Red Mosquito

surfndestroy wrote:

Alex wrote:would you fellas and gals support a thread titled "emasculism: a broken iris and surfndestroy thread"?

Tough to emasculate a man who fully embraces his feminine side. I figure the X chromosome is there for a reason, why ignore it.

The new Alex account is not one for attempting the dialectic process.

I love the 2 attempts at serious points in this thread were quickly glossed over with nonsense. I think this message board could use some more engaged moderation.

surfndestroy wrote:

Alex wrote:would you fellas and gals support a thread titled "emasculism: a broken iris and surfndestroy thread"?

Tough to emasculate a man who fully embraces his feminine side. I figure the X chromosome is there for a reason, why ignore it.

You might want to try letting that 'feminine side' extend to your language and discourse.

malice wrote:

broken iris wrote:

harmless wrote:

broken iris wrote:

harmless wrote:

broken iris wrote:

harmless wrote:

broken iris wrote:It's all about sex.

No idea why you didn't just stop there, frankly.

Because the world doesn't obey the constraints of theories and models, so we need to look at the consequences of our actions.

I didn't see any consequences of your actions in that post, just a lot of baseless theorising ignoring others' experiences. Which at best makes you (everyone?) a hypocrite.

Which of my actions are you referring to?

You've never done any actions?

I've done tons of actions. Which did you wish to chat about?

any of the ones from which you suffered consequences, i assume

Broken Iris, I think you missed the bit where I was accusing you of theorising like the theorisers, because, well, that's what people do on the Internet. I just missed the part where you did something other than what you accuse other people of doing. Was it when you started talking about personal experience as if it was observable data and evidence of a thesis?

Observable data?

Who the hell needs stats?

When you claim to be putting observable data forward, as opposed to people who don't do that (who 'theorise' as you put it), then you do. I never made such a claim. You did.

Edit: sorry, not you. I'm getting confused about who I'm replying to, you all sound the same at this point.

Some of us are more scientifically minded, harmless. I get annoyed with theorizing that never follows up with study. And study isn't useful to anyone besides the student, unless they share observable data.

Unfortunately, the folks that have conducted more specific studies of IPV don't feel comfortable enough to release their results because of the current impetus some feminist have in perpetuating the idea that in order to have equality, women's quirks can't be questioned.

harmless wrote: Broken Iris, I think you missed the bit where I was accusing you of theorising like the theorisers, because, well, that's what people do on the Internet. I just missed the part where you did something other than what you accuse other people of doing. Was it when you started talking about personal experience as if it was observable data and evidence of a thesis?

Isn't personal experience the source of all sociological data?


But here's some data for you:

From hot bed of right-wing thought, UC-Berkley:


Does this look like a society hell-bent on oppressing women or men?

@SkitchP wrote:I love the 2 attempts at serious points in this thread were quickly glossed over with nonsense. I think this message board could use some more engaged moderation.

the point of the thread was much the same as the point of the Mind your Tanners account, @skitchp. it's not my fault px felt the need to converse within it. I was fine with it dying after my own first two posts.

malice wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:I love the 2 attempts at serious points in this thread were quickly glossed over with nonsense. I think this message board could use some more engaged moderation.

the point of the thread was much the same as the point of the Mind your Tanners account, @skitchp. it's not my fault px felt the need to converse within it. I was fine with it dying after my own first two posts.

So you were just trolling?

mookie wrote:

malice wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:I love the 2 attempts at serious points in this thread were quickly glossed over with nonsense. I think this message board could use some more engaged moderation.

the point of the thread was much the same as the point of the Mind your Tanners account, @skitchp. it's not my fault px felt the need to converse within it. I was fine with it dying after my own first two posts.

So you were just trolling?

The more beautiful and pure a thing is, the more satisfying it is to corrupt.

malice wrote:

mookie wrote:

malice wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:I love the 2 attempts at serious points in this thread were quickly glossed over with nonsense. I think this message board could use some more engaged moderation.

the point of the thread was much the same as the point of the Mind your Tanners account, @skitchp. it's not my fault px felt the need to converse within it. I was fine with it dying after my own first two posts.

So you were just trolling?

The more beautiful and pure a thing is, the more satisfying it is to corrupt.

When was the last time you were banned Mary? Is that why you're so hostile. Because you were banned by men?

mookie wrote:

malice wrote:

mookie wrote:

malice wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:I love the 2 attempts at serious points in this thread were quickly glossed over with nonsense. I think this message board could use some more engaged moderation.

the point of the thread was much the same as the point of the Mind your Tanners account, @skitchp. it's not my fault px felt the need to converse within it. I was fine with it dying after my own first two posts.

So you were just trolling?

The more beautiful and pure a thing is, the more satisfying it is to corrupt.

When was the last time you were banned Mary? Is that why you're so hostile. Because you were banned by men?

i've never been banned from RM

malice wrote:

mookie wrote:

malice wrote:

mookie wrote:

malice wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:I love the 2 attempts at serious points in this thread were quickly glossed over with nonsense. I think this message board could use some more engaged moderation.

the point of the thread was much the same as the point of the Mind your Tanners account, @skitchp. it's not my fault px felt the need to converse within it. I was fine with it dying after my own first two posts.

So you were just trolling?

The more beautiful and pure a thing is, the more satisfying it is to corrupt.

When was the last time you were banned Mary? Is that why you're so hostile. Because you were banned by men?

i've never been banned from RM

I didn't specifically ask about RM.

I'll be back to this thread another day after I do two things. Get an illustration for harmless and after I read the Fox and the Grapes.

mookie wrote:

malice wrote:

mookie wrote:

malice wrote:

mookie wrote:

malice wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:I love the 2 attempts at serious points in this thread were quickly glossed over with nonsense. I think this message board could use some more engaged moderation.

the point of the thread was much the same as the point of the Mind your Tanners account, @skitchp. it's not my fault px felt the need to converse within it. I was fine with it dying after my own first two posts.

So you were just trolling?

The more beautiful and pure a thing is, the more satisfying it is to corrupt.

When was the last time you were banned Mary? Is that why you're so hostile. Because you were banned by men?

i've never been banned from RM

I didn't specifically ask about RM.

ana banned me from teh fuge as part of an extended temper tantrum for not replying to her PMs

malice wrote:

mookie wrote:

malice wrote:

mookie wrote:

malice wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:I love the 2 attempts at serious points in this thread were quickly glossed over with nonsense. I think this message board could use some more engaged moderation.

the point of the thread was much the same as the point of the Mind your Tanners account, @skitchp. it's not my fault px felt the need to converse within it. I was fine with it dying after my own first two posts.

So you were just trolling?

The more beautiful and pure a thing is, the more satisfying it is to corrupt.

When was the last time you were banned Mary? Is that why you're so hostile. Because you were banned by men?

i've never been banned from RM

Forever holding the grudge and shame that you aren't banned because you aren't taken seriously because #malicism.

On a related note, internet trolls have scientifically been found to be narcissistic, Machiavellian, psychopathic, and sadistic.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... pathy.html

surfndestroy wrote: Forever holding the grudge and shame that you aren't banned because you aren't taken seriously because #malicism.

On a related note, internet trolls have scientifically been found to be narcissistic, Machiavellian, psychopathic, and sadistic.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... pathy.html

You sound gay.

I'm still not gonna give up on chasing Ellen Page.

So this is the article of the week on RM?