Category Archives: gullibility

Ever-gullible Men’s Rights Redditors throw yet another tantrum over a phony “feminist” screencap [UPDATE: w/ Men's Rights response]

madflower

This flower seems angry.

The top post on the Men’s Rights subreddit at the moment, with more than 300 600 700 net upvotes, is a link to this screenshot, posted as an example of radical feminism gone wild:

Read the rest of this entry

About these ads

Alpha Dogging it with the Red Pill Subreddit

alphadog

So I spent a little time reading through The Red Pill subreddit yesterday and if there’s one thing that Red Pill Redditors aren’t, it’s fucking betas. No fucking way. They’re like the total fucking opposite of betas. And by that I mean they are ALPHA DOGS 4 LIFE.

Case in point: The totally rad insults they use to put the bitches in their place, as collected together in the recent thread “What Is The Most Cutting Insult You Have Said To A Woman Infield?” I mean, even the fact that they HAVE such a thread is totally ALPHA DOG but just listen to this ALPHA DOG shit they totally really say to women in real life totally for real:

Read the rest of this entry

Gullible Men’s Rights Redditors fooled by fake Jezebel article arguing that paternity fraud is “one way to break the rule of fathers.”

Some people are easily fooled.

Some people are easily fooled.

This just in: Men’s Rights Activists are some of the most gullible nincompoops in the history of ever.

The latest evidence of this? The regulars on the Men’s Rights subreddit were fooled by an obviously fake “screenshot” of an article from Jezebel that had been altered to make it look like a Jezebel staff writer thinks that paternity fraud is justifiable as a way to fight patriarchy.

Read the rest of this entry

Why haven’t Men’s Rights Activists turned on Paul Elam for falsely accusing Arianna Pattek of civil rights violations? [UPDATE: Elam retraction]

Graphic from SAVE Services, whose press releases are regularly run on A Voice for Men. Why doesn't this apply to Paul Elam?

Graphic from SAVE Services, whose press releases regularly run on A Voice for Men. Why doesn’t this policy apply to Paul Elam?

UPDATE: Elam has retracted his original story. See the end of this post for more details.

Men’s Rights Activists often insist that false accusations of rape are literally as bad as rape itself, and that false accusers of rape should spend as much time in prison as actual rapists.

Presumably they feel the same way about false accusers of other crimes, from murder to check kiting.

So in the wake of Paul Elam’s reckless false accusations against recent Georgetown graduate Arianna Pattek, one would expect other MRAs to rise up en masse to demand that Elam turn himself in.

Elam, you may recall, accused Pattek of serious violations of civil rights laws, claiming that she, as an employee of Georgetown’s admissions office, showed clear bias against white men. Indeed, Elam didn’t even qualify his accusations with an “alleged,” as journalists routinely do when writing about those accused but not convicted of crimes. Here’s what he wrote about her:

Read the rest of this entry

Read this: Guys on OkCupid try to pick up surreal-text-spouting Twitterbot Horse_ebooks

hey, sexy, do u hav skype?

hey, sexy, do u hav skype?

I have Cloudiah to thank (again!) for putting me onto this amazing article about a devious prankster who trolls pickup artists and other lonely horny hearts with a fake OkCupid account … that replies to all come-ons with selections from the ouvre of the legendary horse_ebooks, “the surreal Twitter bot that streams nonsensical snippets of text. The result: dozens of conversations from horny men desperately vying to have sex with a robot.”

And yes, it’s as funny as it sounds, especially when the guys try to use their PUA magic to “game” this imaginary HB10 (Hot Babe 10) – or should that be HRH10 (Hot Robot Horse 10)? – only to receive responses like “VERY SOME VERY NO VERY SOME VERY CHANCE LITTLE CHANCE GOOD CHANCE LITTLE CHANCE GOOD CHANCE CHANCE CHANCE CHANCE , NAVAL” and “CHAMPION CHAMPION CHAMPION CHAMPION CHAMPION CHAMPION CHAMPION CHAMPION Corp. CHAMPION Corp. CHAMPION Corp. CHAMPION CHAMPION CHAMPION CHAMPION.”

And of course the guys keep trying.

(All this made me wonder if anyone had set up a Gertrude Stein_ebooks account, and … yes, someone has! FOLLOWED!)

Anyway, you all need to go read the post. Check out the Okc_ebooks Tumblr blog for more.

 

Imaginary feminists! Don’t destroy “Ian Ironwood’s” sexbot utopia!

Even the Bionic Woman had trouble with fembots.

Even the Bionic Woman had trouble with fembots.

Yesterday we looked at far-right manospheran clod/philosopher Vox Day’s melodramatic response to a Canadian sexbot ban that’s completely imaginary (but that Vox, natch, believed was real). Today, let’s look at an almost 3000-word post by one “Ian Ironwood” of the Red Pill Room, spelling out the dire implications of this imaginary legislation.

ProTip: Before writing 3000-word screeds denouncing something, spend 5 minutes with Teh Google to see if what you’re denouncing is in fact real.

Read the rest of this entry

Manosphere doofuses duped again by phony Canadian sexbot ban

NOTE: Don't buy this model. She's trouble.

NOTE: Don’t buy this model. She’s trouble.

So the Boobz are getting worked up – again – over some imaginary “proposed legislation” to ban sexbots. Vox Day, one of the esteemed elder statesmen of the right-wing of the manosphere, has resurrected an urban legend that first fooled his comrades about two years ago, reposting a “statement” of mysterious Canadian origin explaining that

provisions have been proposed for the new Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act, the first draft of which is currently being finalized.The provisions are specifically meant to target the concerns that were expressed at the roundtable that sexbots will negatively impact the pursuit for gender equality and may unduly emphasize the objectification of women as sexual objects.The suggested provisions fall into the larger framework of regulating the emerging service robot industry that will be governed by the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act and under the direction of the Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence, to be established in Ontario and other Canadian provinces and territories at the end of next year.

The main provision of this dastardly Femi-Canadian proposed legislation?

The use of sexbots in the privacy of one’s home is prohibited, unless otherwise permitted by the Ministry of Robots and Artificial intelligence or a relevant regulating agency as per the criteria outlined in the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act.

You may wonder: Why didn’t I read anything in the papers about this Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act? Why haven’t I heard about this Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence?

Well, you guessed it. Because neither of them exist. I looked into this two years ago when the story first, er, broke in the manosphere. There’s no vast feminist conspiracy to deny Canadian men (or, for that matter, women) their still-imaginary sexbots. The “statement” was evidently written as part of a law school class project on law and robotics taught by Prof. Ian Kerr at the University of Ottawa Law School.

If you Google “Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act” or “Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence” you will find that literally the only people talking about this issue are MRAs and PUAs and conspiracy theorists. And some of the more gullible 4channers, though a few of them quickly figured out that the whole thing was fake. (As did the Real Doll enthusiasts.)

Vox Day, who has yet to come to this realization, draws some dire conclusions from this thing that isn’t real, declaring that the

This Canadian attempt to preemptively ban sexbots is an overt confession by feminists of both sexes concerning their belief that women have nothing significant to offer men but sexual services. Moreover, it is proof that their “pursuit for gender equality” is directly and fundamentally opposed to the most basic human freedom. …

One would think that even those only superficially acquainted with human history would realize that attempts to put the technological genie back in the bottle almost always fail, as do attempts to prevent men and women from pursuing pleasure in ways deemed illicit. But then, a near-complete ignorance of human history is required to either be a feminist or possess a genuine belief in the rainbow-tailed unicorn of equality.

Well, not so much. Though Vox proves yet again that there are few people on planet earth as gullible as the manosphere’s pompous philosophers.

NOTE: Vox isn’t the only manospherian up in arms about the evil imaginary sexbot ban; more on this tomorrow.

If you stand for Men’s Rights, you’ll fall for anything

Gullibility, thy name is Men’s Rights Subreddit.

So, a day or so ago, a troll graced r/mensrights with a tale of imaginary woe about a bad breakup and its aftermath that seemed was designed to push a whole bunch of Men’s Rights hotbuttons all at once.

Lo and behold, the locals bit, and in the process revealed not only their incredible gullibility but also what you might call a highly blinkered view of modern relationships and social etiquette.

Today the troll fessed up, but not before the r/mensrights crowd, taking his tale for the truth, offered him some truly terrible advice laced with lots of righteous indignation.

Here’s the not-exactly-believable story the troll told them:

Read the rest of this entry

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,767 other followers

%d bloggers like this: