Despite what this guy thinks

[Pretzel_Warrior]

He's being a dick. Discussing important issues in a dickish way does not result in enlightened discussion. Yes, I agree women have more harrassment than men, and I agree women are objectified as sexual objects more than men. But this guy sounds pathetic. Talking down to people just doesn't work. He's a horrible comedian too.

[Common Sense Party]

1. Is it sexist to say that someone is "a dick"?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

3. good question. he calls guys that throughout his video.

[pintobean]

17. Not any more

It use to be only directed at guys. My 20 something daughter called a woman a dick a few years ago and I asked her about it. She said it was quite common.

[Iggo]

136. Only if a feminist says it.

[Jamaal510]

139. Technically it is

because it is also considered sexist to call someone a "pussy". But usually "pussy" is used to call someone weak, while "dick" is for calling someone a jerk. Interesting question.

[1000words]

2. Was it necessary to start a new OP?

I know the original one wasn't going your way, but c'mon ...

Enjoy your "holiday," by the way.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

4. yes. because someone got a comment hidden based on again wrong assumptions

I made a point about a poster being about to be "gang educated" meaning....the swarm would arrive to correct his erroneous ways.

Sooo...naturally, someone or someone's jump to the conclusion that I am referencing gang rape which I most certainly am not.

In my mind, I was most specifically thinking of gang tackle or gang beatdown of someone. Like Rodney Dangerfield saying there were 5 Jehovah's Witnesses on his porch trying to "gang save" him.

But rather than allow me to even respond to the question....the post gets hidden and I'm locked out of the thread.

[xulamaude]

27. Yeah and Rodney Dangerfield is a paragon

of feminist values.

[Matariki]

34. That and your generally crappy attitude toward the women at DU

[Pretzel_Warrior]

133. I have a great attitude toward many women on DU. Cha, sheshe2, sabrina1, and many others

just because you don't get along with me and I don't get along with you doesn't mean I have a "crappy attitude toward the women at DU".

[morningfog]

151. You just have a crappy attitude. Tick tock.

[BainsBane]

59. So what was your point?

Only one woman should be allowed to speak at once? Any more than that responding to a post is a "swarm"?
Here's the deal. I go into the gungeon and post anti-gun stuff, i get "swarmed." I don't cry that I'm being assaulted as result. I don't' read all of the responses because, after all, who has time? The fact is if you take a minority position, lots of people disagree. It happens to me all the time. If you can't handle the heat, get out of the thread.

[bettyellen]

64. so.. "gang tackle" and "gang beatdown" are common phrases you were doing a take off on?

Not buying it for one second. That is ridiculous. The jury saw you joke about gang rape, as did much of DU.

[Waiting For Everyman]

110. I thought that was a ridiculous hide.

Apparently some feminists thnk they own the dictionary now. "Gang" is not a feminist word. I guess we have to substitute "group" instead now, to steer clear of their ever-expanding outrage, or talk about the "G word". Good to know, for future reference, that's how delicate some people's self-absorbed sensibilities are. And they wonder why people get sick of that sort of thing, and tune out from their message.

[NuclearDem]

134. Doubling down, really?

You made a gang rape joke, and you got busted. I would believe that pathetic excuse if you didn't have a history of making tasteless, offensive "jokes" like the one that got you TS'd from DU2.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

137. so that's 2 points of reference in the past 3 or 4 years

care to look at my recent work? Selective outrage on your part.

[NuclearDem]

138. You mean your ever growing transparency page?

Or saying that people who are opposed to bombing Syria are "okay with letting brown children die"?

[morningfog]

150. Too fucking funny. You get banned (from yet another thread) and you start a new one.

Methinks you won't last too long through or after your exile. You just can't seem to grasp the rules for posting here.

[LeftyMom]

5. He was locked out of the other thread for joking about gang rape.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

6. that's not at all what I was doing, and leave it to you to assume the worst of me

when I have not entertained that kind of language in the past. It was a 4-2 hide. Clearly room to say there is nothing objectionable about what I said, and some of the more outspoken feminists on here are not the only ones with alert stalkers.

[boston bean]

21. telling someone they will be "gang-educated"

was making a gang rape joke, ie a play on words, in a thread where rape and rape culture was being discussed.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

38. I told you that was not my intention and even provided highly

Relevant examples of what I was thinking when I typed that.

Why are you supposing to read what my meaning and intentions were after I have fully explained them multiple times?

[boston bean]

41. I posted to you in that thread, long before it was ever hidden.

No response from you. Now you got all the justifications for it after the hide. Good luck with that.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

45. It was hidden before I could respond.

[xulamaude]

55. All times 'my time': 12:55 am - gang rape 'joke' complete with

Your reply: 8:26 am

Another reply: 12:30 pm

Jury hide: somewhere between 12:30 and 1pm

[Sheldon Cooper]

42. Because we have seem your "meanings and intentions" before.

And you come up short every time.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

46. Links to back up your nebulous accusations

Would be appreciated

[Electric Monk]

48. another multiple banned returner. nt

[cyberswede]

91. You realize the OP you're defending is a "banned returner," right?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3614547

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=126971

[boston bean]

108. LOL, that is funny!

[pintobean]

112. He is horrible at hiding that.

[cyberswede]

113. What?

I just find it illuminating that EM gleefully points out when zombies (with whom he disagrees) post, but neglects to mention that the person he was defending is also a zombie.

I might also point out that the only zombie (of the 2 EM mentioned and PW), only one of them will be on a forced vacation starting Monday. Which of these posters is repeating past poor behavior?

[pintobean]

119. I was just joking.

My point is, at least he's up front about it.

I don't know if the other two are actually zombies, or not.

And, Monk got booted from this thread.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

131. I don't try to hide it.

that's why one of my entries I saved to my journals is discussion of that very thing. From 2009-10 when DU had gone utterly mad.

[bettyellen]

83. Because your excuse reeks of BS. Your pun references

Gang rape. "Gang beatdown" or "gang attack" are not at all common expressions anyone builds puns on. Gang beatdown?!?! Wtf, are you kidding?

It's obvious and was deliberately offensive, given that the thread was about rape.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

92. Nope. Your knowledge base is too narrow if

You think that. The thread was not about rape. It was about male privilege.

[xulamaude]

107. And male privilege has nothing whatsoever

to do with rape/rape culture.

At all. Right?

[bettyellen]

109. Knowledge base my pink ass. The jury knew, and

So does anyone who read it.
You got zapped by the jury explicitly for joking about rape. It is what it is.

[xulamaude]

67. "Clearly room to say there is nothing objectionable about what I said"

I wonder what the two "leave it" jurors had to say, if anything.

[morningfog]

152. You are by far the most deserving of the new exile rules.

[cyberswede]

7. Oh FFS...

you were wrong in the other thread, and you're wrong now. This doesn't actually make you look better, you know.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

10. one does not have to agree with and swear to uphold everything in feminist orthodoxy

to be a good Democrat. No matter what you think.

[Scootaloo]

101. Feminist orthodoxy? And what, pray tell, is that?

[Glassunion]

114. That's where you don't celebrate Christmas until Jan 7th

[xulamaude]

121. Okay,

That requires one of these:

[NoOneMan]

135. Awesome. I wait for July!

Best Feminist Ever here.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

142. that is a really really low blow

based on nothing but your bullshit.

[Caretha]

147. You would be the expert

at low blows. You need to back off and think about the way your words affect others. It seems to be showing up in all areas of your life right now. You have a lot of women here who are offended by the way you use your words. Words are weapons. They can do more damage than you can imagine.

Words are things that are very hard to take back. They come back to haunt you years and years later. They show up again when you least expect them. At some point in everyone's life, if you have a conscience, you can regret them more than anything else you have ever done.

Time for a time out Pretzel. You've done more damage to yourself this time than usual, and it would be a good time for you to re-evaluate the way you present yourself, and probably you should look close to home first.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

174. A VERY FEW women have made DU a hostile and unwelcoming site

For men. The idea that you can judge my words but not also call I to question the over the top and rude remarks of a VERY small and vocal group of women who have turned this place into a battlefield says a lot about your objectivity.

In case you didn't know, society in America has a way of trying to injure young women's esteem, and parents often see this and say/do things to combat that and give their daughters strength. Again, the fact that you twisted my own honestly spoken words to be some kind of charge against me speaks to your warped view of the matter.

I'm done with you. I don't know you from fuck-all, and I would never presume to judge your overall life and relationships on a few postings. Perhaps YOU need some time for personal reflection.

[morningfog]

153. Dude, I've seen this kind of flame out. You won't be long.

[nomorenomore08]

163. I agree that was over the line. Just because the OP was a little misguided doesn't mean

you deserve such insinuations.

[NoOneMan]

164. Whatever disagreements we have here...

Making DU a place where people are too afraid to post details of their personal life or ask for advice, in fear of people using it against them, is just too much.

[NuclearDem]

143. I don't think it's demanding too much of you to not make rape jokes

[Pretzel_Warrior]

144. didn't and you are quite aware of it

you should be ashamed of yourself

[NuclearDem]

146. Yes you did.

This is just another attempt to weasel out of it and make yourself the victim.

[morningfog]

156. He's heading for a ban anyway. This is some entertaining flaming out.

[NuclearDem]

162. Spectacularly so.

But Jamie's actually someone I deeply and personally respect, so this is particularly offensive on my end.

[nomorenomore08]

165. I think it was arguably ambiguous at the very least, given the context.

And in a thread about some pretty damn serious issues, that kind of ambiguity is not a good thing.

[myrna minx]

8. After making a gang rape "joke" that was hidden on LeftyMom's thread, you think this is

appropriate? Well, I guess you do!

[Pretzel_Warrior]

9. didn't do it. I have already explained that.

it is not surprising in hindsight that a pack of aggressive people looking for the slightest thing to get offended over would decide that crossed the line for them even though I in no way referenced rape in my comment.

and it was quite literally apt as a comment because anyone who dares disagree with the dogma of a few vocal people on the matter are swarmed.

[myrna minx]

12. I find your explanation disingenuous, but by all means, please proceed.

[boston bean]

19. he says: "a pack of aggressive people looking for the slightest thing to get offended over"

Does he own a mirror?

[RC]

122. No, he posts on DU.

Notice the pile on above?

[boston bean]

123. heck ya! I noticed! LOL

[nomorenomore08]

166. Maybe people wouldn't get so upset if others didn't try to tell them what they can and can't

be offended by, or in what words or what tone they can and can't express their offense. That kind of patronizing behavior is not something anyone is going to respond well to. Less so if the one doing the patronizing has considerably less experience with the subject at hand.

[RC]

168. I absolutely agree.

So why do they do it? Flame bait? Disruption? Or just for the joy of bullying others?

[nomorenomore08]

169. Yeah, the bad mean feminists are the aggressors here. How dare they mention anything that makes

some men uncomfortable. I'm the proud owner of a penis and I think you're being absurd.

[RC]

171. This is DU. Are we not on the same side here?

They why are we disagreeing. I have time after time, stated my views and still I am belittled by the "usual suspects", who should be agreeing with me, but totally ignore my stated views on Human Right. Women are human, therefore shouldn't we all have the same rights?

I agreed with you and you come back with this, me being absurd? You are helping to make my case.
Thanks,

[nomorenomore08]

173. I thought you were turning it around to blame somebody else, even though I never singled you

out in the first place. If I misunderstood your meaning then I'm sorry, honestly. I was being unfairly nasty to you.

And yeah, I'd like to think we're all more or less on the same page RE: the fundamentals - gender equality being one. But some folks on here - again, not singling out any poster in particular - seem to take certain discussions way too personally, to the point of even attempting to derail them. That, to say the least, is not helpful.

[NuclearDem]

170. If you were dealing with a culture that devalues your gender and facilitates rape

And people were constantly denying such a thing even exists in the most condescending manner possible, you'd be pretty pissed off too.

[RC]

172. Who around here is denying the disparity problem exists?

I know I'm not. Who on DU is?

[NoOneMan]

149. "pack of aggressive people"

I thought there was another name to describe such....A group. A gally. A Ga...

[Glassunion]

11. So basically because you don't like it = it's bad?

Bad for you perhaps. If it has anyway damaged you, then your parents should take away your YouTube privileges. If it has not damaged you in anyway, then why start an OP on it?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

13. I stated pretty clearly what I found wrong with it.

never used the word "bad". Thanks for your gratuitous insults.

[Glassunion]

31. So was there anything in the video you disagree with?

Was there anything in it, that you feel is untrue? If not, then nothing more than his tone was the problem?

[Ohio Joe]

14. You think there is an enlightened discussion to be had with people who treat women like this?

Fuck 'em. The "men" doing it deserve to be talked down to.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

15. so shame and humiliation are your prescription?

besides, with the ground he covered, I am sure there are a full spectrum of men covered by his statements. I doubt all are lost causes that need verbal abuse hurled their way.

It's a very combative and counterproductive way to engage in the topic.

[Ohio Joe]

18. oh noes... The poor oppressed men...

[nomorenomore08]

167. "Honey" (politeness etc.) only goes so far. Sometimes a person is such an egregious asshole

that they really need that dose of vinegar for their own good. And why take it so personally anyway? Like someone said above, in exactly what way were you negatively affected by this video? I didn't even watch it, because I've more or less heard all the same stuff before, even if I agree with a good deal of it, but I'm amused (and bemused a little) by your seeming overreaction to it.

[boston bean]

16. It's the "tone" argument once again!

Written in italics next to the derailing tactic to accuse women discussing feminist issues of using a harsh tone:

a. Also to be used against men who speak out with women on feminist issues

ie. White Knight

[Electric Monk]

20. This is a no win situation when people are intentionally mis-reading. LeftyMom just did it to me too

in another thread about photos of hand signs in France, basically calling me a Nazi because I wasn't offended enough, or something.


Dilbert summed up the tactic nicely in this Sunday's comics: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024245097

[cyberswede]

22. You're using Scott Adams to make your point?

[demmiblue]

25. He must be saving Rush Limbaugh...

as his ace in the hole!

[xulamaude]

23. And I think the consensus was that Dilbert

and his creator are misogynists.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

24. Consensus of whom?

[xulamaude]

28. ME ME ME!! Seriously, though, a whole lot of people -

you know: 'general agreement'

[Electric Monk]

32. Omega Minimo agrees with herself. Awesome. nt

[xulamaude]

35. Good to see that you self deleted that other post (question) which

you keep asking and which is (as far as I know) against the terms of service.

[xulamaude]

44. "Dear"? Isn't that against some kind of rule too?

Again, and I'm not going to say it as nicely as I have before: WTF are you talking about?

[polly7]

69. Noooooo ...... sexist terms like 'dear' are just fine.

In fact, if you object to it, you can even be called a hypocrite.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4074989
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4075849

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4079899

But I guess it depends on who's doing it, as we see above.

[boston bean]

70. Do you keep a spreadsheet of every possible slight someone might have done to you on DU?

It's amazing!

[polly7]

73. Not at all!

Just the really ironic ones, as do most people remember things like that.

But, do you?! And why does it bother you so much to see things discussed that you're not even a part of?

The poster asked about using sexist terms. Do you have any objection to discussion on that?

[boston bean]

76. I remember things, but not specifics and can't even remember the people who did said it to me.

Your recall is amazing.

I remember overall situations. I can't even remember enough specifics to make an accurate search, unless it's happened in say a week prior.

You can go back years! Like I say amazing, that's why I asked if you keep a spreadsheet. I can't even get advanced search to work! LOL

[polly7]

78. Years?

Don't exaggerate now, my memory certainly isn't that good for things said on here ....... well, except for that one horrible, weeks long issue I know you want me to forget.

But thanks, I've always had a good memory, and this latest incident the other poster and I were discussing was only a week or so ago.

[xulamaude]

88. Yeah, but you did jump in to answer a question I asked of Monk...

Right?

[polly7]

94. Just trying to be helpful regarding the 'dear' question.

[pintobean]

96. Monk can't answer.

She was being helpful.

[xulamaude]

98. "Monk can't answer"? How's that? nt

ETA - to be more clear: why can't Monk answer?

[pintobean]

75. The hypocrisy is amazing.

[boston bean]

77. You seem to post right behind Polly7 all the time when we have a discussion.

Why is that? I'm noticing a trend, cause it's happened like three days in a row. But ask me in three weeks from now, I wouldn't be able to recall it, or what thread it was in or enough key words to make a search. And I'm not going to bother searching through pages of my posts. So don't worry, I won't really recall this in near future.

[polly7]

79. I was having no discussion with you.

You chose to interject yourself with outrage over me bringing something up from about a week ago.

Sorry about your poor memory though.

[boston bean]

80. Well, I can remember enough to get by. I just don't waste much of my time

racking my brain to try to remember the exact slight and who it was. And believe me it would be racking my brain.

[polly7]

81. Ahhh ......... well when I'm referred to with sexist terms

after telling someone to stop ... after seeing it done to another woman here just a day or so before, I do remember that. Especially as it happened very recently.

I'd remember it if it were a man who'd done it as well.. Wouldn't you? How would you feel being called a hypocrite for objecting to being called 'dear'?

[boston bean]

85. Believe me, many sexist things have been said to me, over and over and over again.

I can remember who they were in general, but trying to link back a specific incident after some time has passed... as I've already explained, I would have to do searches, keep a list or something, cause I wouldn't remember it specifically or to try to search for a link, forget about it. And that just aint worth my time. Plus, sometimes it just isn't worth it to carry all of that all of the time. Take it day by day and do the best you can and fight it when you see it.

Were you trying to be supportive of Xulamaude? or were trying to score some point against a member you really don't like? I think that is putting it mildly, right? So, like I've said before, discuss the issue without making it so darned personal is the best way to go imho.

[polly7]

87. How can I make something that's not personal when it was 'me' being talked to

that way?

And you really can't remember something that insulting from a week ago?

Tell you what, the next time you're referred to in a sexist way and someone continues after you've told them to stop, and why it bothers you, I'll advise you not to take it personally and that it's just not worth your time to care. K?

[boston bean]

95. I can remember somethings within a week, if my life hasn't been to hectic.

Being called dear is way far down the line for me to be really offended, although I can see it is sexist and why you had concern at the time. Has that person called you dear since that thread?

[polly7]

126. Then why didn't 'you' straighten the poster above out

about the use of the word?

[boston bean]

127. Hang on, I'm not getting it. Please tell me which poster above we are discussing...

If you mean the one you linked to, seems as though you did a fairly decent job of calling it out yourself. Was I even in the thread? I'm not sure. I'll have to go back and see.

Or are you talking about something else entirely?

[polly7]

128. This one. You should have told her it's nothing to get upset about!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4257587

And now I have to go work til the wee hours, so knock yourself out finding something else to be outraged/not outraged about, because it's really hard to tell if you believe sexism towards women is a bad thing or not.

[boston bean]

129. This is exactly what I said to you...

Being called dear is way far down the line for me to be really offended, although I can see it is sexist and why you had concern at the time. Has that person called you dear since that thread?

For myself it is way far down the line to be really offended, see how that works..... For ME that is the case. Although, I can see it is sexist... do you take umbrage to that comment too? I can let Xulamaude that I can see it is sexist, but that I don't necessarily take personal extreme offense to it, as it's small potatoes to ME.

I'm sure as a feminist she would understand, even if we agreed to disagree. Would you like me to do that?

Ok, does that help straighten this out?

[pintobean]

82. No hypocrisy there.

You know, if you and your friends are going to complain about things people do here, it shouldn't be the things you do all the time.

[polly7]

84. Are you in charge of when people are allowed to post?

If that's the case, I wasn't posting to you .... why is it you so often have something insulting for me when you're not even involved in the conversation?

And why all the interest in who posts when, anyway? I know it's supposed to mean something, but I'm not sure what.

[boston bean]

86. No, I was just making an observation. I thought that was clear.

[polly7]

90. As was the poster you're dismissing as butting in, and whatever other

implication you were trying to make.

[boston bean]

97. All I did was answer him.

I didn't accuse him of butting in. I was noting a trend of the past three days, and found it curious, and commented upon it.

[polly7]

102. What trend?

I've posted in very few threads that poster has in all the time I've been here. In fact, he and I have butted heads a few times. But I respect and like him and coincidentally have obviously posted in some of the same threads recently. I'm still not sure what it is you're getting at though, care to explain?

[boston bean]

103. It might have had nothing to do with you except that this is when I see him pop up

unexpectedly and saying pretty much the same things over and over. It may have absolutely nothing to do with you. I don't know.

[polly7]

104. lmfao. nt.

[boston bean]

105. me too, for REAL. I'm glad we are having some fun!

[polly7]

124. Not nearly as much fun as it is revealing. lmao. nt.

[pintobean]

89. I think she's trying to suggest

that you PMed me to come help you out of the terrible jam they had you in.

[polly7]

93. Thanks ........... that helps.

And no, bostonbean, I never pm'd anyone.

[xulamaude]

71. Hi Polly.

Okay, you're right it's not against any rule.

Does that mean I can remind Electric Monk that he called me "dear" one time over and over and over again anytime he says anything in my general direction?

I am going to heed your authority on this issue. Seriously.

[polly7]

74. Sure!

Knock yourself out!

Sometimes asking people to stop doing it works, sometimes you just get laughed at for it.

[Waiting For Everyman]

99. Thank you. That poster does it all the time.

I saw it twice in one thread within the last couple of days. And yes, it's clear that it is an effort to be condescending... as if she's someone's mom or something. Every time I see it I think, just who do you think you are?

[polly7]

111. In my case, I told her from the start it bothered me, and to stop.

She continued with it, and I can just imagine the laughter as she did. It wasn't me who was called 'dear' and a hypocrite though, when that was objected to ..... but I know that other poster was disgusted by it. It's deliberately condescending, insulting and arrogant - "I can do what I want here to you and there's not a thing you can do about it".

[cyberswede]

37. Well...

http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adam-sexist-mens-rights/
http://misogynistdilbert.tumblr.com
http://jezebel.com/5786019/dilbert-creator-deletes-misogynist-rant
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?568060-Scott-Adams-(Dilbert-Guy)-is-a-misogynist-asshole
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/03/24/scott-adams-to-mens-rights-activists-dont-bother-arguing-with-women-theyre-like-children/
http://www.flickfilosopher.com/2011/04/scott-dilbert-adams-comes-out-of-the-closet-as-a-misogynist-duke-nukem-forever-features-capture-the-babe-mode-how-disney-invaded-our-childhoods-more-leftover-li.html
http://www.mechwarrior3.org/wforum/viewtopic.php?t=4877&sid=43618d0c3d60c2cf11808ba62a0b5421
http://www.babygaga.com/t-1639246/dilbert-creator-scott-adams-brings-misogyny-to-the-table.html
http://jeevermadness.tumblr.com/post/4109052192/turns-out-that-the-creator-of-dilbert-is-a-misogynist

And also change.org
http://www.change.org/petitions/ask-dilbert-creators-syndicate-to-denounce-his-misogynistic-blog-post

...many more results on Google.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

54. A vocal minority

Just like on DU

[Electric Monk]

26. This is precisely what PW meant when he wrote "gang educated" in that hidden post.

You're making my (and Adams') point for me with your reply. Good job

[xulamaude]

29. Are you actually being "educated" though?

Or is it just a joke?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

40. Thanks for linking to that thread.

I believe it got 28 recommends. Doesn't sound like the consensus is that the cartoonist is a misogynist.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

52. Here is what Scott Adams said on feminist website

In response to their reaction to his blog posting re: MRA


"Is this an entire website dedicated to poor reading comprehension? I don’t think one of you understood the writing. You’re all hopping mad about your own misinterpretations.

That’s the reason the original blog was pulled down. All writing is designed for specific readers. This piece was designed for regular readers of The Scott Adams blog. That group has an unusually high reading comprehension level.

In this case, the content of the piece inspires so much emotion in some readers that they literally can’t understand it. The same would be true if the topic were about gun ownership or a dozen other topics. As emotion increases, reading comprehension decreases. This would be true of anyone, but regular readers of the Dilbert blog are pretty far along the bell curve toward rational thought, and relatively immune to emotional distortion.

I’ve written on the topic how you can’t mix incendiary images in the same piece without the readers’ brains treating the images as though they were connected, no matter how clearly you explain that they are not. My regular readers understand that I do that intentionally as part of the fun. When quoted out of context, the piece becomes dangerous.

You can see that the comments about the piece were little more than name-calling. When confronted with that sort of reaction, would it be wiser to treat the name-callers as you might treat respected professors with opinions worthy of consideration, or should you treat the name-callers as you would angry children, by not debating and not taking it personally?

You’re angry, but I’ll bet every one of you agrees with me."

[xulamaude]

56. Link? Which feminist website? nt

[etherealtruth]

62. I found a link to the very offensive piece on a feminist website

It is not exactly framed as described above. Why this allowed on a reportedly progressive website is beyond comprehension


Scott Adams to Men’s Rights Activists: Don’t bother arguing with women; they’re like children.

What he wrote ended up revealing a lot more about Scott Adams than it did about any issues involving men. And what it revealed wasn’t pretty; after explicitly insulting Men’s Rights Activists, Adams insulted women much more profoundly, without, it seems, even recognizing that what he wrote was, well, a load of misogynistic drivel. Evidently unhappy with the response he got from his readers, Adams decided to take his post down, saying that it had gotten “a bit too much attention from outside my normal reading circle.”

The post has not only vanished from Adams’ blog; it’s vanished from Google Cache as well, but fortunately you can still find it here (on a feminist site), as well as on an assortment of MRA blogs I won’t bother to link to.

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/03/24/scott-adams-to-mens-rights-activists-dont-bother-arguing-with-women-theyre-like-children/

[xulamaude]

65. Ah, yes... Thank you for that. :)

[redqueen]

154. On MRA blogs, you say?

Gosh, I'm so shocked.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

175. What are you talking about?

I've referred to Scott Adams' blog and a feminist website.

[muriel_volestrangler]

68. Scott Adams is indubitably a misogynist asshole

I can't see how anyone can read this and not come to that conclusion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024245097#post20

[Matariki]

33. You're just jealous

That video is awesome and he does a GREAT job explaining the issues in a way that is both engaging and funny. I'd suggest that the reason the video bothers you rests squarely with you and attitudes you hold.

[Rex]

39. Hmm

You getting antsy?

[Starry Messenger]

43. You mean like calling LGBT rights "fabulous pink ponies"?

That kind of dick?

[boston bean]

66. really?? unbelievable.

It's always the same sort of thought process isn't it? Kind of telling, no? You can almost guarantee someone who would post that, would dismiss feminist issues and feminists.

[Starry Messenger]

72. Yes, it was what he was banned for originally on DU2.

I don't know why he has been allowed back, when his behavior has not improved one bit.

I thought being allowed back to DU3 was contingent on the poster showing that a mend in ways had taken place.

He has wracked up several hidden posts and is uniformly nasty and dismissive of progressive principles like feminism.

It makes me very angry, as I have several friends on FB who were good DUers banned or chased off by nastiness perpetuated by people like the OP.

The Admins will have only themselves to blame if this place becomes a sewer like the Yahoo! comments because of allowing things like this to keep going on.

[cyberswede]

100. You're absolutely right.

I'm all for giving past users a second chance to be a contributing member of DU, but when zombies continue their past unpleasant behavior, that's a whole mother story.

At least a vacation is coming up soon.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=298088&sub=trans

[Starry Messenger]

120. Thank goodness!

And I agree, about giving good posters a second chance. But this is like the guest in your apartment who drinks the last beer and then gets mad at you for not keeping the fridge stocked for him. It's just abusive.

[Sheldon Cooper]

47. You can't "devil's advocate"* this man, and it's killing you.

Hilarious!

*your self-described role

[loli phabay]

49. these multiple postings of videos of guys telling other guys what they should think is just dumb

its not going to educate anyone. its the same as the multiple posts tellng people what a real man or woman should think or how they should act. whats next videos of different ethnicities telling how to be a real latino, black, white,asian or any other group. discussions are good but these purity tests are starting to be laughable.

[BainsBane]

51. Someone giving an opinion does not amount to telling people what to think

It's an interesting video for those who care. Everyone knows full well a certain number of people do not and never will care.

[loli phabay]

53. and yet when someone gives an opinion that disagrees some feel the need to try to tell them

what they should think, ironic is it not.

[BainsBane]

57. Giving opinions is what a discussion board is for.

There is nothing ironic about it. What's odd is being upset that someone have the nerve to express views you disagree with.

[loli phabay]

58. lol, really. pot kettle and black springs to mind.

done with you anyway, no point.

[RC]

130. +1000

It's the alert that put the cherry on it, though.

[Glassunion]

60. Funny. I have been afflicted with the disfiguring

Male Privilege disease, and am also struck with the Nice Guy syndrome, yet that is not at all what I took away from the video.

My takeaway: STFU for once and listen to a different perspective. The key word being "listen".

[loli phabay]

61. my takeaway was blah blah blah. ymmv

[Glassunion]

63. Which is probably why you don't like the video.

You proved my point.

[loli phabay]

116. did not dislike or like, just blah blah blah, much the same with most videos telling me how to behav

[Upton]

117. Sure it's dumb..

but I guess it just wouldn't be DU without logging in here everyday and seeing multiple threads lecturing men on how they're supposed to act..

[salin]

50. I almost appreciate this OP in response to the other OP

showing the same video - it's almost as the posting of the thread is an act of performance art.

Even when I don't agree, I have always found ironic performance art a bit compelling.

[The Straight Story]

115. Huh. So he is a lot like folks here. No problem with feminism, just some feminists.

Kind of like that bumper sticker about Christians "Lord, save me from your followers".

[Egnever]

178. Wow

I want one of those bumper stickers!

[rrneck]

118. Five minutes and thirty seconds of my life I'll never get back.

Wow, a standard DU thread read in monologue.

[Egalitarian Thug]

125. Hit a little close to home didn't he?

So you're like, on a last minute spam-fest?

[Iggo]

132. Tone argument.

[countryjake]

140. What does "dickish way" mean? Is that the same as being "vicious and militant"?

Does being a "dick" mean someone who is pathetic or is it defined as talking down to people?

Would you say that he's a "humorless bore"? Do you think that male privilege is his "pet issue"?

More to the point, do you think that it is "ANTI Democratic" to share such a video, here in General Discussion?

Let's talk semantics here, shall we?


(disclaimer: The term "dick" is used by the person that I'm replying to. It is not a word that I would normally use, ever.)

[aikoaiko]

145. He admits he's got daddy and mommy issues. It shows.

[NuclearDem]

148. How's that?

[redqueen]

155. Tone argument, pot shots at the guy delivering the message...

could it be any clearer?

[NoOneMan]

159. Why don't you spell it out?

I'd like to know what I'm thinking

[NuclearDem]

160. *sigh* I should just be used to it by now.

[aikoaiko]

181. Some guys wreak of overcompensation.

[NoOneMan]

157. I'm not sure who watches these people talking into the camera things

Who has time for that? How many random people does the world have recording themselves and throwing it up on Youtube?


And that's all I got.

[Shankapotomus]

158. He's only talking down to the people

who deserve to be talked down to...and they know who they are.

If you're not doing any of the things he's calling out, why take it personally?

[Egnever]

179. Well done

Welcome to DU.

[uppityperson]

180. Did you even listen to the video? It says be nice and recognize men do not have to fear as women do

that is all. There were no blanket generalizations other than that.

[NuclearDem]

182. Maybe watch the damn video.

It makes no such generalizations and accusations.

[Shankapotomus]

184. That almost convinced me you were right

At first glance, it does appear the same.

But there is much controversy swirling around the contributing factors for the African American community's problems. One of which is the pressure of racial intolerance by a dominant Anglo American culture. A culture that keeps AA's poor and keeps them far more likely to be harassed by authorities and incarcerated.

There is no controversy to any similar degree swirling around rape. Women are not the dominant culture here and they are not contributing to men raping them. There are no external reasons or excuses for raping someone. Men are under no real pressure by a dominant culture to rape someone while poverty can be a genuine motivator for crime. Men have been able to rape because they have been the dominant culture.

The big injustice that is happening to men in this context is that maybe, as men and women redefine and rethink the gender boundaries, some are not getting laid. Not poverty. Not profiling. Not racial discrimination. Not mass incarceration. Just not getting laid as much.

Women are not oppressing men. They are trying to free them of behaviors that oppress both men and women.

"Do Not Litter" signs do not assume everyone is a litter bug and yet no one has any problem with that message being equally distributed.

In the opposite context, where a message is directed at a certain group and you somehow feel offended because it is aimed at your group, offense is dependent on the relationship between the culture or group being accused and the culture or group doing the accusing.

Is it wrong for the poor to single out the rich as a whole to be more generous?

Is it wrong for workers to rebuke employers as a whole for their stinginess and practices of exploitation?

Is it wrong for the general citizenry to criticized police culture as a whole for its brutality?

Is it wrong for the occupy movement to criticize banks and Wall Street as a whole for all their practices?

Do you have any problem with those messages?

The difference is when the dominant and controlling group that usually sets down the rules and patterns of movement for the subservient culture. Understandably, the oppressed and subservient culture is going to be less receptive to targeted critiques coming from the top down.

To a huge extent, African American culture is working within the constraints and limitations laid down under racial tensions by a dominant Anglo American culture.

Male culture, in juxtaposition against female culture, is working under no such constraints.

That's the difference.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

161. 3088 views, 0 recs

Is the rec thing on? Tap tap...

[intaglio]

177. Well it is pretty obvious that you are so blindly ignorant

of the reality of male privilege that nothing can change your mind.

Go and play on AVFM you'll find lots of soul mates there.

[PeaceNikki]

183. lol, now who's 'perpetually outraged'?