I have to say this about the sh*tstorm over what is being irreverently termed shirtgate – it’s the final and ultimate straw in moving me away from ever calling myself a feminist again … at least, not in mixed company. Ah, well – a pity that the term has been so debased in the last few decades. Much as the memory of very real repression and denial of rights in the persons-of-color/African-American/Black community has been diminished, overlaid, generally abused and waved like a bloody shirt by cynical operators (to the detriment of the real-life community of color/African-American/Black-whatever they wish to be called this decade), so has the very real struggle for substantive legal, economic, economic and social rights for women also been debased and trivialized. Just as the current so-called champions of civil rights seem to use the concept as an all-purpose cover for deflecting any useful discussion of the impact of welfare, the trivialization of marriage, and glorification of the thug-life-style in the persons-of-color/African-American/Black community, the professional and very loud capital F-feminists seem to prefer a theatrical gesture over any substantial discussion of the real needs and concerns – and even the careers of ordinary women. Women whom it must be said, are usually capable, confident, tough, and love the men in their lives – fathers, brothers, husbands and sons.
The self-elected spokeswomen for feminism certainly do seem to pop up over and over again – they must take up a good few cards in the average main-stream media reporter’s Golden Rolodex. If it’s to do with reproductive rights, the harpies of professional feminism will be there, center stage and hogging the microphone. For a particular palette of similar issues, they will also be there, likely wearing vagina costumes, tampon earrings, and screeching about the patriarchy. It appears that capital-letter Feminism is now an excuse to be a man-hating, vengeful, and easily-provoked harpy. They also seem to have a nice line in bullying those – male and female alike – who do not agree with them in every jot and tittle. For the nastiest and most prolonged episode of this in recent history, I give you Sarah Palin; a woman of intelligence and considerable political skill (acquired without marrying into a political family or being the spawn of one), monstered enthusiastically by the professional feminists, and some whom I had originally thought were above that kind of doctrinaire intellectual snobbery. (Yes, looking at you, Peggy Noonan.)
In this most recent case, the target of the professional feminists has been a youngish scientist who was part of a team responsible for landing a probe on a moving comet. This has been compared to a sharpshooter with a perch in a helicopter flying over New York aiming at and hitting a humming-bird who will be hovering over a particular flower five minutes from now in Wyoming. And the big takeaway which the professional harpy feminists took away from it? A blogger/writer at the Atlantic, one Rose Eveleth (whom I have never heard of before this; yay, chica, you’ve made yourself famous!) took one look at this stupendous achievement and decided to cry ‘sexism’ over the shirt that the scientist was wearing in televised interviews.
An ‘aloha’ style short-sleeved shirt made from fabric with images of busty and space-blaster-armed women, taken from old science fiction illustrations. Apparently in Ms Eveleth’s mind, such images are harmful to women, and make them feel unwelcome in STEM fields. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion – and mine is that having a public conniption-fit over a shirt with old pop science-fiction images of women on it is too Victorian for words. This mentality is akin to the legendary delicacy of putting drawers on piano legs. Frankly, my dear – if you can’t handle such horrid sights, you might be better off keeping yourself housebound, laying on a fainting-couch with a perfume-drenched hankie over your fevered brow, rather than pursuing a career in science, technology, engineering or medicine.
Strong and confident women are not threatened by the sight of such a shirt, or much else, come to think on it. Which reminds me of a small incident very early in my own career in the military; when a new bulletin board went up in the AFRTS breakroom of the station at FEN-Misawa, and some of the guys threatened to post pinups of scantily-clad women on it. My friend Marsh and I did not faint dead away, or break into tears, or threaten to sic the social actions office on them. Nothing of the sort; we simply got a copy of Playgirl, removed the male pinup from it, applied a discrete paper fig-leaf to the page, and added it to the bulletin board. Whereupon one of our male NCO colleagues (balding and a titch on the heavy side) looked at it and said, “What’s he got that I haven’t got?” and I said, “More hair and about fifty pounds less.”
And then we all laughed, and were friends, and all the pinups came down. That, young Rose, is how it is done by real women in the real world – not by coercing an apology through a hash-tag storm and public demonstrations of irrelevant outrage.
(Cross-posted at www.ncobrief.com)
Great response – both then and now. And what both have is not only empathy and maturity but humor. What has long struck me about feminists (and . . . well, the left) is the remarkable lack of humor – certainly none of the reflective, ironic kind but not of even the good humor of campy moments. And certainly, no falling on a banana peel laughter.
My experience with capable women in traditionally male occupations is that they are not that different from the successful men. They tend to have similar interests and hobbies, and they get along with men, enjoy the male subculture, and can give as good as they get. The demand that “feminine” sensibilities should dominate all occupations is just asking for trouble, and trouble is what we are beginning to see.
The women who call themselves feminists now tend to be third-raters who make a fuss about trivialities because they lack the talent to distinguish themselves in more important ways. Also, it is no accident that they are usually unattractive. It is not so much that feminism turns women into unattractive, humorless losers as it is that relatively untalented, unattractive, humorless women tend to be drawn to feminism as an easy way to improve their competitive position vs. other women. The social dynamics of feminism thus resemble those of cults, extreme political movements and other subcultures.
Also agree with Chuck.
Yep – pretty much what I experienced, Chuck. It’s the humorlessness of it all, which get’s me, Ginny – and the hatefulness. It was a shirt ferg*dsake, given to him by a female friend – likely with joking affection, him being a total nerd. What Ms Eveleth did was horrible, and I am thinking of putting her into one of my Lone Star Sons stories, as a fainting Victorian feminist, dropping onto her fainting couch, upon setting eyes on a man’s waistcoat… Have to figure out how to do it and work it into the story. Some people deserve to have scorn and derision poured on them by any means.
If you ever find yourself under this kind of attack. Don’t do what the poor sap did and make a tearful apology. That will simply encourage your enemies do do a war dance on your head.
What you must do is issue the following statement: “F#%&’em if they can’t take a joke.”
That should stop them in their tracks.
Never complain, never explain. — Disraeli
>>Have to figure out how to do it and work it into the story.
Maybe the waistcoat has been embroidered by his artist-mistress with scantily clad, six gun packin’ cowgirls. :-P That would work.
I guess my comment went into the spam folder.
>I guess my comment went into the spam folder.
Maybe Jonathan thinks we comment too much. We keep messing up what was nice, neat, well ordered blog. BTW, how do you order a scotch around this place?
If you take sexual politics out of the appearance of the shirt and look at it merely from aesthetics, the shirt is not attractive: a pastiche of schlocky pictures. This shirt could be worn only by someone indifferent to wearing good-looking clothes [or someone who wears it as a joke]: a description which fits men much more than women. I suspect that a lot of the ire behind that woman’s reaction went something like this: “We women spend a lot of time selecting good looking clothes. That you deliberately wear such bad looking clothes is an insult to us. Why can’t you be more like us and be concerned with our clothes?”
I have probably taken more care than many men in purchasing my wardrobe, yet I am also quite content to wear a cutoff and t-shirt – though not at this time of year. At least it is the most comfortable attire in a TX summer. I am proud of having some shirts that are 40+ years old- most women would be appalled at wearing such old clothes. I am also glad that male fashion changes so little that I am currently wearing clothing that could have come from 40-50 years ago. Most women don’t think that way.
I occasionally wear a Che Guevara T-shirt that I have modified to provoke a reaction, by writing insulting remarks about Che on the T-shirts. Little or no reaction, though this is probably because very few people understand the Argentine form of Spanish they are written in. Only one person in 15 years understood it.
Feminism again reveals its essential nature. It is not doing it wrong. It is doing what it must.
The bullying of Taylor is not an error of ideology or action anymore than the Gulag is error of socialism. It was inherent (and loudly proclaimed) from the beginning within an intellectual edifice that makes other socialist ideologies look honest and rational.
The fashion mob are as essential to feminism and the Committee of Public Safety is to the Revolution, as the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue is to Wahhabism, and the Gestapo and NKVD to socialism.
EUrope is far ahead of us in institutionalizing this.
Outstanding post, Sgt. Mom. I deal with very few women in my industry but my favorite by far is one that works at a local military base – most of the others are butch lesbians and we have to be very careful what we say around them (Madison is good for that). The woman that works in the military has a potty mouth and uses it but what a hilarious, strong and (by extension) attractive woman she is. She is definitely one of the guys – and I imagine is very good at her job and is also very good at working that ecosystem where she works. I imagine she would have had some sort of the same reaction to the pinup as you did.
Antifeminists are completely and utterly fucked up beyond all redemption.
Nothing like a nice, cogent, and well-put-together argument, Luscinia. Bless your heart.
Ah, “bless your heart,” the insult for people too chickenshit to insult properly. That might fly in the south but not in Massachusetts.
Here’s a post from the Mad Genius Club, by someone who may or may not advocate breeding factories (he said he didn’t want to discuss the maximum level for fear of feminists jumping down his throat): An intermediate level might be to attach legislation to draft activation that makes things more difficult for young women not bearing children or contributing to defense. Perhaps shutting down a lot of tertiary education, and limiting female access to same excepting only veterans and needs of defense.
Or this one by Drow: There was a video recently of a bunch of women shrieking insults and making fun of a guy for the clothes he wore, on a subway. Confident that they wouldn’t be attacked, or chastized or anything. Just some random guy on a train wearing a jacket they didn’t like.
When they went too far, the man they were insulting punched him in the face.
I cheered.
Because goddamnit, there’s a point that too much is too much. And fuck it. If women and men are goddamned ‘equal’ and ‘interchangeable’ now, then the words a man would punch another man for, a woman can be punched for.
And if he really was physically assaulted first, Drow didn’t know that and simply cheered under the assumption that a man punched a woman in the face for insulting his jacket.
Fuck antifeminism with a chainsaw.
I am actually in the South, Anonymous – and I prefer to be relatively civil in my posts and comments, as well as making them under a long-time and well-established nym … rather than merely remaining anonymous.
I merely posted without bothering to fill in the name/mail/whatever, since apparently, it isn’t required.
In any case, what say you regarding the posts on the Mad Genius Club?
Che was at least fighting against the Klaus Barbie regime.
Are we supposed to have heard of “the Mad Genius Club” or “Drow”? Are we supposed to know whether they are actual clubs, or websites, or individuals, or something else? Because I have no idea who ‘luscinia’ is talking about.
More pertinently, even if “the Mad Genius Club” and “Drow” are (a) totally repulsive (likely enough – IF the unlinked undated quotations are accurate and representative) and (b) antifeminists (same proviso), so what? Does that make all antifeminists without exception “completely and utterly fucked up beyond all redemption” and deserving of sexual assault by chainsaw, or would that be really really stupid?
I’m not going to assume that all or most anti-anti-feminists are evil-minded morons just because foul-mouthed ‘luscinia’ thinks Che had anything to do with Klaus Barbie. Because that would be moronic – and evil-minded.
I wouldn’t begin to venture an opinion, Luscinia, on two posts/comments pulled entirely at random from a group blog that I read only intermittently – since I have no idea of the context of the remarks you quoted would be, or who wrote them. Are you presuming to hold me responsible for other people’s opinions? Do I have a window handy, to peer into their souls?
I must say that you – if you are calling yourself a feminist – are providing us with an excellent example of why I no longer wish to identify with the so-called professional feminists. You have entirely missed the point of my original post. You are jumping to a very unwise and unconsidered conclusion, and in addition, you are rude, unnecessarily confrontational, and potty-mouthed. Have I insulted you sufficiently, yet?
Why Sgt. Mom, bless yo’ everlovin’ lil’ heart. Without sarcasm.
Lucinia, I do believe, is a troll that has nothing better to do but to stalk an Asian girl across the internet and try (fruitlessly) to shame the people who post on Mad Genius Club. Coming to a completely different place to spread its slander is typical.
Darn … and here I thought I had gotten us a new troll — er, chew-toy — for our amusement and delectation. The old ones were getting a bit stale and flavorless.
The very concept of antifeminism needs a good figurative fuck with a chainsaw.
I think they’re both in “Special Types Of Entitled” on AccordingToHoyt.com
Does anyone know what metaphorical rapist-mutilator ‘Luscinia’ is going on about? Who are the “both” in her last comment, what do they have to do with Sarah Hoyt (I’ve at least heard of her), and what (in her previous comment) does Che Guevara have to do with Klaus Barbie, other than both being spectactularly sadistic totalitarian thugs (not exactly in short supply in the last century)?
Who is Luscina? What on bloody earth is she,
That all our bloggers commend her?
Ignorant, profane and dumb is she;
The internet such grace did lend her,
That she might scorned be.
(With apologies to the original author)
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries! No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
1. Uh, the comments I mentioned previously. What, do I have to write at a third grade level so you can understand it?
2. Klaus Barbie was involved with the Bolivian regime Che was fighting against.
Well, you might have to sober up and organize your thoughts, such as they are, to write at a third grade level, my dear.
Go and boil your bottoms, sons of a silly person! I blow my nose at you!
No apologies for metaphorical rape-mutilation fantasies from ‘Luscinia’? No, just further stupid insults.
I still don’t know (or care) who ‘Mad Genius Club’ or ‘Drow’ are, or see any need to take any position on anything stupid they may (or may not – I don’t trust ‘Luscinia’) have said. What kind of moron judges one whole side of the political spectrum by the statements of one or two of those (allegedly) aligned with it?
I was in fact ignorant of Klaus Barbie’s connection with the Bolivian military regime: interesting, and very nasty. However, I fail to see how Barbie’s connection to the Bolivians in any way justifies Che Guevara’s multitude of crimes, or any expectation that his efforts would have improved Bolivia in any way, if his abortive revoluation had succeeded there. The Cuban regime he served so brutally and enthusiastically was, by any measure, worse than Bolivia’s, as well as far more durable. One Nazi helping one side does not automatically make the other side angels of sweetness and light, and it is deeply dishonest (as well as confusing) to call the Bolivian dictators “the Klaus Barbie regime”, as if he were the dictator himself.
If Che succeeded, it would be a vast improvement over a sadistic rapist of children, torturer, and murderer.
“I am proud of having some shirts that are 40+ years old”
If I was the same weight I was 40 years ago, I would wear those shirts. Unfortunately, I have to save them for after my diet. It’s been a few years now but I still have some of them.
You’re a troll, Luscina, and not a particularly intelligent or creative one. Bring your best game to Chicagoboyz or go down in flames.
Another crudity from my Air Force days? If you wanna f*ck with the eagles, you better be able to fly. You, dear heart, can’t even get off the ground.
Ok, then. But what of Drow’s comment about how men should have the right to punch women who insult them? Or Bobtheregisterredfool’s comment about restricting education and making things difficult for childless women?
Is ‘Luscinia’ unaware that Che himself was a sadistic torturer and murderer on a very large scale? Or does she know it, and approve of it? Her repeated fantasies about raping us with a chainsaw for disagreeing with her suggest the latter. As I’ve said before on similar occasions, even if they don’t know your name, age, gender, location, nationality, or anything else about you, when you write like ‘Luscinia’, on the Internet everyone knows you’re a dog.
I probably ought to point out that the shirt of #Shirtstorm didn’t have the sci-fi babes with blasters (a far superior theme), it had babes with guns and a similar covering of black leather clothing. It may have warranted a raised eyebrow, but no more.
Having also been in the military (if the gentles on this board will allow Air Force) over 20 years ago, I don’t have all that much sympathy for the delicate flowers who don’t think that they can compete in a male environment. I suspect that they simply don’t *like* a male environment. But I’d rather work in one than not.
To me what makes a work environment the most toxic, is discussion of politics at work. A shirt with girls on it is just colorful. I’m not going to faint over that any more than I was destroyed by decades upon decades of dumb blonde jokes… even if I did wish for glasses to make me look smarter when I was a teen… the bottom line is that a person has to realize their own self enough to decide that the blonde jokes are just silly things and ignore them. If you can’t do that, what else in life can you do?
I found less judgement and more respect in male environments.
What about ‘Drow’ (whoever he is) and the other guy? Who cares? Do they write for Chicago Boyz? Has anyone who does write for Chicago Boyz, or who comments on Chicago Bozy, ever written anything similar, or anything that suggests in any way that he or she agrees with what these two (allegedly*) wrote? I certainly don’t agree with their opinions, as reported here by a tendentious and sick-minded troll. Who ever would have imagined that I would?
*I say ‘allegedly’ because ‘Luscinia’ has misrepresented simple facts already here, for instance clearly implying that Klaus Barbie was at one time dictator of Bolivia, so I do not trust her to have reported whatever they (whoever they are) wrote either accurately or honestly.
(Drow, is the stalker-subject, btw… and there is nothing particularly outrageous in suggesting that something that a man would be punched for a woman should also expect to be punched for, because that’s equality. The other comment reads like a science-fiction what-if question, which is what science fiction writers *do*, and not a suggestion for policy. A science fiction usenet group I was on once discussed the taste of human flesh… it didn’t mean that anyone was considering cannibalism. Just as the intro to the show “Castle” describes the fact that mystery writers and psychopaths equally try to figure out how to murder people doesn’t mean that mystery writers approve of murder. OTOH, we’ve been blessed with the remark, in context, right here, that people who aren’t pro-feminist in this slut-walk, vagina costume, make a grown man cry and cheer over it world ought to (figuratively) raped with a chainsaw… because someone really seemed to like the mind picture of raped with a chainsaw… but women deserving to get punched for doing what a man would *expect* to get punched over is…. bad?)
“I found less judgement and more respect in male environments.”
So did I, and so would I – and I was actually in the Air Force for 20 years. Hold up your own end, do the job and give back as readily and wittily as you got? Good to go. A shirt with space-babes on it? Good lord, give me strength.
My daughter – Blondie the two-hitch Marine – actually said numerous times that she preferred to hang out with guys because she didn’t have to be so g*ddamn sensitive. She could be frank with the guys, and they would accept it or laugh it off. As with her female peers – unless very careful, they would fold up into little sniveling balls of protoplasm. She found male company to be rather restful, on that account. So did I. The senior NCO who probably did me in as a broadcaster was a woman. So much for female solidarity.
Take note, Luscina.
Drow is the one who thinks gender equality means men should be allowed to punch women in the face for insults. Drow is also delusional.
It’s funny, the people I associate with are mostly women.
I think it’s possible Luscinia has a fairly severe emotional or psychological unbalance. She certainly has a lot violent thoughts towards anyone she disagrees with, and very specific violent thoughts too. I suspect everything else is just window dressing to justify her violent urges. Any excuse would do. She should probably seek out some professional medical help.
Drow is the small female Filipina you follow around the internet and harass because you’re all about gender equality and diversity and all that stuff and can’t find anyone bigger to pick on.
It’s the “equality” crusader way… find a target it’s okay to hate and then go for it. And go to various places no one has a clue about what you’re up to and spread the word and try to recruit others to also go after your picked target.
Because it’s all about the (figurative) raping with the chainsaws and small female minorities can’t be allowed to have opinions about actual equality that you don’t like or that don’t toe the acceptable line.
Does Drow think women and men should be allowed to punch men in the face for insults, and men should be able to punch men for insults? If so, then thinking that men should be allowed to punch women in the face for the same reason is precisely what ‘gender equality’ means. How could it not be? If Drow doesn’t apply his rule to both sexes equally, ‘Luscinia’ might want to offer some evidence.
While she’s at it, she might want to explain why she brought Drow up in the first place. Is the idea that a single (I suppose) antifeminist’s repulsive (to ‘Luscinia’) opinions justify a repeatedly-expressed wish to apply a chainsaw to the private parts of the millions of other antifeminists in the world? I’m reluctant to believe that someone could argue something so obviously bigoted and stupid, but it appears that that’s exactly what ‘Luscinia’ is arguing.
Again, if she thinks we’re all “completely and utterly fucked up beyond all redemption”, why does she argue with us? Does she not know what “beyond redemption” means? I don’t write letters to Charles Manson or Kim Jong Un, because it would be pointless.
Of course, arguing with some trolls is a lot like shooting fish in a barrel, but those who’ve never tried it should remember: for all they know, shooting fish in a barrel may in fact be downright exhilarating.
So Drow’s a woman? In that case, change “his” to “her” in my first paragraph, but don’t change anything else: my argument is entirely unaffected.
Nobody should be allowed to have the opinions that Drow has.
Drow thinks rape victims are “irresponsible morons with glitterdust on the brain.”
‘Luscinia’ thinks antifeminists deserve to be raped with chainsaws. Should she “be allowed to have the opinions” she has? Well, yes: repulsive as those opinions are, she’s still allowed to have them, at least in countries with some equivalent to the First Amendment. It would be nice if she would extend the same right to others. Of course, there is no evidence that Drow’s opinions are in fact repulsive. ‘Luscinia’ has proved that her word is not to be trusted, and she again provides no link to prove that Drow ever wrote the words in quotation marks, much less any context – it’s not even a complete sentence.
Luscina, sweetie – Who the hell is Drow and why should we care? And why should we be in charge of allowing/approving her/his opinions?
Again – Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries! No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
Apologies to the regular Chicagoboyz – I hoped that this post should attract better-than-average blog-troll. Alas, brutal reality strikes again. Where is Pengunny when you need him?
It’s interesting to see the young women applying to the military. About third are professionals of some sort. Many are nurses or physical therapists. Then there is a group of nice young women who are smart and will probably go for tech jobs or intell. Then the last third are young women with lots of tattoos who will have some difficulty adjusting, I suspect.
I said “antifeminism,” not “antifeminists.” Figure of speech.
How is there no evidence that Drow’s opinion is repulsive? There’s a direct quote on According to Hoyt.
Link or it didn’t happen. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries! No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
You’re a troll, a particularly incoherent one who can’t even keep to the subject at hand and answer to the questions and issues put to you. Is this the pathetic standard for trollage these days? Some scattershot insults – and – is that all you got? Really? I got spam comments in the filter to my other websites who are more on topic than you. Try again – and put your back into it, this time.
linky
http://accordingtohoyt.com/2014/11/17/special-types-of-entitled-kate-paulk/#comments
Figures of speech tell us a lot about those who use them – more than some of them realize, even when we point it out – especially if they insist on repeating them. Only a contemptible pedant could pretend that ‘-ism’ vs ‘-ists’ makes any difference in this context. I would be like saying “Nuke Iran!” (or any other country) and then insisting that you had no intention of harming any Iranians.
“There’s a direct quote”? How about linking it, as a normal human being does, instead of acting like (or rather ‘as’) an unusually trolly troll and wasting our time? Or why not leave your comments on the site where the allegedly repulsive comment was allegedly posted? Can you not do that? Were you banned there? That would be so . . . not surprising.
Hmmm. I followed the link provided, found a post with 470 comments, decided not to try to read them all, and tried a ctrl-F on “irresponsible morons with glitterdust on the brain”. No result for that or for “irresponsible” or for “morons” or for “glitterdust”. The hits for “glitter” and “brains” didn’t have any resemblance to the allegedly quoted phrase. Looks like our friend ‘Luscinia’ may just be lying about what Drow allegedly wrote. Oops.
Giggle … that’s a thread with more than 400 comments on it. You wanna win the internet, Luscina, dearie, you’d best be a little more specific than that.
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries! Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
Sgt. Mom, your takeoff on “Who Is Silvie” was a hoot. A classmate who was All State in chorus sang it in my Humanities class in high school, so it is, as the saying goes, seared into my brain. Shakespeare and Schubert- what a combo.
Given the racist and murderous tendencies of Che Guevara, anyone who considers him a vast improvement over the likes of Klaus Barbie is, as one would say in Che’s Argentina, bien pelotudo. Or in the case of our friend Luscinia, bien pelotuda.
From The Motorcycle Diaries:
Regarding Che as murderous, I refer our troll friend to Che’s time as jail commandant and Lord High Executioner in Cuba.
My take on Che going into Bolivia to save the country is best expressed by an old Bolivian joke. There was a priest who ended each sermon by saying, “May the wrath of God descent upon the Argentines.” Given the attitudes of many- or most- Bolivians towards Argentina, this went over well with the priest’s congregation. Nonetheless, word of the priest’s sermons reached the local Bishop, who called the priest in for a talk. “You must stop bad-mouthing the Argentines. Like us they are children of God.”
The priest stopped bad-mouthing the Argentines. Some time later Easter season arrived. The priest told his congregation about the Last Supper. Christ told his disciples, “One of you will betray me.” Peter replied, “It is I, Master.” Christ said to Peter, “No, it is not you, Peter.” Simon told Christ, “It is I, Master, who will betray you.” Christ told Simon, “No, Simon, it is not you.” This went on, disciple by disciple, until it was time for Judas to speak. Judas spoke in phonetic Spanish,”Che Maestro, soy zho.” [“It is I, Master,” in a VERY Argentine accent.]
Which speaks of the futility of an Argentine trying to “save” Bolivia.
Where is Pengunny when you need him?
Did he get banned? Several days ago there was a link to an old posting where PenGun didn’t come out very well in the knowledge department. Maybe he got tired of getting beaten up.
Did he get banned?
Not by me.
I don’t remember where the glitterdust comment was. Google tells me
http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/06/10/the-naive-idiocy-of-teaching-rapists-not-to-rape/
Klaus Barbie had a man beaten, flayed, and doused in ammonia. Klaus Barbie forced girls to copulate with dogs. He died unrepentant.
Larry Correia’s post on monsterhunternation is a fun read, though Larry doesn’t worry over much about being “nice.”
He also writes extremely entertaining books. His Monster Hunter books are best sellers, but I think I liked “Hard Magic” better.
From Mad Genius Club, Sarah Hoyt and Dave Freer, in particular but the other authors who post there as well, are worth reading and reading again. Hoyt and Freer write in a number of genres. Draw One in the Dark and Gentleman Takes a Chance by Hoyt are fun shape-changer science fiction set in Colorado, and Darkship Thieves is an award winning Space Opera and tribute to Heinlein. Freer… I wouldn’t know where to start to recommend his books. Dragon Ring is very good… and has Dragons. Joy Cometh in the Mourning is a cozy mystery featuring a woman priest serving a small coastal Tasmanian (I think!) parish. These are slightly less bloody than anything Larry Correia writes.
Freer seems to think demographics of awards should match demographics as a whole (spoiler alert: leftists are better writers) and Peter Grant is a racist.
I particularly like how it’s not even necessary to defend one’s friends because you defeat yourself by your own statements.
From his Amazon page:
“Peter Grant was born and raised in Cape Town, South Africa. Between military service, the IT industry and humanitarian involvement, he traveled throughout sub-Saharan Africa before being ordained as a pastor. He later emigrated to the USA, where he worked as a pastor and prison chaplain until an injury forced his retirement. He is now a full-time writer, and married to a pilot from Alaska. They currently live in Tennessee.”
What did you object to, Clamps? The Prison Chaplain memoir?
Someone who repeatedly wishes that people be raped with chainsaws just for disagreeing with her silly ideas is probably not the best one to criticize Nazis for what they actually did. No one here has defended Barbie. As with Hitler’s invasion of Stalin’s USSR, it’s quite possible to have people on both sides of a conflict who are utterly vile, while having a distinct preference as to which side should win. Hint: Stalin killed more people than Hitler, but FDR was still probably right to support him over Hitler when forced to choose.
Of course, someone too stupid to even pretend to address the question of whether Che Guevara’s insurrection would have made Bolivia a better or a worse place if he had succeeded, and too ignorant to know what the example of Cuba tells us about the likelihood, is too stupid to argue with.
And of course someone who writes “There’s a direct quote on According to Hoyt” and then admits that the words (inaccurately quoted and ripped out of context) were posted on a whole different site is too stupid to be allowed to post on the internet without adult supervision. In context, it’s quite clear that Drow is not in fact criticizing actual rape victims, rather those who think telling men not to rape is a better plan than arming oneself in case one of the men doesn’t listen to instructions. Since ‘Luscinia’ seems to be stalking Drow, self-defense seems a particularly good idea in Drow’s case.
“Antifeminists are completely and utterly fucked up beyond all redemption.”
Almost. When I was in college I knew a professor, a refugee from Communism, who had been so badly beaten by the secret police he could no longer move his back to twist, turn, or bend. Feminism, a variety of Socialism derived from and similar to Nazism and Communism will fuck up their victims beyond redemption for the same motives: crazy ideology and power lust.
I’m glad you agree with me that feminism is an complete and utter evil for way its treats its victim of insane ideology.
I think it’s possible Luscinia has a fairly severe emotional or psychological unbalance.
Maybe she’s having fantasies of Che raping her?????
BTW…this little lefttard troll has commented here before when the topic was on science fiction. She was as stupid then as she is now.
“Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!”
Ha! I’m neither sure what the heck Che Guevara has to do with this post nor inclined to follow links posted by trolls to find out, but that is really funny nonetheless.
“leftists are better writers”
Well, they certainly deal with fiction every day since they believe their ideas work.