will continue to follow those beliefs without resorting to personal insults against those who disagree.

    I have already explained that my use of the word shrill was a direct response to another comment wherein the phrase was used. I explained that I was not telling anyone to not be so shrill. You can go back and check the post and the hash-tagged post I was referencing.

    I also explained I don’t call anyone bitches and mangina means a different thing here than it does for you. I don’t even know an equivalent term.

    I don’t think you understand the point I am making at all. I demand equality but I see too much snarling and not enough reason from those who have reason on their side. Truth is our strongest weapon and yet it is not been given a full airing.

    You attack me when I agree with your motivation. As I stated earlier, how would that look to a newbie here? It makes us look less reasonable.

    I am sorry you think I am lying. I don’t know how to convince you otherwise. Can we remain polite though?

  131. Rodney Nelson says

    dpitman #142

    I take it that English is not your first language. Either that or you should demand a refund from your grammar school for not teaching you how to write.

    BTW, paragraphs are your friends.

  132. silomowbray says

    dpitman writing at Brownian:

    […] cause I really am making you look bad… it’s painfully easy to do.

    Very attractive moran sign you have there.

  133. Beatrice says

    So if people are actively trying NOT to learn what is being said to them, how will shouting change that?

    How are niceness and solicitousness going to change that?

  134. Brownian says

    BTW, paragraphs are your friends.

    Normally I’d agree, but dpitman’s case is really not helped by clarity.

  135. says

    Now go fuck yourself you pathetic socially retarded internet smartass.

    Cupcake, words are not your friends. You don’t know how to use them. I don’t know how to break this to you, but a socially retarded person wouldn’t have the wherewithal to be an internet smartass, let alone a highly popular internet smartass.

    Your deficiencies are showing, sweetpea, cover that up.

  136. Rodney Nelson says

    chadgething #150

    I don’t think you understand the point I am making at all. I demand equality but I see too much snarling and not enough reason from those who have reason on their side. Truth is our strongest weapon and yet it is not been given a full airing.

    We understand your point quite well. You want all these loud, shrill bitches to shut up. Just because they’re being raped and killed is no reason for them not to be calm and polite. We should all cultivate a cultured yet arrogant condescension towards misogynists, similar to the one you use towards the loud, shrill bitches.

    As has been pointed out to you numerous times, being courtly and civil has not been working for decades. The arguments have been given “a full airing” but are being ignored by those who claim these arguments don’t exist.

    Just for curiosity, in your not so humble opinion, what part of “women are human” is missing from the “women are human” arguments? Please be specific.

  137. Brownian says

    Oh, snap.
    I bet that one hurt, browian.

    I had to take some time to go pound the Naugahyde couch in my parents’ basement in which I live out of frustration at how well dpitman had me pegged, yes.

  138. Rey Fox says

    The thing that I consistently notice with these tone arguments is that the meanies never call for the nicies to alter their approach or to shut up. It’s only the nicies who want to deprive marginalized groups one of their weapons. Why is that?

  139. Rodney Nelson says

    chadgething #157

    Onlookers will notice the arguments, which is exactly why I espouse making the argument, not shouting and swearing.

    You fail to realize that “women are humans” and “women are humans, you shithead” are the same argument, only with extra emphasis in the second instance. You can be as calm and collected in your argumentation as you want. Let others be loud and raucous if that suits them.

    Your arguments against naughty, shrill words are nothing more than your personal preference. I happen to share that preference, which is why I rarely use profanity. But there are times when abusive language is appropriate. À chacun son goût.

  140. says

    Rey:

    Why is that?

    Well, if critters like chadgething actually had the courage of their convictions, they’d stop cowering here, bleating about shrill meanies and go out and convert they misogynists, show us how it’s done, ffs.

    So basically, they know they are full of shit.

  141. says

    I do believe Chadgething is lying about knowing about Stonewall. The progress of the conversation clearly shows a person who was NOT aware that the person who referenced Stonewall was referring to the riot, not the social justice movement spawned by that riot, because he was unaware that there was a riot called Stonewall.

    And yet now you are pretending that you knew that all along. If you were honest, you’d say something like, “Whoops, I did not know that Stonewall was a series of riots in addition to being the name of a gay rights organization. Oh, you say that the organization was named after the riots? Wow, learn something new every day.” Instead, you want us to believe that you knew that all along, but you were referring to the organization because, duh people, that was the thing that was really effective, not the riots. Except that your argument undermines itself when you do that, because clearly, if the Stonewall riots gave birth to a movement and organization that you view as effective, it is dishonest to portray the Stonewall riots as ineffective. So either way, you’re not being honest.

    So why should I believe that other things you say? You reveal your ignorance inadvertently, and then you clumsily try to cover it up. What’s to say you’re not ignorant about a number of other things, including the relative effectiveness of politeness vs. shoutiness? You chastise your interlocutors for not staying within the facts, but you are the one who does not have all the facts. It’s slimy behavior you are exhibiting, whichever way you look at it.

  142. Emrysmyrddin says

    Would someone as experienced in political and social struggle as Martin Luther King Jr., help in expressing this concept to you, chadgething? He says it better than I ever could. Full text is here; it’s all relevant, but the following especially so:

    You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

    and

    We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

    and finally

    I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

    This is why ‘shouting’ and ‘insulting’ and ‘creating a racket’ is always needed alongside calm and measured debate. Because sometimes it needs to be expressed with no room for mistakin’ that the ideas and effects of those ideas being ‘debated’ are vilely and dehumanisingly out of line.

  143. consciousness razor says

    I haven’t told one lie

    This is a lie. When you say our approach to this discussion hasn’t been reasonable and hasn’t addressed their arguments, that’s a fucking lie.

    haven’t insulted one person,

    This is a lie. When you say our approach to this discussion hasn’t been reasonable and hasn’t addressed their arguments, that’s just fucking insulting. You quite evidently don’t give a shit what our reasons are or which arguments we’ve addressed — or any of the fucking content in them, just the tone — then you tell us, the people whose side you claim to be on, how we’re doin’ it rong and how bigots do have reasonable points, even though they do not and even though you never gave a good argument for that in the first place. All this nonsense is just a fucking insult to everyone’s intelligence.

    haven’t argued against equality in any way

    This is a lie. Just to pick from my own comments, since you haven’t written a jot about them, read this and this and this and this, then respond to what they say.

    You have this weird habit of skipping over them. Maybe you just have a fucking blind spot whenever the word “fuck” appears, which suggests you can’t (as you claim) argue effectively with people who use such language. Maybe you’re a liar and have no case to make whatsoever. Have you considered that “genuine (non-shouty) argument” before, asshole?

    But it’s really not just my comments. Read the whole fucking thread. I don’t think you’ve followed what’s happening at all and how ridiculous your bullshit looks.

    and yet I am a horrible human being?

    Maybe not, but what you’ve said here has been horrible enough.

  144. says

    Concern Troll:

    A concern troll pretends to be a general supporter of the site, but they have “concerns”. The idea is to undermine the consensus viewpoint by pointing out that other commenters or the site may be getting themselves in trouble in some way. They identify problems that don’t really exist and offer “helpful advice” – which, if acted upon, would actually work against the purpose of the site and general readership.

    Tone Troll:

    A tone troll is a serious-minded person who wants only to raise the level of discussion in the dire cesspits of the New Atheist web. Or, possibly, they’re a pompous blowhard who, lacking such frivolous accoutrements as an actual argument, attempts to distract attention from said deficit by complaining that their opposition uses dirty words and ought, really, to have some strict nanny figure—possibly Mary Poppins—to wash out their mouths with soap.

    Note that the presence of actual ‘dirty words’ in the traditional sense (notwithstanding that this is not uncommon on Pharyngula) isn’t particularly necessary for the use of this gambit. It is also acceptable to complain your opposition is being shrill.

    When people finally tell the tone troll to go away, it will sometimes accuse them of “kafkatrapping”, which means being so mean as not to bother explaining to an idiot why they’re an idiot in simple enough terms for the idiot to want to understand.

  145. says

    Chadgething, bubuleh, bubbeh, baby, brah:

    In the friendliest of all possible spirits, please stop replying.

    You have made two irretrievable gaffes which you cannot possibly ameliorate: suggesting that there are circumstances where your daughters could be called gender-based discriminatory names and you would do nothing, which is repellant, and using Stonewall as an example of non-violence, which is just factually incorrect. At this point, you could be saying “grass is green and water is wet” and nobody would be willing to take your word for it. You blew any chance at sounding like a rational, well-informed person on this thread long ago.

    Defending yourself is not going to stop this argument. The people who comment here are not going to let you get away with those positions, no matter how many words you waste trying to argue that it all depends on what your definition of “is” is, or telling them you would listen if only they had been polite. You have received some polite responses, mixed in with the shouty ones, and have essentially not responded to them. Clearly “polite” does not work on you, n’est-ce pas?

    The only hope you have, at this point, if you really want this to blow over, is to stop posting these attempts at self-justification. And if you want to lose your now-fairly-entrenched reputation for Tone Trollism so that we can take you seriously elsewhere, you need to apologize — and I mean a real apology, not “I’m sorry, but [self-justification]”. That may seem tough, but by long precedent it is definitely the way Internet comment sections work: if you want your opponents to stop replying, you yourself need to stop. The only conclusion one can draw at this point is that you are not interested in actual, convincing argument but rather in just making noise.

  146. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    I don’t think you understand the point I am making at all. – chadgething

    Yes, we do, if only because it’s one we’ve heard hundreds of times before. But we don’t agree with you. Are you capable of understanding that rather simple point?

  147. says

    and yet I am a horrible human being?

    Might be okay for someone to call my daughters cunt, have to weigh the situation, wot?

    Horrible human being. Full Fucking Stop.

    Outright liar. Caught in lies multiple times. Keeps denying having lied.

    Horrible human being. Full Fucking Stop.

    Keeps nattering on about how those poor, misunderstood misogynists might have a point.

    Horrible human being. Full Fucking Stop.

  148. bobo says

    #127

    Caine, yes I hear you. This was brought home to me yet again in another forum, where I was told that our entire society is working on giving advantage to women, and pushing down men, because men do all the fighting and risking of lives in the military to protect the womenfolk.

    I have also heard the argument that women should be forced to gestate fetuses, b/c menz are forced to go to war!

  149. Ogvorbis says

    The Stonewall riots led to the Stonewall movement. I thought that was self evident…

    Then you don’t read your comments.

  150. says

    #133 erm.. The Stonewall riots led to the Stonewall movement. I thought that was self evident…

    If you believe that is true, then it is dishonest to continue to claim that only nice, civilized, polite organizing can be effective in bringing about social change. The Stonewall riots sparked the development of the gay rights movement. The Stonewall riots are a counter-example to your claim that being confrontational and “shouty” and even physically violent NEVER works. If you were honest, then you would admit you were wrong to claim that. But you’re standing by that claim, so I conclude you are being dishonest.

  151. Esteleth has eaten ALL the gingerbread! Suck it! says

    I can never get over the accusation that someone who objects to rape threats is a “radfem.”

    Speaking AS a radical feminist, complaining about rape threats is not a “radical” position.

  152. Rodney Nelson says

    Esteleth #179

    complaining about rape threats is not a “radical” position.

    It is if you’re a rapist or rape apologist.

  153. Esteleth has eaten ALL the gingerbread! Suck it! says

    It is if you’re a rapist or rape apologist.

    True.

    But then, to the diehard misogynists, assertions that women are people is a “radical” position.

  154. Nepenthe says

    Oy, Chad, please hop on over to A Voice for Men and calmly convert those misogynists with your rational arguments. Since you’re so good at it, I’m sure they’ll be closing down the site in no time. At the very least, you’ll find out what “mangina” means.

    I’ll be awaiting updates!

  155. says

    Let’s recap, shall we?

    Chadgething: Being impolite, vulgar, and confrontation NEVER works to change minds.

    Horde: Oh really? What about Stonewall? What about Suffragettes?

    Changething: But Stonewall is a nice polite gay rights organization! You’re supporting MY claim.

    Horde: “Stonewall” was referring to the Stonewall riots, which sparked the formation of Stonewall the organization, among many others. You DID know about the Stonewall riots, right?

    Chadgething: Uhhh, I, um, YES! It’s self evident that the Stonewall riots gave birth to Stonewall the organization.

    My question for Chadgething: if it’s so self-evident, then why did you not immediately see that Stonewall was an example that contradicted your thesis rather than supporting it, as you initially claimed?

    ————————————–

    And can we discuss the fact that the Suffragettes were not nice or polite either? They got all up in people’s faces, got arrested, went on hunger strikes, were accused of all the things that Chadgething is accusing us of being–uncivilized, unreasonable, uncouth, impolite. But the premise that only men should be allowed the vote is inherently impolite, and that’s basically what we’re dealing with here.

    Chadgething as said that he prefers a debate to a “hatefest,” but I don’t see how you can possibly have a debate with people who maintain that women are inherently inferior ABOUT whether or not women are deserving of equal rights WITHOUT it turning into a hatefest. Unless his only criterion for “hatefest” is the amount of naughty words that are being used. Which seems to be the case.

  156. Nepenthe says

    @Esteleth

    I continue to maintain that if such buffoons were confronted with actual radical feminist they’d shit themselves.

  157. says

    #171 @caine
    Point out one lie. Give me an example of the use of cunts and I’ll tell you whether I would or wouldn’t be acceptable. As I have previously said, at the moment it will almost certainly be unacceptable as they are 5 & 8. Give it 15 years and there may be some changes. As a scientist and Skeptic, I prefer to deal in probabilities rather than absolutes.
    I dd have the temerity to suggest that it is possible to hold a sexist viewpoint without subscribing to a hatred or desired to physically abuse women. I put forward the Church as a place where that viewpoint might originate AND said it was a view I did not support, though I could understand where it came from.

    Again, why the need to add insults. It adds nothing to the argument.

    Also, somebody (I forget the post) completely misunderstood the nature of an Ad Hominem attack earlier. This type of device is used in place of a reasoned argument and is not necessarily a directly fallacious argument.

  158. a_ray_in_dilbert_space says

    Chadgething,
    Allow me to try to explain this to you, NICELY. By all means, we should try to be civil in our discussion. We should try to treat people with respect. Unfortunately, there are some positions that are so disrespectful that they are in and of themselves violent, even if the person holding them wields no weapon. People often wonder how the genocide in Rwanda could have happened. The answer is that it was carefully planned–for decades. The mouthpieces of the Hutu kleptocracy fulminated hatred of the Tutsi, calling them cockroaches and worse, calling on the Hutu to do their duty and protect the country from the enemy within. Opression does not begin with machetes or guns. It begins with words–words that press down on the victim and make the perpetrator feel more powerful.

    Hate speech is the beginning of hate crime–even if the person voicing the hate speech never commits an act of violence. Because there will always be someone else with violence in his heart who will feel like a man because he lashed out at someone he perceived as weaker or inferior.

    Strong language directed at the powerful can comfort the afflicted even as it afflicts the comfortable. Strong language directed at one by an equal can be borne. Hate speech directed at a downtrodden group cannot be tolerated, because it encourages opression of the weak by the priveleged.

  159. jefrir says

    mangina means a different thing here than it does for you.

    We’re not going to have the fucking argument that “mangina means something different in the UK” like we had “cunt/twat means something different in the UK”, are we? Because it really. really doesn’t.
    And even if it did, PZ’s original post was clear enough about how it is used in this context for its meaning to be obvious. Anyone still confused about it at this point is remaining so deliberately.

  160. Esteleth has eaten ALL the gingerbread! Suck it! says

    Chadgething,

    Give me an example of the use of cunts and I’ll tell you whether I would or wouldn’t be acceptable.

    It is never acceptable.

    NEVER.

  161. Ogvorbis says

    Give me an example of the use of cunts and I’ll tell you whether I would or wouldn’t be acceptable.

    Okay, folks. There we have it. Anytime someone, anywhere, on the internet uses the word ‘cunt’, it is up to chadgething to decide whether or not it is acceptable. Xe is not the official arbiter.

  162. says

    jefrir:

    We’re not going to have the fucking argument that “mangina means something different in the UK” like we had “cunt/twat means something different in the UK”, are we?

    Well, according to chadgething, all the nasty, gendered slurs have “jolly, friendly” sides and meanings in the UK. Also, he went on to state that he’d have to “weigh the situation” if someone called his daughters cunt, because, you know, it might be okay.

  163. Ogvorbis says

    Shit. In my 193, substitute ‘now’ for ‘not’ in the final sentence.

    Damn consonants. How do they work?

  164. Pteryxx says

    Also, he went on to state that he’d have to “weigh the situation” if someone called his daughters cunt, because, you know, it might be okay.

    I guess asking his daughters how they felt about it would be right out.

  165. says

    I couldn’t agree more. Hate speech leads to dreadful behaviour. There are laws against hate speech in many countries and where there aren’t then we have a responsibility to speak out against hate. How we do so defines how are arguments are received. If we shut back with more hate, the ill-informed observer will assume that we are all as bad as each other. If we reply with reason and a desire to engage, not incite, our arguments attain a greater weight.

  166. Beatrice says

    Ooooh, we’ve got a Skeptic on our hands. Those are tough.

    If I hear “but it has a positive meaning in UK” never again, it will be too soon.

  167. says

    Give me an example of the use of cunts and I’ll tell you whether I would or wouldn’t be acceptable.

    It is never acceptable. Cunt, as used by others, is a term for female genitalia and it is used to demean both women and men.

    We have already had this discussion, hundreds of times, with assholes like yourself who think that because it’s used in a joshing manner in the UK (or Oz), it’s okey dokey to use it. We’re experts at this argument, while you have proved you have zero skills in arguing. Keep going down this road and you’ll hear all manner of naughty words which don’t once reference a gendered slur such as cunt.

    Also, since you seem to seriously fail at reading what other people write, go back to the first page of comments and look up Gregory Greenwood’s response to your defense of cunt. He’s in the UK, too, telling you that you are full of shit. Lots of people from the UK are regular commenters here and they all get it. Of course, they’re intelligent and not in the habit of lying every 5 seconds. And, if they are parents, utterly appalled at the notion of allowing anyone to call their children cunt.

  168. Tony ∞2012 recipient of the coronal mass erection∞ says

    joed:

    @329 Tony
    right back at ya’ Tony. Your comment probably says more about you than whatever you are aiming at.
    How venomous do you want to

    Did you even read what I wrote? I guess not since you are commenting on my tone, rather than the more important message that accompanied the harsh tone.

    It wasn’t all venom.
    What venom there was is *entirely* justified by you being a complete asshole.

  169. jefrir says

    If we shut back with more hate, the ill-informed observer will assume that we are all as bad as each other.

    Only if they make the same idiotic mistake that you are, that “polite” is synonymous with “logical” or “right”.
    If they’ve got a bit more sense they might realise that it means that we are fucking angry, that we are fed up with being treated as subhuman, and that such behaviour is not going to be tolerated any more.

  170. says

    Pteryxx:

    I guess asking his daughters how they felt about it would be right out.

    They’re females. Why would their opinion matter?

    I don’t even like sprogs and if I heard some asshole calling one a cunt, they’d get one hell of an earful from me.

  171. consciousness razor says

    If we shut back with more hate,

    You’ve confused using “naughty language” with “hate speech,” which is fucking ridiculous. Either you haven’t fucking done exactly that by implying we’re using hate speech, or you’re wagging your finger at us anyway for things we’re not actually doing, which is also fucking ridiculous.

    the ill-informed observer will assume that we are all as bad as each other

    Ill-informed like you, asshole?

  172. Emrysmyrddin says

    Let me drop you a hint, as one Brit to another:

    ‘Hate speech’ does not mean angry speech, or sweary speech. It has a pretty specific fucking definition.

  173. says

    I dd have the temerity to suggest that it is possible to hold a sexist viewpoint without subscribing to a hatred or desired to physically abuse women.

    Two things here: subscribing to hatred of, and desiring to physically abuse women. It is already well agreed that it is quite possible to be sexist without desiring to physically hurt women. If you are implying that there IS disagreement with this, then that is just another incidence of your dishonesty.

    Blurring those two things together so carelessly also looks like dishonesty, though it could just be sloppy thinking.

    So that leaves the other thing, whether it’s possible to “hold a sexist viewpoint” without “subscribing to hatred” of women.

    Like I’ve said before, if you’re simply apathetic to whether women get treated as human beings rather than ambulatory orifice-filled fucktoys or baby-making machines, rather than actively hateful towards women, and the end result of your lack of caring about women (rather than active hatred) is that you don’t lift a finger to protest when the ones who DO really hate women are oppressing them, then well. Congratulations on not “hating” women, in the dictionary sense, but from a woman’s perspective, it’s VERY hard to tell you apart from the “real” woman-haters.

    It’s my position that men who wish to avoid the misogynist label must do more than refrain from beating women or calling them cunts. They have to actively speak up against sexism, otherwise they are giving it their tacit approval.

    You don’t want to talk about this, because it describes you, as far as I can tell, Chadgething. There’s no passion in your words, just a quivering discomfort at the idea that someone might take your indifference to whether “cunt” is flung at your daughter, or any other woman, as an indication of your hatred. Too fucking bad. If you, or any other man (well, anyone really), wants to be distinguished from misogynists, then you must make yourself distinguishable.

    P.S. I’m sick–got some sort of stomach virus–so this isn’t as clear as it should be.

  174. a_ray_in_dilbert_space says

    Chadgething,
    Hate speech need not advocate violence. All it has to do is dehumanize. There are some words with such a history of hate that their very use signals an intent to dehumanize. In the US, the word “nigger” is never acceptable when uttered by a white person–hell, media insists on calling it “the N word”. Likewise, the use of “cunt” or “bitch” signals an intent to dehumanize the person on the receiving end, even–or maybe especially–if that intent is unconscious.

    Privelege is a funny thing. There are crackers in the deep south who can count their teeth on one hand, who could not formulate a coherent English sentence to save their left nut. And yet, it still galls them that a black man, however eloquent could rise to be President. In their mind, he should step into the gutter to let them pass. There are men at tea party rallies who hold up signs (usually misspelled) telling Hillary Clinton to get back into the kitchen…or worse. Being nice to such people isn’t going to buy get you far.

  175. says

    #191 jefrir
    As I have explained, here, mangina refers to the (often drunken) party act of tucking ones penis between ones legs to give the appearance of having a vagina, hence man-gina. That is where I come from and I completely understand that you may have a different meaning. My point was one purely of trivia and information.

    #192 & #193 The word cunt is flexible and does not ave only ne context. Some might use it erotically (between consenting adults, is that anybody’s business but theirs?), some use it as an insult, some use it as a playful insult when engaging in banter, some use it as an adjective or verb to accentuate an opinion. Whichever use, it is not down to me anymore than it is down to anyone else. It is a word. It’s appropriateness is defined by the context of its use.

    #188 yes. Treating women as less than human is disgraceful. Everyone should be afforded the equality of treatment and opportunity. There can be no place for privilege or ignorance.

  176. John Morales says

    chadgething:

    How we do so defines how are arguments are received.

    So what?

    How they are received is irrelevant to the actual argument’s merits.

    (Are you one of those who’d claim ‘You made a compelling argument I cannot refute, but I shall nonetheless dismiss it because you made it hatefully’?)

  177. says

    As I have previously said, at the moment it will almost certainly be unacceptable as they are 5 & 8. Give it 15 years and there may be some changes.

    Are. You. Fucking. Kidding?

    You just posited that it’s okay to use sexually-defined, misogynistic insults on women — but only if the target is old enough to understand that they and their entire gender are being debased. It was lunatic enough to say that “sometimes those words are okay”, but to use that as your judgement means that you are entirely in favor of rude, ugly discourse, and hiding behind a thin veneer of civility which applies only to critics of the behavior.

    You know what? I’ve been trying to be polite and nice and calm about this, but: shut the fuck up. You have now demonstrated amply to anyone who might be observing that you are exactly what is wrong here. It is exactly because of people like you that this continues to be a problem at all. If you don’t understand why this is a problem, after all this time, then you are too wooden-headed to understand much of anything and it is a miracle that you are even able to operate a computer.

  178. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Again, why the need to add insults. It adds nothing to the argument.

    Neither does faux politeness with nobody on one side listening to the other side, only pontificating their idiocy, be they misogynist MRAs or tone trolls.

    When are you going to supply something other than just your OPINION? By show us historically that your OPINION does work effectively time and time again. Which it doesn’t, as you have been repeatedly shown by us here.

    You aren’t discussing, you are preaching irrationality under a layer of faux civility. For example, if you are truly discussing, what would cause you to admit you are wrong?

  179. says

    the ill-informed observer will assume that we are all as bad as each other

    You didn’t even recognize yourself in the Tone Troll definition, did you? What. An. Idiot.

    Now you’re breaking out the “what about the lurkers!!1!?” whinge?
    We get lurkers breaking cover often, to say thank you, that we’ve helped open their eyes, change their minds, etc. A poster in this very thread recently did that, in a thread about a specific rape prevention item.

    Many of the regulars here were at one time lurkers. I’m one of them myself. I lurked here for two years before saying a word.

    Those who are genuinely ill-informed and actually wish to learn do fine here, tone notwithstanding. Those who have an agenda, not so much. So once again, your non-argument goes nowhere.

  180. says

    #208 John morales

    There is little point, when involved in a debate, being right if your argument is dismissed out of hand thanks to its presentation. Presentation, unfortunately, means a lot. Ask any advertising exec.

  181. chigau (無) says

    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

  182. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    Ask any advertising exec. – chadgething

    Ask a professional liar? Why?

  183. says

    As I have previously said, at the moment it will almost certainly be unacceptable as they are 5 & 8. Give it 15 years and there may be some changes.

    Ah, so you’re getting a head start on demeaning your daughters and making absolutely sure they never, ever regard themselves as full human beings, because it might be okay for others to view and treat them that way.

    And you think you’re a decent human being. My, my.

    Would someone on PET be so kind as to light the Mattir signal?

  184. says

    #209 vicar

    An adult can choose the situations they are in and the language they find acceptable or not in a way that a child cannot. I have already said that the word does not have to be a debasing swear word. If my adult daughter in 15 years time decides she finds a context where it is acceptable then that will be for her to decide. Why is it wrong for me to let her decide when she is an adult?

  185. Beatrice says

    Interesting. The use of the sacred word that is cunt depends on context. On the other hand, the use of insults can never be appropriate in a discussion. No context or argument makes it appropriate, without devaluing one’s position.

  186. says

    Beatrice:

    The use of the sacred word that is cunt depends on context. On the other hand, the use of insults can never be appropriate in a discussion. No context or argument makes it appropriate, without devaluing one’s position.

    Oh, it’s different when chadgething does it. This asshole doesn’t even have two synapses to rub together.

  187. Tony ∞2012 recipient of the coronal mass erection∞ says

    chadgething:

    If I was new to the party, shouldn’t I be granted some leeway to explore the arguments behind the discussion?

    First off, this isn’t a party.
    The effect of misogyny on women is real.
    It is demonstrable.
    Did you read the OP?
    This isn’t some abstract concept being discussed.
    Nor is this something fun being discussed.

    Secondly, no; no one is under any obligation to treat you with kid gloves because you’re new to the thread. You’ve come along tone trolling and whining about how people are using harsh language, but where are your comments denouncing misogyny?

    What is more important to you: using nice language, or condemning the actions and attitudes of misogynists?

  188. mythbri says

    Hate Speech = BAD

    Derogatory term for female genitalia that carries inescapable connotations of degrading and tearing women, men and other persons = DEPENDS ON THE CONTEXT

    Does not compute.

  189. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    The word cunt is flexible and does not ave only ne context. – chadgething

    Are you being dishonest, or just stupid? The objection is to its use as a slur – you know, as in the hypothetical case where someone called your daughters cunts.

  190. says

    Sally Strange:

    Those who have been rude to him appear to be having much more success getting a response.

    It’s always the same. The purse-lipped, prudish pearl clutchers seem to be magnetically attracted to the naughty. Tsk.

  191. consciousness razor says

    Presentation, unfortunately, means a lot.

    It does to you.

    This is saying you do not care one whit for “reasoned discussion,” like you claimed to be defending this entire time.

    Can you read? It says this: REASONED and DISCUSSION.

    Now we see (and notice we already saw this shit happening a mile away) that your argument goes something like this: “fuck reasons and fuck having any ability to discuss anything about it; just give me a warm, cozy presentation which makes me feel comfortable, no matter what it’s about.”

    FUCK THAT. Get the fuck out of here.

  192. Beatrice says

    What is more important to you: using nice language, or condemning the actions and attitudes of misogynists?

    Condemnation of actions and attitudes of misogynysts is what I want to show to lurkers, not a polite discussion over tea about merits of someone’s human and civil rights. Assholes get patted on the back enough every day, and those that suffer from their bigotry, hate or ignorance need to swallow their anger if they don’t want to lose their jobs or friends, or even family. But here, here the assholes get what they deserve. Here, their victims finally have a chance to throw bigots’ hate right back into their faces. And for those that only lurk, they can see people defending their rights, saying things that aren’t said often enough in meatlife, condemning things that aren’t condemned often enough in meatlife.

    So FUCK POLITENESS.

    I want every person who is lurking here know that misogyny (among other things) is not acceptable and that, at least here, it will not be tolerated, and that misogynists will get harsh words instead of a high five.

  193. says

    The word cunt is flexible

    No, it is not.

    Cunt:

    noun, Slang: Vulgar.
    1. the vulva or vagina.
    2.Disparaging and Offensive.
    a. a woman.
    b. a contemptible person.
    3. sexual intercourse with a woman.

    Cunt—n

    1. the female genitals
    2. offensive, slang a woman considered sexually
    3. offensive, slang a mean or obnoxious person

    usage Although there has been some relaxation of the taboo against using words such as fuck in conversation and print, the use of cunt is still not considered acceptable by most people outside very limited social contexts. Though originally a racily descriptive word in Middle English, it has been taboo for many centuries and continues to be so

    cunt

    “female intercrural foramen,” or, as some 18c. writers refer to it, “the monosyllable,” M.E. cunte “female genitalia,” akin to O.N. kunta, from P.Gmc. *kunton, of uncertain origin. Some suggest a link with L. cuneus “wedge,” others to PIE base *geu- “hollow place,” still others to PIE *gwen-, root of

    Cunt
    1. n. the female genitals; the vulva and vagina. (One of the oldest English four-letter words. Usually objectionable.) : He thought he could see her cunt through her swimming suit.

    2. women considered as nothing more than a receptacle for the penis; a wretched and despised woman. (Rude and derogatory.) : Jed announced that he really needed some cunt, bad.

    It doesn’t matter if you use it as an affectionate term for one of your mates, you idiot. The definition and usage of it don’t change.

  194. says

    Beatrice:

    Condemnation of actions and attitudes of misogynysts is what I want to show to lurkers, not a polite discussion over tea about merits of someone’s human and civil rights. Assholes get patted on the back enough every day, and those that suffer from their bigotry, hate or ignorance need to swallow their anger if they don’t want to lose their jobs or friends, or even family. But here, here the assholes get what they deserve. Here, their victims finally have a chance to throw bigots’ hate right back into their faces. And for those that only lurk, they can see people defending their rights, saying things that aren’t said often enough in meatlife, condemning things that aren’t condemned often enough in meatlife.

    So FUCK POLITENESS.

    I want every person who is lurking here know that misogyny (among other things) is not acceptable and that, at least here, it will not be tolerated, and that misogynists will get harsh words instead of a high five.

    *Clenched Tentacle Salute* You’re going to get nommed for a Molly.

  195. John Morales says

    [OT]

    chadgething:

    There is little point, when involved in a debate, being right if your argument is dismissed out of hand thanks to its presentation.

    Showing that one is right is the point of making an argument.

    When the purpose of presenting it is to convince others and others dismiss it because of its presentation, then the fact is that those others are unwilling to be convinced on the merits of the argument and are therefore irrational.

    Presentation, unfortunately, means a lot. Ask any advertising exec.

    Arguments are about showing the validity of propositions, not about having them accepted.

  196. says

    Presentation, unfortunately, means a lot. Ask any advertising exec.

    We aren’t in the business of professional lying. We present actual arguments. None of which you have managed to counter, by the way.

  197. Matt Penfold says

    I am sorry you think I am lying. I don’t know how to convince you otherwise. Can we remain polite though?

    You have not been polite. You have been civil, but that is not the same thing as being polite. You admitted to commenting from a position of ignorance, and that it is not polite. Lying about being polite is also not polite. Failing to apologise for either is also not polite.

    You do not seem to very good at being polite.

    Can you explain your hypocrisy, other than it simply being down to your being a bit of an arsehole ?

  198. a_ray_in_dilbert_space says

    Chadgething,
    Sigh! OK, let’s try this.

    There are some attitudes that do violence by their very nature, and if we are to have a civil and inclusive society, we must make clear that these attitudes are unacceptable–that possessing such an attitude toward vulnerable groups by its very nature places you beyond what is acceptable. Ways of doing this include ridicule, chastisement and shunning.

    Holding that women (or Mexicans or African Americans or GLBT…) are not fully human or not worthy of respect falls into this class. It does so precisely because of the history of violence and intimidation of these groups. The appropriate response to hate speech is not discussion but ostracism.

  199. jefrir says

    Chadgething

    As I have explained, here, mangina refers to the (often drunken) party act of tucking ones penis between ones legs to give the appearance of having a vagina, hence man-gina. That is where I come from and I completely understand that you may have a different meaning. My point was one purely of trivia and information.

    What do you mean by “here”? Because I am not American. I’m from the UK. In fact, according to your facebook profile, I work at the same fucking university that you study at (something I am not happy about. We have enough morons)
    I have come across two uses for “mangina”:
    1. As an insult for a man considered to be feminine, weak, or controlled by women, or,
    2. As a body-shaming reference to trans* people – something that I would class your meaning as a subset of.
    This thread has added a third, a reference to a gay man’s anus, which I hadn’t come across before, but which fits in perfectly with the general pattern of homophobia and sexism and the interaction between the two.
    None of these uses is acceptable. They all use femaleness as an insult. And, again, the context in PZ’s post was clear enough for the meaning to be obvious to anyone with the slightest clue about sexism or sexist language.

  200. Mattir says

    Haven’t had a chance to catch up totally, but at least we know why the Ghey Secks line is not moving, I think the Louis Queueueueue people are having a lot more fun.

    Sigh. Shall I try to teach you some stuff so you can lose the virginity, dear Brownian? We can even do it on the Naugahyde sofa if you insist.

  201. Brownian says

    Sigh. Shall I try to teach you some stuff so you can lose the virginity, dear Brownian? We can even do it on the Naugahyde sofa if you insist.

    [Nervously gulps.] Yes’m.

    But we’ll have to wait until my folks leave for vacation. I’m not allowed to have female friends over unless I leave the door open.

  202. says

    So, Gregory Greenwood does not agree that a word can ave many meanings. Is that really the only source required to determine that the UK des not accept any social use of the word cunt.
    One person does not make a country. One person does not define a language. Language is an organic and constantly evolving thing. Words enter and leave the language, words change their meanings, words can become socially acceptable or lose that privilege.

    Historically, cunt was considered a polite term. It is now considered the worst profanity in English by many, yet still retaining some of its historical meaning and “appropriateness”. When I was told by a cycling fried after 60 miles that her “cunt hurt” i was not offended and neither did I find it inappropriate. We both understood what was said, the context etc. neither of us were damaged by the experience. The word is not the problem. It’s use in a threatening or abusive context is…

    …just like a knife.

  203. says

    Mattir:

    Haven’t had a chance to catch up totally

    I await your response to this little gem by chadgething, on his daughters being called cunt:

    As I have previously said, at the moment it will almost certainly be unacceptable as they are 5 & 8. Give it 15 years and there may be some changes.

  204. says

    #234 @jefrir

    You work at a University and have never been subjected to the sight of an inebriated student rugby male, pretending to be a lady? It isn’t pleasant and could be construed as demeaning to women, though I do not think there is that thought in their heads. I have never heard it referred to as anything else, until now.

  205. Matt Penfold says

    Chad,

    Can I just remind you that you need to address your earlier lack of honesty.

    Ignoring people who have pointed out you are not polite, and have lied is not polite.

    Are you being deliberately rude, or are you just a fucking idiot ?

  206. strange gods before me ॐ says

    A few more laughs at Al Stefanelli’s expense. Over at the slimepit, he writes:

    Funny thing about that thread pertaining to me (Privileged owner of the official White Cock of Authority),

    Notice his dishonesty. He is still suggesting that privilege is simply about being “born with light skin and with a penis.” Multiple times, people have explained to him that this is not true. He is too dishonest to care about accuracy. This is amusingly a self-defeating strategy, though; how is he going to keep sharp his critical thinking skills if he engages only with his own self-constructed strawfeminists, rather than with the actual positions of people he disagrees with?

    But I promised a few more laughs. They can be found here:

    some people felt the need to link back to my blog post on atheism plus, white male privilege and the rapey thing as if I would either be,

    a) Surprised by it
    b) Embarrassed by it

    Either one or the other, eh? No option (c)?

    “Some people”: I’m the only one who linked to it, and I know why I did it — in fact, I said why I did it — for the sake of laughing at him.

    That doesn’t require his involvement; he doesn’t need to be surprised, nor embarrassed, nor does he even need to understand why we are laughing at him. The enjoyment of laughter is inherently rewarding.

    He is so thoroughly self-centered, that even though I talked about him rather than to him (with only one exception, obviously not related to his blog post), and even though I did not invite any response from him,

    he still thinks I was linking to his old blog post for him. The possibility that I linked it for my own and others’ amusement does not register, even though I stated it explicitly. It’s like he can’t even comprehend something if it doesn’t conform to his expectation that I ought to be addressing him rather than other people.

    I still find it quite amusing that these people are accusing me of being anti-women, anti-gay, anti-latino-, anti-black and to be lacking in either critical thinking skills or skepticism, in general.

    Heh. A sure sign of a serious problem with one’s critical thinking skills and skepticism is this certitude that there couldn’t be any such problem. Those of us who take critical thinking seriously don’t assume we’re doing it right. We try to do it right by taking seriously the possibility that, at any time, we might be screwing up. Cognitive biases aren’t just something other people have.

    And wait, who called him anti-gay?

    I didn’t notice anyone calling him anti-women, but let’s grant that people have said things which he might have honestly misunderstood.

    But then who called him anti-latino?

    Who called him anti-black?

    Where did any of that happen? Ctrl-F suggests he’s referring to this comment by Tony, but Al has distorted it wildly. Suggesting he wouldn’t care if his friends are racist against Latinos is not the same as saying he is racist against Latinos. Here’s a song about the difference.

    Stefanelli’s dishonesty is transparent, and it isn’t doing him any favors. Oh well. I get to have fun watching him trick himself. Dealing with actual criticisms would help him; but watching him convince himself that it’s all “Jedi mind tricks” is lolworthy, reminiscent of creationists saying the Devil has deceived us.

  207. mythbri says

    @chadgething #237

    The word is not the problem. It’s use in a threatening or abusive context is…

    …just like a knife.

    Oh, I see. Then I’m cool to call your daughters, your wife possibly, if you’re married, “cunts”? It’s okay if I think they deserve it, or if I’m being “jolly” and joking around? In that case, then their right to be offended, and yours, depends entirely on my personal intentions, and the context I’ve decided to use it.

    Or it’s only not-okay if I mean to hurt them?

  208. Nepenthe says

    I have never heard it referred to as anything else, until now.

    In your valiant work at AVfM you’ll have plenty of chance to hear “mangina” used in the wild. How’s that going, btw?

  209. Pteryxx says

    Hey now, I’ve seen (and danced with) some darned pleasant-looking gay rugby males in drag. Gee, what could the difference be? Maybe that… misogyny and bigotry are ugly?

  210. Esteleth has eaten ALL the gingerbread! Suck it! says

    Historically, cunt was considered a polite term.

    Citation needed.

    Because no.

    Also, a woman saying “cunt” is not equivalent to a man saying “cunt,” for the same reason why slurs in general are different when used by the group the slur is traditionally used against.

    I am mind-boggled by your insistence that “cunt,” a term that in its literal meaning refers to female genitalia, when used to refer to a man in our male-supremacist and patriarchal society in an insulting manner (you can argue that this insulting is friendly in some situations) is not in and of itself a sexist statement. Insulting a man by calling him a woman is not inherently implying that women are lesser than men, really?

    Honestly, I hope that your daughters can find some good role models. Because they don’t have one in you.

  211. Matt Penfold says

    I have never heard it referred to as anything else, until now.

    Your ignorance is evidence of nothing, other than your ignorance and you desire to inflict it on us.

    Yet another example of you not being very polite, as you are admitting to what seems like willful ignorance.

  212. Nepenthe says

    Strange gods, LeftSidePositive brought up this lol-worthy contrasting post over at B&W.

    Money quote:

    Bigotry is learned. The smaller children were probably just curious because in their world men never carry a purse. I doubt they had the moxie to think it anything other than odd or childishly amusing, however they did know enough to “report it.” No, it was the older teens who appeared to have had their bigotry training already well under way, and the parting shot I got from the older boy only solidified my disdain for religious indoctrination.

    I’m not sure if the lesson is a) learned bigotry is only bad when it’s directed at me or b) bigoted language is only bad when religious people use it.

  213. says

    #227 @caine

    Your own source describes cunt as being unacceptable outside limited social contexts. That does suggest that it is acceptable in certain, limited social contexts. Yes? I don’t think I have argued anything other than that.
    Also, your source is not expansive and all-encompassing and seems to be the first from Google. When you look at Wiki, the result is a little more blurred:

    Cunt ( /ˈkʌnt/) is a word that primarily describes the female genitalia, particularly the vulva, and is widely considered to be vulgar.[1] The earliest citation of this usage in the 1972 Oxford English Dictionary, c 1230, refers to the London street known as Gropecunt Lane. Scholar Germaine Greer has said that “it is one of the few remaining words in the English language with a genuine power to shock.”[2]
    Cunt is also used as a derogatory epithet referring to people of either sex. This usage is relatively recent, dating from the late nineteenth century.[3] Reflecting different national usages, cunt is described as “an unpleasant or stupid person” in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, whereas Merriam-Webster has a usage of the term as “usually disparaging and obscene: woman”,[4] noting that it is used in the U.S. as “an offensive way to refer to a woman”;[5] the Macquarie Dictionary of Australian English states that it is “a despicable man”, however when used with a positive qualifier (good, funny, clever, etc.) in Britain, New Zealand and Australia, it can convey a positive sense of the object or person referred to.[6]
    The word appears to have been in common usage from the Middle Ages until the eighteenth century. After a period of disuse, usage became more frequent in the twentieth century, in parallel with the rise of popular literature and pervasive media. The term also has various other derived uses and, like fuck and its derivatives, has been used mutatis mutandis as noun, pronoun, adjective, participle and other parts of speech.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunt

  214. says

    Historically, cunt was considered a polite term.

    Do you ever stop lying? It was not. I provided the origins of the word in the definitions list.

    Oh, and yes, everyone here knows Chaucer used it. Apparently, you’re too fucking thick to understand that usage as well.

  215. Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞ says

    johnmarley:

    Tony, I’m sorry to include you on this list. Your abilty to admit when you are wrong is a credit to critical thinking. (Damnit, I wanted to use “skepticism” there, but that term has been irredeemably corrupted)

    No apologies are necessary.
    I fucked up.

  216. Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞ says

    rocketman @15:
    Why in the ever loving FUCK would you wear misogyny as a badge?
    You’re proud to hate women?

    I hope you NEVER have children. Infecting a new generation with your disgusting views would be a tragedy.

  217. says

    @249 Nepenthe

    That was the first post if Al’s that I ever read. It resonated with me. And when he started this nonsense with Reap it just…blew me away.

    It was that post by Al that made a small, dark part of me want to scream every ableist and homophobic slur I could at him to see if it could some how make a point.

    Instead I just had to walk away. I don’t understand the dissonance required for a man who’s own life has been so impacted by ingrained bigotry to not understand how he is helping to perpetuate the exact same type of bigotry against women.

  218. Nepenthe says

    Historically, cunt was considered a polite term.

    Citation needed.

    Here.

    Of course, since the term has been considered obscene since the 16th century, this argument is only valid for a person who just fell out of a time machine.

  219. says

    #251 &#252 @caine @emrysmyrddin

    Where it says,

    “Cunt is also used as a derogatory epithet referring to people of either sex. This usage is relatively recent, dating from the late nineteenth century.[3] ”

    I think that clearly implies that prior to the late 19th century, it’s usage was not exclusively derogatory. The article also points to regional differences in its usage.

    It doesn’t change my feeling that it is a terrible word when used aggressively. It is a bit like a knife…

  220. Nepenthe says

    I think that clearly implies that prior to the late 19th century, it’s usage was not exclusively derogatory. The article also points to regional differences in its usage.

    So fucking what? You’re not an 11th century Londoner strolling down Gropecunt Lane. This is irrelevant public masturbation. Seriously, do that inside.

  221. Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞ says

    SGBM:
    Al is really that thick that he thinks I said he was racist?

    And my opinion of him continues to plummet. My opinion of him has hit pretty much rock bottom.

  222. w00dview says

    Chadgething, I’m curious about one thing. Do you know who else is frightfully uncivil and rude? Misogynists! Many have asked if your technique of polite, reasoned debate has worked on websites such as AVoiceForMen or the Slymepit. Have you tried them out yet? You really should and you should screencap the conversations and post them here to show us uncouth savages how it is done. Because if you are only tut tutting at us for being rude but ignoring actual misogynists for saying way worse shit, then you do not actually give a shit about equality or civility and just want to silence women for having the temerity to not just lie down and take all the crap that vile bigots fling at them. And that kind of behaviour is far more despicable than saying “fuck” now and then.

  223. Matt Penfold says

    How is Chaucer’s usage of a word proof that it was polite or acceptable? Chaucer used a fair bit of obscenity in Canterbury Tales…

    Presumably Chad thinks that bareing his backside at passers-by is polite behaviour.

    But then Chad thinks lying is being polite, so it would seem his standards are seriously skewed.

  224. Nepenthe says

    How is Chaucer’s usage of a word proof that it was polite or acceptable?

    Given what I recall of “The Wife of Bath”, it’s use in Chaucer is an argument against it’s being polite or acceptable.

  225. jefrir says

    Oh FFS. Yes, using “cunt” to refer to actual genitalia may be okay (though still potentially problematic). This does not mean that calling someone a cunt is okay. In the same way, the fact that “bitch” can be acceptably used to refer to a female dog does not make calling someone a bitch acceptable.
    And as far as I can tell, the only significant difference between the US and the UK is that here the usage tends to be less gendered. In the US, “cunt” seems to be directed primarily at women, in much the same way that “bitch” or “cow” are, whereas here the usage is much less gendered. This removes one layer of sexism from the term, but does not render it unproblematic. It has the same denotational meaning (as you have just shown in your comment), which is the main reason for it being sexist. It is also still extremely insulting – it is about the only swearword you won’t find on the BBC, for example. And the fact that terms for female genitals are among our strongest swearwords, while terms for male genitals are mild, and even admiring at times, should be a bit of a clue that there is some sexism involved.

  226. John Morales says

    [meta]

    And I see the thread is debouching into yet another linguistic disputation about the relative inoffensiveness of a gendered slur.

    The use of derogatory epithets either as terms of endearment or references between friends relies on the fact that they are considered offensive outside that context, expressing the belief that the friend shan’t be offended thereby and thus affirming the mutual confidence in each other.

    chadgething:

    When I was told by a cycling fried after 60 miles that her “cunt hurt” i was not offended and neither did I find it inappropriate.

    Yeah, right.

    Try asking a non-friend or stranger whether her cunt hurts after a long ride, and see how well she takes it. Try asking a bloke you don’t know about his wife’s (daughter’s, sister’s etc) cunt and see what reaction you get.

    (As an aside, I note that for a self-professed advocate of politeness, you sure like to offend this blog’s consensual mores)

  227. A Hermit says

    Chad, stop and think about where you are…a blog post commemorating the misogynistic murder of fourteen women…and what are you doing here? Arguing for acceptable uses of the word “cunt…”

    Is this what you call “civil” or “reasonable”?

    Really?

  228. Emrysmyrddin says

    …sigh. And before the late nineteenth century, what did the word ‘cunt’ refer to? Now, why has it transformed into an epithet, considering its root etymology? Do you think it might have something to do with the societal attitudes towards the subject of that etymology?

  229. consciousness razor says

    Your own source describes cunt as being unacceptable outside limited social contexts. That does suggest that it is acceptable in certain, limited social contexts. Yes?

    Nope. A dictionary is not an ethical treatise, which says what is or isn’t acceptable while giving reasons for justifying such a claim. We don’t just cite a book or online reference like it’s a fucking holy text and an authority on “what is acceptable.” Do you understand? We actually have to think about that kind of shit, then make decisions about it.

    Seriously, what kind of fucking feminist makes these shit arguments? Can’t you just fucking leave? Don’t you have a shred of decency left?

  230. says

    w00dview:

    Many have asked if your technique of polite, reasoned debate has worked on websites such as AVoiceForMen or the Slymepit. Have you tried them out yet? You really should and you should screencap the conversations and post them here to show us uncouth savages how it is done.

    He’ll never do that, because he knows he’s wrong, he knows he’s a liar and he knows he’s full of shit. He’d actually get along with them all too well.

  231. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Brownian,

    SG, Stefanelli might be referring to my repetition of those comments on B&W.

    Can’t be. He made his comment before yours. The mention of Latinos is new in his rhetoric, afaict, so I’m pretty sure it’s a response to Tony’s comment.

    I shamelessly cribbed from your work on this thread. I’m sorry.

    Ah, I can barely muster a meh. Pointing out the same facts I mentioned is just not a thing I care about.

    +++++
    Nepenthe,

    I’m not sure if the lesson is a) learned bigotry is only bad when it’s directed at me or b) bigoted language is only bad when religious people use it.

    Weird. Also maybe c) bigoted language is only unseemly when youth do it.

  232. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    It is a bit like a knife…

    Only in your delusional mind, which nobody cares about the OPINIONS therein. Your OPINION versus evidence…YOU LOSE EVERY TIME.

  233. Nepenthe says

    Chad, how’s it going over at AVfM? Have you been called a “mangina” yet?

    *taps mic* Is this thing on? Why can’t Chad hear me?

  234. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Tony,

    Al is really that thick that he thinks I said he was racist?

    He acts that thick. I believe it’s outright dishonesty — but lying to one’s self can cause stupidity, so it might be both.

  235. jefrir says

    It is a bit like a knife…

    And what you are doing is saying that the fact that knives are used to prepare food means that it is sometimes okay to stab people.

  236. Esteleth has eaten ALL the gingerbread! Suck it! says

    Here’s the thing about knives:

    They are designed to be destructive.

    They cut, they slash.

    Now, it is possible to use them properly and ethically (to cut food, to open boxes, etc), but they are designed to damage and destroy.

    Using knives as an analogy for bigoted language is a bit better than chadgething knows!

  237. says

    Jefrir:

    And what you are doing is saying that the fact that knives are used to prepare food means that it is sometimes okay to stab people.

    Well, as long as you stab them in a friendly, jolly manner.

  238. John Morales says

    [OT]

    Nepenthe @258, your citation only shows that it’s an old word, not that it was not vulgar.

    (That a term is not derogatory doesn’t entail that it’s polite)

  239. Matt Penfold says

    Well, as long as you stab them in a friendly, jolly manner.

    And so long as you do not say fuck, it is almost polite!

  240. Esteleth has eaten ALL the gingerbread! Suck it! says

    That a term is not derogatory doesn’t entail that it’s polite

    QFT.

    Once upon a time, the word “moron” was the proper, non-derogatory term for a person with mental retardation.

    That does not mean that it was polite (or that it is polite today).

  241. hypatiasdaughter says

    #121 Janine: Hallucinating Liar
    Thanks for the link. I shall read it & hope that my illusions won’t be shattered…..again (SIGH!)

  242. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Brownian,

    I am pretty sure the individual does not have HIV. Unless I missed something. But I am reading comments from them which only make sense if they do not. So, unless you know otherwise, I think you’ve inadvertently picked up a slimepit lie.

  243. w00dview says

    Oh believe me Caine, I know he won’t ever practise what he preaches. I just wish tone trolls went and actually scold the bigots about their behaviour for once. The fact they don’t speaks volumes about their sincerity.

  244. Brownian says

    I am pretty sure the individual does not have HIV. Unless I missed something. But I am reading comments from them which only make sense if they do not. So, unless you know otherwise, I think you’ve inadvertently picked up a slimepit lie.

    Oh, for fucks sake. Thanks, SG.

  245. jefrir says

    And what you are doing is saying that the fact that knives are used to prepare food means that it is sometimes okay to stab people.

    Well, as long as you stab them in a friendly, jolly manner.

    Well obviously. You wouldn’t want to be rude about it.

  246. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Why is chadge so enamoured of his knife metaphor?

    Penis stand-in.

    Ah, that explains a lot [/armchair psycohology]

  247. chigau (無) says

    Great.
    Now I’m thinking of “That’s not a knife, this is a knife.” from Crocodile Dundee.
    Only not with knives…

  248. insipidmoniker says

    I find this whole analogy disgraceful. Knives are damned useful and, contrary to the apparent belief of misogynists everywhere, I’ve never had any luck preparing dinner with screamed sexual slurs.

  249. says

    insipidmoniker:

    I’ve never had any luck preparing dinner with screamed sexual slurs.

    Most likely because you haven’t been screaming sexual slurs in a friendly, jolly manner. That’s the secret.

  250. says

    #205 @sallystrange

    Sorry to take so long getting to you and thank you for being calm and reasoned. I assure you, my delay in responding was only due to having to go through lots of posts. I am not great at focus and get sidetracked easily!

    Sorry to hear you are unwell. I wish you a speedy recovery. I myself am recovering from a bout of norovirus. Very unpleasant.

    I sincerely apologise if I have misread everybody’s posts on here but I am sure that there are several that have amounted to “if you are sexist then you are supporting these MRA bullies and their threats”.
    I do not agree with that position but in disagreeing with that position I appear to ave given the impression that I do not reared women as equal to men or, in some eyes, as even being human! I gave the example of the Church of England, not because I support tem but because I see in them an organisation which is institutionally sexists and misguided in its gender roles, yet one that abhors violence against women in its doctrine. This, to e, seems to be evidence of a position where women are regarded as inferior yet “protected” against treats of violence. Having sad this, and I cannot reiterate this point strongly enough, I do not agree with their position o women in society. I believe the church is sexist and needs to step into the 21st century. I, along with many who have posted, cannot fully comprehend why there are some (especially some who are well educated) who do not, canno or will nt accept that women and men are deserving of full equality of opportunity. In every fied, discrimination should only be etween individuals and asked on their skill sees, never on generalisations suc as gender, sexuality, race, physique etc…
    Where I differ from some, and where I ave attracted much scorn, is that I honestly feel that my arguments carry more weight and are more likely to be listened to (even if not accepted) if I present them rationally and calmly. I will not resort to profanities when making an argument or when trying to dissect a position I disagree with. I encourage others to do the same and to channell the understandable anger that as built up. I do worry that people who are new to theses circles and do not now the history may indeed look at these posts in the way (as was put to me) that a teacher arriving at a fight in a playground might. Punishing both because they are both fighting rather than only punishing the bully. I do not believe this means we should be a doormat to aggressors. Aggressors should be reported to the authorities, warnings sent to other groups and, if necessary, they should be blocked. The more angry and aggressive we sound when trying to argue against mysoginy, the less reasonable I fear we will sound.

    I know there are those who want me to crawl under a stone and never show my face again. I’m not sure that this helps. I would have thought that the more voices there are to a cause the better. I say to you with all honesty and sincerity, I have never lied here, and I am a bit surprised that some accusations and deliberate mis quotations are being laid at my door. Equality is something I care deeply about and no matter how many unfounded comments are made against me, worst of all, there are those who are misrepresenting my comments and using my daughters to insult me. I can’t say what i would do in every circusance, so i say i would judge a situation, yet that reasoned approach is represnted as intansigence or an approval of cursing my daughters. It s untrue and unfair. My daughters are precious to me and are being raised to judge people on more than just a poor choice of words, on more than appearance, to be critical in their thinking and examine people’s motives before rushing to judgement. If we meet a 90 year old hick who has only ever called black people “negroes”, we would not call him racist if ze said “I ain’t had negroes in ma house befow”. I would rather say that we use a different term now and judge him on his actions. Sorry, I am rambling now.

    I won’t stop fighting for equality. I will just do it my way and leave the swearing to others.

    Apologies also for typos. My iPad is playing up!

  251. insipidmoniker says

    Please don’t stop fighting for equality, and you certainly don’t have to adopt someone else’s tactics to do so, but GO FIGHT FOR EQUALITY AND STOP TELLING EVERYONE HERE THEY’RE DOING IT WRONG!

  252. bobo says

    #300

    Sorry to hear you are unwell. I wish you a speedy recovery. I myself am recovering from a bout of norovirus. Very unpleasant.

    He is so “polite” and “well-spoken”, it makes my head hurt!

  253. bobo says

    ugh, I screwed up quotes and forgot to preview

    should read

    Sorry to hear you are unwell. I wish you a speedy recovery. I myself am recovering from a bout of norovirus. Very unpleasant.

  254. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    He is so “polite” and “well-spoken”, it makes my head hurt!

    Makes my trigger finger itchy with phaser set to torture…

  255. Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞ says

    chadgething:

    I don’t know what MRA stands for other than I see it is used as an insult. I don’t know who their spokespeople are, but I am certain that if I was to debate them, I could dismantle any sexist arguments they put forwards which reduced women in standing. My certainty comes not from arrogance but from the fact that I would be arguing from the side of the truth.

    You self absorbed fuckwitted arrogant fool.
    Do you honestly think no one has tried this before?
    Do you think no one has ever dismantled their arguments before?

    By all means, continue with your arrogance.

    But do it somewhere else.

    None of this is shallow or stupid. Can’t we all stay reasonable?

    Yes, it is shallow and stupid. Again, you pretend reasonable discourse hasn’t been tried before. You also assume that reasonable discourse is the *only* way to reach people.
    I don’t know if you’ve been in a school before, but just as there are multiple ways of teaching, as well as multiple ways that people learn, there are also multiple methods of arguing.

    Please stop mansplaining.
    Please stop tone trolling.
    Please stop telling people to adopt YOUR methodology.
    Please stop condescending.

    Above all, recognize that this subject is deeply personal for many people, and they have every right to be pissed off.

  256. says

    Please stop mansplaining.

    Oh, Tony, chadgething is well past mansplaining* and into full on hoggling.

    *Besides, this will be yet another word/designation which chadgething doesn’t understand, but will be willing to pontificate on until all our brains are bleeding out of our noses. At this point, mockery is the safest route for us.

  257. mildlymagnificent says

    I don’t think you understand the point I am making at all. I demand equality but I see too much snarling and not enough reason from those who have reason on their side. Truth is our strongest weapon and yet it is not been given a full airing.

    “… not been given a full airing.” Excuuuuse me.

    I and millions of other women have done the polite argument thing. We’ve done it to death. And while we were doing it, many of us were living under the reality of violence and the fear of death in our own homes. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1988-08-07/features/8801210310_1_marcia-cohen-women-protest-germaine-greer

    I did most of my 1970s arguing in the time honoured mode of women seeking the indulgence of powerful men in my fucking twinset with my fucking pearls and arguments backed up with facts, statistics and impeccably framed analysis. Step by infinitesimal step we got equal pay for some women. We got refuges and safe houses for some women.

    And the whole time we’re getting these incremental, new and wonderful things, women kept on dying, one by one, at the hands of their husbands, fathers, boyfriends, exes, any bloke at all who hated a woman for any reason at all. So when Marc Lepine blasted his way into our consciousness, were we surprised?

    I hate to say this. I didn’t cry. I didn’t rage. I wasn’t shocked. I was, for a day or two, a bit downcast.

    And that is the fucking reason why we have to keep on fucking fighting and telling fucking lackwits like you to keep your worthless fucking opinion to yourself.

    Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

  258. consciousness razor says

    I sincerely apologise if I have misread everybody’s posts on here but I am sure that there are several that have amounted to “if you are sexist then you are supporting these MRA bullies and their threats”.

    We’ve already established that you can’t read or think very well.

    Let’s think about two bigots.

    The first says this: “I am a bigot who says bigoted things, and I lend my support to [violent act of bigotry].”

    The second says this: “I am a bigot who says bigoted things, and I do not lend my support to [violent act of bigotry].”

    What difference is there? The difference is in what they claim to support.

    Here’s the thing: I don’t care what they claim to support. I don’t care if they really support it, even they though claim not to. I only care about the effect of their bigotry and what it supports (namely, violence). They may not believe that is the effect. They may not think that is the kind of effect it should have, meaning that they don’t want it to have that effect. But that doesn’t matter at all. Not believing it or not wanting it doesn’t make it so. Their words and actions do in fact support violence, whether they like it or not.

    In case you haven’t gotten the message, it’s not all about them. It’s not all about you either, assuming you are any different from them. So just go away.

  259. broboxley OT says

    #250 chadgething I personally don’t give a rats ass if you call everyone in your family cunt, your co-workers cunts, your boss and your pastor cunt.

    What I do care about is that you come here, a thread memorializing women killed by a man because they didn’t know their place and starting insisting that you, a presumed man can call people cunts and the women and others could like it so there.

    You were told that language was unacceptable HERE and should not be used in general.

    You persist that you are a (TM)nice guy but don’t understand why you can’t, shouldn’t use that word.

    You are probably the 257,942.25 man to visit these blogs to do exactly that so I imagine that some folks were probably short with you.

    So either get the idea that word is off the table for usage here, modify your personal speech to eliminate your usage elsewhere and grow a little. Or not, entirely up to you.

    If the decision is not, on your way rejoicing then, elsewhere

  260. says

    mildlymagnificent:

    I did most of my 1970s arguing in the time honoured mode of women seeking the indulgence of powerful men in my fucking twinset with my fucking pearls and arguments backed up with facts, statistics and impeccably framed analysis.

    I did mine in jeans and India cotton hippie shirts, but other than that, same thing.

  261. says

    Well, thank you all for the discussion. I see that some of you have been looking at my Facebook profile so if you want to invite me back (I know, unlikely), you can always leave a message there for me. Until then, I’ll just lurk for a while.

  262. John Morales says

    [OT]

    chadgething:

    Where I differ from some, and where I ave attracted much scorn, is that I honestly feel that my arguments carry more weight and are more likely to be listened to (even if not accepted) if I present them rationally and calmly.

    Well, your argument (you “honestly feel that”) is specious and vapid, so though it may be calmly presented, it’s hardly rational — and yet I’ve “listened” (you meant ‘considered’, I know) to it.

    Using your own method, I can rebut you thus: you’re wrong because I feel otherwise.

    (How compelling do you consider that little parallel-form argument? ;) )

    Sorry, I am rambling now.

    You composed an apology, yet followed it by posting that for which you apologised?

    <snicker>

    (You really are a neophyte at being credible; you could have avoided the apology altogether, were you truly apologetic)

    I won’t stop fighting for equality. I will just do it my way and leave the swearing to others.

    You forgot to add that you’ll keep on chiding those who use vulgar language (have you seen any oaths here?) whilst fighting for equality.

    (Bah)

  263. Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞ says

    chadgething:

    #110 So if people are actively trying NOT to learn what is being said to them, how will shouting change that?

    Who said it’s an attempt to change anything?
    Perhaps it’s just a matter of having our voices heard.
    Perhaps it’s a matter of telling them-AND THE PEOPLE AROUND THEM (especially those that are perhaps more responsive)-that we aren’t going to sit down and shut up.

  264. says

    Bobo:

    Have you guys ever dealt with female trolls as bad as chadgething, nolajim, joed etc?

    Oh yes. Some of the worst have been chill girls, those who choose to immerse themselves in sexism. Needful Carp and Renee Hendricks come to mind. Then there were ones like Barb…

  265. Nepenthe says

    I know there are those who want me to crawl under a stone and never show my face again.

    I don’t want you to crawl under a stone. I want you to go show us how it’s done at A Voice for Men*. Wow us with your amazing ability to calmly and civily argue that rape should not, in fact, be de facto legal.

    *Though going to AVfM is equivalent to crawling under a stone.

  266. Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞ says

    dpitman:

    Now go fuck yourself you pathetic socially retarded internet smartass.

    This.
    Is.
    Not.
    Cool.

    Take your ableist slurs elsewhere fuckface.

  267. says

    Chadgething, who are these people?

    Geneviève Bergeron (born 1968), civil engineering student
    Hélène Colgan (born 1966), mechanical engineering student
    Nathalie Croteau (born 1966), mechanical engineering student
    Barbara Daigneault (born 1967), mechanical engineering student
    Anne-Marie Edward (born 1968), chemical engineering student
    Maud Haviernick (born 1960), materials engineering student
    Maryse Laganière (born 1964), budget clerk in the École Polytechnique’s finance department
    Maryse Leclair (born 1966), materials engineering student
    Anne-Marie Lemay (born 1967), mechanical engineering student
    Sonia Pelletier (born 1961), mechanical engineering student
    Michèle Richard (born 1968), materials engineering student
    Annie St-Arneault (born 1966), mechanical engineering student
    Annie Turcotte (born 1969), materials engineering student
    Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz (born 1958), nursing student

  268. bobo says

    #320 yeah, I am still waiting for chadgething to visit ‘a voice for men’ and debate them in a polite manner!

    why on earth does he keep ignoring you? hmm?

  269. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Well, thank you all for the discussion.

    There was no discussion. There was you preaching fuckwittery, and us refuting you with evidence. You lost…

    Until then, I’ll just lurk for a while.

    Why bother, just go away. You have nothing cogent to say anyway. Tone trolls are so boring, so evidenceless, and so wrong…

  270. Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞ says

    Oh, and thanks to Nepenthe, who served as the inspiration for my ‘nym change :)

  271. Emrysmyrddin says

    People are angry with you because the implication of your very first posts was that your way was superior and we are all Doing It Wrong. If you can’t step back from yourself for just a second and see how offensive and condescending that attitude is, well, you’re no loss.

  272. Rawnaeris, FREEZE PEACHES says

    GodDamn

    chadgething, first fucking rule of fucking holes is Stop Fucking Digging!

    —-

    @PZ, thanks for posting this, as I am of an age to be unaware that it occurred.

    Regulars, once again, you are fantastic. I’ve also never heard bout the Stonewall Riots, so that it came up is a major learning opportunity for me. I have some studying to go do on the start of the Gay Rights movement.

    —-

    [OT]
    Nepenthe and Tony, The Queer Shoop would make a fantastic name for a yarn store.

  273. Pteryxx says

    Regulars, once again, you are fantastic. I’ve also never heard bout the Stonewall Riots, so that it came up is a major learning opportunity for me. I have some studying to go do on the start of the Gay Rights movement.

    ^ This. I at least knew to connect the word ‘Stonewall’ with ‘riots’ but not the surrounding culture, nor that Pride marches happen at the end of June to commemorate the date.

    …I joined my gay guild during an online Pride march; that was the first I’d ever heard of such a thing. *snif*

  274. says

    Wow…even I knew about the Stonewall Riots. Weird. I’d never heard of the Montreal Massacre though. Also weird.

    On the other hand, other people didn’t know about the Stonewall riots and are learning. I got to learn about the Montreal Massacre. That’s a positive value of these comment threads that has nothing to do with civility/politeness. In fact, the more heated these conversations get, the more strong facts come to bear, and the more opportunity there is for teaching/learning.

  275. says

    Damn, but you are a wordy motherfucker, Chas!

    Sorry to take so long getting to you and thank you for being calm and reasoned. I assure you, my delay in responding was only due to having to go through lots of posts. I am not great at focus and get sidetracked easily!

    Sorry to hear you are unwell. I wish you a speedy recovery. I myself am recovering from a bout of norovirus. Very unpleasant.

    See, now I wish I’d been ruder. I don’t want your smarmy concern or unctuous pleasantries. I want you to answer the questions and the charges I laid before you.

    I sincerely apologise if I have misread everybody’s posts on here but I am sure that there are several that have amounted to “if you are sexist then you are supporting these MRA bullies and their threats”.

    That is true. If you are sexist, then you are supporting the same ideology that led Lepine and others to murder women, just because they were women.

    I do not agree with that position but in disagreeing with that position I appear to ave given the impression that I do not reared women as equal to men or, in some eyes, as even being human!

    Also correct! You appear to be far more concerned about maintaining politeness than you do about advancing women’s equality! If your concern about politeness did not eclipse your concern for equality, then you would chastising misogynists, rather than feminists, for their lack of politeness. Yet here you are. You can claim whatever you want, but the facts are this: for at least a day, you thought it was more important to yell at those who support women’s equality for not being nice than it would be to try to convince some misogynists to wise up and treat women as equals. Actions speak louder than words.

    I gave the example of the Church of England, not because I support tem but because I see in them an organisation which is institutionally sexists and misguided in its gender roles, yet one that abhors violence against women in its doctrine. This, to e, seems to be evidence of a position where women are regarded as inferior yet “protected” against treats of violence. Having sad this, and I cannot reiterate this point strongly enough, I do not agree with their position o women in society. I believe the church is sexist and needs to step into the 21st century. I, along with many who have posted, cannot fully comprehend why there are some (especially some who are well educated) who do not, canno or will nt accept that women and men are deserving of full equality of opportunity. In every fied, discrimination should only be etween individuals and asked on their skill sees, never on generalisations suc as gender, sexuality, race, physique etc…

    Blah fucking blah. If the CoE supports sexism, then its claims of wanting to protect women are irrelevant. The fact is that sexist attitudes of protectiveness hurt women directly in every day life. And sexist attitudes like that lead directly to the murder of women by their intimate partners and by mass killers like Lepine. So what if they think they’re protecting women? THE ARE FUCKING WRONG. The facts don’t back them up.

    Where I differ from some, and where I ave attracted much scorn, is that I honestly feel that my arguments carry more weight and are more likely to be listened to (even if not accepted) if I present them rationally and calmly.

    Your honest belief, like the CoE’s honest belief that sexism protects women from abuse, is not grounded in facts. We have seen this argument over and over again, with regards to sexism, ableism, religious bigotry, and so on–every time, we ask for evidence that rationality and calmness win the day over impassioned anger or any other emotional response. Every time, nobody can provide this evidence, because there is none. You present no reasoning nor any evidence, just your “honest belief.” Congratulations, you don’t THINK you’re lying–you’re just deceiving yourself. Is that any way to go through life?

    I will not resort to profanities when making an argument or when trying to dissect a position I disagree with. I encourage others to do the same and to channell the understandable anger that as built up. I do worry that people who are new to theses circles and do not now the history may indeed look at these posts in the way (as was put to me) that a teacher arriving at a fight in a playground might. Punishing both because they are both fighting rather than only punishing the bully. I do not believe this means we should be a doormat to aggressors. Aggressors should be reported to the authorities, warnings sent to other groups and, if necessary, they should be blocked. The more angry and aggressive we sound when trying to argue against mysoginy, the less reasonable I fear we will sound.

    If you want to filter everything you say through the lens of what a hypothetical person with no knowledge of the situation might think, feel free. I think it’s a bloody waste of time. Newcomers can ask questions, or read, or go away. I’m having a conversation with YOU, not the imaginary constructs you apparently talk to all the time.

    I know there are those who want me to crawl under a stone and never show my face again.

    Whine some more, I’m sure that will help sway people to your perspective. Since, as you say, the content of your argument doesn’t matter, I suppose all you have is appeals to pity or whatever. Funny, it’s not working on me.

    I’m not sure that this helps.

    Based on what you’ve said here, your silence would probably be the most helpful thing. Maybe you’re not such an idiot when you’re offline, who knows.

    I would have thought that the more voices there are to a cause the better. I say to you with all honesty and sincerity, I have never lied here, and I am a bit surprised that some accusations and deliberate mis quotations are being laid at my door.

    More does not always equal better. That’s a pretty basic truism. As far as your lying goes, simply asserting that you never lied is not sufficient. I brought a specific question, which you will have to answer if you want me to believe that you haven’t lied. The question is this:

    When you said that it was “self-evident” that the Stonewall riots led to the development of the Stonewall organization, why did you not also then acknowledge that Stonewall is indeed an example that shows that your thesis–that being calm and rational is the SUPERIOR strategy in ALL cases–is wrong? Why did you point to the organization, and why did you avoid acknowledging the riots, if you DID know about the Stonewall riots? Why did we have to explain the reference to you? Why does your claim of knowing all about the riots contradict the words you typed in the progress of that conversation?

    There are others, relating to why you assumed that “polite” approaches have not been tried by anyone you’re talking to. Other have pointed out those inconsistencies better than I can right now.

    Equality is something I care deeply about and no matter how many unfounded comments are made against me, worst of all, there are those who are misrepresenting my comments and using my daughters to insult me.

    See, for me, it wouldn’t even enter into the equation, what other people say about me. I’m a feminist regardless. You know what I think? I think you are one of those totally fucking useless conditional allies. Another type we’re sadly all too familiar with–the men, and women, who say, “I totally WOULD have supported feminism, if it weren’t for those mean nasty feminists saying mean things about me!” Sounds like getting a few insults on a blog chat board is enough to make you consider whether it’s all worth it. Sounds to me like you want to make sure that all the other people out there, who, like you, aren’t completely convinced that this is a fight worth fighting, but might do it if they get enough cookies from the people they’re supposedly fighting for, get an easy reception wherever they go. This would benefit you, since you’d also be off the hook for making sure your intentions match your actions. Hint: they haven’t, so far.

    I can’t say what i would do in every circusance, so i say i would judge a situation, yet that reasoned approach is represnted as intansigence or an approval of cursing my daughters.

    Yep, that’s exactly what it looks like. Especially since you haven’t been able to offer a concrete example of a situation in which it WOULD be appropriate to stand by idly when someone called your daughter a cunt.

    It s untrue and unfair.

    Nope, it’s a fair conclusion based on what you wrote. You should have written something different if you wanted people to reach a different conclusion.

    My daughters are precious to me and are being raised to judge people on more than just a poor choice of words,

    You mean, you’re training them to NOT call out bullshit? You’d prefer them to refrain from pointing out when you say stupid shit, like we’ve done here, I suppose.

    on more than appearance, to be critical in their thinking and examine people’s motives before rushing to judgement.

    Motives are nice to know but irrelevant to this conversation, which revolves around something you apparently can’t understand: intent is not magic. Whether a sexist person INTENDS to prop up the misogynist ideology that led to the murder of 14 innocent women is irrelevant, because the fact is that saying sexist things and doing sexist thing DOES prop up that misogynist ideology, whether you want it to or not.

    If we meet a 90 year old hick who has only ever called black people “negroes”, we would not call him racist if ze said “I ain’t had negroes in ma house befow”. I would rather say that we use a different term now and judge him on his actions. Sorry, I am rambling now.

    “Befow”? What the everloving fuck, why are you suddenly trying to write in dialect? This is just bizarre. Look, my approach would be to tell Grandpa that black people generally don’t like to be referred to as negroes, and if he didn’t want people to think he’s a racist, he’d say “black person,” or “African-American” (being that I’m in the USA) instead. If he insisted on saying negro, well, then I’d tell him he’s a fucking racist. And if you were there and tried to step in and tell me to be nicer to the old bastard, I’d tell you to stop enabling his racism.

    I won’t stop fighting for equality. I will just do it my way and leave the swearing to others.

    Well gee, if all you wanted to do was announce that you don’t want to swear, then why did you storm in telling us that WE shouldn’t swear either, when you can’t offer a smidge of evidence for your “honest belief” that that is the best approach? I don’t care if you don’t swear. Plenty of people don’t swear. I certainly don’t swear all the time. I do have a fucking problem with people trying to police my language, on the basis of an “honest belief” which is totally unfounded in reality.

    In conclusion, fuck you.

  276. says

    Someone upthread pointed out that when Chad said we ‘didn’t understand his point at all’, he was wrong. We understood; we just strongly disagreed. (Sorry, I wanted to read the whole thread and can’t find the post now.) I think this was spot on, and Chad seems to be one of those people who is so convinced that he is right that he cannot even comprehend that others could disagree, if only they had the sense to understand his wisdom.

    What a dope.

  277. John Morales says

    [meta]

    Paul K, you’re paraphrasing, so I can’t point you to the specific comment — but be aware this is page 2 of the comments.

    To further one point SallyStrange made, I personally tend not to use what is quaintly described as profanity, yet I can be exceedingly offensive even so.

    (Argumentum ad lexico is particularly fatuous)

  278. says

    John:

    I personally tend not to use what is quaintly described as profanity, yet I can be exceedingly offensive even so.

    Chad was noxiously insulting, nasty and offensive throughout the thread.

    Even at his last gasp of continued tone trolling and straw-vulcaning (vulcanning?), he managed to use hick* and stereotypical dialect, both very nasty things to do.

    *Apparently, in Chad’s world, hick meets the veddy polite standard.

  279. Maureen Brian says

    Paul K @ 840,

    That, or something remarkably similar, was posted by Nick Gotts – should be easy to find if you ‘Control+f’ on the first page of comments.

  280. says

    Ahh, I missed that yesterday

    These are called horrible events by our media, and invariably used as reasons to hate men by the feminists, their blue gun thug Gestapo, and their talking head lackeys. The young men are almost always emotionally distraught, driven to desperation by a feminazi society that has tried to trample him into dust.

    Every year, every month, every day, every hour, men are driven to suicide by the evil feminazi hate machine…

    Hellooo, Paula Kirby
    So, can you see some parallels in rethoric here?
    I hope you are very proud of yourself for using the same language and lending credibility to people who honour and worship a man who would have killed if he could. And all your chill-girl attitude wouldn’t have saved you that day, because all they care about is that you’re awoman in a man’s place.

    chadgething

    All I wanted was to try and encourage our arguments to stay with the facts. This is why I don’t comment more. I agree with much of what you say, but because I say it in a different way, I get personal insults. I don’t like being called names, unless I know the people are joking. Here, I feel the hate has spilled over on to me.

    That “whoooosh” sound you heard was the point flying over your head.
    You don’t get criticised for using and prefering a different approach and language. You get criticised for insisting that everybody else should do the same, especially when telling people who’s humanity gets called into question and who are marginalized and threatened with violence how they fucking should behave in response to that.

    So if people are actively trying NOT to learn what is being said to them, how will shouting change that?

    So, it might not change their minds. But you know what it does? It gives a clear message that this is unacceptable behaviour. It supports the victim who might feel alone and helpless. You know what polite disagreement does? It leds them credibility, as if this were a point of debate like whether it would be better to built the road tracks here or there.

    I did not say it was okay to threaten people and call them a cunt. I did not say it was okay to call my daughters cunts. Just because I would judge a situation before acting does not mean I am complicit in any terrible behaviour

    The fact that you would need to carefully examine all the facts before you did something to support your daughters is all I need to know about you.
    If somebody called my daughters a cunt I know what to do. And I would first, very first support them. And then I’d get the little fucker and make clear in no uncertain terms* what they just did and what I think of it. And yes, that’s pretty independent of what my precious monster-offspring did.

    *which would indeed vary according to the age of the person

    Give me an example of the use of cunts and I’ll tell you whether I would or wouldn’t be acceptable.

    Hey, so we’Re back to the “if she didn’t want to be called a cunt she shouldn’t have behave like one”

    Again, why the need to add insults. It adds nothing to the argument.

    But it does a lot for my mental health, asshole.
    Why? arguing without insults with you has brought nothing. Actually, it got me ignored by you. OTOH, you reply to Caine. Looks to me like her approach works.

    Brownian
    May I congratulate you for apparently having become the pit’s most favourite hate-figure, only outranked by Rebecca Watson herself?

    ‘King of the Virgins’

    So that’s why this line isn’t getting shorter…

    *memo to self: 700. Now get yourself to the kitchen, woman!*

  281. Pteryxx says

    ‘Nother reflection on the massacre, by an engineering professor who describes the sexism of the time:

    http://fayehicks.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/in-memory-ecole-polytechnique-dec-6-1989/

    It’s sad to think that in the late 1980s women in engineering were still expected to put up with so many of these humiliating practices and attitudes. Most women engineers would have never even considered speaking out against them – lest they be branded “feminist” – a very dirty word indeed in those days – at least in engineering circles. We engineering women strove to ‘fly under the radar’, to ‘not make waves’, lest we wear out our welcome (such as it was) in the engineering world.

    The massacre at the École Polytechnique on December 6, 1989 was unquestionably the turning point in changing these attitudes – it caused a complete paradigm shift, at least in the engineering schools across Canada. The murderer was a self-proclaimed anti-feminist, and so for men to continue to harbour these antiquated attitudes immediately invoked a comparison to this murderer’s attitudes and thus (by default) his actions. And so it finally became unfashionable to be chauvinistic in one of the last bastions of male chauvinism. As a result, women were no longer reluctant to complain about chauvinistic practices in engineering.

  282. Pteryxx says

    From the Ada Initiative:

    http://adainitiative.org/2012/12/connecting-the-dots-everyday-sexism-and-the-ecole-polytechnique-massacre/

    Praise of Lépine’s as a hero by modern men’s rights activists is more evidence that his actions are part of a larger societal movement. In the end, 14 women died because they were women at an engineering school, in a society that feared the growing power of women.

    Murder of women in technology, death threats to women in technology, and nasty comments about women in technology are not the same thing, but they grow from the same roots and support each other. Words lead to actions, words support actions, words are themselves actions. The next time you want to speak up about sexism in technology, but aren’t sure why it matters, remember the École Polytechnique massacre, and the way that words grow into deeds.

  283. says

    Nick Gotts

    Are you being dishonest, or just stupid? The objection is to its use as a slur – you know, as in the hypothetical case where someone called your daughters cunts.

    Well, one wouldhope that he isn’t present should their partner use it during sexytimes.

    chadgethig

    When I was told by a cycling fried after 60 miles that her “cunt hurt” i was not offended and neither did I find it inappropriate

    God you are dense.
    Nobody has talked about womenusing the term for their own genitalia. The whole discussion was about somebody calling your daughters a cun the whole time.
    ALL your hypothetical scenarios in which it might be OK have already been excluded by that premise.

    The earliest citation of this usage in the 1972 Oxford English Dictionary, c 1230, refers to the London street known as Gropecunt Lane.

    So, the polite historical use is “sexual assault”…

  284. jefrir says

    So, the polite historical use is “sexual assault”…

    Well, more likely prostitution. Streets were often named for the main business of the area; Baker Street, Tannery Lane and so on.
    Still not seeing how that makes it an acceptable thing to call someone, though

  285. Maureen Brian says

    How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.

    That’s Elizabeth Barrett Browning – Sonnets from the Portuguese, XLIII – who was obliged to take to her bed for many years in order to avoid being treated as part of the household equipment, as indeed was Florence Nightingale, in her case for decades. Both, fortunately, had the strength of character to stay there and do what they were good at.

    Now, to mark the brief appearance here of chadgething and in the hope that he is gone forever, let us turn that into “How do I despise thee?” and test his claims that (i) he is always polite and (ii) that politeness is the best way to win an argument, test both against the facts.

    Scene the First: PZ puts up a note to remind us that Thursday 6th was the anniversary of a massacre and takes the opportunity to remind us briefly that the attitudes which led the terrorist to see those killings as a solution are still about. So far, so uncontroversial.

    By comment 12 we are experiencing one of a series of incoherent ranters making for the first time the ridiculous point that PZ is complaining about people daring to disagree with him and not about the hatred and ill-treatment of women. This point will be repeated, more or less verbatim, throughout.

    (As a Brit I feel obliged to ask whether, had PZ put up a memorial note about Pearl Harbor the very next day, we would have been beset by so many trolls. Almost certainly not – even if he had made some wild peacenik / internationalist statement in his final paragraph.)

    Anyway we proceed to yet another round of people who want to discuss Topic A versus people who are absolutely determined that they should not. None of the latter advances a hair worth splitting, let alone an argument but they keep going anyway. Classic silencing behaviour.

    And into this morass, at comment 433, steps chagething the newbie. With no idea who he is talking to, what has previously been discussed and by whom, what the formal rules are and what are the agreed if not formalised standards of behaviour but he doesn’t need all that. He’s going to tell us how to do it!

    He begins with the threadbare notion that we are all as bad as each other, proving that he has not even read the 432 preceding posts. Then he asks if there are no-shouty arguments. Note to passing idiots – the decibel level does not affect in any way the quality of an argument. He then goes on to talk about himself, mostly, for any number of subsequent posts. And apart from that failing to grasp facts, failing to take on board just how much experience others have, how often different methodologies have been tried or even, sadly, that there is a whole world beyond the end of his willy.

    No! Everything since the Big Bang must be seen through the eyes and compared only with the limited experience of chadgething. And he cannot see, for the life of him, that it is he who is being rude. Can he see, I wonder, that if he walked into this house now and changed the station on the radio that would be rude, very rude? The radio can be switched back to the right station: righting a derailed thread is less simple yet he expects praise – praise for attempting to make a thread all about him when he has nothing to contribute.

    For the avoidance of further pain and vomiting, let us skip to his supposed attempt to set things right with SallyStrange, comment 800, and the imortal phrase, “I sincerely apologise if I have misread …..”

    And did his pretended politeness win an argument? No.

    Yes, chadgething, you have misread, and failed to grasp and patronised and lectured people with very great expertise and treated a whole bunch of us as idiots. Why would we not complain at such treatment? You are also bloody hard work to read – in my eyes a capital offence. As for those daughters – I suspect you are still lurking out there – if they really are 5 and 8 then the chances are that they have already run into certainly sexism, probably misogyny.

    Perhaps you should be asking yourself why they have not seen fit to tell you or to ask for your help in dealing with its negative effects. (Some self-awarenes required, of course.)

    And I just have to say this. Fuck you and the bloated ego you rode in on.

  286. Emrysmyrddin says

    QFT@849.
    Morning, all. I see Chad’s disappeared into the aether again. Hopefully, it’s to read up. I am, however, a natural cynic.

  287. says

    CHADGETHING: You are hereby condemned to the Thunderdome. You are not allowed to post in any other thread under penalty of banning.

    He’s such a nice polite fellow, I’m sure he’ll voluntarily consent to my order to confine himself to the unmoderated thread.

  288. says

    This horrible, senseless tragedy was not the result of misogyny . It was caused by insanity . ]
    When someone is deranged and incapable of rational thinking , murder and mayhem will happen
    from any insane thinking, whether misogynist, racist, anti-semitic or whatever .
    The overwhel,ming majority of men do not go around shooting women out of hatred .

  289. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    The overwhel,ming majority of men do not go around shooting women out of hatred .

    Then you missed the point. Those men who don’t condemn other men who have misogyny perpetuate the hate, which can lead to violence, including the violence caused by madmen. Try again with a cogent argument against that, not the strawman you erected.

  290. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    So, robertberger, what excuse do you have for the fact some MRAs refer to the murderer as Saint Marc Lépine? Is that also just insanity with no misogyny needed?

    Wave those hands!

  291. says

    This horrible, senseless tragedy was not the result of misogyny .[…]
    The overwhel,ming majority of men do not go around shooting women out of hatred .

    the overwhelming majority of insane people don’t shoot anyone for any reason either. fuck you, for both your ableism and your denialism of misogyny

  292. Beatrice says

    robertberger,

    Among other shit you managed to pack in a single comment, you contradicted yourself.

    “This horrible, senseless tragedy was not the result of misogyny”

    “murder and mayhem will happen
    from any insane thinking, whether misogynist, racist, anti-semitic or whatever”

    So… you say it wasn’t misogyny but insanity, then you say it was insane misogyny. You have a really hard time following a single thought throughout a paragraph, don’t you? Tough, that.

    Other than that, calling him insane is such an easy cop-out. Once you proclaim the perpetrator insane, his motives became insignificant. An extreme consequence of a misogynistic culture? Nah, he was just insane. But why did he attack women and say he was triggered by feminism and women “stealing” positions in his desired field? Doesn’t matter, coincidence, who cares – he was insane. It’s a really convenient tool, that, for both dismissing any inconvenient reasons you rather wouldn’t have more deeply investigated and putting down people with mental illness.

  293. opposablethumbs says

    robertberger, you are an idiot. Actually, you’re worse than stupid – you’re deliberately closing your eyes to make quite sure you won’t see. Several other commenters have already explained this.
    .
    You know, the vast majority of ordinary everyday racists don’t actually go out and lynch somebody. But when one of them does, they are buoyed up and supported and encouraged by all those other ordinary everyday racists and the things they say and think and the jokes they make and the general social environment they create.
    .
    And the vast majority of ordinary everyday homophobes don’t actually go out and assault or kill somebody either. But when one of them does, they are buoyed up and supported and encouraged by all those other ordinary everyday homophobes and the things they say and think and the jokes they make and the general social environment they create.
    .

    All the points in this whole thread went whistling right over your head, didn’t they? Or didn’t you even bother to read any of them?

    Idiot.

  294. says

    @ Pteryxx, #845:

    I know that neither you nor the author of that post intended it that way, but talking about dark clouds having silver linings in the context of a murder always makes me uncomfortable because it seems to imply that another would be welcome.

    “‘Twas a grand year for chrysanths, 1939, I wish we could have another one like it.”

  295. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Here is a hint for you, chadgething; explain just how cunt was a polite word at one time in the Thunderdome.

    If you think the problem is that you agree, just in a different way, you really do not understand what is going on.

    Oh, by the way, have you used your calm and friendly style on some MRAs?

  296. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    My word! I’m banned for agreeing with people in the wrong way?

    You aren’t banned, or your post wouldn’t have gone through. What you are is limited to the Thunderdome, where rudeness abounds, for terminal tone trolling and not listening to our responses.

    You continue posting here, the banhammer will fall. PZ always gives a polite warning….

  297. Brownian says

    May I congratulate you for apparently having become the pit’s most favourite hate-figure, only outranked by Rebecca Watson herself?

    It’s an honour, to be sure. I’ve noted it in my diary, right under “saw two magpies fighting in an empty KFC bucket.”

  298. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Nerd, not always.

    Well, the Slymepit denizens are under a blanket warning. Some folks are so offensive they don’t survive long. Poor chadgething has been “polite” with its preaching, so a warning is typical.

  299. Emrysmyrddin says

    You’ve not been banned, you’ve been confined to the Thunderdome for obtuse and epic derailment. Post anywhere else and you’ll get a love-tap from the Hammer of Banneration. You won’t physically feel it, but it’ll entertain the rest of us nonetheless.

  300. Amphiox says

    This horrible, senseless tragedy was not the result of misogyny . It was caused by insanity . ]
    When someone is deranged and incapable of rational thinking , murder and mayhem will happen
    from any insane thinking, whether misogynist, racist, anti-semitic or whatever .

    Insanity + misogyny = murder and mayhem in this particular case.

    So, how is this NOT the result of misogyny again?

    You fail logic, my friend.

  301. opposablethumbs says

    Chadgething, I hope you do drop in at the thunderdome. I dare say you’re a well-meaning sort of chap, but even being genuinely well-meaning doesn’t give a person carte blanche to ignore messages such as the (several times repeated) explanation that while polite and dispassionate may be your preferred mode you are a) NOT welcome to try and insist that everyone else adopts the same mode and b) VERY welcome to actually try polite-and-dispassionate out on those with whose substantive points you presumably disagree – e.g. avowed misogynists, examples of whom were offered to you upthread.
    .
    Seriously, instead of telling off the victims and their supporters for their immoderate language, why don’t you tell off the perpetrators. You know, the ones sending women threatening emails, the ones posting women’s rl names and addresses, the ones threatening physical violence, rape, murder. You were given several links.
    .
    And you did promise us that you could tie them all in knots with your eloquence and erudition.
    .
    If you can get even one of these people to actually stop sending threats to some of the posters here, I would be genuinely impressed and would genuinely, sincerely thank you. (that last bit is NOT snark, btw)

  302. says

    Geneviève Bergeron (born 1968), civil engineering student
    Hélène Colgan (born 1966), mechanical engineering student
    Nathalie Croteau (born 1966), mechanical engineering student
    Barbara Daigneault (born 1967), mechanical engineering student
    Anne-Marie Edward (born 1968), chemical engineering student
    Maud Haviernick (born 1960), materials engineering student
    Maryse Laganière (born 1964), budget clerk in the École Polytechnique’s finance department
    Maryse Leclair (born 1966), materials engineering student
    Anne-Marie Lemay (born 1967), mechanical engineering student
    Sonia Pelletier (born 1961), mechanical engineering student
    Michèle Richard (born 1968), materials engineering student
    Annie St-Arneault (born 1966), mechanical engineering student
    Annie Turcotte (born 1969), materials engineering student
    Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz (born 1958), nursing student

  303. says

    chadgething

    8 December 2012 at 12:38 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment

    My word! I’m banned for agreeing with people in the wrong way?

    under normal circumstances I’d take this to the thunderdome, but given that chad managed to break parole instantly upon returning here, I guess it makes no difference anymore. so:

    I already figured chad wasn’t the sharpest tool in the shed when he claimed to be able to use the census to prove to MRAs that it’s not true that 97% of women are whores. But posting to complain that you can’t post just fucking takes the cake: on the one hand, if someone really thinks they’re banned, why would they try to post? On the other hand, you’d think being able to post would have clued one in as to the fact that they weren’t banned, and maybe resulted in re-reading PZ’s post.

  304. says

    Maureen Brian:

    And apart from that failing to grasp facts, failing to take on board just how much experience others have, how often different methodologies have been tried or even, sadly, that there is a whole world beyond the end of his willy.

  305. says

    Chadgething, you eternal fuckwit – attempt to read and think. You are confined to posting to Thunderdome, not banned. How could you post successfully if banned? Idiot.

    Please, go on over to the Thunderdome, helpfully linked in the sentence above. People have questions. This is assuming you haven’t been completely eaten by your overwhelming stupidity.

  306. says

    There are lots of men with misogynist attitudes, but they don’t go around slaughtering women .
    The young man who committed this hporrendous act was just plane INSANE deranged, loco, coocoo for cocoa puffss, nuts, bonkers.

  307. Beatrice says

    robertberger,

    You sure love repeating yourself. I notice that you don’t address any of our comments.

  308. says

    There are lots of men with misogynist attitudes, but they don’t go around slaughtering women .
    The young man who committed this hporrendous act was just plane INSANE deranged, loco, coocoo for cocoa puffss, nuts, bonkers.

    No, he was not insane. The cultural attitudes and the men he was surrounded by agreed with his hatred, his inability to accept women as actual human beings and thereby encouraged and enabled his actions. He had approval from his peers, you fuckwit.

    Now, as it’s obvious you have not read the thread, nor any of the specific responses to your tired drivel, here’s a protip: get a new shtick, cupcake. Or, given that you’re not all that bright, you could just leave.

  309. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Funny how some of those MRAs call Marc Lépine a saint. Almost as if they want to be like him.

    Watch those hands wave!

  310. says

    Beatrice:

    You sure love repeating yourself. I notice that you don’t address any of our comments.

    The asshole’s trolling, and in a very dim manner. Much more of this, I’ll send an alert.

  311. mesh says

    robertberger,

    This horrible, senseless tragedy was not the result of misogyny . It was caused by insanity . ]
    When someone is deranged and incapable of rational thinking , murder and mayhem will happen
    from any insane thinking, whether misogynist, racist, anti-semitic or whatever .
    The overwhel,ming majority of men do not go around shooting women out of hatred .

    The dehumanizing of marginalized groups often leads to violence against them. Most people have the mental capacity to connect the dots and realize the dangers of hate speech hence why there’s often laws against it even in freeze peach zones. I see that you’ve merely opted for the convenient cop-out of “oh, he was just crazy” without any supporting evidence for such a charge. So being the shining exemplar of rational thought that you are what with being a sane human being and all I’m sure you’ll have no problem appealing to a legitimate diagnosis by a qualified mental health specialist in your very next post in order to drive your point home (Hint: Armchair psychologists idly speculating about what disorders his actions could be consistent with after the fact does not count). After all qualified experts understand that “insanity” has a basis in biological and environmental factors which influence behavioral and cognitive patterns and is not just an autopilot rampage mode that comes sweeping out of left field.

  312. says

    This has been a very entertaining thread. If you could see my mailbox now…it has apparently become a meme among idiots that I think everyone who disagrees with me is equivalent to a mass murderer.

    Did you know there are only two possible points of view: you are either a radical feminist, or you are screaming sexist imprecations at women? By expressing my contempt for woman-hating extremists, I have announced that every person who is not out castrating men is an evil monster.

    That’s the way their little minds work, I guess.

    You know that your blog is evidence of who you consider is and is not a “woman-hating extremists” right?

    Anyone that disagrees with you on feminists issues = woman-hating extremists
    Woman-hating extremists = mass murders
    Therefore: Anyone that disagrees with you on feminists issues = mass murders

  313. says

    There are lots of men with misogynist attitudes people who are insane, but they don’t go around slaughtering women .
    The young man who committed this hporrendous act was just plane [sic] INSANE deranged, loco, coocoo for cocoa puffss, nuts, bonkers misoginist, sexist, male supremacist.

    fixed.

  314. says

    Janine:

    Funny how some of those MRAs call Marc Lépine a saint. Almost as if they want to be like him.

    Yes. Here’s just a taste of it:

    Feminists argue that the feminists who were killed on December 6 by Marc Lepine were just innocent females in school. Nonsense. Each of them was a foot soldier in the feminist war on men. Each of them was pretending to be a man, taking a man’s space in a limited number of technical school enrollments. None of them were working toward a decent life as a wife and mother. All of them were practicing the hate and destruction of feminism. Marc Lepine didn’t just shoot everyone at the technical school. He carefully selected only the feminists and gave the others time to get out of the way. Feminists are afraid of being targeted by men of courage, but their day is coming. They try to hide and pretend that Marc Lepine was “attacking women” but he was specifically attacking feminists.

    The thought that a MAN could stand up and fight the feminist onslaught instead of quietly being driven to suicide as so many men die every day has been very frightening to feminists. They have used December 6 as a banner day of increased hatred of men. In Canada the counter attack against feminism is remembered by their talking head lackeys as a day for stopping violence against females. They never talk about ending their violent destructive war on men and boys. They deny the responsibility of feminism as the underlying cause of violence and destruction in our land.

    Throughout our land the blue gun thugs have become the femiNazi Gestapo. When a femiNazi wants to take your children, take your money, or bind you into slavery, it is not she but the blue shirt Gestapo that come to your home, destroy your family, take your children, and drag off millions of men to Folsom, Walla Walla, Auschwitz, Attica, or hell by some other name. This week we read about a man who fought back against the blue Gestapo and became another HERO of the people. Fighting back against the femiNazi and their minions will be a long struggle but men who sacrifice themselves in the front lines are not forgotten.

    When an evil bitch accuses a men of “advocating rape,” or “supporting abuse,” “violence against women,” etc., etc., etc., the weak response is to cower before her accusations and deny that he had any such intention. The weak response is to point to “those men over there” as the bad men and cower in a corner. That denial affirms her power and domination over men, affirms her right to decide when men are bad, while relegating men to a place of powerless acceptance of her feminist misandry. The POWERFUL reply is to own her criticism and respond with something like, “You better believe it, cunt!” The response of power denies her dominate place to rule over men, it rejects her authority to tell men what to think and feel, and it tells her that MEN won’t accept feminazi domination. By reacting with power we don’t accept their hate, judgment, and condemnation, and in fact it lets them know that we may utterly destroy them if they don’t stop their misandry. Tell them to pound sand.

    That is why it is so important to celebrate International Marc Lepine Day We must throw their “Violence Against Women” hate speech right back in their faces and tell them that men won’t be cowered by their hate. We MEN won’t accept females telling us what to think and feel. We won’t accept their hate dogma that tells us men are bad just for being born. They can take their hate speech and cram it where the sun doesn’t shine.

    Yes, the shooting and violence in our schools, malls, cities is bad, but the underlying cause is feminist domination and destruction of boys and young men. Until the cause is confronted and defeated the shooting and death is going to get worse. We can help to reduce the violence by confronting and ending violent feminist destruction as quickly as possible. When we cower and accept feminist hate we encourage more and more violence. Only by standing up and confronting the hateful bitches can we let them know we reject their misandry.

    We need to be public, to let our elected representatives that we the people do not accept feminist domination, that we won’t vote for feminist lackeys. Today is a day for every MAN to write a letter to his Congresscunt and local media talking head and letting them know we are watching and celebrating. Today is a day for MEN to stand up and be counted.

    Happy St. Marc’s Day to everyone.

    Source

  315. Beatrice says

    Oh for the love of…
    You’re right, Caine, I could really use killfile right about now.

  316. says

    You know that your blog is evidence of who you consider is and is not a “woman-hating extremists” right?

    Anyone that disagrees with you on feminists issues = woman-hating extremists
    Woman-hating extremists = mass murders
    Therefore: Anyone that disagrees with you on feminists issues = mass murders

    Logic, you’re doing it wrong.

    Idiot.

  317. says

    Anyone that disagrees with you on feminists issues = woman-hating extremists

    [citation needed] especially given that “disagrees with you on feminist issues” includes people who are more “radically” feminist than PZ, and given that regular commenters do often disagree with PZ on specific issues.

  318. says

    Beatrice:

    Oh for the love of…
    You’re right, Caine, I could really use killfile right about now.

    I’m about to pitch a fit over it. I am *not* in the mood for these fuckwits.

  319. John Morales says

    [meta]

    sc_mess, you are funny (if unintentionally).

    PZ: “it has apparently become a meme among idiots that I think everyone who disagrees with me is equivalent to a mass murderer.”

    You: Therefore: Anyone that disagrees with you on feminists issues = mass murders

     

    <snicker>

  320. mesh says

    Bu-but Caine, those people are just insane, they couldn’t possibly reflect on a wide culture of hate at all!

  321. says

    Mesh:

    Bu-but Caine, those people are just insane, they couldn’t possibly reflect on a wide culture of hate at all!

    Of course not, they’re all normal guys, just feelin’ dispossessed by those nasty cunts, and those evil bitchez don’t even want us to be able to talk about it!!1!

    I want my Comic Sans too. Stat.

  322. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Therefore: Anyone that disagrees with you on feminists issues = mass murders

    NOPE. If you don’t expressly condemn misogyny when you see it, you support misogyny through your silence. That is the message, which *WHOOSH* goes sailing over your head.

    Try reading Martin Luther King’s Letter From a Birmingham Jail, with you as the moderate white.

  323. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Today is a day for every MAN to write a letter to his Congresscunt…

    Perhaps Chad can tell us if this is an acceptable acceptable usage of the word.

    At Thunderdome.

  324. strange gods before me ॐ says

    She (and you) are using the old Secret Comic Sans script for Greasemonkey.

  325. says

    SG:

    She (and you) are using the old Secret Comic Sans script for Greasemonkey.

    Yes, but I thought the q tags weren’t working. If they are, CS isn’t showing in preview.

  326. John Morales says

    [OT]

    Caine, it’s the cite="creationist" parameter within the ordinary blockquote tag.

  327. Rodney Nelson says

    No, q cite = “creationist” doesn’t work.

    blockquote cite = “creationist”

  328. John Morales says

    [OT]

    Rodney et alia, cf. #897.

    (Back in the early days of FTB, ॐ rigged up a Greasemonkey script to display gumbyness, which was superseded by PZ’s tinkering with the q tag, and those running it see what others don’t)

  329. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Huh, those code tags didn’t work like I expected.

    [blockquote cite="creationist"]some text[/blockquote]
    [q cite="creationist"]some text[/q]

    but with the usual html angle brackets instead of square brackets.

  330. says

    Eh, forum software which runs reliably and predictably is on a par for rarity with honest logical creationists.

    (A pity the trick isn’t set up to use “class” instead of “cite”; then it could all be done easily and in cross-platform-compatible fashion with user stylesheets.)

  331. strange gods before me ॐ says

    I would have made it use class, but the WordPress setup here eats class attributes, allows cite.

  332. says

    To get back to the subject at hand…

    Janine:

    Perhaps Chad can tell us if this is an acceptable acceptable usage of the word.

    At Thunderdome.

    I’d very much like to hear Chad’s view on Congresscunt too. A pity he hasn’t shown up in Thunderdome, because I really want examples of when it’s proper to use cunt.

  333. bobo says

    I really really wish I had known about these forums months ago when I was arguing with a forced-birther who kept repeating that ‘women wouldn’t need abortions if they just stropped spreading their legs’…

    I took him to task for this, rather rudely I might say, and some pro-choice fuckwit joins in and says “now now little girl, be nice to the man, you are not doing the pro-choice side any good with your nasty rude attitude”

    He had the same goddamn attitude as chadgething and it realy pissed me off but I didn’t know what to do. He publicly humiliated me in front of the anti-choice asshat, and effectively silenced me. His entire attitude was one of ‘let the nice, mature, intellectual *men* talk”

    grrr

    btw, the ‘spread your legs’ asshole got really angry whenever I accused him of slut-shaming and misogyny. He was like no no! I love women but hey…sluts shouldn’t spread their legs and expect their to be no consequences!

    This guy was a real class act!

    Anyways, I wish I had known you guys back then and known how to deal with guys like that, b/c I just sorta sat there stunned and sad;(

  334. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Bobo, look at this way, you are better prepared for the next time something like that happens.

    Sadly, it will happen again.

  335. says

    k, y cn ll hv gd lgh bcs dn’t ndrstnd wht Thndrdm s nd tht whn PZ sd cld nly pst thr tht wsn’t CTLLY bnnd. dmt t, m nw hr nd dn’t knw ny bttr.

    Bfr m fnlly bnnd, wld jst lk t mk sm fnl pnts.

    t hs bn frqntly sd tht m pstng hr nd nt n th dnzns f th mysgynsts. Thr s vry smpl rsn fr ths; m nt mysgynst. dsps th d tht wmn r lss thn mn. Wht hv pstd n ths thrd s nt bt th rgmnts gnst mysgny, rthr bt th mthd fr sccss. My pnn s tht w r mr kn t mltry dvsrs wh ll gr n th gls f cmpgn bt nt th mthds. n sch cs, why wld wnt t dscss r mthds wth “th nmy”? Prsnlly, fnd my tm bttr srvd tryng t prfct rgmnts n lcl gvrnmnt nd pttng thrgh ql py clms tht nsr wmn r nt bng xpltd. Wht r trd nn s dng mks crtn tht thr s lgl prtctn fr wmn t wrk. W cnnt chv ths by shtng nd gttng ngry t th “thr sd” s ll tht hppns s mtngs gt djrnd.

    Thnks fr th prsnl nslts. Why thr ws ncssty t mntn rgmnts pst my wlly bmss m. gn, dn’t thnk t frthrs ny ndrstndng n ny ss. hv bn clld lr bt nbdy s bl t qt n (bcs hvn’t ctlly tld ny). ‘v bn clld nsty (hw?) nd trrbl hmn bng. ‘v bn clld bd rl mdl fr my dghtrs bsd n n ntrnt thrd whr hv bn lrgly msqtd. Thnks fr ll f tht. ‘m sr tht f mt ny f y ndvdlly nd n prsn, r dscssns wld b vry dffrnt bt myb th nnymty f th ntrnt ncrgs mr xtrm psts.

    hv ntd tht Dr Mrtn Lthr Kng Jnr hs bn ctd fw tms n ths thrd s prf tht ths wh d nthng t rdct th prblms r mrly hlpng fcltt th prblms. Thr my b sm mlg n ths rgmnt BT fnd ths prtclrly ntrstng s hr s prsn wh mngd t chv s mch bcs h ws vrythng th strtyp sd h cd nt b. H ws sppsd t b jst dmb, ppty ngr bt h shwd hmslf t b ntllgnt, rdt nd bl t rg cgntly, clmly nd chrntly gnst th njstcs f rcsm. H spk gnst vlnc nd ctns f htrd, whlst ls rgng fr qlty f hmnty. H chvd mr wth hs spchs nd ldrshp thn ny rt, nslt r ngry mb. Whn ppl shtd rcst bs t hm, h rtrtd wth snsbl rgmnt tht xpsd th htrd nd lck f rsn. f y wnt t qt ths grt ndvdl, ls rspct hw h bcm grt.

    n smlr trn f thght, my rfrncs t Ghnd wr ls rdcld. Fn, y my rdcl hs rlgn BT hs ldrshp n th fld f nn-vlnt ppstn ld t th Brtsh mpr bng hmbld. Hw cn ny ldrshp tht cndns th btng f nrmd prtstrs tsd slt fctry rtn ny mrl hgh-grnd? Wll thy cldn’t. Th mrl hgh-grnd s sly lst whn w tlk f kllfls, trtrng r ppnnts nd s th lngg f ht.

    n th mdrn r, w hv ng Sn S Ky. Dspt yrs nd yrs f hs rrst, prvctn nd n th fc f trrbl bss, sh nvr nc rsrtd t prfnts, vlnc r th lk. Sh mntnd dgnfd pprch bsd n th rgmnts fr dmcrcy nd gnst pprssn. Nlsn Mndl ls chvd mr twrds th nd f prthd by spkng gnst vlnt strggl nd by ngttn th h vr dd s yng frbrnd.

    ws chstsd fr nt tlkng n mr dtl bt th rgns f Stnwll. t ws lldd t tht hd n knwldg f th rgns r msndrstd th ncssty fr vlnt r ngry cts t rs th prfl f cmpgns. Wll, Stnwll s mvmnt. t rs frm th rts bt th prgrss t hs md hs nt. Whn Stnwll fnds sccsfl lgl chllng gnst hmphbc B∓B wnrs, ths s sccss f th mvmnt. Ths s nt th Brtsh Lgl systm gvng grnd t vlnt dstrbnc n nthr cntry svrl dcds g! Trgds ftn brng bt th crtn f grp, thr mmrl r ctvst. Th sccss f th sbsqnt ctvst grp dpnds n thr mthds nd rgmnts, nt n th fct tht vlnc r ngr ws prsnt t thr crtn. Slvry wsn’t blshd bcs f slv rt, sgrgtn wsn’t blshd bcs f rc rts, th ftnss tst fr K plc wsn’t blshd bcs f “shrt nd vrwght” rt. Wh r w flng by syng tht gttng ngry s th nly (r ndd bst) wy t ngg?

    m nt hr t rg fr mysgynst dlgy, rg gnst sxsm bt thr s lttl pnt tllng grp f ppl wth smlr pnns tht sxsm s wrng. tll tht t th sxsts. prch rcl qlty t th rcsts. rch qlty f sxlty t th hmphs. Ys, tht mght mk m snd hlr thn th, bt ctlly n ths crcmstncs dn’t rlly cr hw m vwd, s lng s th rgmnt s bng rcvd.

    My ntr tm hr hs bn mscnstrd s trllng r tryng t drl smthng. dn’t knw hw mny mr tms cn sy tht m n yr sd. dn’t knw h mny tms cn sy ndrstnd th ngr. jst s n th pst (xmpls gvn bv) tht th grtst dvncs r md thrgh pstv rl mdls wth pstv lngg. f m cnsgnd t Thndrdm r bnnd frm pstng bcs f ths, hv t sy, thnk ths knd f ctn nly grnts tht y wll stll b ngry nd nflflld n th yrs t cm.

    n ll srsnss, rgrdlss f wht lngg y wnt t s gnst htfl mysgynsts, whn smn wh grs wth mst f yr dlgy cms hr, smn wh blvs tht th fght gnst sxsm s fr frm dd, smn wh wnts t ngg nd fnd t mr (ls smn wh ds nt “d” wb frms mch nd mght nt ndrstnd hsh-tgs, lnks nd hw t pst qts prprly) nd thy r grtd wth nslts, fc plms, ccstns f trllng (hvn’t lkd p cr trll yt) nd prsnl cmmnts s t ns prntng blty, d y rlly thnk tht y r gng t swy mr ppl nd cnvnc th mdrt mnstrm? Th pwr bs n scty s nvr cnvncd by shtng nd ggrssn. t s nrmlly mtvtd by mny, vts r shm. W d nt pssss lrg mnts f mny bt w cn dmnstrt th shm f sxsm nd gn vts ccrdngly.

    PZ. Y my wld yr “bnhmmr” whnvr y lk nw. m nt sr wll b bl t cnvnc nyn f my gnn ntntns.

    [CHADGETHING, you’re a moron.]

    [You have not been banned. You have been asked to voluntarily restrict your tone-trolling commentary to a dedicated, unmoderated thread called Thunderdome; there is a link to it on the right sidebar. I’m not going to ban you for this infraction — your stupidity has earned my pity — but this is your last chance. Post anywhere else, you’re gone. Reply to this, you’re gone. –pzm]

  336. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    His entire attitude was one of ‘let the nice, mature, intellectual *men* talk”

    Except if he was a mature man, he wouldn’t pretend his OPINION mattered to a “mature woman seeking an abortion”. Which is any woman who has been impregnated by a “man”…

  337. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Bye-bye chadgething, one doesn’t disobey PZ without consequences….

  338. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I am not sure I will be able to convince anyone of my genuine intentions.

    Your intentions are to hide the problem. NOBODY HERE THINKS OTHERWISE. YOU LOSE LOSER….

  339. bobo says

    chadgething, have you visited A Voice for Men yet? People here keep asking you to visit and be reasonable with the misogynists

    go for it…please!

  340. Brownian says

    It has been frequently said that I am posting here and not in the denizens of the mysogynists. There is a very simple reason for this; I am not a mysogynist. I despise the idea that women are less than men. What I have posted in this thread is not about the arguments against mysoginy, rather about the method for success. My opinion is that we are more akin to military advisors who all agree on the goals of a campaign but not the methods. In such a case, why would I want to discuss our methods with “the enemy”? Personally, I find my time better served trying to perfect arguments in local government and putting through equal pay claims that ensure women are not being exploited. What our trade union is doing makes certain that there is legal protection for women at work. We cannot achieve this by shouting and getting angry at the “other side” as all that happens is meetings get adjourned.

    Holy shit, you are a terrible human being.

  341. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Well, Stonewall is a movement. It arose from the riots but the progress it has made has not.

    Your stupidity knows no bounds.

  342. Brownian says

    Gosh, I hope none of the misogynists are reading this. I’d hate for them to know chadgething’s master strategy: do sweet fuck-all while lecturing everyone else on politeness. It could ruin everything.

  343. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Funny how fuckface has the fucking nerve to dictate to us how we should comport ourselves but also lacks the nerve to do the same for the assholes he claims to be against.

    I would never claim such an assclam as an ally.

  344. says

    I’ve warned Chadgething for the last time, and deleted his last two comments. If he appears anywhere other than the Thunderdome again, he will be banned.

  345. says

    #932 @brownian

    Active against sexism, just new to all this. I’ve been doing stuff ITRW and not getting angry online. I came here to express a point of view and ended up getting in a lot deeper. I have learnt in the last two days what MRA, FTB and Thunderdome are. I’ll lurk and learn more, I’m sure. In the meantime, I’ll carry on fighting the good fight…

    I’m a bit worried about my reception at Birmingham University, next time I go up there. I’ve been tracked down on Facebook, for whatever reason. What happens next?

  346. omnicrom says

    Chadgething did you not read that thing about how “YOU WILL BE BANNED IF YOU DON’T GO TO THE THUNDERDOME THREAD” that was appended onto your post above and was pointed out repeatedly by people in this thread?

    Pity. I was hoping to learn more from your glowing wisdom (That’s sarcasm in case you were too dull to catch that) in Thunderdome. The presence of a moron always livens up Thunderdome.

  347. says

    PZ, just banhammer this fuckwitted excuse for person. Apparently, he’s never going to get that he’s only allowed to post in Thunderdome now, in spite of all the explanations and links. This degree of stupid calls for a merciful execution.

  348. says

    Chadgething, who filled in his FTB profile with a link to his FB profile, is concerned: I’ve been tracked down on Facebook, for whatever reason.

    srsly? That’s not too fucking stupid even for Thunderdome, that’s too fucking stupid for kindergarten.

  349. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Funny thing, dumb-dumb got right the comment number that I got when his comments were deleted.

    That fool is fucking oblivious.

  350. says

    #934 @PZ

    Wht s tn trllng? Why dlt prfctly rspctfl pst bt my pst? Why rmv th vwls frm my lng pst? f y wnt t cht t m n prsn t vrfy my mtvtn thn ‘m t d s.

    thght trlls wr thr t dlbrtly ntgns. ‘m crtnly nt hr t d tht.

    [Jebus, how stupid is Chad? Multiple warnings, I even excused prior violations, and he still can’t get it. Well, now the Banhammer has splatted him. — pzm]

  351. John Morales says

    [meta]

    chadgething, you are almost certainly knowingly trolling, but if not: this comment is almost certainly too late for you to not be banned, but to make it as clear as I can: you have been restricted to commenting on the Thunderdome thread by the blog owner.

    There, and only there.

    Not here. There.

    Only there.

    Not here. Not on other posts on Pharyngula.

    You can keep posting, but ONLY on the Thunderdome.

    Of all the posts PZ makes, the Thunderdome is the only one in which you commenting will not result in being banned.

    Being banned means you cannot post AT ALL on Pharyngula.

  352. FossilFishy (Νεοπτόλεμος's spellchecker) says

    [dons protective garments. Readies mop, bucket and disinfectant.]

    Goodbye chadething. You won’t be missed.

  353. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Dumb dumb, before you are banned and your comments are deleted, I have to ask.

    Is it alright to use the term Congresscunt?

  354. says

    CHADGETHING THE FUCKWIT, CAN YOU CLICK ON A LINK WITH THAT ATROPHIED BRAIN? CAN YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP AND BOTHER TO READ FOR 5 MINUTES? POST ALL YOU WANT, BUT ONLY IN THUNDERDOME. THAT MEANS DO NOT POST TO *THIS* THREAD ANYMORE. TAKE IT TO THUNDERDOME.

    THUNDERDOME. THUNDERDOME. THUNDERDOME. THUNDERDOME. THUNDERDOME. THUNDERDOME.

    THUNDERDOME. THUNDERDOME. THUNDERDOME. THUNDERDOME. THUNDERDOME. THUNDERDOME.

    THUNDERDOME. THUNDERDOME. THUNDERDOME. THUNDERDOME. THUNDERDOME. THUNDERDOME.

  355. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Here lies chadgething, brave warrior for a noble cause.

    Killed in combat when he informed his allies how to conduct themselves.

    Was not brave enough to confront the misogynists.

  356. says

    Why delete a perfectly respectful post about my past? Why remove the vowels from my long post?

    because you were told, repeatedly, that you’re no longer allowed to post anywhere on Pharyngula other than the thunderdome. since you’re steadfastly refusing to understand that simple instruction, you’ll be banned as soon as PZ notices.

    and let’s make that very clear. you’ll be banned not for anything you’ve said, but for complete inability to follow basic directions. IOW, you’re too fucking stubbornly dense for this place

  357. says

    There’s another illustration of Chadgething’s extreme case of stupidity and navel gazing: he whines to PZ (without reading or comprehending what PZ wrote) and asks what a tone troll is, when supra, I nicely provided the definition of tone troll, which describes the fuckwit to a T.

  358. John Morales says

    [meta]

    I am embarrassed by my previous comment (#947), since I wrote it without catching up properly and thus I missed PZ’s #934.

    (chadgething is walking dead)

  359. says

    John:

    (chadgething is walking dead)

    I don’t think PZ would begrudge us a chewtoy, the difficulty seems to lie in getting the ever-fuckwitted Chadgething to click on a link and post in a different thread.

  360. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    [Jebus, how stupid is Chad? Multiple warnings, I even excused prior violations, and he still can’t get it. Well, now the Banhammer has splatted him. — pzm]

    JEBUS,

  361. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    [Jebus, how stupid is Chad? Multiple warnings, I even excused prior violations, and he still can’t get it. Well, now the Banhammer has splatted him. — pzm]

    JEBUS, PZ warned you in plain American you don’t understand you don’t control your ability to keep posting here…What an abject loser…

  362. says

    Nerd:

    PZ warned you in plain American

    Aha! That must have been the problem. Chad only responds to veddy, veddy polite 11th century English, where he thinks cunt is a polite word.

  363. says

    Is anyone going to want to visit chad’s facebook page?

    I looked at it earlier.

    ladies and gentlemen, from the dude who berated us on our language:

    Cameron, Osbourne and Clegg. A triumvirate of twatitude.

  364. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Well, Jadehawk, as you know, twat was once a polite word. Chad was trying to reclaim that politeness.

  365. mildlymagnificent says

    It’s just as well chad’s post about “my past” was “respectful”, for all I know he considered it respectable as well.

    But, but, … flabbers ghasted all around me, brains numbed everywhere I look, floors cluttered with dropped jaws.

    I’d better get out the respectful vacuum cleaner and respectablise my surroundings. But if respectful chad tries to respectfully assist me, I’ll respectfully strew lego blocks and pine cones in the path of his bare feet.

  366. says

    well of course. and it’s of course not even a wee bit sexist to insult three men by saying they are vagina-like. because there are totes non-sexist ways of insulting men by comparing them to women’s privates.

    i’m so tired of these idiots.

  367. says

    and the sexism of that comment aside, saying mean things about someone behind their back is apparently ok; it’s only to people’s faces that you’re supposed to be nice. because that’s totes not twofaced.

  368. anteprepro says

    Chadgething, who filled in his FTB profile with a link to his FB profile, is concerned: I’ve been tracked down on Facebook, for whatever reason.

    srsly? That’s not too fucking stupid even for Thunderdome, that’s too fucking stupid for kindergarten.

    For some reason, this is the most entertaining of all of chad’s idiocies to me. Perhaps because it is the most harmless. Perhaps because it is the most novel. Perhaps because, in light of all of the other arguments he has made and failed to make, it clearly serves as justification for those who have interpretted those comments as coming from a complete fucking moron. But, whatever the reason, it is fucking hilarious.

  369. says

    Jadehawk:

    and the sexism of that comment aside, saying mean things about someone behind their back is apparently ok; it’s only to people’s faces that you’re supposed to be nice. because that’s totes not twofaced.

    Yes, but he didn’t use “fuck” or “idiot”, so it’s completely polite and civilised. And he was so at sea as to the host of problems we all had with him.

  370. bobo says

    Chadgething, if you are still around, read this article please:

    http://www.thenation.com/blog/171520/she-who-dies-most-likes-wins

    When I started blogging in 2004, I responded to every comment no matter how nasty the reader was. I was generally polite, believing that these critics would be so charmed by my professionalism that they would see the error of their misogynist ways and swifty run out to read a bell hooks book. Ha!

    For me, it was wasting countless hours arguing with people on the Internet—giving equal time to thoughtful and asinine commenters—because I thought somehow it would show me to be fair and open-minded. It pains me to think of what I could have achieved if I had that time back.

    Acting nice, polite and ‘likeable’ does not help women, at all. They just get treated like doormats, regardless!

  371. Maureen Brian says

    Some “military advisor” this is going to be – quoted by Brownian @ 930.

    The General confines him to barracks and he claims not to understand the order! Just the sort of idiot who would have sat out WWII and then rushed the Combined European Armies into VietNam.

  372. Pteryxx says

    <_<

    apparently I missed Saint Chadgething Day…

    @The Vicar:

    @ Pteryxx, #845:

    I know that neither you nor the author of that post intended it that way, but talking about dark clouds having silver linings in the context of a murder always makes me uncomfortable because it seems to imply that another would be welcome.

    Well, she was describing her experience of the culture shift. I read it as, if anything, lamenting that it took a misogynist shooting a bunch of women dead to finally get some lesser aggressions seen as unacceptable.

  373. Beatrice says

    bobo,

    I don’t even want to follow the link. It has “shrill” in the title, which almost guarantees bullshit.

  374. anteprepro says

    Wow, that article. Gotta love that the people who bring up some legitimate problems regarding sexist standards that happen to affect men also have to “question some of the statistics about abuse, rape and gender imbalance”. Here’s a pro-tip MRAs: This is why people fucking hate you. Not only because you are obsessed with men’s problems exclusively, which is galling in its own way, but because you consistently diminish women’s problems in order to justify that obsession. And some of those problems that you diminish are violent crimes . But I suppose that that is necessary for an MRA to do if they are going to whine about “false accusations” as the zenith of their persecution at the hands of their female oppressors.

  375. bobo says

    yep, the article has’ srhill’ in the title and is accusing women of not being polite and feminine enough when complaining…

    btw, the toronto sun is Canadas version of Rupert Murdochs trash right wing newspapers from the UK

  376. says

    Killed in combat when he informed his allies how to conduct themselves.

    That wasn’t a killing, that was suicide.
    Now, I’m sure Chad has a perfectly good explenation how it is polite to ignore the expressed wishes of the blogowner who kindly repeated said wishes multiple times.
    Too bad we won’t be able to see it anymore.
    (the above is not true)
    Talking about kindergarten, he really reminds me of a little child who has been informed about rhe rules on the contruction carpet and just thinks they don’t need to heed those rules and knows better.
    And who feels so unjustly treated when the adults finally grab them by the neck and remove them from a place whose rules they just didn’t want to follow.

  377. makeinu says

    “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them…” — Thomas Jefferson

    All forms of irrational hatred, racism, misogyny, homophobia, et al, are the most unintelligible of propositions. The only thing you can do with an idiot is yell at it; it can’t recognize reason.

  378. says

    Makeinu:

    The only thing you can do with an idiot is yell at it; it can’t recognize reason.

    People aren’t its. As for the rest, that’s not true. A good argument always has a place and if it doesn’t convince the intended audience, people reading are often swayed, which we know happens because they are nice enough to show up now and again and let us know. Ridicule and sarcasm are good tools, however, one must know how to use them.

  379. Pteryxx says

    What with AVFM’s latest hate-and-doxing campaign against a feminist protester (see Manboobz here)…

    her own generation’s brown shirt, and she knows it. …

    She is clearly sadistic, unable and unwilling to recognize the humanity of anyone who does not slavishly and blindly agree with her own religion of hate.

    I got curious about what AVFM had to say about Lepine and the Montreal Massacre. Why do I always have to look…

    Personally, I would be flabbergasted to know there are any MRA’s out there that would take their beliefs and use them as an excuse for violence. And truth tell, I am more than happy with their being removed from our ranks, and even from society, if they are out there.

  380. Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞ says

    The only thing you can do with an idiot is yell at it; it can’t recognize reason.

    I don’t like the idea of dehumanizing someone by calling them “it”. Dehumanization has led to humans being treated horrifically.
    It is entirely possible to insult someone without treating them as subhuman.

  381. makeinu says

    Caine, I will and do agree with your points. However, my point, rather poorly stated perhaps, is that once the good arguments have butted up against the brick wall of willful ignorance more than once, then ridicule, sarcasm, and profanity are perfectly acceptable responses, and should be used willfully.

    And frankly, with misogyny, the only response I can ever muster shy of verbal or physical violence (I have temper issues) is “Would you say that about your mother, asshole?”

    That usually shuts them up, and if it doesn’t, it typically reduces them to incoherency. At which point, being unconvinceable, they can be safely pointed out as the fool they are.

    As for this:

    People aren’t its.

    While it runs the risk of dehumanizing them, sometimes they are. Sometimes, people are more defined by their idiocy than by their humanity. Usually because they lack any of the latter as an attribute.

    YMMV.

  382. says

    Makinu:

    While it runs the risk of dehumanizing them, sometimes they are. Sometimes, people are more defined by their idiocy than by their humanity. Usually because they lack any of the latter as an attribute.

    It’s not a matter of running the risk, it is dehumanizing, full stop. There’s simply no valid reason to resort to ‘it’ when referring to a human being and it cannot be excused. I see people doing that when they talk about transpeoples or GLB peoples, or when they talk about women and so on.

    When you choose to dehumanize people by using ‘it’, you contribute to the toxic aspects of culture and make it okay for others to continue using it. Sorry, but you are in the absolute wrong here.

  383. strange gods before me ॐ says

    human ≠ good person

    Anyway, makeinu, regardless of whether you agree with Caine’s argument (I do), please don’t call people “it” around here. That is just not in accordance with our community’s standards.

  384. Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞ says

    While it runs the risk of dehumanizing them, sometimes they are. Sometimes, people are more defined by their idiocy than by their humanity. Usually because they lack any of the latter as an attribute.

    YMMV.

    I’m in an incredibly shitty mood (feeling like a failure at pretty much everything will do that) right now, so the last thing I need to hear is someone talking about other people like they are *EVER* less than human.
    Shut the fuck up.

  385. chigau (無) says

    Don’t refer to people as ‘it’.
    It’s really easy.
    ‘they’
    ‘xe’
    ‘xir’
    etc.
    —-
    clumsy but not dehumanising.
    “sub human” as a term is archaic and simply incorrect.

  386. chigau (無) says

    too drunk
    —-
    calling people ‘it’ is bad PERIOD
    [i do not give a flying fuck if you approve of their/xir/xis/blah statement]
    if you call a person ‘it’, you might as well substitute ‘bitch’ or ‘dick’

  387. strange gods before me ॐ says

    I know others have mentioned it already, but I can’t get over this. From the Wikipedia article:

    A few regard Lépine as a hero of masculism, and glorify his actions.[69][70][71][72]

    It’s like cheering for Anders Breivik. And I know there are people who do applaud Breivik, but in both cases it shocks me.