Internet Lunatics - RadFems, PUA's, MRA's, MGTOW's, etc.

Think of it like a "Natural Ability" granted to Paladins in Dungeons and Dragons. He has devoted himself utterly to an ideology which, just by its bare existence, requires multiple contradictions and hypocrisies be accepted wholeheartedly and simultaneously. By its very nature it uses "victimhood" proactively as a weapon against others, going to all lengths possible to convince others of the legitimacy of claiming "he hit my fist with his face". Naturally that's going to affect his conversations. Just like Bodkin's overreliance on them leads him to incessently repeat the same "If you disagree with X it proves X" type arguments over and over, a known side effect of that kind of toxic epistemology.

These aren't learned skills, they're as innate as Teabaggers truly believing in their souls that they're "persecuted" when they're not allowed to force their way on others. Baraka obviously genuinely believes that he's the victim of all these accuastions, when in reality he's the one doing exactly what he accuses me of.

Just look at them:

Starting from the first gender politics thread on this forum I've been compared to the ku klux klan, accused of being a misogynist, a rape apologist, and generally personally attacked in all the usual ways. "I'm not like you" indeed. This thread itself was started as nothing more than a circlejerk quoting blatant falsehoods and beating up an offensive bigoted straw man, look at the very title of the thread: "Internet lunatics".

I've called all of you on using various tired and repetitive personal attacks multiple times. "Not like me" indeed.

Your entire side, the ideology you defend, is based on deliberately lying to the point of literally rewriting the definition of rape in order to protect the lie that "99% of rapists are men raping women". Feminism itself blatantly and deliberately lies about virtually every single one of its claims, relying on the use of falsified data, rigged "studies", and when all else fails flat out lies made from whole cloth to prop itself up.

Just like you constantly manipulate this thread by pretending to be a victim of exactly what you yourself are most guilty of doing.

You, Charlatan, and Bodkin ignore my posts so much that I literally caught you guys accusing me of things that either didn't happened, or for attacking me over things other people said.
Your tactics are entirely based off of either manufacturing excuses to handwave away whatever contradicts you without actually disproving it, or flat out making up victimhood to try and use "Victim Cred" as a weapon.

Just for amusement's sake I'll walk through the last few posts again this time quoting you exactly, so you can invent some other excuse to avoid having to actually deal with the entire underlying basis of your position getting yanked out from under you yet again:
1. "Nine out of ten murderers are men. Between murder and suicide, it's men who seem to value life the least."
This is two simple sentences. The first is a claim of fact, the second is an opinion predicated on the claim of fact that nine out of ten murderers are men.

2. In response to that I cite three seperate peer reviewed publications proving that the claim of fact, the basis of his entire point, is directly the result of an inherently biased system.
This is a direct rebuttal to the very core of his point, it is directly relevant, it does not "change" or "misrepresent" anything despite his attempt to manufacture Victim Cred by claiming I'm doing that.

3. "Besides that, you're being assumptive again. You're also "pedestalizing" data unrelated to what I said."
These two sentences are substanceless. They're nothing more than a fancy sounding way of saying "I'm right and you're wrong Just Because". It's just another way of manufacturing some excuse to handwave my posts away instead of actually dealing with anything I say. He's incapable of surviving an honest debate so instead he sidesteps the entire process by universally refusing to acknowledge anything that contradicts him as valid.

You'll notice he's allowed to make whatever assumptions or blanket statements he wants, but I can't even directly address an empirical claim without him claiming it's "unrelated" and "assumptive".

You mean we could've gone through the cycle of me burying you in facts and evidence, you ignoring everything that contradicts you by handwaving it away as invalid Just Because, and then going back to another round of all of this?

 

...I never played D&D... Is there something about me that makes you assume I did..?

But yeah, I get the analogy.

Yes, yes it was. It was only meant to maturely discuss and possibly legitimately discredit wildly ridicule with reckless abandon - like mindless depraved internet savages - the actual real-life "straw men/women" of these groups - the actual extremists and fringe-dwellers who write the kind of sociopathic lunacy I linked to in my first few posts that generally concerns dehumanizing or enslaving people based on gender or even killing an entire gender (gendercide..?). I think I really made it because I've been reading their stuff recently and it just kept bending my brain and tormenting me and I had to get it out, you know? Like when you have a song stuck in your head on repeat, so you have to listen to it to for real so it will stop playing like a broken record and slowly driving you even further down your already-pretty-advanced spiral into madness.

It wasn't meant to try and rip apart the whole entire various movements and ideologies that these fringe-dwelling wackos claim to be a part of. Yes, each group in general has some good points/observations and some bad points/biased/circular logic. It seems like a person could literally argue that back and forth for weeks OH WAIT you have been doing it for literally weeks now. Every time I check back here there are like 2 or 3 entire new pages of elaborate diatribes based on out-of-context quotes, and pot-shots and dodges and parries and and subject-hopping and all other sorts of malarkey and mental/logical acrobatics and contortion. Which is just as well I guess; the fun of prodding at the socially-destructive and borderline self-parodying lunatics had faded by the second or third page anyway. It just never ceases to amaze me how utterly devoted some people can get to these protracted forum discussions, and how far people are willing to suspend their disbelief or bend their logic in order to continue the fight. Which isn't meant to be a statement on any particular person, just an observation.

Anyway though, don't let me interfere with the debate - back to the fray! I relinquished all stock in this thread pages ago, and I only return out of morbid curiosity.

 

I'd be perfectly inclined to believe you... if this hadn't pretty much been a "Hey look at how much the MRM sucks, lets link to this completely different group of people to prove it" thing from the start. I mean, hell man, we could've all been laughing together about how goddamn crazy RadFem Hub had to have been to provoke the rabidly misandrist Rationalwiki to call them on their bigotry.

 

And of course since you are the sole arbiter of what the "actual subject" is I can perpetually be deemed to be avoiding it any time you want to....

...handwave something as "not applying" because you decided they're no longer relevant. Like, yknow, you just did.

You say something taking for granted that you're right... I respond with a bunch of evidence that you're not... you handwave it as invalid, say it's off topic, or accuse me of misrepresenting what you were saying...

Nah, I think I'm good.

 

I honestly can't even make sense of your posts anymore. Your deliberate vagueness, which allows you to endlessly play the "You're misrepresenting me" game, is so thick now it's impossible to tell what you're even referring to. If you're still going on about crime and murder data I already gave you three seperate peer reviewed publications and an explanation of how your conclusion was based on demonstrably flawed data, after which of course you reflexively lept to handwave as invalid with the claim it was "unrelated" and paint yourself as a victim by accusing me of being "assumptive".

No... I think we've run this ship aground, but I imagine I'm still in few occasional anti-MRM potshots and maybe even a dogpile or two at some point. Sadly I have to sleep sometime so you'll have to wait 9 hours to hear back. If it's worth it anymore.

 

I am not going to let the KKK thing slide again.

I did not compare *you* to the KKK, nor did anyone else. To state otherwise is a complete falsehood based on your own persecution complex.

Let it go.
Move on.
Stop being an asshole, it's not becoming.

 

Some stats, with references to sources. Do with it what you will: Sex differences in crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaFrom the page:

Murder and Gender
In 2011, the United States Department of Justice compiled homicide statistics in the United States between 1980 and 2008.[1] That study showed the following:
Offenders

• Males committed the vast majority of homicides in the United States at that time, representing 90% of the total number of offenders.[2]
• Young adult black males had the highest homicide offending rate compared to offenders in other racial and sex categories.[3]
• White females of all ages had the lowest offending rates of any racial or age groups.[4]
• The overall offending rates for both males and females have declined since 1990.[5]
• Of children under age 5 killed by a parent, the rate for biological fathers was slightly higher than for biological mothers.[6]
• However, of children under 5 killed by someone other than their parent, 80% were killed by males.[7]

Victims

• Victimization rates for both males and females have been relatively stable since 2000.[8]
• Males were more likely to be murder victims (76.8%).[9]
• Females were most likely to be victims of domestic homicides (63.7%) and sex-related homicides (81.7%)[10]
• Males were most likely to be victims of drug- (90.5%) and gang-related homicides (94.6%).[11]

 

This is why I only have sex with white females instead of black males. Its just safer.

Oh, that and the whole "has a penis" thing...

 

Oh sorry, did I forget to specifically link to MRM stuff? I really don't remember at this point. In any case, I didn't mean for the title of the thread to be an exact, color-by-numbers list of who/what would be the precise focus of the thread - thus the "etc." part at the end of the title. Maybe I should have put "et al" instead. I was more loosely just referring to that certain class of fringe wackos in any of those sorts of ideology-based camps, and I'm sure you'll always be able to find a couple of fruitcakes in each. Also, the nutters of the various groups often tend to have more in common - at least psychologically and pathologically - with each other than they do with their more reserved and rational members of their own groups, and that class was more the focus - not any specific group. I don't have a specific bone to pick with any one of them really, I just think most of them are generally equally nuts, if in slightly different ways.

 

Uh-oh... FACTS...
.
Does this mean that...
.
.

 

No, because we've already covered multiple times that merely reposting something that's been rebutted without addressing the rebuttal does not magically make the rebuttal go away. I already addressed the problem with blankly quoting conviction based statistics with no less than three seperate peer reviewed citations AND by logically showing why using this data to judge males as a whole is no less prejudicial or invalid than using crime conviction data overall to judge blacks as a whole.

But of course Baraka handwaved all of that as invalid by claiming it was "unrelated". Which really takes this to a whole new level since it's the first time he's gone so far as to say something, handwave it was "unrelated", and then go right back to talking about that exact same thing again. Bringing the timeline to this:

1. Baraka claims homicide conviction rates prove men value life less
2. I post three seperate peer reviewed citations explaining why conviction rates are incredibly prejudicial and not a valid starting point
3. Baraka claims this is all "unrelated" and handwaves it as invalid rather than addressing it
4. Baraka now goes right back to talking about conviction rates

This goes beyond intellectual dishonestly into just plain outright trolling. If you want to pull this kind of bullshit you need to find someone else to fuck around with, because I'm done playing that game.