(If you are Tiberius….stop reading right now! You will hate this section!)
Having wondered around the pit of depravity and filth that we call the internet, I've occasionally come across a few people who are so flat out stupid, offensive and unspeakable that I am left wanting to throw things at my monitor.
Here I am going to pay tribute to a few of the most unbearably unpleasant human scum the internet has managed to vomit up.
These are not just people I personally don't like or don't agree with.
For example, Micheal Moore is (in my view) a self promoting, dishonest twat. However, not every point he makes it invalid, some of his earlier stuff is funny, so I could see how someone might not hate Michael Moore without being a moron or an asshole.
The people I am going to list here are such wastes of oxygen and organs that I would like to hope that no one in their right mind would want to associate with in anyway.
First up is
"Molotov" Mitchell.
We'll call him Molly.
He makes very, very right wing videos about how Obama is an evil Kenyan, communists and nazis are taking over America and various other conservative talking points.
Most of these videos feature poorly structured, illogical and unintentionally laughable arguments, but then he managed to post one that really stepped things up a notch.
Watch this video, and keep in mind it is NOT a parody.
He really means what he is saying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmWdExg4kic
Soooo….yeah.
Here is a guy who believes that passing a law that makes homosexuality not only illegal, but a capital crime.
Homophobic? Hateful? Evil? You bet!
But lets look at his arguments carefully, for this man is not simply evil, is also INCREDIBLY stupid.
Molly states that Jesus did not come to abolish the law. Fair enough.
He seems to over look the fact that he is having to extrapolate Jesus' opinions on this issue (because Jesus never talked about gays, he was too busy talking about how bad rich people were), but his failure actually goes further.
The bible does not just condemn homosexuality, it condemns all kinds of other fun stuff.
Sinful acts that the bible promises the death penalty for include-
-Cutting your beard short.
-Wearing clothes made of more than one fabric.
-Getting tattoos.
You will note that we can see in the video that Molly has in fact committed all three of these sins.
Interesting how a man who believes the bible should be taken so literally, and is worth killing over, would have such a poor knowledge of what it actually says.
Its not just religion that Molly seems to have trouble understand either.
He claims the Ugandan Law is not about wanting to kill homosexuals, just wanting them to stop their homosexual acts.
This is not true.
Rolling Stone, a national news paper in Uganda, posted a headline where they promised to name the "top 100 fags" in the country. with a subheading saying "hang them all." You can really tell how they don't mean the homosexuals harm!
Uganda is also taking steps to go after Ugandan homosexuals who have left the country, so the whole "they should just leave" argument is also a crock of shit.
Later on Molly makes mention of the fact the founding fathers were against homosexuality. Several of them also owned slaves and they were all sexist and racist and ignorant of science by todays standards (not having a go at them, but the dudes lived over 200 years ago!) Just because they did something does not make it good! If George Washington picked his nose it doesn't make nose picking noble! During this section he makes a weird statement about a man who fucked animals being executed…not really sure how that relates to anything but at this point, who knows?
There is so much stupid going on here I have no doubt I am missing some amongst the endless onslaught of bullshit.
Finally, as the parting insult, Molly invokes the name of freaking Martin Luther King to support his message of hate and ignorance.
"The arm of universe is long, but it bends toward justice."
Presumably that is why the video has (at the time of posting this) 254 likes and 2079 dislikes.
As one wise commenter said of the Molly-
"What a cunt."
(I already have another worst person lined up. She is very different but just as bad.)
Start publishing on
DD Comics!
Advertise with us
Random Nonsense
Worst People in the World
Yeah… I'd like go 2 minutes with this guy in a no holds barred, bare knuckle boxing match. I can't help it if that smarmy fucker gets me riled (I only got 46 seconds into the video and it put in a bloody miserable mood).
Whenever someone says things like that I have to wonder what the point is. People exist who are homosexual (hell, I'm bi) and that's that. I work a tough job (that bastard wouldn't last 2 weeks in my line of work), I pay taxes, I leave people alone and stay out of their business unless they give me a reason otherwise, I don't go around bashing any religious group, ethnicity, or what have you. And that's what most of the gay people I know are like; they are just as good (or even better) citizens as most heterosexual people.
So why is it that some people feel that their moral self-righteousness allows them to say extremely hateful things about people who are just trying to live their lives? The same people who say things like that are the ones who would take up arms and call down hellfire if someone criticized something about their beliefs or their lifestyle.
It really gets me when people use their own interpretation of the Bible to determine ideal societal morals. Even if you believe the Bible is the word of God you can't deny that it was itself interpreted and written down by men, and humans are fallible, it shows that in the Bible for certain.
My view is 'Live and Let Live'. I don't force my views and lifestyle on anyone else, or stand on a soapbox and preach, so why can't all the hippies, tree-huggers, ultra-conservatives, homophobes, and other heavily opinionated windbags just do their own thing quietly and leave others alone?
Renard I had a similiar sense of moral outrage at what a total, unspeakable douche this guy as, but let me draw your attention to the guys likes and dislikes.
he has about TEN TIMES as many dislikes as likes.
So ultimately in the assholes are losing the argument.
For all his smug sarcasm, ignorant arguements and hateful jargon, it is Molly that comes out looking bad. If the video go you down, read the comments. You will see that people are over whelmingly on your side. You will barely find a single person willing to be counted along side this moron.
Smarmy is deffinitely the word for him.
He does a lot of other videos about that ridiculous "birther" movement, saying that Obama was born in Kenya.
Rather amusingly, he hasn't posted any apology or retraction now Obama has basically killed that whole thing stone dead.
In Molly's world, Molly is always right because anytime he isn't right, he just ignores it.
The bits of he bible that agree with him?
The infallible word of God that holds 100% perfect moral truth.
The bits that he doesn't agree with and actively contradicts?
Totally ignored.
But as I say, the important thing is that he is ultimately losing the war of ideas.
His arguments require lies and half truths to function, and the majority of people can see this for what it is.
I am not sure if my next Worst Person will be quite as bad as Molly…but she will come pretty close I suspect.
I think it is good to get these kind of people out in the open. That way we can reveal their idiocy to the entire world. Hopefully the superior ideal is victorious.
Darn, do I love the Internet.
Anyway, here is a link to something similar. I don't always agree with what they say, bur darn is it funny sometimes! Funny and depressing at the same time…
http://americanloons.blogspot.com/
Now, about our 'friend' Molly…
The arguments are foolish and often appeals to authority.
The founding fathers one is a prime example. Just because they thought it doesn't mean it was right.
Just because Einstein believed in God doesn't make it the same kind of God Molly believes in. Really, at all…
There is the straw man too. "Liberals think this…" but… sorry, that is attributing attributes to your opponent without actually verifying it… at best this is also a rapid generalization.
And now… I also listened to the part about the religion of atheists. Oh boy. The US supreme court ruled that secular humanism is a religion. That is an appeal to authority and doesn't prove anything. Second, he also assumed that separation of Church and state meant that it was embracing atheism. Doesn't work like that. Separation of Church and State means not taking a side and not forcing religious beliefs, or non-religious beliefs for that matter, down people's throat.
Suffice it to say that this man's ideas and thoughts are incoherent and flawed, for the most part.
He has a point that Uganda is a sovereign nation that can make its own laws. But the other nations are also sovereign and can say what they think about those laws. They are vicious and stupid laws. But there is a moral debate about whether or not they should be able to pass them. I personally believe that the world has a responsibility to intervene… or a "responsibility to protect" as the UN says. But then what is to be done? Do we bomb Uganda? What do we do?
Anyway. He doesn't think through his arguments. If homosexual acts is a sin worthy of death… then he should worry about the rest of the acts also worthy of death. As already mentioned.
Interestingly enough, when asked what were the most important commandments Jesus gave two. Some believe that these were new ones put forth by Jesus, but they weren't. 1) Love God with all your heart. 2) Love your neighbor as yourself. Those two are not new components of the law, they are in the Old Testament. Perhaps the most important parts of the old testament. Certainly more important than stoning gays or people who shave their beards. At least if you are Christian.
What do the Jews think? I'm not Jewish, but I've talked to a historian, and for some Jews the approach taken to homosexuality is… "Well, okay, you've broken a commandment. Be sorry about it, but mainly just try to live by the rest of them, okay?"
So… apparently the Old Testament isn't quite so… rigid.
Anyway. Molly is someone unable to distinguish between what they want to believe and reality. I believe it is called "Confirmation Bias." It's a logical fallacy. Unsurprisingly.
But he has a at least one good point in some of his other videos.
1) Tell the truth (as you see it). I don't want someone to pull their punches with me, nor pretend not to believe something they do. I want him to state his beliefs. But I do want him to be polite, thank you.
But, there is one point he makes that is such a terrible piece of shit that, on top of everything else… I have to fight the urge to want to shove a Roman Gladius down his throat. Yes I'm trying to not want to kill him. Why?
He likes Twilight.
What?
WHAT?
Here's why: He says that it… encourages women to ask for respect from men. (Not really. Both the sparklepire and the Doggy are control freaks). He also says that it encourages abstinence. Well. Yes it does. But I think it also encourages unhealthy relationships. Dear gods, its awful. But, okay. There it is. He also hints that he MAY believe that the Dream that Stephanie Meyer conceived Twilight from could have been… divinely inspired.
Help me. It's so hard. To… resist.
The world right now is facing civil wars, brutal dictatorships, genocide, consumption of resources, global warming, drug wars, nuclear proliferation, natural disasters, extremism, rampant hate, economic collapse, the list goes on! London Calling by The Clash applies just as well today as it did in '79, and Cormac McCarthy was a prophet when he wrote The Road.
But despite how seriously fucked things get in parts of the world this jackoff is telling us that God is instead trying to right the wrongs of the world by having a Mormon woman write a novel series about an undead creature and a wolf trying to bone some girl to teach us morals? Am I missing something here?
Can we rag on left-wing types too? I can never figure out who I hate more; idiot right-wing blowhards or idiot left-wing blowhards, maybe they just suck in equal measure :D
Well, he sorta hinted at it. In no way did he actually say, outright, that it was God. All he says is that "It came to her in a Dream", but highlighted the "In a Dream" bit. Suggestive, but hardly conclusive.
Oh, the left wing types… yeah. I don't see why not. I mean, what type of left wing crazies are we talking about? The types that think having a black character as a bad guy (regardless of if there are, you know, black good guys too… and even if there aren't…) is racist… Or the, "lets legislate everything" types? Or the insane conspiracy types? Or the "All Cops are Corrupt and Evil" types? Are we gonna talk about the hippies? And the New Ager woo stuff… like, anti-vaccinationists or the HIV denialists, or the "Cure Cancer with positive thinking" types?
Not all of those are exactly evil though, just misguided and dangerous. Loony.
And Renard, really, out of everything I mention, you latch on to the Twilight thing?…
Yeah, I hate it too.
I like to latch onto the absurd when I'm drunk; everything else you said is very true, but that's pretty much par for the course when it comes to people trying to shill their beliefs (especially conservatives I find). But when they talk about something out to lunch I like to draw attention to that, blow it up just a little, show it in perspective with what they are arguing against, and by using their own methods, make them look like complete morons (not that this guy needs help).
I'm talking about hippies, tree-huggers, people who go wild about "political correctness", fucking PETA, and hell, why not those New Age types too? I have enough ridicule to go around!
You're right about most of them not being evil, but they can be ridiculous and offensive in their own right. A lot of self-righteousness and doing things to be noticed on that side of the fence.
I've actually been accosted for wearing a leather jacket and boots and a fur hat in the winter (because fur and leather keeps me warmer then nylon and polyester), I've had a hippie follow and preach at me because I was eating jerky, screamed at when someone overheard me calling a coworker a "bloody Nancy", someone got pissed because I was driving a truck that belonged to the industrial steel company I work for. They suggested we get smaller, more environmentally friendly vehicles. Can you see me putting a half-ton of 7 foot long steel bar in the back of a sub-compact? I can't even do that with a light truck.
For every sensible environmental type there must be two who either go overboard with their views, or are extreme because they want people to see how much they care for Mother Earth. They make me sick.
I find the worst sins of the left to mirror those of the right (to a degree). I think it is something about dealing with extremes, more than political spectrum. Basically, the worst ones are those that try to force their beliefs upon others. Key word being forced. Attempting a dialogue, using logical reason, etc, yeah thats fine. But shouting down opposition, screaming, refusing to acknowledge the other side. Violence and inanity.
PETA particularly annoys me. Partially because they try to shove their… oh gods… their ideas… down your throat… so to speak. And then they think you're an evil person if you don't just agree to it. Sorry, no can do.
Treehuggers? Fine, hug your trees. Go ahead, really, I don't mind. But don't scream at me about it. Try to be rational about it.
Convince me, don't attack me.
Renard, we all have enough ridicule to go around. I don't like calling people fools for no reason, I prefer a dialogue, I really do, but… I will say when someone is peddling bullshit. Why? I Bet George W. Bush is a great person in person, but he was a terrible president. But not necessarily a bad person. I won't insult the person, I'll insult their thoughts and beliefs. Well, I try, but I think I've failed with Mr. 'Molly'.
But, lets see where this goes…
I find the worst sins of the left to mirror those of the right (to a degree). I think it is something about dealing with extremes, more than political spectrum. Basically, the worst ones are those that try to force their beliefs upon others.
Any extreme is bad. Watched maybe two minutes and that's all I needed.
Fuck peta.
yep feeling very eloquent today.
Alright then, the next person on my worst person list is from the other end of the political spectrum.
As you might well know, I consider myself feminist.
Yeah, it seems weird when a man says that.
But if you look at the definition of (Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women…or so says Wikipedia) it really is something we should all stand up for.
In this day and age we've made huge strides in achieving equality, though there are still many aspects of inequality that we should all work to over come.
As someone who feels strongly about women's rights, I take issue with the ridiculous strawman character that conservatives often bring up of the ridiculous man hating feminist who thinks men are pure evil and everyone with a penis should be lined up and shot.
Unfortunately, it seems for every stupid stereotype, there has to be some moron that steps up to inadvertently do their best to prove it right.
Read the following list.
Let's see if you or a man you know supports rape.
Finished reading?
I will assume yes, cause other wise it would be a bit silly reading on.
The end result you will have come to is that if you are a man, you are a rape supporter. If you were a woman, what ever man you applied this test to is also a rape supporter. Hell, most women are probably thinking that they are rape supporters too after reading this one.
A few choice points-
"He discusses the types of women he finds sexually appealing and/or attempts to demean women by telling them he does not find them sexually appealing."
(If you find certain women more attractive then others, then you are supporting rape.)
"He tells or laughs at jokes involving women being attacked, sexually hoodwinked, or sexually harassed."
(Blue comedy= rape support)
"He is anti-abortion."
(Ummm, what? This one is just random. Whether you agreed with abortion or not, I think we should all be clear its not an issue related to rape!)
"He has gone to a strip club"
(I would argue if he went to the strip club and raped a dancer, then yes. Other wise, not so much.)
The list basically ends up defining any man who is attracted to any woman in any way as a rape supporter.
The woman who made this moronic, hateful stack of shit offends me on so many levels I am going to have to make my own list to combat it all!
1- Insulting to men
The most obvious one. She has created a definition so broad that everyone everywhere is going to count as a rape supporter. It is impossible for a man who isn't a-sexual to pass this test. It cant be done!
Here a man can be supporting rape simply by doing what a woman asks him too. If a woman brings home porn to try to spice things up in the bedroom, then the man becomes a rape supporter!
Hell there is even one that if you refer to sex as being a "need" you are a rape supporter! Despite the fact that it is clearly a driving biological urge needed to keep the species alive, men don't really need it…and neither do women! In fact, the article has a very anti sex tone in general. Saying women should be sexually liberated is rape supporting, but so is critising women who don't want sex. So we can praise them wanting sex and we cant condemn them not wanting sex. So the only opinion a man is allowed that isn't rapey is that a woman not wanting sex is good. Hmmm this probably says a lot about what the hell is wrong with the author!
Men being attracted to women is evil…didn't you know?
Sexism is bad. It's ugly and its stupid regardless of gender you are putting down.
The only thing more ugly and stupid is the mind of the douche bag that wrote this list!
2- Insulting Women.
Well girls, it turns out that even though you THINK you are doing something of your own free will, turns out not.
If a girl likes to be tied up in kinky sex, she doesn't really like it. You see she only THINKS she likes it because society (run by evil men) has tricked her into believing this.
If a woman decides "wow! I can make loads of easy money doing porn! That's for me!" She is not really exercising her personal freedom, she is actually allowing men to exploit her and control her. She cant make a decision like that herself. That's impossible. A man must have made her do it.
They cant think for themselves, and when they say they like something they don't really know what they mean. They need a radical feminist to step in for them and make these big decision for them, that their puny female brains cant handle.
The irony of a feminist blog painting all women as helpless victims and morons is causing my brain to implode.
Best of all, the hypocracy goes up to eleven when this shit spewing waste of organs is condemning men who rape women and claim she wanted it really, while she is saying that women who say that they want something really don't! I would argue that the person who decides if a woman really wants something or not IS THE BLOODY WOMAN IN QUESTION! ARGH!
3- Undermining the serious crime of rape.
Rape is a terrible thing.
It is right up there as one of the worst things you can do to someone.
No one should EVER down play its seriousness or try to mitigate the damage it causes.
Which, in another moment of perfect irony, is what this stupid fuck manages to do!
If you make everyone a rapist, then NO ONE IS A RAPIST!
Everyone in the world cant be committing a crime!
That would make it akin to banning bloody breathing!
This reminds me of when religious groups condemn masturbation as a crime, even though virtually everyone has done it at one time or another, making us all as guilty regardless of actual, you know, guilt! Another wonderful irony of this idiot is that her opinions are so ridiculous she sounds exactly like the extremists on the other side she argues against.
This logic means that men cant be perfectly nice to women, do nothing to hard them, but because they are a straight male, are a rape supporter. So the man that does nothing wrong is now an accessory to the crime.
Well okay then, I will say that everyone that wears shoes is a murder supporter. Shoes can be used to kick people to death. If you where shoes you are a murder supporter. We should all avoid people who wear shoes.
All I've done is render the accusation of being a murder supporter completely empty, as short of living in a cave we wont be able to avoid dealing with other humans!
What are women supposed to do with this advice? Avoid all men? Well I suppose since wanting sex or children are not biological needs (saying so is rape support) then that should be easy for them!
If someone was having a conversation and made a commented that suggested he seriously thought a woman being raped was not a big deal, or she some how deserved it or brought it on herself etc, he is fucking human scum who needs to choke on something and die. But now this louse of a man is on the same moral level as EVERY OTHER MAN ALIVE!
How dare this list writing fucktard down play so serious a crime?
She calls herself a feminist?
Feminism is not the art of hating men, it is certainly not the art of patronising women and it sure as fuck is not the art of downgrading rape support into an everyday, no big deal event!
This woman undermines and belittles us all.
But there is one rape I have to admit that I would support.
I would support this woman going and fucking herself.
(Thanks to harko-reader Saillestraife for bringing this one to my attention!)
I'm a rapist because;
-I like Das Boot, even though the opening scene takes place in a bar with a bunch of drunk sailors and women.
-Most people do have sexual needs, both men and women. That's just how things are.
-What if I said I prefer women who don't dress and act like tarts, have self-respect, a healthy amount of pride, and dignity. That's pretty healthy isn't it, not degrading or demeaning, but I'm still wrong?
-Yes, I'm pretty sure some women like certain types of women (or men, but in the context of that list I bet that doesn't matter).
Well that was a little extreme. I'm really not sure where to start with this.
I must be the only steelworker in the world who doesn't like strip clubs. Having said that a girl I know was a dancer when she was in school; she loved how she just needed to show some skin and guys would give up their hard earned cash. And if someone ever got the wrong idea she knew how to cripple or murder a man three times her size with Moy Tai. Was she being exploited? Yes, by the very men who were so desperate to see a girl naked that they threw away their money on overpriced booze, the club cover charge, and throwing tips at the dancers.
And what about that bondage. I knew a girl who was really into it, but she liked to cuff her partner. How does that work? Is the partner still a rapist somehow (if he's a man), what if the partner is a woman?
Anyhow, you are right; it's pretty condescending to say that even though the exploitation hangs so thick in the air you can cut it with a knife, most women can't see it. But to be honest it's that sort of attitude that permeates the left-wing. Both sides like to use sweeping generalizations, skewed information, and a bit of fear mongering, but the left has it's own flavor. The right likes to defend the status quo, and you can feel that in what they say. But the left tends to have that preachy, revelation feel to it. They're protecting the little guy from the evil plots and conspiracies. The biggest difference between them and the right, they think it's The Man (quite literally in this case) rather than the Jews and gays.
I have a very large liqueur cabinet, a pair of jackboots, and several firearms. Does that make me an ultra-violent fascist drunkard? No. It just means I like to have a drink now and then, shoot, and keep my feet warm. You can take anything about a person, or really anything easily found in a section of the human population and extrapolate from it anything you want to either back up whatever argument you have in favor or against something, or to call down Hell fire on someone (which is all too often the case).
First off Renard. No, you aren't a rapist… Just a Rape supporter.
Yet just because you keep a liqueur cabinet doesn't mean you support drunkards getting drunk. Same bloody point.
First off.
Sexual needs. Yes. You can call them urges if you want, but they come down to being pretty similar.
And sorry, but people do have preferences. That includes women. Some things people view as attractive, and others not. It's subjective (as plenty of differing definitions of beauty attest to), so it may be cultural to a degree. Personally though, I prefer judging by someone's personality, but even I'm prone to take note of aesthetic attributes. Heh, I just got lucky in both departments though.
The author seems to make a few assumptions and mistakes. There are strawmen fallacies everywhere… and sweeping generalizations. But the main one? Confusing sexism with supporting rape. Sure, it is sexist to support rape, but being sexist does not automatically mean someone supports rape. That seems to be one of the big logic jumps. However she addresses this in the comments. Her argument is that Patriarchal society supports rape. I'm not sure how to argue that. Someone tried to say that if someone votes for Obama, and Obama supports keeping troops in Afghanistan, does that mean that said person supports keeping troops in Afghanistan? I don't think so, and it is a logical fallacy (from a purely logical point of view), but "Eve's Daughter" thinks it does mean that. She went as far as to say that paying US taxes means you support keeping troops in Afghanistan. There is a decent point hidden away there though. Anything which supports an institution supports what that institution supports… indirectly even if not directly. "lent support to even if she is not in favor of keeping troops in Afghanistan" as Eve's Daughter explains. I don't like it, but… What do you all think?
Anyway, I'll go through it. Sorry, but its long. At the end I will do some math…
"He has ever sexually engaged with any woman while she was underage, drunk, high, physically restrained, unconscious, or subjected to psychological, physical, economic, or emotional coercion." -I agree. In fact, I think that could be considered a decent definition of rape.
"He defends the current legal definition of rape and/or opposes making consent a defense." -what is this legal definition and why is it wrong? We don't all live in the same country.
"He has accused a rape victim of having buyers remorse or wanting to get money from the man." -This does happen sometimes. Fact of life. Of course, the phrasing is misleading. Why? Well, they haven't been raped if they were trying to get money from the guy by crying rape, hence not a rape victim. So… yeah… Though I agree with the buyer's remorse bit. Anyone says "stop" during sex and you bloody well stop.
"He has blamed a woman for putting herself in a situation where she could be attacked." -Sometimes woman are placed in that situation, by themselves and others, but that doesn't mean attacking them is ever okay. Agree (unless I'm misunderstanding this).
"He has procured a prostitute." and "He characterizes prostitution as a legitimate job choice or defends men who purchase prostitutes." -Makes no sense if the prostitute has willingly chosen that profession. If the prostitute has been forced into it then there is a problem. I do not see there being some kind of atmosphere that forces women to do it.
"He has ever revealed he conceives of sex as fundamentally transactional." -I don't see it that way, and am kinda personally disgusted by it. But it does happen that way sometimes.
"He has gone to a strip club." -Similar to prostitution. If the woman willingly goes into the profession knowing what it entails… that is their affair.
"He is anti-abortion." -I am on the fence with abortion, though I'm more pro than contra, but I know that it is a complex issue involving a debate over personhood. Now, it has nothing to do with rape except the question of forcing something on a woman's body. Yet… there are reasons to not be pro-choice.
"He is pro-choice because he believes abortion access will make women more sexually available." -Nah, that makes him horny, not a supporter of rape. It also shows he probably doesn't understand women all that well, but…
"He frames discussions of pornography in terms of freedom of speech." -Again, if the woman is making an informed choice to let herself be oggled by horny 13 year olds that is the woman's decision. Yes, there certainly are incentives to go into pornography, namely money, but if she wishes to do it? Why not? Why shouldn't she take advantage of the system? (Which is what it is…)
"He watches pornography in which women are depicted." -This makes him horny, not a supporter of rape. Horny does not equal liking the idea of rape. Nor does horny equal sexist, necessarily.
"He watches any pornography in which sexual acts are depicted as a struggle for power or domination, regardless of whether women are present." -I'm not entirely sure what to say about this. Is suggests something… ominous perhaps, but… nothing conclusive. Now, if he believes that sex is about domination… that I have a problem with.
"He characterizes the self-sexualizing behavior of some women, such as wearing make-up or high heels, as evidence of womens desire to get a man." -Sometimes it is for that reason. Not necessarily so. This makes someone… not a supporter of rape… maybe sexist though. More probably? Stupid and with a lack of understanding of women.
"He tells or laughs at jokes involving women being attacked, sexually hoodwinked, or sexually harassed." -Laughs at? Hmm. If you laugh at a woman beating a man with a frying pan, does that make you a supporter violence? No… (I should hope), so… there seems to be a disconnect here. Comedy is different from reality. I find such jokes tasteless (to a degree, I sometimes chuckle), but that isn't quite the same thing as supporting rape.
"He expresses enjoyment of movies/musicals/TV shows/plays in which women are sexually demeaned or presented as sexual objects" -So if you like Watchmen… just saying. No. Personally, that lowers the quality of the entertainment for me (unless it is an integral part of the story), and makes the film/whatever worse. But something containing that stuff can still be enjoyable. Enjoying something because a woman is demeaned, however, is wrong, but that is a different situation entirely.
"He mocks women who complain about sexual attacks, sexual harassment, street cat-calls, media depictions of women, or other forms of sexual objectification." -Rape supporter? Maybe not. Sexist? Yes. In some cases anyway. Sexual attacks, well, if they support that then, yes, rape supporter. Same with sexual harassment. Cat Calls? Makes them sexist and stupid (I think those are stupid). Media depictions and objectification? Complaining about it being pointed out seems silly to me, but… does it really mean they support rape? I dunno…
"He supports sexual liberation and claims women would have more sex with (more) men if society did not inhibit them." -Uh… there are societal inhibitions against women having sex… and if they were removed then there would be more sex going on… That doesn't mean ALL women though… I personally think that women should have the same ability to choose what they do with their bodies as men. Not so bad when framed that way…
"He states or implies that women who do not want to have sex with men are inhibited, prudes, stuck-up, man-haters, or psychologically ill." -Rape supporters? No. Stupid? Yes…
"He argues that certain male behaviors towards women are cultural and therefore not legitimate subjects of feminist attention." -Certain behaviours of both sexes are cultural. But that doesn't mean they should be ignored by feminists (or anybody). This goes both ways, by the way… Believing this makes you a supporter of rape? No. Sexist/stupid? Maybe…
"He ever subordinates the interests of women in a given population to the interests of the men in that population, or proceeds in discussions as if the interests of the women are the same as the interests of the men." -If we are talking about groups… then yes, subordinating the "interests" of women to men is sexist. Suggesting they have the same interests… well, they share some, but there can be differences. Get around this by focusing on the individual instead of the group…(which is one of the problems of the article).
"He promotes religious or philosophical views in which a womans physical/psychological/emotional/sexual well-being is subordinated to a mans." -Sexist. Doesn't mean they support rape… necessarily.
"He describes female anatomy in terms of penetration, or uses terms referencing the supposed emptiness of female anatomy when describing women." -… What? Just… no idea. It doesn't seem… relevant.
"he defends the physical abuse of women on the grounds of consent." -What is meant by this? If a woman gives informed and uncoerced consent to being "rough" than that is fine. I'm not into bondage, but if that is what is being talked about… nope. Sorry. But some people just like it like that, doesn't mean they support rape. Doesn't even make them sexist. What would we do with all those Dominatrix people then?
"He defends the sexualization or sexual abuse of minor females on the grounds of consent or willingness." -Minors cannot give consent due to age difference and lack of maturity. The older person almost always has some kind of power over the younger. As such, consent is not actually given, and so… there you go. No consent = Rape. So yes, she is correct.
"He promotes the idea that women as a class are happier or more fulfilled if they have children, or that they should have children." -Rape supporter? No. Sexist, quite likely. uninformed? Definitely.
"He argues that people (or just men) have sexual needs." -Call them urges if you must. But said urges do not obligate a woman to satisfy those urges or absolve a man of responsibility of his actions should he rape a woman due to those urges. In a sense she is kinda right here…
"He discusses the types of women he finds sexually appealing and/or attempts to demean women by telling them he does not find them sexually appealing." -I've covered this already. But it has little to do with rape, if anything. At most it makes someone shallow and possibly sexist (rarely I should say). Different people find different things aesthetically appealing, and that is that.
"He sexually objectifies lesbians or lesbian sexual activity." -What? Don't see what it has to do with rape though… But I don't see lesbians as any different from any human on any fundamentally important level.
"He defends these actions by saying that some women also engage in them." -Um. Some women do. It doesn't make it right to believe that women are "asking for it" if other women believe it as well. I suppose it depends on the situation, but it doesn't make them any more a rape supporter if they say this than them doing the thing they are defending by saying women do it too.
Whew.
Time for some math! Yay! (Oh and I may count things twice.)
Points I disagree with: 13
Points I wasn't sure about/were unclear: 3
Points I agreed with: 5
Points I thought were sorta good but taken too far: 11
Stuff that had something to it: 16 +/- 3
Stuff that I think had nothing much to it: 13 +/- 3
Wow, almost a tie!
I'm gonna read their comments…
Shorter version:
"Eve's Daughter" views the world based on a systemic outlook. In other words, things come down to the system. That doesn't mean the individual lacks responsibility, but everyone works within the framework.
Further, her concepts of class. Class is a concept that annoys me. Yes, it has its uses, but it also can be dangerous. It causes generalizations. One Communist once wrote a report on a village in China. Instead of finding two or three classes, he found several and almost all with different subclasses. The world is not so simple. Oh, and the Communist seems to have forgotten his own little discouvery… his name was Mao Tse-tung.
She also makes some interesting points elsewhere. For example… She thinks looking for "equality" is a problem because being equal requires a comparison (interesting approach), and she also does not like the notion that equality is measured in terms of men's abilities (hmm…). Here's a quote:
"I am not interested in trying to prove myself in a male-invented game, on a male-chosen stadium, with males as the referees. The inequalities we face help showcase the problem, but they are not the problem in and of themselves, and until we change our underlying social structure they are inherently unfixable.
I want freedom. Fuck equality."
As such… again the "systemic" world view. Interesting.
Also, the word "Fuck" linked to this: "Fuck you is pretty much the same as saying RAPE you, isnt it? Damn." That is also pretty interesting, when you consider it…
To clarify, her point seems to be: If you do something that supports the Patriarchal society which supports Rape (even if you do not personally support Rape) then you are supporting Rape. Here:
"No, someone who supports capitalist enterprise might not be ideologically a capitalist. Youre confusing the results of actions with consciously held beliefs. Okay? Think about the difference between result and purpose."
Again, I don't exactly agree… its about the premise.
Oh, and Hark, you didn't happen to have seen this video, have you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geQyrBGS_60
It raises a few points, but I think it makes several mistakes and misses the major point of the list. It is also loud and offensive for little to no reason aside from an attempt at humour.
One of the stranger things is that, apparently, "Rape Supporter" does not = "You condone Rape", it instead means something like… Someone who buys shoes made from child labour supports child labour. So, you take part in the Patriarchal society (as she sees it), which supports and facilitates rape, then you support rape (even if you don't condone it).
I disagree with this type of reasoning, but… I think it comes more from a different set of basic premises.
The main problem? You have to read the comments to get an idea of this, it doesn't really come through in the list itself because "Rape supporter" is not properly defined.
After further reading… This is something she has said which really gets to me.
"Becoming a feminist is a process by which a females heart is broken; all the dogged sympathy for men is burned away, leaving only disgusted rage and indignation; and all the socialized disdain for women blossoms into the purest of love."
Sad. Sad because of what has happened to her, yes, but… Sad because this is so wrong. Rage at a group as a whole? It fulfills the charge of "Manhater" quite well, doesn't it? This is the danger of class, and classifications like class, sweeping, terrible, generalizations. Intolerance and extremism. Group X is bad because member of group X did… this is easy when you see things as systemic. Patriarchy oppresses women, men benefit from patriarchy and contribute to it. I hate patriarchy, hence I hate men. Truth is not so simple, however.
I am not responsible for the acts of others unless I directly encourage the act, manipulate, or deliberately set out to build some kind of oppressive system that controls, but at the same time doesn't control, what people think. I did not build this patriarchy, I simply live in it and try to make it better. Pardon me if I want to assign the individual more responsibility for their actions than you may.
My thoughts on the matter? Rapists are responsible for their own actions. These actions are wrong. I do not condone rape in any way. Do I support it? Well, if you support any aspect of the status quo? Well guess what, you support Rape too. Sorry, I don't buy that logic.
I apologize for going on and on. I found this highly interesting.
"Becoming a feminist is a process by which a females heart is broken; all the dogged sympathy for men is burned away, leaving only disgusted rage and indignation; and all the socialized disdain for women blossoms into the purest of love."
She really said that?
Oh wow!
This chick is amazing!
It is literally like she is some kind of Super Hero with the power of ultimate stereotypes at her disposal!
She had her heart broken and that burned away all her sympathy for men…so literally a man left her adn that made her bitter so now she is a man hating radical feminist.
I kept wondering if that was true as I read the list but I didn't want to say it cause thats so cliche it would seem patronising to say.
But it really is the case!
She isn't angry at the system, or the rape support or any of that other bullshit.
The stupid sack of crap is just mad that some guy dumped her (I dont blame him!) and is trying to turn her outrage into a moral crusade.
Actually Hark, no she didn't get dumped per se. I'm kinda sorry about posting this stuff because it's so personal, but she did put it on the Internet first…
http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/evolution-of-a-feminist/#comments
That should explain how she ended up where she is.
I don't see her as a figure deserving of the kind of hate she gets. For example, she doesn't approve all comments, partially because most of them are saying she should get raped and die. Disgusting, and I think you will agree with that. Instead I feel pity for her, and a shred of annoyance. Basing your life around hatred and rage is no way to live.
I suppose I can say the same thing about some of the other crazies too though…
But after some nice sleep I'm going to make my own list using HER logic. Indeed, this should help expose the flaws of her logic. This following list is entitled, "a woman is a rape supporter if…"
Now, just copy and paste the list about men for the most part. But there are some further additions (there are also further additions for Men too, but I'll focus on the women) that I'm going to write down. This comes down to does something support the Patriarchal system, because that system itself supports rape… Also, change "Men" to "People" etc…
1) If she is a man who wants to be a woman, as in being transsexual. This supports the patriarchal system because the transsexuals believe that they want to take up the role of female in the gender hierarchy. Feminists want to abolish the gender hierarchy. (I may be wrong about this, but I think that sums up her views on transsexuals. Never mind the fact that not all feminists actually want to destroy the notion of gender… the hierarchy, yes, gender? not necessarily). Part of this seems to be because Eve's Daughter is 100% on the Nurture side of the Nature/Nurture debate (which is a fair enough position in many ways…).
2) If she has ever participated willingly in Porn, Strip Clubs, or Prostitution. This supports the Patriarchal system because it legitimizes it and facilitates activities that men do which supports the patriarchy, which supports rape.
3) If she isn't a radical feminist (Essentially, not with us, then you are against us. If you are part of the system you support the system…).
4) If she tolerates the presence/company of men/women who meet any of the criteria on the "a man is a rape supporter if…" list. This supports the Patriarchy because it supports the men who support it, and thus rape. If women stopped tolerating that, then men would have to change.
5) And finally, though there could be more and this is the most insane one, if she is… a radical feminist. Wait, how does this work? By defining the system, and fighting it, you solidify it. By defining the patriarchal system, particularly in such a way, you label people as part of it and supporters of it, even if they do not wish to be. Furthermore, if you are as insulting as Eve's Daughter is, or use faulty logic, then you actually support the Patriarchal system by driving away people who may be sympathetic to your cause.
These can be applied to men too. In such a way, everyone, anywhere, is a rape supporter.
Okay, I just read the journal.
This woman is fucking nuts!
I love how every single man she encounters in her life is an evil asshole pig who sneers at her (us men sure love to sneer!) and molests her.
Events like "seeing a playboy magazine" is not traumatic. Get the fuck over it!
Her martial arts instructor was not teaching her the way she liked? Booohoo! Thats not sexism, that's her being a cry baby.
Of that list I suspect most of it is made up and the rest is exaggerated and twisted by her own views.
The same way I don't believe Molly really has the gay friends he claims to have in loads of his videos about how gay people burn in hell.
If a man WAS nice to this dreadful woman, do you think she would notice?
Or would she see it as him trying to manipulate her, as part of the rape support agenda?
She has already determined that all men are evil, so if a man is nasty it reinforces it, while if the man is nice he is tricking her or she would just choose not to notice.
And yet, I still pity her.
But… no, she wasn't dumped, she was the one doing the dumping. I respect the fact that she stands up for her, very, strong morals. I just disagree with the premises she bases those morals on.
Which, of course, makes me pity her all the more.
It seems the only man she was able to stand being near for some time was her husband, and that didn't work out when he wasn't able to measure up in the end. Again, not that she needs a husband, but to exclude half the human population from your life on the actions of a few… such rage. I would not like to be her, even figuratively walking in her shoes is… tiring and depressing.
I don't know what she would think worse though, you guys insulting her or me feeling sorry for her.
Hahaha, well yeah I admit she does deserve pity.
So does Molly when you think about it.
I think everyone I bring up on this section is going to be a sad case in some ways.
Pathetic individuals to be sure.
Though that wont stop me ripping the shit out of them all with scathing insults!
The problem with radicals is that they are always the loudest and most abrasive people supporting a cause. Unfortunately that means that their going to be the first ones you notice, and therefore the only ones you notice. And what's worse is that some Radicals have no problem attacking fellow supporters of the cause for not being radical enough. Wouldn't you say that undermines things? Will people take you seriously if you often rip the shit out of people fighting for the same bloody thing because they aren't extremists?
Ignorance is an extremely dangerous thing, especially when when you like to lump blame on a group for the wrongdoing of individuals or because of what that group did in the past (class). Look at the former Soviet Union, "You were a farmer who employed other people to work for you!" Never mind if that farmer treated his workers like family, looked after their families, paid them fairly, and had their respect, other employers weren't as nice, so he would punished the same as them because he was in the same class. History is rife other cases of such generalization being used to seriously harm people.
Still, I'd love to lock a certain one of my co-workers in a room with this one. He's a sexist pig, is proudly ignorant and criminal, and considers women to be objects rather than people…how long would it take for them to destroy each other?
Better yet, I'll introduce him to my kick-boxing stripper friend :)
A little of the currant topic, but what the hell, it fits the theme.
I was looking up videos on Youtube, ones about the effects of sound waves on fluids. It turns out that one woman out there spent a lot of time commenting on one video to systematically attack every user who posted something on it that she didn't like (and she hates a lot of stuff).
I was curious what this person was about, so I looked at her profile, and discovered one of the most condensed masses of psychotic hippie rage I've ever seen; she might even beat that girl who threw environmentalist literature at me and screamed like an ape because I was wearing leather gloves!
Behold: http://www.youtube.com/user/MannySteinerBIeeky
The information section to the left contains a long spiel that I think is suggesting the evil half-Jews who didn't follow the word of God now try to manipulate the "sheeple" of the world through the mind controlling powers rampant consumerism and the use of motorized landscaping equipment to fuck with their auras.
What's worse is the comment section though.
She filled it herself, and every single post is a tantrum style outpouring of strung-together, half-coherent curses and insults, and every on of them is directed at people in what I suspect to be her hometown.
It seems the crimes that warranted having a combination their names, telephone numbers, street addresses, places of work, make/model of cars and plate numbers uploaded to the internet behind that garbled shit-storm is by doing things like using lawn mowers, and leaf blowers, and being part of the anti-Jesus conspiracy. OH! and asking her to stop posting other people's personal info on the internet, that seems that draws attacks too!
The only time that conspiracy theorists worry me is when they start posting personal info from other people for the world to see, and then assume that anyone who asks them to stop is a part of the evil conspiracy.
Advertise with us
DDComics is community owned.
The following patrons help keep the lights on. You can support DDComics on Patreon.
- Banes
- JustNoPoint
- RMccool
- Abt_Nihil
- Gunwallace
- cresc
- PaulEberhardt
- Emma_Clare
- FunctionCreep
- SinJinsoku
- Smkinoshita
- jerrie
- Chickfighter
- Andreas_Helixfinger
- Tantz_Aerine
- Genejoke
- Davey Do
- Gullas
- Roma
- NanoCritters
- Teh Andeh
- Peipei
- Digital_Genesis
- Hushicho
- Palouka
- Cheeko
- Paneltastic
- L.C.Stein
- Zombienomicon
- Dpat57
- Bravo1102
- TheJagged
- LoliGen
- OrcGirl
- Fallopiancrusader
- Arborcides
- ChipperChartreuse
- Mogtrost
- InkyMoondrop
- jgib99
- Call me tom
- OrGiveMeDeath_Ind
- Mks_monsters
- GregJ
- HawkandFloAdventures
- Soushiyo