OK... so there are no women on here...

[jjadams96871]

this pseudo-discussion is revealing at least something

It’s not so much women against men who argue here, but ideologically perverted people against people of reason. And – concurrently – people without a sense of civility and fairness against people who aim to be as fair as possible.

Anybody who reads carefully what NVAM has posted here, can plainly see how carefully he attempts to phrase his convictions + observations, so as to speak as objectively and fairly as possible. And he made one contribution to this thread, which nobody yet has caught, apparently. One that ideologically perverted people are simply unable to grasp, because it goes so much against their grain: the difficulty involved in extracting a person’s character out of some statements (s)he makes.

Ideologically perverted people depend for their arguments on over-simplification. And on their pretense of “knowing exactly what – or who – another person is”. TossAwayFellow illustrates this perfectly with his ridiculous theories, of my person for instance. And he has another obnoxious modus operandi: he is unwilling to look at a long statement as a whole, and instead breaks it down into small pieces, to make his point. So he can mis-understand it easier this way.

For the easiest way to misunderstand someone – on purpose – is to quote him out of context.

It makes no sense to continue his pseudo-argument, because ideologically perverted people are unwilling to listen to and understand people of reason. What I find sad about this sorry state of affairs: it’s possible that everybody who has “contributed” to this thread might have very similar values on some basic elements of interactions between men and women.

But all the shouting and yelling came about because ideologues refuse to listen – because ideology is always one-sided. And always over-simplified. Why was Hitler able to grasp power on 30jan 1933? Because he was an ideological demagogue, and the majority of German people then were receptive to him. Simplifications are always easy to agree with, because they require no work of the brain. And it gets even easier when an ideologue presents a category of people to blame for all evil in the world. For Hitler it was the Jews, and here it is all “so very disrespectful men”, supposedly.

Look at Trump bashing the press perennially as an enemy of the people. And look at some feminist hyenas here, and listen to the tone of their voices. Very little difference I can find between Hitler’s faschism <–> Trump’s obnoxiousness <–> feminist hyenas.

There are so many issues with this post, but there is one in particular that is really sticking with me. To the point that I feel compelled to reply and point it out.

Equating feminism with Nazism, fascism, Hitler, and Trump is a major problem for me. For one simple reason. Hitler, Musolini, Trump were/are all white men. Men. Who had never been subjugated. Never been marginalized. Never been dismissed as the weaker sex, the weaker race. Woman ACTUALLY HAVE a bone to pick! By comparing feminism with these ideologies and idealouges, you are implying that women are just power hungry for the sake of power. That their experiences of being marginalized, brutalized and dismissed for centuries never happened, or didn't matter if it did happen. This attitude disgusts me, and it should disgust anyone who reads about it

Also, calling them "feminist hyenas" is almost as bad as the OP saying they are an infestation...

Just saying.

 

[KatieDoes]

I’m glad that this idiot just equated the radical idea that women are entire people with Hitler.

I hope all of you that bent over backwards to make him feel better feel like the shit you should feel like.

Have the day you deserve!

 

[touchmysoul]

No dog in this fight (I don't agree with the guy's opinion) but anyone who uses the word "peak" instead of "pique" is a moron.

Every once in a while I have a moment that stops me in my tracks. I know I have done this. I can not think of a specific instance necessarily. But I am sure that someone took note and thought me a moron. The positive, I now know I will never make the mistake again.

 

[TossAwayFellow978]

this pseudo-discussion is revealing at least something

It’s not so much women against men who argue here, but ideologically perverted people against people of reason. And – concurrently – people without a sense of civility and fairness against people who aim to be as fair as possible.

I 100% agree with this statement.

People who equate feminism with Nazism = ideologically perverted people who lack a sense of civility and fairness

People of reason who aim to be as fair as possible = those who align with the values of feminism.

I think this fairly well sums up the two sides here.

Anybody who reads carefully what NVAM has posted here, can plainly see how carefully he attempts to phrase his convictions + observations, so as to speak as objectively and fairly as possible.

I'm going to point out, again, that in all your idiocy, you once again abbreviated "and" with a plus sign. God, that's so stupid, why do you do that?

And he made one contribution to this thread, which nobody yet has caught, apparently. One that ideologically perverted people are simply unable to grasp, because it goes so much against their grain: the difficulty involved in extracting a person’s character out of some statements (s)he makes.

I dunno, I think we've established rather a lot about your character based on the statements you've made. Both on this name, and on the others you use.

Ideologically perverted people depend for their arguments on over-simplification.

LOL Says the historically-illiterate simpleton who tried to equate feminism with Nazism.
Oh, but do go on, this should be good.

And on their pretense of “knowing exactly what – or who – another person is”. TossAwayFellow illustrates this perfectly with his ridiculous theories, of my person for instance. And he has another obnoxious modus operandi: he is unwilling to look at a long statement as a whole, and instead breaks it down into small pieces, to make his point. So he can mis-understand it easier this way.

Ohh! Hey! That's me! He's talking about me!!
For the record, I don't believe I've technically offered any "theories" here.
As to my method of nested replies, this does make it easier to make points because I respond specifically to your points as you make them.
And also, lol, no. You are not so complex a thinker that I have much trouble understanding you. I will admit to being somewhat mystified as to why you are here, why you are the way you are, and how on earth a grown ass man could be so sophomoric.

For the easiest way to misunderstand someone – on purpose – is to quote him out of context.

Ah, and what great sin of omission has been committed against you, sir? What quote, robbed of its context, has so grievously misrepresented a thing you said?
Are you, perhaps, speaking of the quote wherein you equate feminism with Nazism? I do not think there is anything significant within that misogynist diatribe that is either necessary to lend clarity to the quote I pulled, or which makes you look significantly different from how you appear with just the quote itself.

It makes no sense to continue his pseudo-argument, because ideologically perverted people are unwilling to listen to and understand people of reason.

Why, yes, you have demonstrated this tendency.

What I find sad about this sorry state of affairs: it’s possible that everybody who has “contributed” to this thread might have very similar values on some basic elements of interactions between men and women.

No, here you are flat out wrong. Nobody who has posted here to knock at you in any way agrees with your misogyny. Period. If you have somehow convinced yourself this might be true, that deep down you have some philosophical alignment with some of your opponents here, you are deluding yourself.

But all the shouting and yelling came about because ideologues refuse to listen – because ideology is always one-sided. And always over-simplified. Why was Hitler able to grasp power on 30jan 1933? Because he was an ideological demagogue, and the majority of German people then were receptive to him.

Also the weakness of the young Weimar Republic... also the crippling economic hardship imposed on Germans by the Treaty of Versailles... also the antisemitic rhetoric and appeal to Germanic heritage that the Nazis employed in their populism to great effect in order to sweep the parliamentary elections...
You've basically taken a 4 hour History Channel documentary and tried to cram it into two sentences, and yet your thesis here is that *we* are guilty of oversimplification?
And allow me to ask this: why are you going back into the Nazi analogies!? What the actual fuck is wrong with your brain?

Simplifications are always easy to agree with, because they require no work of the brain. And it gets even easier when an ideologue presents a category of people to blame for all evil in the world. For Hitler it was the Jews, and here it is all “so very disrespectful men”, supposedly.

OH. Oh you poor, beleaguered, persecuted man, you!
lol For fuck's sake. For the record, I don't know why you have "so very disrespectful men" in quotes. Literally nobody has ever called you this.
No, you're not that. You're a sexist woman-hating skidmark of a human. And if you seriously are equating yourself with a victim of the motherfucking Holocaust, you are even a thousand times worse than that. How fucking dare you.

Look at Trump bashing the press perennially as an enemy of the people. And look at some feminist hyenas here, and listen to the tone of their voices. Very little difference I can find between Hitler’s faschism <–> Trump’s obnoxiousness <–> feminist hyenas.

First of all, it's "fascism," you trade school dropout.
Second of all, this is text. By definition you can't "listen to the tone of their voices."
Third of all – speaking of "over-simplification," you are presenting three things which you claim are equivalent without defining any of them: Nazism, Trumpism, Feminism.
I'd ask you to explain, to expand on this idea, but you won't. Because you're not capable, it's entirely beyond your capability. You have no idea how to define Nazism in a way that wouldn't make a middle school history teacher pee their pants with laughter; and you have entirely zero understanding of what feminism even is because you're a hopelessly jaded ideologue incapable of actually listening to what other people are saying whenever they're contradicting your precious rhetoric.
Well, that and you're also sort of a moron. There's that, as well.

 

[TossAwayFellow978]

Translation: "Look, that last essay I wrote really hurt my brain, and now that you've called out one of the more problematic points I tried to make, it would seem to an outside observer that I have to respond in order to defend what I wrote. But I'm not gonna. Because, uh... because you are incapable of listening! Yeah, that's it! Also I don't know how to spell fashciczmz."

 

[KatieDoes]

to Katie and JJadams,

It does not appear to me that you aim to understand any new ways of thinking, which have not developed inside your own brains. So why should I try to discuss anything with you, when you prove you are incapable of listenig?

I can’t speak for JJadams, but the first thing you’ve gotten right since I’ve known of you is that you should not try to discuss anything with me. Do not.

 

[jjadams96871]

I can’t speak for JJadams, but the first thing you’ve gotten right since I’ve known of you is that you should not try to discuss anything with me. Do not.

100% agree Katie. No need to hear the same misogynistic views over and over again. And he wonders why people "don't listen" to him.

 

[Diosax]

*stops and contemplates all the time this past weekend I spent crafting clever comebacks to post on this thread*

... I am feeling inadvertantly attacked right now...

*proceeds to write a long post anyway jkk
I said that because he said he was procrastinating on writing but is here writing

this pseudo-discussion is revealing at least something

It’s not so much women against men who argue here, but ideologically perverted people against people of reason. And – concurrently – people without a sense of civility and fairness against people who aim to be as fair as possible.

That is you and your imaginary buddies. You just made an argument exactly describing what you are.
I can't even address everything else because anyone who equates fascism and trumpism with feminism is just beyond help. No one can rationalize with people like you.

to Katie and JJadams,

It does not appear to me that you aim to understand any new ways of thinking, which have not developed inside your own brains. So why should I try to discuss anything with you, when you prove you are incapable of listenig?

I am actually concerned with your delusion. You being out in the world everyday. Go see someone man.

 

[MMM_wms]

regarding your post 336, @fellow to toss away!

There is in fact no way to carry on a discussion with a person as pig-headed as you. With your kind of righteousness that has infected your brain. Absolutely impossible. You cannot even understand NVAM’s arguments, so how could you understand mine?

The stuff you write about history unmasks you in addition. I doubt strongly that you ever read anything that Fritz Fischer discovered (in 1961) in the records that German intellectuals left, inadvertently, when they were still dreaming of winning WW1. So much for the supposed unfairness of the Treaty of Versailles.

OK, my mixing up Mussolini's ideology and that of Hitler was inaccurate, but I understand the differences of course. From at least one graduate course I took on the subject. .... And regarding my comparison at the end of my post: of course there was some polemics embedded in my statement. Who here has NOT used polemics before, to illustrate a point?

And regarding the matter of uncivilized utterances: anybody who is able to count can refute your claims. The only thing I am asking myself now: what happened so you did not get thrown away?

 

[Diosax]

Oh. If we were going to fuck anyone here, it would be him.

I'd also add that if anyone is getting DMs from women, is him.

 

[SkyeGirl32]

I'm more or less lurking here now -- but also, the fact that he tagged someone who isn't even involved in this whole mess... so dragging in some random Lit poster into this makes me laugh - he can't even get that right.

 

[Diosax]

Notice how he slipped in there that he went to grad school as if that is going to impress anyone. Did you even graduate? Do you know how many moronic men I went to grad school with? It is not impressive for a white men to go to institutions that were design by and for your kind.

 

[Starscream_UK]

this pseudo-discussion is revealing at least something

It’s not so much women against men who argue here, but ideologically perverted people against people of reason. And – concurrently – people without a sense of civility and fairness against people who aim to be as fair as possible.

Anybody who reads carefully what NVAM has posted here, can plainly see how carefully he attempts to phrase his convictions + observations, so as to speak as objectively and fairly as possible. And he made one contribution to this thread, which nobody yet has caught, apparently. One that ideologically perverted people are simply unable to grasp, because it goes so much against their grain: the difficulty involved in extracting a person’s character out of some statements (s)he makes.

Ideologically perverted people depend for their arguments on over-simplification. And on their pretense of “knowing exactly what – or who – another person is”. TossAwayFellow illustrates this perfectly with his ridiculous theories, of my person for instance. And he has another obnoxious modus operandi: he is unwilling to look at a long statement as a whole, and instead breaks it down into small pieces, to make his point. So he can mis-understand it easier this way.

For the easiest way to misunderstand someone – on purpose – is to quote him out of context.

It makes no sense to continue his pseudo-argument, because ideologically perverted people are unwilling to listen to and understand people of reason. What I find sad about this sorry state of affairs: it’s possible that everybody who has “contributed” to this thread might have very similar values on some basic elements of interactions between men and women.

But all the shouting and yelling came about because ideologues refuse to listen – because ideology is always one-sided. And always over-simplified. Why was Hitler able to grasp power on 30jan 1933? Because he was an ideological demagogue, and the majority of German people then were receptive to him. Simplifications are always easy to agree with, because they require no work of the brain. And it gets even easier when an ideologue presents a category of people to blame for all evil in the world. For Hitler it was the Jews, and here it is all “so very disrespectful men”, supposedly.

Look at Trump bashing the press perennially as an enemy of the people. And look at some feminist hyenas here, and listen to the tone of their voices. Very little difference I can find between Hitler’s faschism <–> Trump’s obnoxiousness <–> feminist hyenas.

I actually wasn't going to reply to this but having read this latest comment I...I just can't with this.

I mean, I know most people are arseholes - I see it every day in my job for the last 28 years - but this is a whole new level of insanity. I don't understand what the poster is trying to do other than alienate every sensible individual on this board. Anyone who looks at their posts in their history is going to immediately want to avoid this person at all costs. Do they get off on the interaction? Are they so desperate for attention they will post something so ridiculously stupid to generate a response? Or validation of their insane world view from their alternate accounts? Or is it some sort of sick performance art piece? Portrait of a 21st Century Arsehole maybe...

I just don't get it.

 

[KatieDoes]

I actually wasn't going to reply to this but having read this latest comment I...I just can't with this.

I mean, I know most people are arseholes - I see it every day in my job for the last 28 years - but this is a whole new level of insanity. I don't understand what the poster is trying to do other than alienate every sensible individual on this board. Anyone who looks at their posts in their history is going to immediately want to avoid this person at all costs. Do they get off on the interaction? Are they so desperate for attention they will post something so ridiculously stupid to generate a response? Or validation of their insane world view from their alternate accounts? Or is it some sort of sick performance art piece? Portrait of a 21st Century Arsehole maybe...

I just don't get it.

I have wondered if he has some sort of humiliation kink, and he and his 9 alts are all circle jerking their greasy little penises every time someone points out how fucking stupid he is.

 

[Diosax]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Ca_EJx5uT0E/?utm_medium=copy_link

this made me wonder if he's been writing a response this whole time

 

[TossAwayFellow978]

regarding your post 336, @fellow to toss away!

There is in fact no way to carry on a discussion with a person as pig-headed as you. With your kind of righteousness that has infected your brain. Absolutely impossible. You cannot even understand NVAM’s arguments, so how could you understand mine?

Oh, no, I understood Virginia guy. His writing at least makes sense.
What you're doing here is likely just a dodge to get out of having to justify the stupid things you said in your last post. But hey, that's fine; as long as we understand each other and you stop doing dumb things like comparing yourself to a Holocaust survivor.
Oink oink!

The stuff you write about history unmasks you in addition.

Unmasks me as what?
You do this constantly: you allude to something, you reference something, you make a comparison between two things, but you don't explain yourself. As they used to say in math class, you don't show your work. Not even worth partial credit without that.

I doubt strongly that you ever read anything that Fritz Fischer discovered (in 1961) in the records that German intellectuals left, inadvertently, when they were still dreaming of winning WW1. So much for the supposed unfairness of the Treaty of Versailles.

I didn't read Fischer specifically, but his findings are pretty well known as an explanation for the causes of WWI – and his work is highly controversial. His writing is far outside the mainstream of historical concensus, especially on the subject of the fairness of the Versailles treaty (which is pretty widely considered to have been overly harsh toward Germany).

Any comparitive study of the two post-war periods – a rough and imperfect proposal, but not entirely without merit – will show the weals and woes of both approaches: a punitive approach following the Treaty of Versailles immediately preceded the rise of the Nazi party and the start of WWII, whereas a concilliatory approach that saw the Allied powers invest money and resources in rebuilding a defeated post-Nazi Germany lead to the German state (first as West Germany and then post-reunification in the 1990s) becoming an economic powerhouse and one of the major political centers of modern Europe.

OK, my mixing up Mussolini's ideology and that of Hitler was inaccurate, but I understand the differences of course.

No, that's not the issue with your previous post. The label "fascism" is generally accepted as a descriptor applicable to the Nazi state, and Nazi Germany is regarded as a decent exemplar of what fascism looks like in action (note I am distinguishing lower-case fascism as a generally applicable term; whereas capital Fascism would be the Italian model).

One of my more superficial concerns was you couldn't even spell fascism correctly, but beyond that you're not even defining your terms. You want us to accept your argument that Nazism/fascism = Trumpism = Feminism, but you're not explaining *any* of them or delineating where you think the parallels exist. This is either intellectually lazy (because you don't want to bother to do the work), or disingenuous (because you're just using terms like "Nazi" and "Hitler" and "Trump" purely for their rhetorical energy and don't give a shit about actually presenting an intelligible argument) or just plain stupid (all you know is Hitler = bad, and because you also think feminism = bad, therefore Hitler = feminism).

From at least one graduate course I took on the subject. .... And regarding my comparison at the end of my post: of course there was some polemics embedded in my statement. Who here has NOT used polemics before, to illustrate a point?

lol Right. Because you sure were illustrating a point there.
What was that point, by the way? You completely neglected to mention and literally everyone else who read your post just sort of assumed you didn't have one as a result.

And regarding the matter of uncivilized utterances: anybody who is able to count can refute your claims. The only thing I am asking myself now: what happened so you did not get thrown away?

Then you must not be able to count very high, as I've yet to see you refute a single thing I've said. In fact, I believe your excuse note said you weren't able to refute anything I said because I'm so righteous, or something like that.

 

[TossAwayFellow978]

Oh. If we were going to fuck anyone here, it would be him.

... I mean. I think I'm obligated to like this post? So, I liked this post. Blushing furiously, but I did click like on this post.

 

[TossAwayFellow978]

I have wondered if he has some sort of humiliation kink, and he and his 9 alts are all circle jerking their greasy little penises every time someone points out how fucking stupid he is.

oh my god why would you put that picture in my head get it out get it out get it out

 

[NorthernVAM]

You were agreeing with the women but as soon as a man came back to disagree with us you jumped ship.

Be specific .. I don't think I "jumped" ship .. I think you believe I was supporting the women, and I was to a certain point.

Again .. go back to the original post here .. I don't think the guy who made the original post was accurate, and in that I agreed with the women. As far as the projections about ego and the rest of that, that's just noise in my opinion -- neither side was fully civil in the exchange, they just wound up insulting each other. Is that what you mean by "jumping" ship?

 

[NorthernVAM]

Um. Why not?

OK .. so first, let's agree upon definitions .. Wikipedia has one handy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

If you agree that this part of the Wikipedia statement is accurate:
Feminism incorporates the position that societies prioritize the male point of view, and that women are treated unjustly within those societies. Efforts to change that include fighting against gender stereotypes and establishing educational, professional, and interpersonal opportunities and outcomes for women that are equal to those for men.

Then, I disagree with the "equal outcomes" portion of the last statement. Also, on some fundamental level I disagree with the idea that there well ever be "equality" in the choices that men and women make, and part of that is just due to their different biology.

I also sort of disagree with the first statement in that I don't believe that gender roles and a division of responsibility in a society necessarily equal unfair or unequal treatment. I think it represents a simplistic view of how our species survived, and ignores the biological underpinning of the fundamental building block of society, which is a "family". In a less technological society, which is where we have our origins, the division of labor between men and women was based somewhat on biological roles, and it is only because of the rise of industrialization and related technologies that political constructs like feminism arise, which puts men and women in some sort of competition for power and control within the society.

Does that explain my position well enough to answer your question?

 

[Diosax]

I'm out of words.

 

[SkyeGirl32]

someone else who we thought was on our side. But really isn’t. This thread is good at showing us that at least.

 

[pandaburr]

My clit literally just shriveled.

Emphasis on the LITERALLY.

 

[Diosax]

someone else who we thought was on our side. But really isn’t. This thread is good at showing us that at least.

Ok right? I knew I wasn't the only one who thought that

 

[NorthernVAM]

Ok right? I knew I wasn't the only one who thought that

Again .. I'm not being "tribal" in the sense that I believe there are "sides" here .. I'm just expressing my opinion.

On some things I agree with the women who are expressing their opinion on this board, and on other things I don't On the fact that they should be free to express themselves here without being stereotyped, I agree. On everyone having to be a feminist, or believe in feminism, I disagree.

Is that so difficult to accept?

@SkyeGirl32 Any why be angry with someone who has a different opinion than yours?

Isn't that why someone else on the board accused one of the men of having a fragile ego, because he got angry when the women disagreed with him?

Or am I missing something here?