David Futrelle points out A Voice for Men campaigning to terrorize a young woman they dislike. These guys are scary. Seriously scary:
AVfM is conducting outreach and investigation into the identities of the persons involved in the violent protest against the rights of men and boys orchestrated and conducted by the University of Toronto Student Union and other antisocial elements within that institution.
To that end, one individual has already been identified, and you will be seeing a story on her here in the near future. Our search for the woman highlighted in the video of the protest continues, with some leads. …
Gender ideologues absolutely hate the light of day. They hate it shining on their ideas and on their lies. Many of them also don’t want it shining on their identities. They seek anonymity for the same reason Klansmen wear hoods.
Futrelle points out a discrepancy:
Even beyond the vicious nature of AVFM’s language and tactics, the hypocrisy here is off the charts: most of AVFM’s writers – gender ideologues all – hide their identities behind pseudonyms, including of course JohnTheOther, who launched AVFM’s campaign against the still-unknown protester.
It’s all so very familiar.
Futrelle includes some of the threats left at YouTube:
Futrelle’s post was yesterday. Today they’ve posted a different woman’s name, along with a picture.
They’re scary.
WTF?
Someone needs to shut this hate group down before they injure someone.
Well this is truly terrifying.
It’s gone beyond strawfeminists in the closet and hateful rhetoric. Futrelle’s follow-up post is full of quotes from JtO about mobs of violent feminists with knives. They’re rapidly approaching ‘baby-killer’ level.
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Canada, the war against men is global. Men have no voice, are disempowered, and it’s because of the bitches. Men need to find their voice, rise up, and shut them bitches down.!
That last comment was me. See, I was being devoiced by the feminist, google conspiracy!
The University of Toronto Student Union is an antisocial element???!!
Canada has some tough hate speech and hate crime laws. While I am a little ambivalent about them, they are on the books and these guys may just have qualified themselves for prosecution under those laws.
And isn’t it stunning how speaking out as a feminist is considered “hateful” by these scumbags and their running dogs, but writing horrific stuff like that is, well, just “freeze peach”.
They also call the targeted woman an “undesirable”. Isn’t this Cold War era language?
Thanks for spreading the word.
Actually, the woman they named today is a different woman; it’s not clear if they know who the woman in the video is, at least not yet.
I wrote about it here.here
Oh, oops, I’ll correct that. Thanks for having the stomach to keep track of all this.
According to manboobz comments, AVFM’s posted a second student’s name.
Shit. I’m honestly worried about what these hatemongers might incite someone to do now.
I’m not sure I can take much more. I am not scared, just really really down. It doesn’t help that my ex-partner refuses to pay child support and continues to verbally and psychologically abuse me, and that he gets away with it. He WANTS to hurt me; these men want to hurt me. I am less than worthless to them. It is all feeling a bit relentless at the moment.
Just to clarify, the other person they named wasn’t someone they “outed” — she’s a former student politician at the U of Toronto who publicly identified herself to the media during the protests. A Voice for Men wrote about her earlier. The woman they targeted today was simply someone who was at the event and who appeared on their video of the event briefly.
Also, we’re trying to reach out to the woman who’s being targeted. If you want to add your support, contact me at [my last name]@well.com.
Uh huh.
Hypocrisy. They haz it.
Oh. And y’know, the whole Orwellian thing, that’s just… Hmmm.
There’s this fascinating presumption of authority about this. ‘Antisocial elements’, see. We know what’s best for society, and this woman, she will not do…
And dear me. I fear I may be beginning to feel a mite ‘antisocial’ myself, on encountering these charmers.
Better get the HUAC people on the line, for me, too, I guess. And establish a proper cordon. As, apparently, it’s contagious.
David, many thanks for all you do.
Just read those AVfM posts. Jebus but Paul Elam is a pompous fuckwit. In addition to all the other things he is.
They speak in the idiom of law enfarcement.
Certainly they are hypocrites, but I have to wonder exactly what this “bitch” did which was so unbelievably terrible. Called someone “fucking scum”? Srsly? But the actions of the police, that was all cool, right. FFS.
These guys are halfway to fascism.
Why do thy always go for the rape threats first? It’s almost like they think they’ve tried everything else. Or anything, whatever. Tomato, tomahto.
Today they’ve posted a different woman’s name, along with a picture.
Someone other than Rebecca Watson?
I’d hope U of T would take threats and cyber-stalking seriously and raise security on campus, but experiene tells me institutions of any kind are just about useless and unresponsive.
I can not imagine why, in Canada, even after the Ecole Politechnique massacre, our law enforcement agencies don’t track MRAs as the hate groups they are and keep their members all imprisoned and heavily sedated for life. The need is obvious.
One more clarification: the woman they outed today wasn’t the woman who called the guy “fucking scum.” Today’s target is someone who was simply at the protest.
Also, I’ve been passing on supportive emails to her. Thanks to those who’ve sent them along!
Very very scary news 0.0
@Scott Cunningham (who is probably not the writer who’s books I own)
” keep their members all imprisoned and heavily sedated for life” going a bit far there but I really hope the OPP/RCMP/UoT security keep everyone safe.
Ophelia, are your policies towards outing consistent? (I honestly don’t know.)
Jezebel recently found a bunch of high school students tweeting, well, truly obnoxious things about President Obama, and Jezebel not only wrote about that, but Jezebel called the students high schools. Are you okay with that?
Over at tumblr, a redditor created a tumblr blog called predditor in which this redditor doxxed many redditors that posted in the various creepy photo subreddits. Jezebel encouraged that behavior, are you okay with that?
Gawker of course, doxxed Michael Brutsch, Violentacrez, the reddit uber creep. And Brutsch faced many threats of violence and of course lost his job. Were you okay with that?
When I read john the other’s post, I see no calls for violence. He writes of this woman’s behavior.
I AM TOLD THAT FREE SPEECH DOES NOT MEAN FREEDOM FROM REPERCUSSIONS OF THAT SPEECH.
I am told that because of this, feminists are okay with Jezebels and Gawker’s actions.
I am queezy that free speech does not mean freedom from repercussions of that speech. I understand it, but I think it stifles a lot of very interesting speech from men and women afraid of violence or loss of employment.
But, if I buy into that principle for the moment, well, if the student is over 18, I see no reason why her behavior and her name should not be associated.
She acted terribly that night.
And I see no one threatening violence against her.
I see a bunch of speech.
OMG, Ophelia, you are even moar powerful than I ever thought! You run Gawker AND Jezebel? Amazing!
I see someone who has no appreciation for differing situations and extremes.
Also a number of feminists (and anti-racists) have complained about outing campaigns. They feel it’s motivated by vindictiveness and not a concern for rebuking hateful speech.
“And I see no one threatening violence against her.”
Thank you, Lord Nelson.
Both sides are pretty far in the wrong on this one. While I bristle at the idea of public outings and harassment of protesters for their views – at the same time there’s a fine line between harassment and protest. Seeing what some of the people did in the name of “protest” in Toronto simply isn’t right. Protest is one thing, following someone around and calling them scum and accusing them of being a rapist, simply because they want to hear someone speak – is just juvenile. It doesn’t really do anyone any good, or do anything to further any kind of cause. It’s simply destructive behavior.
@mykemyers #30
Well, the important thing is that you’ve found a way to feel superior to both.
These men have a right to speak.
And some of the issues they’re raising are legitimate and need to be addressed.
It’s fashionable nonsense to claim that men don’t experience discrimination especially with regard to child custody.
Also the levels of domestic violence directed against men by their spouses is almost as high as that directed at women.
About ten years ago at the Université de Montréal a women’s group ( feminists) wanted to hold a talk on dyke on dyke domestic violence ( quite a big probleme) and they were forced to cancel by similar groups of ‘pink’ Brownshirts
People have a right to speak even if the topics they discuss are reagarded by some as unpleasant.
Our universities are morphing into places dominated by la pensée unique, by censorship, threats and intimidation.
‘Progressives’ are slowly quashing enlightenment values.
@Jay
“And I see no one threatening violence against her.”
How about all the rape threats over on youtube? While I haven’t figured out my moral position on doxing yet I do think that if you have people threatening an anonymous person you probably shouldn’t out them unless they’ve done something egregiously illegal. For example next time a draw Mohamed controversy comes up if there’s a group of people threatening the artist and another group without directly threatening posts the artists information that’s not really a high moral position to stand on.
@ischemgeek – i’m sorry, did I miss something?
Yes, mykemyers. You missed the point.
I suggest you start with infant school level Civics then proceed slowly and in silence from there.
Maureen – I was being slightly sarcastic. I wasn’t aware my comments were being made out of some sort of need to feel superior. Silly me, I thought I was just commenting on the sad state of affairs in general.
So glad someone was around to show me the error of my ways.
Once again – ONCE AGAIN, they do not have the right to post personal information, especially when they’re only goal in outing said personal information is to get a innocent person raped, beaten or worse. Which, as evidenced by the tweets in the piece, is exactly what they will do with that information.
MRAs are a hategroup. That some of the issue they pretend to deal with are legitimate does not change the fact that this a hategroup designed solely spreading hate, lies, fear and violence.
And the fact that all you care about is shutting up women who protest, and do so by supporting the violent threats of MRAs, speaks volumes about you.
Go away, and stay away from all women for the rest of your pitiful, hate-mognering life.
It’s not about shutting people up who protest. I don’t think I or anyone else suggested that so i’m not sure where you’re jumping to that from. Protest away – have fun with it. Make signs, sing songs. go out for drinks afterwords. By all means it’s your right, and people should feel free to exercise that right. If these groups are as bad as you claim then are – then they should be protested. But even the westboro baptists know by now to keep it to a certain level of civility.
MRAs are a hategroup? Maybe. I don’t really follow the issue that closely enough to know all the gory details about every group out there.
What I do know is the watching videos from the protests, seeing the actions of some of the individuals involved and reading statements online from the outing of some of the protesters, those hategroups seem downright reasonable by comparison. If those are the hate groups – the image the protesters are putting forth is not a good one, by any means. If by simply making the statement that we should all be grown up enough to protest in a constructive way makes me a pitiful hate monger then i’ll gladly wear that title with pride.
I also know that as was pointed out by someone else -nobody seemed too upset when other groups were outing private information (which btw nothing you post online is truly private). If it’s good enough for one side, it’s damn well good enough for the other – but that’s a whole other debate all together.
Civics 101: any group whose first resort is to violence or the threat of violence when it is displeased and which targets a particular group of citizens for who they are is a hate group.
If you could be more precise about exactly why you, mykemyers, are displeased with the actions of the protesters then perhaps we could have an intelligent conversation. What I’m getting from you is, “they shouldn’t be allowed to do that!” – which is eyewash unless you are able to say which bit of what they did is unacceptable (to you) and how you came to be an authority on these matters.
I thought I made it pretty clear when I said : “Protest is one thing, following someone around and calling them scum and accusing them of being a rapist, simply because they want to hear someone speak – is just juvenile. It doesn’t really do anyone any good, or do anything to further any kind of cause. It’s simply destructive behavior.”
Physically preventing people from going in a building, crowding the entrances to try and shut down a venue, screaming at the police, following people around who simply want to hear someone speak and harassing them. All pretty crappy things to do. When it happens outside of abortion clinics we all get pretty pissed about it, so why is it okay in this case? Because you view these groups as hate groups? Well, the crazy christians view abortion clinics as facilities of murder. We make them play by certain rules of protesting with a certain amount of civility – why should we not abide by the same rules?
Watching the videos online, it appears the protesters themselves seemed they were more prone to violence than anyone I saw trying to go see this guy speak in Toronto. The police all seemed pretty reserved from what I saw given the stress of the situation. I didn’t see any crazy men threatening to kill anyone. I didn’t see any threats of violence from any of these groups. In fact it was the protesters that seemed to be the aggressors here.
For fear of rattling on and on – let me try to put it another way.
Regardless of your views – everyone has a right to speak. Everyone has a right to listen to you if you so choose. You could be a holocaust denying “rape babies are a gift from god”, “obama is a closet muslim” member of the flat earth society – and if you convince someone to give you a venue with which to speak, you have right to do so. If people want to pay to hear you, they might be complete scum of the earth nitwits – but they have a right to do so as well.
If you want to stand outside and protest, by all means – you should do so. If you want to provide countering information to disprove ridiculous claims and falsehoods – please, do so. We all benefit from that.
However, the minute you start trying to shut down the conversation, when you start trying to prevent people from speaking, When you start trying to prevent others from gaining access to information – you’ve crossed the line. You’ve crossed the line from dissent and protest, from raising the public discourse and raising awareness – into the realm of censorship. I don’t care if somebody is spewing hate speech – we don’t censor. Censorship in the name of “blocking hate speech” is still censorship. If you value the free exchange of ideas and you value open and honest debate – than censorship in any form is not acceptable.
If these groups are as bad as people are claiming – i’ll probably be right there along side some of the protesters at some point. The minute it crosses from protest to censorship though – I can’t get behind it anymore. That’s my problem. That’s what I think they did wrong. It’s a very fine line sometimes, but it’s one that at least to me was pretty clearly crossed during the course of this protest. If the shoe was on the other foot – if this were a bunch of crazy Christians trying to block access to an atheist discussion, or a bunch of conservatives screaming anti-gay slurs at people trying to get to a gay rights discussion – we would be ready to start a civil war. It’s not okay when they do it – and it’s even worse when we do it. We’re supposed to be better than that.
David, has this campaign of hate speech been reported to Toronto police?
I don’t know about you mkkeyers, I think his artilce is about someone getting targetted and outed for protesting. Which from the gist of your diatribe, your should be mortally horrified at the prospect of that since it’s a direct violation to free speech. Yet oddly, you have made no real mention of that. So I suspect you might be posting in the wrong thread.
Of coarse, it would never cross my mind that you would consider instead that only certain violations to free speech are acceptable, while others are not, for in favor putting forward your own agenda and views. No one in their right mind would be that blatantly hypocritical and disingenuous unless they’re outright trolling. But I don’t know you. So I assuming you are posting this with the best of intentions for everyone, albeit on the wrong subject line, lol.
…back to lurking.
Utakata – perhaps you missed the part where I said both sides were in the wrong on this one. I’m not very comfortable with people posting personal information of others online. Although I will say that the posts I saw on that voiceofman site or whatever didn’t have anything that wasn’t readily available to the public to begin with. Screenshots of social media that are open to the world to see in the first place aren’t exactly private. If we’re talking full names, addresses, phone numbers, place of employment, etc – yea, that’s pretty bad, and really shouldn’t be tolerated either. If you can point out where that’s happened, by all means – show me. I haven’t seen it.
@ Myke “If you can point out where that’s happened, by all means – show me. I haven’t seen it.”
I guess you missed this from Elam “To that end, one individual has already been identified, and you will be seeing a story on her here in the near future.”
“Utakata – perhaps you missed the part where I said both sides were in the wrong on this one.”
Do you honestly believe there’s some kind of equivalence between a young woman shouting at some poor idiot, and the AVFM targeting her for a campaign of hate and harassment?
patterson – I guess link me to it if/when it happens. I spent some time browsing around that site last night, and all i saw was a bunch of screenshots of social media posts. If that’s the big public “doxxing” it’s pretty weak.
As far as hate and harassment – it seems both sides are taking a pretty heated approach to this. Just as a casual observation from someone not fully invested one way or the other at the moment. You say “targeting her for a campaign of hate and harassment”. Again – show me. I’m not seeing it. Maybe it’s happening, i’m not calling you a liar – but I keep hearing all this about how these groups are threatening these women, and from their direct statements – i’m just not seeing it. Just as people here aren’t responsible for things that happen on say gawker or jezebel or tumblr or any of that nonsense – kinda hard to lay random internet troll comments on youtube at the feet of these guys.
Thank you for clarifying that, mykemyers. But that is a question then you should directing at David Futrelle for reporting this and Ophelia Benson who posted about this story. They and their peers believe this is a serious enough offense to warrent a concern of this nature about it. If you feel this is unjustified then perhaps the courts are the best play for this, since then this is obviously an issue of slander. However, I don’t think those two would ever stoop to that if they didn’t think the issue again was serious enough. There is no need too. So I am going to assume their concerns are likely legit until proven otherwise.
But I think it’s a little sad and disturbing on your part, who has been such voice here for free speech, that you would consider, “screenshots of social media that are open to the world to see in the first place aren’t exactly private,” as a reasonable mean to go after someone expressing themselves who might not agree with you. Instead of debating the substance of their expression. You might want to adjust your position on that for consistency before posting again. Just saying.
To myke “I don’t know anything about MRAs, but what the hell, I’m gonna run my mouth about how protesting them is bad and invoke FREEZE PEACH! anyway” myers, here’s a little taste for you, cupcake.
(Trigger warning for the vilest hate speech)
On the subject of Marc Lepine, with thanks to Caine for braving the cess pit:
*
*
*
NOTHING TO SEE HERE, MOVE ALONG, IF YOU PROTEST AGAINST THIS. THEN YOU’RE BAD TOO!!! SHAME ON YOU!!
/mansplanation ends.
Utakata – my position in terms of screenshots and things that are posted publicly online are based on close to 20 years working online in some form or another. I learned very early on that nothing you post online for public consumption is private. Just as the youtube comments screenshotted and posted above are not private – nor is anything I or you or anyone else post publicly on facebook, twitter, or anywhere else. I am 100% consistent on that, and have been since the first time posting something online got me in trouble as a teenager so many years ago.
If you say it online, in a public forum – don’t be surprised if it gets recorded for history. Don’t be surprised if somebody uses that recording later. Again, just as those youtube comments above are recorded for history. That’s just how it is. If it’s that private, don’t post it online.
mykemyers said:
Reminds me of a troll on Pharyngula the other day who wasn’t at all familiar with the hate group he was defending, but who ‘knows enough’ to proclaim loudly that “mra’s cant be all that bad, even though I am ignorant of their actions – however, feminists are meanies!!!!”
No Light – yea, there’s some real assholes out there. Not disagreeing with you there.
Again though – can you link me to the post where they’re specifically providing private personal information on these protesters and/or calling for violence against them?
bobo – never said they’re all that bad.
Just said the level that these specific protests came to crosses a bit of a line for me.
You can try to spin that however you want, but it is what it is. I think I made my position pretty clear. Don’t care how vile your speech is, you have a right to say it. When we start talking about making sacrifices to that concept, for any reason, we’re headed to pretty dark territory.
mykemyers @ 50 – you’ve already been linked to the post where they’re specifically providing private personal information on these protesters and/or calling for violence against them, in the post at the top of the page.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/who-is-emma-claire-and-why-is-she-so-hateful/
There’s nothing private on there. That would be like if somebody took something I said on here and made a page and said “omg his name is myke myers! look – here’s his twitter and his facebook”. well, okay? Anybody with a browser could have typed my name into google and found that.
Can you link me to where her address, phone number, or any actual private information was posted? The screenshots that were posted were her own words, that she posted publicly for the world to see.
Could you link me to the page on their site where they call for her to have violence against her? Is there a serious amount of contempt in their words? Of course – but frankly that’s no worse than some of the crap people say on here about those on the right.
How often do right wingers kill people? Blow up buildings, kill abortion doctors…
How often do feminists kill and stalk people…blow up buildings…kill doctors…
oh wait@!
Bobo – perhaps that’s true – but in the case of this conversation it’s kind of irrelevant.
Again, show me where they called for violence. Show me where they posted actually private information that this protester did not herself post to social media.
I don’t really see the point of naming and shaming the protester. It will only escalate things and lowers the chance of a rational debate being had. The protesters that blockaded the entrance to the building should be condemned by everyone that is concerned with free speech.
mykemyers: stop it.
The claim isn’t that the AVfM people said “go beat her up.” Stop derailing.
1) they are working on getting her private info, someone at the university she is at posted how he would try to track her down and post all her private info
2) I saw some twitter shots where people said she should be raped
but here’s the thing, there isn’t much difference between directly calling for violence and implying that violence should be done to a person
‘go out and kill all the jews’
vs
‘hey, the jews deserve to die. all the jews should be killed. the jews are vermin. the jews have taken away all your rights’
Hearing the latter over and over and over will certainly create a culture of hate and INSPIRE people to act out in violence. Noone ever directly said ‘go kill an abortion doctor’ but years and years of speech by pro-life groups about how evil abortion docs are resulted in someone getting ‘inspired’ and acting out on that, cuz violence in this case, was ‘righteous’
And how many women stalk men and post upskirt pics of men online? How many women have revenge porn sites levelled against men? How many women massacre men in shootouts cuz ‘men rights’
oh right, none!
You seem to be taking the attitude that, the right to free speech is so iimportant, that it would be wrong of us to *criticize* people who call for genocide, and if we do, we sure as hell deserve to get our personal information posted all over the internet so the neo-nazis can track us down and beat us up/kill us
The above appears to be your viewpont.
@No Light: thanks for posting those quotes, sickening as they are. I can’t see why any university would provide a forum to a group like that. It’s like allowing the Grand Wizard of the KKK to speak on campus. 🙁
Are you serious?
*facepalm* And somehow, magically, your willful ignorance is somehow a flaw in Ophelia’s argument.
Paul Elam is a well know misogynistic bigot. AVfM is a well known hate site. Just because you, you precious little snowflake, don’t know him or what he’s about doesn’t mean everyone else has to do your homework for you.
How do we know they want violence? READ THE POST. READ MANBOOBZ. Go check out the videos on youtube about how domestic violence isn’t so bad.
How do we know they will out personal information, i.e. pictures of people’s homes, phone numbers, etc. BECAUSE THEY HAVE DONE IN THE PAST.
Fucking NO ONE said Elam himself or AVfM are telling people to go beat her up. They know better than that. They just won’t care if that’s what does happen, because the bitch deserved it.
Your ignorance is not our problem. Stop asking for everyone else do to the research for you. If you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, STFU and look it up.
bobo@58 Preach it! And yeah, this guy is like chadge’s twin.
WRT inciting hatred – two years ago the UK got it’s first right-wing govt since 1997.
The King of these Pigs, David Cameron, led. his campaign with “Labour [in power since 97] want to strip disabled people of their welfare benefits. This is a disgrace. I know how hard it is to even get these benefits, because we went through it with my (late) son. Now they want to take the money away entirely, and force people into work”.
He schmoozed with parents of disabled kids, talked to disability action groups, and slimed. his way into the role of Prime Minister, into a coalition govt with the Liberal Democrats at his side.
The lies started immediately. His govt released statements to the press saying that disabled benefit claimants had caused the recession, that people were being awarded benefits for things like acne, dandruff, STIs, obesity, etc.
They claimed that people merely made one phone call and were immediately awarded thousands, sight unseen with no medical evidence, for life.
They stated that 80% of claimants were fit for work, and simply idle.
The whole benefit system was overhauled, payments time-limited to one year, and claimants called in for “assessment”
. A couple of people died leaving their assessments, some died while waiting for a decision, others ended up dying in ICU. People from all of these groups were found “fit for work” and told their money would be stopped. In several cases the letters were received on the morning of their funerals. None of this was reported.
People killed themselves upon receiving letters calling them for assessment. This was not reported.
There were mass, nationwide protests and marches by PWD. Not reported.
What was reported was “THEY’RE BLEEDING BRITAIN DRY” or “SCROUNGERS ARE STEALING YOUR MONEY” and “WORKSHY CLAIMING SICKNESS BENEFIT FOR SPOTS, PILES, AND BOOZING”.
The articles would be illustrated with stock photos of people watching tv with their feet up while drinking lager, or with photos of fraudsters, never stating that fraud runs at 0.5%.
In short, a well-orchestrated hate campaign, in the midst of a recession, and a perfect distraction from the real architects of the financial crisis.
As a result, hate crimes against PWD rocketed. One paper set up a “Shop a cheat line” encouraging people to report anyone they suspected of claiming benefits they weren’t entitled to. People were attacked on the street, spat at, kicked, verbally harassed and so on. Families with disabled children endured hate campaigns that involved their windows being broken, faeces smeared on their doors and windows, death threats and nuisance calls.
PWD who weren’t even claiming benefits were reported as benefit cheats and investigated, adults with learning disabilities were labelled paedophiles, and hounded out of their homes, and there have been several cases of groups of people taking their developmentally disabled “friends” hostage, and torturing and killing them over a period of days.
All this from MRA-type rhetoric. Just words, but words repeated over and over and over until people thought “Hang on, these must be something to this”.
No Light:
Interesting. I heard about that, very very sad. But to my point – I was watching a show on Hitler’s propaganda machine, and how he primed the German people for eugenics with near constant propaganda and lies about how “the retarded are taking up a good house, a good house that a superior Aryan family could be living in” “the tax dollars of good Germans are paying for this retarded slime, it is a robbery!” and so on.
Basically, Hitler was able to turn the German people *AGAINST* the disabled with near constant propaganda about how the disabled were nothing but leeches, destryong German from within. Btw, doesn’t this remind you of how the far right talks about those on welfare? the working poor? the middle class, hehe. Everyone in America is a leech but the CEO’s, right?
Illuminata – I don’t doubt there’s some pretty scummy people associated with these guys. The comments about “she needs to be raped” is evidence enough to convince me of that.
Don’t make claims that they’re advocating violence and posting personal information if you can’t back it up though. Frankly – it lends weight to their argument and you makes you look irrational. It makes the rest of your claims suspect if you can’t back up something as simple as “show me the threat”.
If you want to defeat people like this, you have to win the greater battle of public opinion. I get the point you’re trying to make, and I get where you’re coming from. Half of my pushing for you guys to back up some of these claims was to try to give you a chance cause i realize these are not exactly nobel scholars we’re dealing with. If you can’t even make a compelling reasonable argument to me, without resorting to name calling and insults – good luck with the rest of the world.
MykeMyers:
http://manboobz.com/2012/12/08/a-voice-for-mens-attempts-to-find-and-publicize-the-personal-information-of-a-toronto-activist-could-threaten-that-young-womans-safety/
Read the entire article and inform yourself, please
some highlights
and many many more!
http://i46.tinypic.com/t65m54.jpg <—-READ IT ASSHOLE
If you want me to read something, calling me an asshole is not the way to go about it.
I already told you – i get it, I get what you guys are griping about, i get why it’s upsetting. Here’s the problem though : most people don’t. Most people also don’t much give a shit one way or the other. They’re going to listen to your argument and if it makes sense, they’ll continue to listen. When you launch into rants about how they want to kill women and this that and the other thing – you’re going to lose most people. It doesn’t pass the initial smell test for those who are not already familiar with the players and the circumstances involved. Some of us are willing to take the time and read and figure it out enough – most are not. If you act from a position where you assume people already “get it” you’re screwed.
If your idea of educating people so they know the difference, and can make sense of your argument – refrain from the name calling. Even cutting you some slack i’m already sick of it.
If you don’t want us to call you an asshole, don’t act like one 🙂
@Myke myers.
When asked whether publishing dox of people opened the possibility of them being attacked etc John the Other responded with “And what if they get killed David? What if rather than be arrested – as promoters of hate, and public advocates of murder, what if these depraved and murderous female supremacists come to harm at the hands of a citizen. If that happens, it will mean that a society’s system of law, designed to prevent hate organizations, and to allow redress of grievance through non violent due process is gone, wiped out by your ideology of violence and hate.”
While I agree they have not threatened anyone they haven’t condemned it either.
While they have only posted the student in question’s name so far you can see on the page at AVfM on the side a list of Featured Offenders where a quick click brings you to register her where they do post women’s names, city, their gripes with them photos etc.
And again I don’t think anyone here was saying AVFM was threatening her directly with violence.
This is the same line of thinking that says you’re a terrorist if you don’t enthusiastically enough call for the hunting down and extermination of terrorists. Sorry, but I reject that line of thinking outright.
I would disagree pretty strongly. The claim “they’re threating this woman with violence and posting her personal information” has been repeated over and over and over on here. That’s why i asked repeatedly for a link to those threats. One has yet to be provided (and that’s fine, i was admittedly pushing just to make a point in the first place). I get that there’s an implied threat, and that this is an ongoing struggle between two groups that’s been going on for a long time. It’s more subtle and nuanced than simple “here’s her address, go fuck her up”. Most people do not. If you want people to understand your argument, don’t over-simplify things to the point that only the aware will understand what you’re saying.
bobo – the eerie comparison to the first wave of the holocaust was noted by many, and dismissed as “hysterical propaganda”.
I am descended from families, on both sides – maternal and paternal, who lost loved ones to the gas chambers. Jews and non-Jews alike, babies dashed from their mothers’ arms.
My grandad (OBM*) used to recall how it started with disabled people, and how anyone scared about where it might lead was labelled as crazy. I am glad, with no shame whatsoever, that he died just before it all started here. He would have been terrified.
MM is scarily similar to our friend chadge, no?
Myke – “irrational”? Nice one, why not try old standards like “hysterical”, “emotional” or “shrill”?
Oh, and if you’ve sunk to paying “I won’t support your cause, or even look into the facts, if you’re not nice to me” then don’t bother, we don’t need fair weather friends.
Done it again!
OBM – Of blessed memory.
#70 No Light, MM is over at ‘no country for women’ as well, along with other MRA’s, busy accusing Taslima of being a feminazi…sigh
bobo – where did i make any such accusation? don’t put words in my mouth, and don’t assume you know anything about who i am or who i’m (not) affiliated with.
mykemyer, It seems to you that something was publically recorded makes it automatically immune from used as a target against those people who express contrary view. In 20 years of your experience “in the field” (in which you have not cited), can you not see the danger in that? For you who is so for free expression, one would naturally think this is the first thing you would jump all over, instead of making…forgive me, lame apologetics for it. Perhaps you are not a big fan of free expression after all, except for only in the case when it suits you and your peers’ agenda. I hope not.
Also telling people how they should post is not a cool comeback. If you have an issue with it, alert the host…however, if the host find it acceptable, then you’ll have deal and to ague the content of the unpleasant and uncomfortable post in question, and not the tone. Or just move on and ignore it. Keep in mind, you’re the one whose commenrty is reaching the 25% level. From my experience, if you can’t make a convincing and compelling arguement after 3 posts, then you are unlikely to convince them any further of your position. You might want to consider that, and move on as well.
no lame apologetics.
If you post something online – it is public information. That public information is free to be recorded and thrown back in your face at any time. The fact that we’re able to quote these people, take screenshots of disgusting youtube comments, reference past rants they’ve made etc falls under the EXACT same category.
How often do we post screenshots of some idiot’s twitter feed or a facebook status update when he makes some comment about “legitimate rape”? By your logic – that’s private information and should be off limits. My take is that once you make statements in the public arena, it’s exactly that – public. How you can take that as “it’s immune from use” is completely beyond me.
translation: when bitches get killed, they brought it on themselves. Same as rape or any other honor killing. (Bonus: they bring killings on themselves with their ideology and censorship and extrajudicial anti-harassment policies; while MRAs’ ideology, harassment, and free hate speech doesn’t foster violence at all.)
Because if they did, they might face charges for threatening violence. Thus they figleaf by allowing any level of hateful rhetoric as long as it contains no direct threats – only
indirectplausibly deniable ones. See the OP, etc/www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/we-are-all-being-watched
Pteryxx – that’s what i was getting at when i said I understand what you all MEAN, but when you say “they’re threatening…” it’s a lot more nuanced than that. To someone who only takes a passing look at the issue, it’s just doesn’t make any sense.
Mykemyers
“This is the same line of thinking that says you’re a terrorist if you don’t enthusiastically enough call for the hunting down and extermination of terrorists. Sorry, but I reject that line of thinking outright.”
You’re right I should have just come out and said its an approval for vigilante justice up to an including murder .
mykemyers @ 69 – you said ‘The claim “they’re threating this woman with violence and posting her personal information” has been repeated over and over and over on here.’ No it hasn’t. Read the comments – that’s not what they say.
Nobody here needs your help. Really.
mykemyers – please shut up now. The threats are right there in the post. You don’t understand what we all mean. You’re being a pest.
Reminds me of the Catholic “medical ethics” – ‘we didn’t DIRECTLY kill this woman; we just refused to save her life because technicalities.’
I get the feeling you were being sarcastic – but yea, that is kind of what i was getting at. Pretty much everybody on the planet can understand that, and it’s pretty easy to see.
Up to post 50 where you first brought it up the closest we come to someone saying AVFM was inciting violence was someone said they might get someone injured or that they might incite someone. That is all up till you brought it up so no one was suggesting they were threatening anyone with violence. Please link me to the comments that do that I missed.
As to personal information the claim of personal information go read this wiki page for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_information
Which has as the first on its list of such information as the person’s full name. The fect that other people know it doesn’t infact not make it personal information.
And canada’s ruleing on personal information http://www.priv.gc.ca/leg_c/interpretations_02_e.asp
“Information will be about an “identifiable individual” where there is a serious possibility that an individual could be identified through the use of that information, alone or in combination with other information”
I’d say her name a photo and the school she attends counts is enough to be ” identified through the use of that information”.
If the threats are “right there in the post” then you can link/quote them for me?
There’s an implication of threats through their tactics. That much is clear. There is no direct “go hurt this person” threat. It’s a subtle but important distinction.
It’s important to dipshits attempting to argue that it’s somehow hunky-dory to talk about how a specific woman should be raped for being present at a protest of, among other things, an advocate for incest. I can’t see why it would be important to anyone else.
They are IN THE POST. No I’m not going to do extra work for you – open your eyes; get glasses; do whatever you need to do to see what’s in front of you.
No, it is not an important distinction. Saying somebody needs to be raped is a threat. The difference between that and I YAM GOING TO RAPE YOO is not important.
when did i ever argue that it was okay?
Nepenthe got there first.
Ophelia – so people are now responsible for every youtube comment someone makes? That’s pretty dangerous ground is it not?
Hit ctrl + F “Futrelle includes some of the threats left at YouTube:”
The threats she/the other feminist protesters’ are receiving are on youtube. No one has claimed that I have seen that they are on AVFM.
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=iARHCxAMAO0
There’s the link to the video itself with 3000+ comments includeing jems like (trigger warning): “Don’t support feminism? You’re a rapist by default. My God, these people are morons. I don’t even like rape, but I would rape the shit out of every one of those fuckers solely because they’re just fucking asking for it, man.”
“People”?
That makes no sense.
@89 How about just not posting the identifiable information for people that are currently receiving a litany of threats on a video you have linked through your site (since they linked it’s less likely they haven’t seen the comments).
If someone is receiving death threats and I post how to get in touch with them I’m not responsible for the threats (no one is saying that here that I know of) but I am putting them in greater danger should some one want to act on their threat.
and again AVFM’s position on the potential risk they might be putting someone is that just shows that it was the only means of justice left and that the risk to their safety is worth taking.
Well – and besides –
[waves hands around to express exasperated bafflement at all this nonsense]
the post was about the YouTube threats too. It’s my blog. If I want to write about more than one thing in a post, I’ll do that. I don’t have to explain why I do that to every myke that comes along. I said they were YouTube threats. I included them because they exist and they’re bad too. I didn’t say AVfM made them happen.
Honestly.
There’s a distinct myopia about this from some quarters. One the one hand, the acknowledgement that threats, such as ‘That bitch deserves to be raped’ are bad, yet with the other hand, ‘well x or y fellow traveler didn’t explicitly say it or endorse it’ so what’s the problem?
The problem is pretty simple. Social groups have individuals, who are responsible for their own acts, but they are part of a system that licenses, permits, or doesn’t condemn these acts. So, if x or y don’t themselves ask for violent silencing of a person, but are not condemning calls for violent silencing from fellows, then they implicitly support those calls, whether they’re endorse it internally or not. To go back to the Tim Minchin tune for analogy, Catholics who still support the church, whilst knowing the church hierarchy is primarily about protecting the church and silencing or ignoring abuse victims, have a share of the fault. They legitimize and provide numbers with which the abusers hide or avoid responsibility.
Now you are moving on to the straw man, because I never claimed such logic in the first place. Hense, you are putting words into things I’ve never stated. I consider that unfair. Though I now strongly suspect you know that already. Because I am dealing with a specific incident (the incident in which this entire thread has been about incase again you are not aware), where private or public, the person is being targetted for harassment with it. That is, this is not case where her hands where recorded and caught in the cookie jar and being used as evidence against this person’s counter claim. Instead, this is person that was caught at a protest, and made to use as a tool for personal vindictive harrassemen for being at that protest. That harassment, as evidence is strongly suggesting, is used to persuade her and others into silence. Therefore, dissuading free speech. You failing to see that, is beyond me. Since you are claiming to be such an advoacte of such, you would of least considered that. Not making apologetics and further obfuscations for it.
However, this has gone past my 3 post rule. It doesn’t appear that I have convinced or educated you on your logic flaws and inconsistencies over this. And it appears our host is quickly losing patience over this as well…and I don’t know about you, but I still want my commenting privledges intact after I finished here. So I’ll agree to disagree. And let you think whatever you want to think and move on.
…now back to lurking. /thread
Edit: My last comment was meant for mykemyers again.
Like you?
—-
I seriously hope nothing comes f this but, you can see the cold hate and contempt for women in everything AVfM writes. I wouldn’t put anything past their reader base.
I think I get what MM is saying now
Implied threats of violence and death = ok
Direct threats of violence and death = not ok
So as long as I go around saying stuff like ‘atheists must be tired of living’ and ‘atheists deserve to be beat up’ its ok!
MM is against threats. However there’s a major caveat, the threat has to be explicit “I will kill/rape/torture you” or it isn’t a threat in MM’s world and is totes okay. FREEZ PEACH!
Hey Mike, you know how the press is not allowed to print certain people’s names for fear of vigilante action? Like pedophiles for example? Don’t you think the same moral logic applied to mainstream media could apply to AVfM writers?
And on a different but related point, do you think the fact that AVfM writers DO NOT EXPLICITLY CONDEMN rape and violence threats yet EXPLICITLY OUT PEOPLE (regardless of how effective you think said outing is) THREATENED WITH SAID RAPE AND VIOLENCE shows TACIT APPROVAL for the rape and violent treatment of the people threatened? Do you think tacit approval of rape and violence is OK? (hint: saying “no” has no necessary implications for law). Because if you think it is not OK but choose to ignore that and focus instead on a free speech red herring then you are heinously missing the point.
Only it’s more than that. It’s “This specific atheist should be raped to death, I would if I could, and here’s her address and phone number.”
So we go around painting whole swaths of men in this group with a wide rapist’s brush because we can find some crazy dimwits, somewhere who have come out of the woodwork to threaten this woman? Nice try, but not logical.
Watching the video I was very disturbed by the attempt to stifle free speech by the protesters and the implicit attitude that it was their right as women to do so!? Trying to stop people from exercising their rights? Swearing and shouting epithets in their faces as they entered? Despicably sub human… no matter what gender.
Oh and Emma, the darling subject of this post says her “political position” is “kill all men, praise satan”? Right…
Ophelia, re @93,
I think you are being very dishonest. I think any casual reader of this blog post would clearly and easily believe you are claiming AVfM is behind and can be linked to the YouTube comments.
I think you are dishonest to act exasperated and shocked anyone would think you claimed AVfM made them happen.
By the same bogus logic that “it appeared on the same Internet” what things are you guilty of? I guess the answer is any threats that any religious speaker or anti-atheist plus writer ever received.
Jay and sleeper, FREEDOM FIGHTERS!!!!!!!!!!!
“And on a different but related point, do you think the fact that AVfM writers DO NOT EXPLICITLY CONDEMN rape and violence threats”
Now that’s an outright lie. Just because Ophelia choose to post the rape threat comments without the responses those threats got, doesn’t mean those threats weren’t responded to. At least one of those three got banned by JTO because he WILL NOT TOLERATE advocating violence. So your accusation that AVFM does not explicitly condemn rape and violence threats is an outright lie. I know for a fact I responded to at least two of those three condemning the action, so I know for a fact the responses to those threats were intentionally cut out.
I do find it telling that Ohpilia et all seems offended by AVFM calling out a woman who has openly stated “kill all men” without providing any kind of condemnation of such violent and hateful assertions as Emma Claire makes (http://www.avoiceformen.com/portal/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Kill-All-Men.jpg), but seems particularly angry about rape threats that actually did get MRA condemnation. Why is it you all are unwilling to police yourselves, but feel perfectly justified in complaining others aren’t policing themselves to your satisfaction? Do you all condone the behavior of the protesters in question, because you all seem mighty eager to defend them against MykeMyers acknowledgement they were acting atrociously. You use the excuse that this isn’t the right place, but I see no right place, not one of you have a blog condemning that behavior, and you’re all attacking the site that does because you don’t agree with how they’ve chosen to do it.
I agree with MykeMyers, any action taken to reveal private information and to affect someones personal life through online behavior should be condemned, but given FfTB’s defense of Laden and multiple campaigns to get people fired from their real life jobs, I find the hypocrisy disturbing.
Which threats, which behaviors actually seem more likely to lead to violence?
Some jerks commenting on a YouTube video?
Outraged Activists protesting, yelling, and blockading legitimate speakers?
Why Ophelia, your sexism in calling out threats as you interpret them against women, but not calling out the very real altercations seen at the blockade?
Re: Kill all men hail satan
“Hail Satan”, sometimes expressed in a Latinized version as Ave Satanas (or Ave Satana) is an expression used by some Satanists[1] to show their dedication to Satan,[2] but has also been used for the purpose of comedy or satire.
That’s pretty much why I don’t care, to me it comes off as making fun of the evil feminists meme. The internet has no tone to what you say (which is why I’m an egregious user of emoticons) and twitter and its character limit is another huge limit to human communication. Can you give me anything more concrete that this wasn’t just a bad joke? Is there a sect of satanism that condones the killing of men (I know a little something of the chruch of satan for instance and its not in there)?
It is well known that feminists are hardcore followers of Satanists.
No feminist has ever been known to joke about her devotion to “Satan”
Why am I not surprised. When a feminist says something hateful, it’s comedy. When a comedian says something stupid, it’s hateful. When an MRA says something is unacceptable, he’s condoning it.
As seen in the article Ophelia is complaining about (saying Emma was doxxed because they screencapped her twitter comments, much like was done by Ophelia in this article with youtube comments. by the way, can you give anything concrete to suggest the “rape threats” weren’t anything more than trolls or, as has been suggested about the Markohippo comment, David Futrelle or one of his cronies doing it themselves? After all, he does make revenue off this conflict, so creating such conflict is in his best interest.), Emma also claims she’s proud of the behavior of the protesters she was involved with, as well as talking about knuckle tattoos of misandry.
I also notice you’re trying to dodge the point by deflecting an example. Do you advocate for making such hateful jokes? Do you condone calling anyone, man or woman, who wish’s to hear a view of men from a former National Organization of Women New York board of directors member, someone who is going to(not might, WILL) rape (as said outright by the scum girl in the protest, and implied by many more of them)? Is that the kind of behavior you choose to defend? Because that’s the kind of behavior AVfM is condemning, and which Ophelia here is upset at AVfM for condemning.
Way to quotemine, markneil. “Outing individuals in an environment of threats of rape and violence” was the conjunct you conveniently left out. Where is the explicit condemnation by the person doing the outing? And even if there was one, the context would make it look either a) like an attempt to distance oneself from threats publicly in spite of actually supporting them; or b) really really stupid.
For.Fuck’s.Sake. The “kill all men, praise satan” was irony. She was making fun of MRA fantasies about feminists. Fantasies like this:
–from a comment on the AVfM blog post.
Yup. College students getting unruly and using naughty words at a protest. BE AFRAID. BE VERY AFRAID.
The key word there is “advocating,” and it needs the qualifier “on his blog.” Paul Elam has made it very clear that he does not tolerate advocating violence in posts or comments on AVfM because he knows his blog is being monitored and he does not want it shut down.
That does not mean he stands against violence. When the violence is directed at women, he doesn’t.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/a-war-on-women
http://manboobz.com/2010/11/14/paul-elams-vanishing-post-blaming-and-mocking-rape-victims/
Nope I don’t. I’m also not calling for the doxing of any of the commenters making rape threats, when i mentioned John the other I used his pseudonym instead of his real name. I also don’t condone calling murderers of psychopaths sub human let alone this woman. But here I thought you were all for free speech and trying to silence anyone was a terrible offense.
If you don’t care about what ever context the message may or may not have then I see no point in discussing with you if the rape threats were “trolls”. Although this does raise the question did you consider she’s just trolling you. Now all’s forgive right cause it was trolling and that’s totally blameless and everything (you can’t have it both ways) . Your suggestion that this is a false flag operation is frankly cliche (if I see one more tv show built around this conspiracy crap ….), baseless and personally insulting. If moral outrage and contradictory and baseless arguments is all you got I don’t see why we need continue.
@Emily. You folks use David Futrelle as a source and you object to me allegedly using quote mining?
@Stacy You demonstrate in a single post a willingness to twist anything said by a feminist into something benign, while simultaneously twisting anything said by those you oppose, as hateful. “kill all men” is just ironic commentary, but “we will not tolerate advocating any form of violence on our site” is actually condoning it, but asking to keep it separate. And you’re unwillingness to see the double standard is why you are all seen to be hateful hypocrites.
PS: starting your post with the clearly condescending “For.Fuck’s.Sake.” doesn’t exactly inspire any reasonable discussion. If what you want is an echo chamber, devoid of any differing views, Ophelia will say so. Otherwise, a little humility might be in order.
@Michaeld Odd, because the scum woman is calling anyone that wants to enter Dr Farrell’s lecture subhuman, and the purpose of the protests is clearly stated as attempting to shut down that discussion, and you seem to be very much defending those positions. After all, if you or your like refuse to condemn that behavior, and you openly oppose anyone else that does, you are defending that behavior. Ophelia’s efforts with MykeMyers to remove the behaviors of the protesters from this discussion only furthers that position, by removing any kind of reasoning (justified or not) for AVfM’s actions.
As to context, I find the attempt to project a requirement onto me that has been wholesale ignored by yourselves to be highly dishonest. Did Ophelia take the context of of the protest into account when condemning AVfM’s actions? No, clearly not, as she has actively tried to remove the context by telling MykeMyers to shut up.
It should also be noted that AVfM is being blamed for rape threats made by others on a channel that aren’t even theirs (you’re welcome to prove me wrong by posting links to the comments), but excuses are being made for a woman for the statements she openly made. You don’t see the hypocrisy in that? Of course you don’t, feminists are above reproach, right?
“and personally insulting”
Why? are you Futrelle or markohippo?
PS: As noted by the woolly bumblebee, Ophelia has posted her name publicly, so is hardly in a position to complain about AVfM posting an image of a twitter comment that includes the users name.
Your last sentence reminds me, once again, that feminism is nothing more than an exercise in group psychological projection. Thanks for the reminder.
‘So we go around painting whole swaths of men in this group with a wide rapist’s brush’ (sleeper, 103)
No swaths involved. Maybe a swath, at most, but the MRAs are very much a fringe of repulsive nutters that most normal people are fortunate to have never even heard of.
If you hang out with hateful bigots, in a group that does nothing beyond expressing their hatred of women, you can’t blame other people for making assumptions about you.
What an amazingly foolish thing to say. Placing those word in that order just shows you have no idea what any of them mean.
“Odd, because the scum woman is calling anyone that wants to enter Dr Farrell’s lecture subhuman, and the purpose of the protests is clearly stated as attempting to shut down that discussion, and you seem to be very much defending those positions. ”
How exactly have I defended any of that by saying I don’t think you should be posting personal information of someone receiving threats. For the record I’m in favor of protesting the incest apologists lecture but still letting people in to hear him. As to hypocrasy your own supporter called her subhuman and what other purpose is outing her information then to silence her.
“Ophelia’s efforts with MykeMyers…”
The problem with Myke is that he keeps perpetuating that everyone here says AVFM sent the threats they didn’t .
“As to context,…”
Sure that’s cause I don’t see a context where rape threats on the youtube (No AVFM didnt send them yes they are still part of my problem here) are an appropriate response or posting information that could help someone find the person being threatened.
“It should also be noted that AVfM is being blamed for rape threats made by others on a channel that aren’t even theirs (you’re welcome to prove me wrong by posting links to the comments), but excuses are being made for a woman for the statements she openly made. You don’t see the hypocrisy in that? Of course you don’t, feminists are above reproach, right?”
That’s cause no one here is blaming AVfM for the threats on youtube (though we are blameing them for other shit they actually said).
“and personally insulting”
Yes if you want to start claiming conspiracies and fall flag this and that you have to bring something to the table to prove it other wise you just come of as paranoid to me.
I gave you THREE EXAMPLES in my fucking post, you pathetic disgusting fucking liar. Holy fuck you’re useless.
Placing those word in that order just shows you have no idea what any of them mean.
Of course he doesn’t. All he knows is that women are talking about men that threaten women in bad ways! And that’s wrong because men are perfect angels! and women are all bad!
grr smash manrage!
“Of course he doesn’t. All he knows is that women are talking about men that threaten women in bad ways! And that’s wrong because men are perfect angels! and women are all bad!”
One need only look at the video of the Toronto protests to see the projection in that statement, demonstrating my point. One need only read Ophelia’s post, looking at how AVfM were “men talking about women that threaten men in bad ways! And that’s wrong because women are perfect angles! and men are all bad!”
@Michaeld “For the record I’m in favor of protesting the incest apologists lecture but still letting people in to hear him.”
Only took you a number of posts, and a great deal of pushing you into saying it, to finally give a backhanded and halfassed condemnation. Ophelia et all still have not done so. To explain it simply, if one group behaves poorly, another group condemns that first group, then different members of that first group attack the second group, claiming the second groups behavior is unacceptable (but saying nothing of the first groups behavior, THAT IS DEFENDING the bad behavior that began all this. The fact Ophelia et all choose to try to change the topic rather than addressing that bad behavior only demonstrates this fact further.
“As to hypocrasy your own supporter called her subhuman”
I’m not sure where the hypocrisy is in this, but I’m open to an explanation. Keep in mind you just called Warren Farrell an incest supporter and that will come into play in examining your own hypocrisy.
“what other purpose is outing her information then to silence her.”
As someone who hasn’t doxxed, I’m not sure. Perhaps Ophelia can shed some light on motivations, given she’s done it to Woolly Bumblebee. But I would say accountability plays a part. The one person they are actually targeting was pretty fucking vile in her hatred and harassing behavior.
“I don’t see a context where rape threats on the youtube (No AVFM didnt send them yes they are still part of my problem here) are an appropriate response”
Nor do I. Then again, I don’t see rape threats being seen or portrayed as an appropriate response ether, and THAT context IS made clear, when you read the responses to those threats.
“posting information that could help someone find the person being threatened.”
Entirely depends what they post, doesn’t it? The content posted of Emma Claire was all easily available online, so nothing was provided that could not already have been attained by those wanting to find her. You are effectively condemning actions that haven’t yet been taken because the actions described as intent “could” be taken too far… but there is no evidence to support it has or will. Do I support their efforts? No. But they have not done anything wrong (yet) and I will not condemn them for actions not done. Of course, we all know feminists don’t have a problem with passing judgement before any wrongdoing is committed, given shrodinger’s rapist, patriarchy theory, male dominance theory, Duluth model of violence, etc all condemn men before any action is even taken.
As to Futrelle’s being a sockpuppet, I’d like to know how he found just the right comment, given as a response to someone (so not even at the top of the list), on just the right video, 3 minutes after it was posted (look at the screencap). I’m sorry, but given his past history, I find that way to coincidental to just brush off. But I’m sure you’ll find a way to rationalize it.
@markneil
You demonstrate in a brief paragraph an inability to comprehend what you read, or to think clearly.
I did not say that “we will not…” is evidence that Elam condones violence. I said that Elam’s own published words, which I quoted, are evidence that Elam does not care about violence against women.
If you honestly think the tweet of a young woman–a tweet which was responded to, jokingly, by male as well as female friends of hers–is serious, or in any way morally comparable to those quotes of Elam (which you ignored,) you are a bigger fool than I thought. And that’s saying something.
“For.Fuck’s.Sake” is not condescension. It’s exasperation. Learn what words mean before you use them.
“you are a bigger fool than I thought. And that’s saying something,” is contempt. “Learn what words mean before you use them” is condescension.
Exasperation, contempt, and condescension directed at people who do not engage in reasonable discussion does not discourage reasonable discussion.
Uh, when a person has made explicit and lengthy statements in support of incest, then to note that he is an incest supporter is not calling him subhuman, it’s accurately describing him. In the same way that normally it would be inflammatory and wrong to call someone a Nazi, but if they have a swastika tattooed on their forehead and are explaining to you why Jews need to be slaughtered, it’s an accurate descriptor.
You do realize that this is Ophelia’s blog? And the topic is what she says it is? The topic is outing a woman to a community of men among whom threats of rape and other violence against women are common.
/wave at the MRA’s
question guys
the world has been secretly controlled by a powerful matriarchy for thousands of years
so, what was feminism about? is feminism just a power grab by the already powerful matriarchy to get even MORE POWER? are women bent on TOTAL WORLD DOMINATION!!111211!!!
Well that’s a pretty shameless falsehood. She had made her name public before I mentioned it – that’s how I knew what it was. And I mean “public” – I don’t mean “on record for business purposes but difficult to find.”
“As someone who hasn’t doxxed, I’m not sure. Perhaps Ophelia can shed some light on motivations, given she’s done it to Woolly Bumblebee.
Well that’s a pretty shameless falsehood. She had made her name public before I mentioned it – that’s how I knew what it was. And I mean “public” – I don’t mean “on record for business purposes but difficult to find.””
It’s an accurate description of your behavior.
Hey, I’ve done it too. But let’s admit what we’ve done.
A person wants to be known by a nym and uses that nym in the majority of places. You/I find the person’s real name somewhere and in a moment of stupidity and arrogance we write a post identifying so and so as this real person. And then we call out the eye of Sauron on that person.
Yes, the information was available to the in depth googler but not really available to the casual reader.
It’s called stalking and doxxing and bad behavior, and you would better your position if you just admitted to that lapse.
No, it’s not an accurate description of my behavior. It’s what I called it: a falsehood.
Trying to cut through the endless litany of “But [woman] staaarted it!” is like a neverending game of Whack-an-MRA.
It would be easier to teach Coop to drive than to get these hit’n’run arsewipes to see sense, or even accept reality.
That’s funny.
Would Ophelia or anybody else here know about her if Kristina Hansen hadn’t been obsessively blogging, tweeting, YouTubing, and trolling them? Why would they? Hansen’s a nobody: she’s done nothing of note except cyberstalk and name-call certain people. Her only other claim to fame is plagiarism.
Digging up doesn’t seem to be working for you. Maybe it’s time to take your shovel and go home.
Here’s my take. If you are going to participate in a PUBLIC gathering that is protesting and are very aware that you are being recorded, realize you will be “outed”. I don’t have a problem with this – either on their end or my end. I have a 13 year old son who is being bombarded with feminist propaganda that is telling him he’s a potential rapist, that he’s a misogynist, and that he is somehow worth less than his sisters. These people (both men and women) are the ones perpetuating that crap.
I had my son watch that “protest” (and I use quotes because most of that gathering was nothing but a hate rally) and he was distressed. The woman spitting “you’re fucking scum” amongst other lovely bits of bile actually scared him. This is the face of today’s feminism. And because of this idiocy, I’m no longer aligning myself with feminists. I’m teaching my son *and* my daughters about being human. How humans are equal. And about how one should be SKEPTICAL and actually research people like Warren Farrell. I would be comfortable in saying a great number of the people at that “protest” had never even read Dr. Farrell or even listened in on one of his talks.
It really is sad. I admire my mother, my aunts, and my grandmother for what they’ve contributed to the feminist movement. What is going on today has nothing to do with those original ideals and desires.
Renee – your son is being “bombarded” with that propaganda where?
I find that exceedingly hard to believe, unless by “bombarded” you mean you point it out to him. Yes it’s possible to find crazy stuff if you hunt for it, but does ordinary (i.e. non-crazy) feminism tell boys they’re potential rapists, misogynists, and worth less than their sisters? No. I call bullshit.
What the hell did you have him watch the protest for if you think it was vicious?
Oh well stupid question. You did it by way of saying “see what feminists are like?”
And speaking of being SKEPTICAL – you do realize you don’t actually know anything about what the people at the demonstration have or haven’t read, right? The fact that you “would be comfortable” saying a great number of them had never read Warren Farrell says something about you but nothing at all about what those people have or haven’t read.
Well if it isn’t Renee “Women are not fit for military service. I know, because I was in the military” Hendricks.
Where is your son being bombarded, and by whom?
Any of the Pharyngulites got the link to #thingsreneehendrickssays? My battery’s about to die.
Bombarded – yes. He’s an Internet savvy guy who reads a lot of news. He’s extremely curious. He’s come across many of today’s feminists and is very dismayed. I don’t point it out to him (other than the hate rally at U of T). He also reads a lot of the same things I do and sees the “Schrodinger’s Rapist” theory among other things. He’s 13. He’s not stupid or naive. As far as me not knowing anything about the people at the rally – all it took was a quick read of Emma Claire and friends to see they’ve no clue what Dr. Farrell was speaking about at that lecture. Did you even see the video of that rally? The hatred and vile speech was more than enough to realize that most of them hadn’t done anything more than read a few quotes out of context. And you’ve been introduced to that little tactic on many occasions, right?
No Light – where did I *ever* say women are not fit for military service? Pull up the exact quote, please.
For people who are curious/masochistic here’s some of Warren Farrell’s thoughts on incest for example. http://manboobz.com/2012/11/21/what-mens-rights-guru-warren-farrell-actually-said-about-the-allegedly-positive-aspects-of-incest-note-its-even-more-repugnant-than-that-sounds/
I look forward to Mark Neil explaining how what he said in this interview isn’t a support for incest.
Michaeld – I’ve decided to contact Dr. Farrell regarding the information put out by “ManBoobz”. To be honest, not much of what I’ve seen on that site comes across as genuine or even very factual. Being skeptical, I’d rather hear from Dr. Farrell on the context of those quotes.
That’s an interesting version of skepticism – ask people directly if they’re really skeezy. Obviously they won’t lie about it!
Ophelia, it’s not like I can’t get his books or other bits and pieces online. As “ManBoobz” has been very sketchy in the past in as far as “facts”, I’ll opt not to use that site as a reliable source.
By the way, Renee, I would be more up for a reasoned discussion with you if you didn’t do things like joining your hate-FTB colleagues in gratuitous contemptuous nicknames – like referring to me as Ophie when you’re sneering at me for example. I think you’re probably a good deal more intelligent than most of that crowd, but one wouldn’t know it from childish crap like that. So I’m not going to be able to take you very seriously.
@Rennee
I know very sketchy about sources it’s like he didn’t even include a link to a site with a high quality scanned copy of the interview from penthouse magazine where it was published . http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/fathers/farrell2.htm
Ah I notice you don’t call me “Ophie” here. Why is that, do you suppose?
Oh look, you were calling me Ophie just an hour ago, sneering with your friends.
https://twitter.com/reneehendricks
Welcome to junior high school.
Ah, well “Ophie” is actually me being lazy at the keyboard. It’s not meant as a “dig” or anything. With as much work as I do on the keyboard, after a bit, lazy nicks are my thing/bane of all others. To be clear, I don’t entirely hate FTB. There are some people I really do not like, certainly. They used to be very readable, understandable, and intelligent. But something has happened to a few folks on FTB that has just soured me to believing anything they put out. Honestly, while you and I do not agree on many things, you are one of the few people left that I’ll actually take time out to read. I rarely comment but I do read and attempt to process what you put out.
If it will make things all even, I’ll call you “Ophie” here and you can call me “Rennie”. Deal? 😀
Oh come on, Renee – complete with hashtag? Give me a break.
Yep. And it’s really weird, if you think about it. I don’t follow you on Twitter yet you do watch me. So…why watch me put out #Ophie? And if you want to be fair, every time you RT me (which I only discovered today that you’ve done), you can tag it with whatever you like. May I suggest #Rennie or #Runny or #ReneeHendricks? I can guarantee you that unless I’m made aware, I won’t notice it 🙂
Not weird at all. I do look at your Twitter sometimes – because you spend an extraordinary amount of time talking shit about me and various friends of mine.
Remember that YouTube you did a couple of weeks ago? Raging at me (and others) for not getting that it’s bad to frighten children with hell? When in fact that’s exactly what I do think – that it’s very bad indeed? You added a written update when I pointed that out, but it was a bit late.
Funny – you’re huffy because I look at the shit you talk about me. I’m huffy because you talk shit about me. I think I have a good deal more cause to be huffy.
aw, nothing like participating in a gathering, being outed, and then being threatened with rape! bitchez had it comin!
followed by
and
No gender essentialism there, no considering the effect preconceptions have on recruitment, there are just wimminz jobs, like cuddling babies or cooking, and menz jobs like being an army man, or fireman.
Feminist bs is making those fucking uppity bitches think they can do what they want. Renee’s special though, and has tasked herself with making sure Babby Hendricks gets the truth from the MRA and MGTOW “activists’.
Yeah, that’s much better than looking at any one of the several scanned copies of the magazine’s pages that are available online. Good ol’ Renee, just takin’ the High Road.
I suggest #Unctuous
It amazes me how little the blocking of the entrance to prevent people from attending the lecture is brought up or criticized. IF it is could some point me to it? Is anyone going to explain to these young people who participated in the blockade that it is not a type of free expression. Is not appropriate. Does nothing to advance your ideas in the marketplace. You don’t get to stop speech you don’t like or stop others from hearing it. They might as well be burning books.
I do think several people mentioned it, but TBH long thread fatigue is setting in and I’m not going to go looking.
The focus of this post was elsewhere, but I think yours is a point worth making/repeating.
Sure adam go read say the link posted to manboobs where its said that they don’t like that the protesters blocked the door ways. I said I didn’t like it as well.
As a follow up, do you Adam think that blocking the entrance to a talk and saying mean things to people is justification for threatening them with rape or trying to post their identifiable information online? Cause that’s what the blog post is about,not the ethics of blocking entrances to presentations as a form of protest?
“I look forward to Mark Neil explaining how what he said in this interview isn’t a support for incest.”
As my last response (what should have been post 129) got lost in moderation. I have no desire to participate further on a board that selectively censers comments. Seems Ophelia would rather dog-piling one person at a time, and it’s Renee’s turn now.
Ophelia Benson is a liar and should be raped.
Some ideas DON’T deserve a fair hearing, and one of those ideas is the idea that incest is not harmful and could even be promoted. Another one is the idea that women are second-class citizens. Another is the idea that slavery is A-OK. I could go on. You get the idea. That’s why I can’t muster up much outrage about people blocking the entrance to a talk by Farrell.
Should, not could.
@michaeld
I find it hard not to separate the shouting and name calling from the blocking of the doors so I will address them separately..
No I don’t think the protesters should be harassed.or threatened or worse for shouting insults .
As far as the protesters that formed the blockade, I think they should take a course on the basic human right of freedom of speech. Should they be named and shamed? Not sure. Not if it results in death threats and other crap. NO way.
Anyway the first issue of the name calling and subsequent response from a voice for men fall into the middle school level of dialogue. To many ,I suspect, they see this as avm being upset at words hurled at some students and in response they act even more childish. But they could have spun this in far more favorable light if they had focused on the freedom of speech issues and not this witch hunt crap. They might have managed to score a point. I imagine the MRAs hardly do that. It also would have forced a response from the other side about the blockade.
Instead of a learning opportunity for the students in the blockade and onlookers we just get more juvenile shit that helps no one.
“Cause that’s what the blog post is about”
Yeah I apologize for that. I should probably be bothering the people at avm. Touch call. Try and help them in the name of rational debate or just leave to watch self implode. I think it is too late anyway. This is not about the blockade(i mean everywhere else i read about it). It is about name calling, doxxing, threats, all the shit.
“Some ideas DON’T deserve a fair hearing, and one of those ideas is the idea that incest is not harmful and could even be promoted. Another one is the idea that women are second-class citizens. Another is the idea that slavery is A-OK.”
Then what are you afraid of? If the ideas are so blatantly false or immoral surely that best way to defeat them is to meet them in public and slay them with reason and argument? Banning an idea gives it power. It becomes forbidden fruit.
And there is always the problem of who gets to decide what ideas don’t deserve a fair hearing. This could end very badly for you. Well everyone really.
Ok glad we sorted that out ^.^
Well, you can at least commend ignorant racists forums like Stormfront for not actually targeting individuals, and children, by posting information or hunting them down. Man, I have to give this hate forum praise .. I can’t believe I’m using a neo-nazi group as a positive example.
Ugh, freedom of speech I guess? All stalking and harassment should of course be notified to the authorities. A bit depressing that so many lives are wasted on ignorance and hate.. all because some girl wouldn’t sleep with them.
‘If the ideas are so blatantly false or immoral surely that best way to defeat them is to meet them in public and slay them with reason and argument?’ (Adam, 158)
Well, a fair hearing does not mean a hearing with a favourable result, just like a fair trial does not always end with acquittal. But people who set out to revive ideas that ‘ve been slain stone cold dead several times over, and demand another chance, don’t seem to get this.
Problem, Adam @158: Your ‘forbidden fruit’ is the question of my personhood.
I get it that everything is academic to you and up for debate. I can’t escape the reality that with very rare exceptions (a portion of ‘safe spaces’ but unfortunately not all of them) wherever I go, I’m going to run into people who think my personhood should be up for discussion and debate – purely as a mental exercise, of course. Nobody really thinks women aren’t people, amirite?
What you need to get is that this shit is my life. My personhood. My bodily autonomy. And no, I’m not going to debate whether or not I deserve to be considered a person.
And that’s what you’re asking me and other women on here to do when you ask us to be willing to debate everything.
Fuck no. I’m not willing to debate whether or not I’m a person. Whether or not my rights are human rights. Whether or not I deserve bodily autonomy. Whether or not I should have the same right to self-determination as men. Etc. I’m not willing to legitimize those who would see me relegated to the position of baby-factory/some d00d’s property in this society by debating with them. I’m not williing to create the impression that these issues have some ambiguity to them. I refuse. There is no ambiguity here. I am a full person. And I refuse to debate that. That’s my perogative.
Ophelia has made it clear she doesn’t want to entertain such debates on her blog. That’s her perogative, as this is her space, not yours.
If you have a problem with it, there’s a whole wide internet out there where you can go and debate with people over whether or not other people are people. Have fun. Just don’t expect me to find falsely introducing ambiguity into the concept of “all people are people and deserve full rights and privileges of society” to be anything less than morally abhorrent.
QFT. This EXACTLY is how I view it too.
Exceptionally well said.
Exactly!
Equality is just mental masturbation fodder for the hyperskeptic dude-brahs.
Every day I have to see my status as woman, as gay, as disabled person, discussed by the privileged as if they were debating the existence of life on mars. I’m fucking sick of it.
Recently in Canada there was a motion to reopen the abortion debate. And many people, even liberals said ‘what is wrong with debate’. Our feminists fought this, and said ‘why should my rights as a person be up for debate!!!??”
Of course, they were accused of being ‘shrill’
Big surprise, eh!
What’s wrong with debate is the same thing that’s wrong with evolutionists debating creationists or climate scientists debating global warming deniers or historians debating Holocaust deniers.
The very act of debate creates false balance and false legitimacy to views that are at best completely unsupported and at worst actively malicious.
It reminds me of that Dara O’Briain bit about pseudoscience:
… and now, for the sake of ‘balance,’ we turn to Barry, who believes the sky is a carpet painted by God.
Me debating my rights is as absurd as an astrophysicist debating Barry.
What fantasy world do you live in that sexism or racism are banned?
Quick Reminder to Ophelia, relevant to her argument with this Renee Hendricks person: Even radical feminism isn’t really bad to dudes. Shit to WoC, trans women, poor women, etc, but seriously, there is just not a remotely powerful segment of *any* population that ‘hates men’.
Im kind of confused. I looked up Warren Farrell, and he doesn’t seem to be a misogynist. He was a popular feminist at one time (just from what i read on Wikipedia, so could be bs) ? Can anyone shed light on why they were calling it hate speech and talking about rape? From the quotes I could find, I didn’t see anything from warren farrell that I would see as misogynist.
The only thing I can think of is that it was a MRA group that was hosting it. Still, I can’t imagine anyone protesting like that if the content of the talk wasn’t something pretty awful.
Concerning my post above, I just found the quotes from the penthouse article.