Cult Purge Announced at Daily Kos

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

I have, on more than one occasion, compared Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos with that other power-mad autocrat George W. Bush. Some may quibble with that analysis, but I think it gets a little harder when Markos apes the President so nakedly. Without a trace of irony, Markos has pronounced -- and I'm not making this up -- that members of Daily Kos are "With us or against us."

There has lately been an alarming rise in diaries and comments that seek to impugn (without evidence) the motives of those they disagree with on various issues.

Yes, there's the impeachment stuff, but this nasty rhetoric is also rampant in the primary war diaries.

This points to a serious breakdown not just on civility, but in the ability of people to properly debate various issues. As such, it presents a serious threat to the integrity of this site.

I much prefer it when the community moderates itself, and for the most part it does a good job of this. The libertarian in me prefers it that way. But sometimes, self-moderation isn't enough. I'll act swiftly and mercilessly when I'm pushed into defending the effectiveness of this site. And at this moment, my patience is wearing thin.

It goes on like that for a few more paragraphs; veiled threats of banishment for vaguely defined transgressions. I think it's safe to assume many kossacks will be branded unmutual in the coming days and weeks. And with over 1200 comments from the hallelujah chorus, I think it's safe to say Markos will be able to count on that cyber torch and pitch fork wielding mob to do a lot of the dirty work.

Huzzah for the Blog Keeper!(53+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Kestrel, pb, StevenJoseph, DFWmom, RubDMC, elveta, sarahnity, als10, L0kI, celticshel, dejavu, aggressiveprogressive, lcrp, JohnGor0, randallt, eztempo, murrayewv, Thirsty, vcmvo2, historys mysteries, 3goldens, el dorado gal, Elise, deepfish, LithiumCola, pmob5977, ohcanada, MadGeorgiaDem, buddabelly, BachFan, Lashe, SaraPMcC, JVolvo, Dauphin, ER Doc, edgery, MBNYC, droogie6655321, va dare, RantNRaven, FrankieB, GoldnI, godislove, Jimdotz, Nordic Kossor, lizpolaris, Pink Lady, dragoneyes, smartdemmg, TokenLiberal, NogodsnomastersMary, mommaK, Tropical Depression

(It's fun talking like this.)

by Bush Bites on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:39:26 AM PDT


You can't make this shit up, folks!

It's a predictable pattern in organized groups as they devolve into insular cults. Leaders always think, if I can just get rid of this undesirable personality, the dynamics will right themselves. Then another. Then another. For a while it all seems harmonious again, until the next personality conflict arises, or the next uncomfortable discussion occurs, or someone has the temerity to question the leadership. So you get rid of more troublemakers and things seem to smooth over for a little while, until another fight breaks out; until the atmosphere is more toxic than it ever was... Before you know it, you're chasing ants with flame throwers in a vain and endless attempt to purge the group of those nasty, negative influences that seem to creep in from every nook and cranny. Or you could just buy a mirror.

Mirror, Carved and Gilded Adirondack

49 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oh I shouldn't do this but...

http://tinyurl.com/2mnt4m

Apparently, a banned right-wing troll named EndersRS--who boasts about being both a troll and having been banned--is welcomed back on DailyKos (by notorious trollhunters BarbinMD, who is also a DailyKos administrator) and by Elise, one of the volunteer vigilantes, but Cindy Sheehan (among others) has been run off.

And then there's the $9,600 scarf (among other items auctioned on Ebay), in which a 501(c)(3) organization, to which charitable donations ARE tax-deductible, is used to collect funds--which it then passes to a 501(c)(4) organization, to which charitable donations are NOT tax-deductible...and it's all used to fund YearlyKos:

http://tinyurl.com/2t82ch

Just like the Bushies, the Kossies are BS (Beyond Satire).

Anonymous said...

Good grief, are you really this big an idiot?

The diary at dKos was AGAINST the "with us or against us" mentality.

Curmudgette said...

Except for maybe the first graph, it doesn't read that way to me. But then, Markos always was a hopelessly muddled, piece of shit writer. And it would be pretty hard to make that case, while simultaneously threatening to ban people who don't conform to some vaguely described criteria.

Anonymous said...

accord?

Pyrrho is a liar. He supports bannings; specifically he supports my being banned from MLW. He knows he can get away with pretending he doesn't support censorship because he can gag those who would point it out.

The guy has some real issues. I mean look at how far his nose is up Marisacat's ass despite how she treats him (ok; how she treats everyone).

It's as if his statements of belief are utterly divorced from what he actually does and the two never embarrass each other by getting together and comparing notes.

DavidByron

Anonymous said...

MSOC is a liar too

The contradiction is between her comments there and elsewhere when she says she disagrees with banning 'for life'.

With her it's harder to tell what she's on about. I think she's just become corrupt over the years. She believes some stuff in theory but in practice she has come to believe that she has the right to fuck people over. That is what the word "troll" means of course.

db

Curmudgette said...

Here's the thing David. If you're going to make that assertion, you're going to need to back it up with links to things he has actually said in support of your or someone else's banning.

Anonymous said...

That's tricky because of MSOC's habit of "accidentally" deleting lots of comments of course. So what you ask for is impossible as you well know.

Why don't you just ask him yourself? I cannot. I don't think it's unreasonable when he's spouting all this crap about being against banning and MSOC too, and both pretending that banning for life is terribly bad, that you ask them why they continue to ban people and continue to ban people who have ever been banned in the past if they show up again.

Of course such a question won't exactly make you popular.

Or perhaps I should create an account called DavidByron2 and we'll just see what happens?

db

Anonymous said...

To be honest I was surprised that you took exception to that comment about Pyrrho. It must be apparent to you by now that when it comes to censorship you're on one side and everyone else who is a moderator there is on the other. For example over that last thing (not the current thing) with TINS screwing someone over.

Pyrrho and I have talked about all this on and off just about ever since I was banned two years ago (ie shortly after the board was started) in private email but I'm not going to post that here (I'm sure you wouldn't expect me to).

If you think I'm wrong about him there's no need to get shirty with me. All you have to do is ask him. if I am wrong and Pyrrho says publicly that I ought not be banned from MLW and MSOC is wrong to continue an indefinate ban for political reasons, then I will be very surprised.

Although your own views on censorship remain inferior to my own in terms of liberality, you're streets ahead of the other moderators there. While in this last episode you were in no position to do anything about the abuse (other than complain) as time goes on it seems to me you might get corrupted by the view at MLW that, you know, censorship never happens except when it does. Everyone's free to post except "trolls" -- defined as anyone MSOC doesn't like.

This stuff irritates me -- all the hypocrisy and lies, but I am used to it. However when you said you agreed with Pyrrho I thought I should say something.

db

ps. All the comments were deleted so I am unable to really see what it is that TINS said this time. Don't suppose you'd tell me?

Curmudgette said...

Okay DB,
I'm here. I was on the phone. Listen. I'm not defending Pyrrho. I would ask for evidence no matter who you were accusing. I don't care for gossip. I don't take what anybody says on faith. I like to see examples and evidence. You're right about the deletions. I don't know what happened when you were banned, but I have looked the admin codes and I'm not even a little surprised that Maryscott made a mistake. There's a lot that isn't real clear from the wording. As far as the spoon debacle goes, it would be impossible to reconstruct without the comments in place. It involved a lot of apologia for any form of rape other than at knife point by a total stranger, reliance on a right wing anti-feminist author as evidence, a lot of disparagement of "old-school feminists," "drunk Catholic girls," and any issue group that doesn't back only Democrats. (Big button pusher for me.) There was some profanity, some "dance on your grave" type stuff... It got very heated. Ah well...

As for lifelong bans, this is from memory, I think she said she doesn't necessarily as policy, but that it's a case by case basis. But don't quote me, and I don't have time to dig it up right now.

Anonymous said...

Here pyrrho says....

(at end of post) "I think the lifelong banning idea is right out as a credible philosophy."

And MSOC picks up on this and replies saying, "I agree with you about "lifelong bans" (whose life, by the way?) -- I don't agree with the concept, either."

But in reply to you, (linked to above) she says, "Trolls who have been banned before will be banned again. Not because they have created a new UID, but because they're still the same assholes they were when they were banned the first time."

Incidentally since I did put up links i found your complaint that I hadn't quite odd. You can see that I posted two links above can you? Are they displaying for you? The first word in both of the first 2 posts.

======================

The comment about Pyrrho wasn't gossip. I am a principle here not some by stander. It was an accusation. It was my witness to you. In part I post it here because I think he sometimes reads your site. Because of the censorship that goes on at MLW I cannot make these comments to him directly you see.

Maryscott said she accidentally deleted the comments when she banned me too. I didn't suspect anything at that point since it was the first, or according to her the second banning, but if the second then the other would have been someone with very few comments whereas when she banned me about a quarter of the content of the board disappeared.

Several people have been banned since so I would think it would be routine by now and none of those others causes mass deletions. In any case why take the risk if you think there's a good chance you'll delete content? In the aftermath of the loss of a quarter of the board she said she'd just change people's passwords.

That said it probably was an accident but I think an accident in part caused by negligence due to arrogance. The right to do what the fuck ever she wants and repent afterwards?

MSOC sometimes re-writes history a little. There was that odd episode on that Mo'Beta site where I mentioned that MSOC had refused to refund a donation I made to the MLW after she banned me (I was invited to the site and told I would not be banned several times before I made the donation).

I thought little of it because at the time MSOC had laughed it up and said she'd send the money to a feminist charity (after I suggested she could send the money to a mutually agreed on charity if she didn't want to return it to me). She made a point of making fun of me by saying maybe she'd send it to a women's group -- you know -- because of my well known anti-feminist (not anti-woman actually) views.

But then at Mo'Beta she did a 180 and denied that she had refused to return the money. I can't rememeber - but you were there weren't you? -- whether she claimed to have sent me the money or just agreed to do so in principle. She couldn't have sent it because to this day I've never told her how much money I donated to her.

She really flew off the handle at what she took as me lying about her. The anger seemed genuine so I can only suppose that in her own mind she really did return the money to me. The whole thing had come up because she was complaining about someone else owing her some money or something like that I think. I wasn't sure how to respond to it because she was calling me a liar but on the other hand she was obviously under a lot of stress.

I think I linked to the place on MLW where she had laughed about to sending my donation to a women's group. It was the post-banning thread. Since then I think that thread may have been removed from the database (probably not for that reason - I posted a comment here and at Mo'Beta I think mentioning that many old MLW threads appeared to have gone - but it was ignored).



So bottom line -- this isn't gossip. This is my accusation or witness. Certainly you shouldn't beleive it just because I say it, but it isn't gossip or hearsay.

All I am saying is that sometimes you have to take what those two say about censorship with a grain of salt. Before you conclude you are in "accord" with them that is.



=============================

"It involved a lot of apologia for any form of rape other than at knife point by a total stranger"

My usual comment on that topic is to point out that the default feminist position is an apologia for rape too. That is to say when a drunk man and drunk woman have sex according to feminists only the woman is unable to consent and only the man is a rapist. it's the usual sexist one rule for men and another for women.

db

Curmudgette said...

David,
Links to the current content are not what I mean. You said that pyrrho supported your banning, in the past. That's where I have to say, "show me." As far as my being in accord with pyrrho, it should be clear from my statement that I was agreeing with his assertion in the comment. Whether I'm in agreement with him, as a person, is something I could not say because I do not know him well enough, but I do find that I agree with a lot of what he writes. His writing could be disingenuous, as you claim, but I have not personally witnessed it, and your statements about your experience are not proof. They are one side of a story, without counterpoint, and without documentation. I also don't care overly much to drag out things people have written in the past and call them hypocrites. People do learn and grow and amend views. Sometimes without even realizing that they have done so. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." -- Emerson. When it comes to stating policy, I do think they should be clear about policy changes and not capricious. But there is a learning curve to this stuff.

Here's why I like Maryscott. She admits to errors, to foibles, and she apologizes. This may not seem a lot to you and she may not do so enough for you to feel a sense of justice about your own situation, but I think it's actually very unusual in this environment. Most people in leadership positions become more and more resolute and unwilling to admit error as time goes by. Partly because many see inconsistency as an unforgivable sin in a leader. But constancy is an impossibility and the wisdom of Solomon is rare. I don't think anyone can pilot one of these blog ships perfectly. Not humanly possible. Maryscott lets herself be vulnerable and it opens her to attack, but it's the thing about her I like most. I don't always agree with her, but I don't always agree with anybody. The day that happens, worry, because it means you're in a cult.

As far as spoon goes, maybe the two of you should meet for coffee and discuss the problems with feminism. Try for a place far, far away from me.

Anonymous said...

Well without knowing what TINS said I can only guess, but it sounds like what he said was just a variant on the feminist position that alcohol makes women irresponsible but men responsible for sexual decisions.

The feminist conclusion of that idiotic sexist view is that women should be allowed to get drunk but when they do say they become jail bait for men. The conservative view is that women need extra protection to prevent drunken sex. basically conservatives are about protecting "the ladies" and feminist really more about hating men. both hold the same bizarro idiotic sexist view that alcohol magically makes women lose their ability to consent but makes men even more responsible for their actions than when sober.

It's usual for feminists to pretend that conservatives are opposed to them but as far as I can see they are closer to each other that either would care to admit.
=================================

"Here's why I like Maryscott. She admits to errors, to foibles, and she apologizes. This may not seem a lot to you"

I think I've been saying that about her longer than you have ... back in the days of the early dKos anyway. In fact, as you know I tend to make moral criticisms and MSOC was the only person who would take them to heart it seemed.

In those days most people wrote her off as a drama queen / egomaniac who just wanted attention.

But lately it seems different. She has fallen in with a bad crowd. Why are so many of the people she trusts so right wing? She doesn't see it at all. She gets to talking with these people probably IRL and then she feels a sense of trust which isn't there and doesn't reflect what the other person is up to. The result is she gets shafted and pulled rightwards a lot.

Now several months ago she finally had a moment of clarity with Eugene and he "left" (not really) MLW and the lefties he had had banned were un-banned. (Except for me of course). I hoped things might change and they did somewhat, but now it seems back to square one.

"Most people in leadership positions become more and more resolute and unwilling to admit error as time goes by"

It's getting that way except that in her case she can never admit the people she trusts have done anything wrong. And since she is so often not present these days a lot of bad stuff happens and then she turns up with a mea culpa but nothing changes. She is of two minds all the time because she wants to please her right wing friends.

Running a blog is NOT hard but she makes it hard by going back and forth all the time. Look at the comments section over at Digby's place. That place runs comments great with just about zero effort.

MSOC makes it hard on herself by backing her right wing friends and showing them partiality all the time while at the same time wanting to be known as a principled lefty on censorship issues.

It isn't HARD to not ban. Just don't do it. It isn't HARD to not screw with people. In fact it's much easier than the right wing constant manipulations and interference.

db

Anonymous said...

Btw in reference to this diary what is the status of the private email list for MLW moderators? It is apparent that such a list exists although probably it is very informal and consists more of as peeder says, "groups of cc: that are frequently repeated"

I notice Diane didn't mention it as a list but did say they used to use chat for "that".

How much MLW-related stuff do you get via email from other moderators? It's a shame such questions cannot be posed at MLW. My guess would be that you are not yet trusted.

The Blogging Curmudgeon said...

David Byron, since you're as curious as the proverbial cat, email me at bloggingcurmudgeon@gmail.com and provide me with a way to contact you.

I anticipated the deletion of Thereisnospoon's remarks and made a complete archive of all remarks as it stood at 0031 hours PST Monday 30 July 2007--that means that all of the Thereisnospoon comments are included. The remarks of HunterHawk, the sockpuppet of Supervixen aka hrh, are also included.

I will provide you and anyone else with that archive if they so desire. I have already sent a copy of the archived remarks to Pyrrho at his request.

You will get a message from my vacation responder that I am not reading emails at my bloggingcurmudgeon@gmail.com. That is true but I will check specifically for your email. I have permanently retired "The Blogging Curmudgeon" as an online pseudonym, however--something which I should have done a long time ago.

A brief response to "anonymous" (#2 comment): Anybody who believes that Mr. Moulitsas is not "controlling the message" at DailyKos by running off real liberals, as opposed to the not-quite-former-Republicans who manage, police, and populate his site, is either a hopeless imbecile or else one of his bootlickers (actually, sneakerlickers...).

In either case, life is short and I've no time to waste squabbling with someone so stupid or so corrupt as to believe that Moulitsas has anything but bad motives in anything he writes--particularly when he says he will "act mercilessly" to deal with various unnamed people (they know who they are!) who are committing various unnamed deeds (they know what they are!.

My apologies (through my own gritted, grinding teeth) to the proprietoress for intruding in another of her illuminating discussions with the estimable Mr. David Byron. And I will take this opportunity to remind the Curmudgette that it's a good idea to read the content of a blog before you link to it, and to remind her that my dispute with Marisacat was that I pointed out that she had made a factual error. One does not question an infallible monarch in her own realm--unless, of course, that person is me, and then I don't give a fuck who I offend. I count Marisacat's enmity as I do that of Armando's and Moulitsa's: a sign that I must be something right.

The Blogging Curmudgeon said...

And yes, David Byron, you will find yourself nodding in agreement with everything that Thereisnospoon has written. Thereisnospoon shares your anti-feminist, misogynistic views for the most part, although we're as yet unclear on whether or not he endorses striking pregnant women in the abdomen with baseball bats, as you do.

I really do think you two should get together for some misogynistic bonding. It will be the greatest meeting of minds since that intellectual giant Stan Laurel partnered with Oliver Hardy.

Anonymous said...

Email sent.

Gosh as long as you are spilling the beans BC, would you care to tell me why you and 'mudge split up in the first place? It's incomprehensible to me how too such easy going individuals could come to such a sharp disagreement!

As for TINS' feminist views we shall see. At any rate nobody who has criticised feminism has been allowed to post at MLW. The necessity of banning being in inverse proportion to the strength of the argument of the in-crowd.

db

Anonymous said...

"The remarks of HunterHawk, the sockpuppet of Supervixen aka hrh"

I wonder if hrh stood for Hunterhawk then. I always assumed it was "Her Royal Highness".

db

Anonymous said...

"we're as yet unclear on whether or not he endorses striking pregnant women in the abdomen with baseball bats, as you do"

What an odd comment. You obviously want to hate me but find nothing about me that deserves such a reaction so you just make stuff up.

Why do you feel the need to hate BC?

In the comment you refer to I compared the sympathy given to young women who violently broke the law to get a desparately needed abortion in the 60's and early 70's with the complete lack of sympathy given towards young men in the same position today.

I was pointing out the sexism of people like you BC.

Anonymous said...

Typical example of feminist sexism at MLW

And the chief warmonger for "our" party?

A woman.

Remember when women won Nobel Peace Prizes?

Hillary Clinton is no woman. She is a war criminal in waiting.

In our militaristic patriarchic civilization I expect the men to engage in cock measuring contests. I expect women to laugh and ridicule and fight against the way things are; I don't expect them to contest for the biggest cock on the walk.

Look at the fucking world. It's on fire with a black-powder fuse leading to the proverbial Armageddon. I don't want 'my' woman leading the charge; I want her leading the revolution. God knows men can't.

I know it's unfair, but I expect more from women than men. I expect more from slaves than masters.


==================================

Just the sort of sexist shit feminist roll around in all day. Women are better than men -- more moral. Just like the Nazis said Germans were better than Jews or the KKK said whites were better than blacks. Yes you two keep good company when it comes to sexism.

DavidByron

Anonymous said...

LOL. Both you (Curmudgette) and StealthBadger you two "sophisticated" feminists criticise gottleib but not for his sexism against men. Not for his statement that half the human race are subhuman. On the contrary you just insist that saying women are better than men undermines women.

LOL. It's as if a Nazi criticised another Nazi for saying Jews were subhuman --- because that puts too much pressure on Nazis.


Oh but I'm sure you'd be consistent right?

I mean if someone wrote at MLW that women didn't have a head for business and it all should be left up to men you'd reply by saying they shouldn't be putting pressure on men to perform like that, right?

But at least that sort of comment wouldn't be making a moral judgement as gottlieb did.

I'll have to look up your essay that you linked to but I imagine it has the same assumptions that men are non-entities so you never have to consider whether something is sexist against them.

Anonymous said...

I guess the article isn't better than your comment at MLW and it's disappointing frankly. You really don't see a problem with this statement?

casting women as superior is as objectifying as casting us as inferior. It also gives men interminable latitude to drag their knuckles across the floor, revel in sexually degrading behavior, and generally behave like animals.

How about now?

What the KKK don't seem to understand is that casting whites as superior gives blacks interminable latitude to drag their knuckles across the floor, revel in sexually degrading behavior, and generally behave like animals.

===============

How about you start off by saying the obvious truth here Curmudgette? Casting women as superior is sexist. Sexist against men.

Saying birth group A is morally better than birth group B is prejudicial against group B not A.

And with any other two birth groups you'd see that but for men and women you have to pretend its sexist against women.

Curmudgette said...

Oh my god!!! Stop the presses! David Byron and I concur on a gender issue. It is absolutely sexism against men, your poor KKK analogy not withstanding. I do address that in the blog entry I linked to, but not explicitly. I refer to the masculine self-loathing of the author. I don't address the sexism of it directly in those instances, because I'm referring to male writers who use that rhetoric, not female writers. If a female writer writes about female superiority, that would definitely be sexism against men. I haven't seen much of that, at least not in some years. But, yes, we are in general agreement on this. It is degrading to men to position women as their superiors, their conscience, their moral guardians... So why do so many men keep doing that, I wonder. Now, if you'll excuse me, I think to go have a lie down. This moment has overwhelmed me utterly.

Anonymous said...

"Now, if you'll excuse me, I think to go have a lie down. This moment has overwhelmed me utterly."

Seriously?
I was just pulling your leg mostly. I knew you wouldn't agree with gottlieb. Figure the same for BC. Just wanted to point out what idiots are your fellow travellers.

"So why do so many men keep doing that, I wonder."

Because they are feminists and feminists are sexist against men. The gender of the feminist makes little to no difference in my experience.

Perhaps your real questions was "Why do so many men join a movement attacking their own sex?"

The thing that you have to understand here is that gender prejudice is not like other group prejudices --- for all that feminists try to usurp the genuine sympathy people feel for genuinely downtrodden groups.

Prejudice against another group is basically because of the strangeness and outsider status of the other group. But that isn't the case with men and women because all men and women know people of the other sex and are intimate with them in all sorts of ways. Well almost all men and women.

Sexism in fact is very very rarely genuine hostility and suspicion as say racism is or patriotism.

Men and women share the same culture and very often share their economic position. If every or almost every white and black person in America had lived in a house with a member of the opposite race for all their life, grown up with them as brothers and sisters, as fathers or as mothers.... would racism in America exist? it would not.

And neither does sexism exist in that sense, when compared to racism. It is an INTRA-GROUP prejudice not an INTER-GROUP prejudice and is much less serious as a result.

Only die hard feminist "womyn" really hate the opposite sex as an emotion. But there remains the question of discrimination all the same. Discrimination mostly caused by feminists these days at the political and personal level (eg see gottlieb).

So male feminists isn't the same as eg blacks fighting for the South. It's not Jews for Hitler. Men are just part of a society which throughout their entire lifetimes has always taught them that men are inferior to women. They simply reflect society's prejudices just as women do.

DavidByron

Curmudgette said...

I think in some ways sexism and racism are intertwined. But I also think there are major differences and that it gets muddy when you make facile comparisons between the two. As far as the idealization of the feminine being a result of feminism, that's patently false. Read Virginia Woolf's stuff on "The Angel in the House" some time. Or read "The Angel in the House" if you can bear it. Victorian era poem; a paean to the ideal wife. Horrifying. The "finer" nature of women has long been held as a reason to "protect" them from the harsh world. That some of those ideas have been imported into feminist thought was inevitable, I guess, because those archetypes run so deep. But it keeps us mired deeply in imposed limitations.

Anonymous said...

I did say "mostly caused by feminists these days".

Another example from the front page at MLW

"Angels of light". You know it's going to talk about women because men are demons not angels.

She is nine years old. She is beautiful, brilliant, strong, confident and fearless.

A boy could never be described in such terms.

She is the woman her mother wants to become, and her mother is a very powerful woman in a world dominated by men. Her parents -- aware of what they have wrought -- make sure this angel of light is constantly trained to use her powers only for good, never for evil.

Her sex makes her pure but she is threatened by the taint of maleness around her. The monsters. Men. The world is dominated by them and they are monsters. But she's beautiful and strong because she's female.

The "finer" nature of women has long been held as a reason to "protect" them from the harsh world. That some of those ideas have been imported into feminist thought was inevitable, I guess

The question is, has there ever been a feminism that rejected this notion, or it's flip side that men are the evil of the world and to blame for everything bad in it?

These ideas were not "imported" into feminism; they ARE feminism.

The Victorian view that you are talking about here was taken up and amplified by most of the earliest feminists. They added to the mix the idea that men and women were opposed to each other. Previously it was thought that women and men both had their good points, women being more pure and men being more about "doing". It was a partnership. Each to their own. With feminism men simply became violent one dimensional thugs constantly at war with the pure beautiful women.

Read the terms of the 1848 Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments and you see it is there from the beginning; the hatred. The sex war. The concept that women weren't just more pure than men but men were just plain evil. Feminists rejected the idea of each gender having it's "sphere" it's role to play (or to be more precise they rejected that women should be kept to one role while endorsing that men ought to be still) and endorsed instead the idea that the sexes were in an implacable war, with women as the good guys.

Does that sound like an equality movement to you? To me it sounds like the hate propaganda of every racist group out there. We're different from them. They're the enemy. They're violent. They are evil. They can't be trusted. They are like that from birth. It's their nature. They must be destroyed - for our safety.


Conservatism and Feminism are two sides of the same coin in respect to women being angels. Both value women more highly than men. Conservatives just do it in a different way (a more logical and less sexist way) than feminists do. You're right to say feminism didn't challenge but adopted this view - that the view preceeded feminism. Feminism was a conservative movement.

Think for a moment what a real gender equality movement would have said in response to feminism.

db

Curmudgette said...

The question is, has there ever been a feminism that rejected this notion, or it's flip side that men are the evil of the world and to blame for everything bad in it?

Yes. Mine.

Anonymous said...

More hateful feminist shit on the front page at MLW this morning I see. Women are goddesses and men are demons today. I guess that's gottlieb's more thoughtful nuanced position since you criticised him for loading too high an expectation on women yesterday. He got the message OK. Women aren't better, it's just that men are far far worse.

Women are wise, women can love. Men are incapable of love. Men are violent demons who enslave women. Only women care about anything. Women alone are beautiful, merciful. Etc etc. Excuse me while I puke.

Standard for feminism. And he thinks -- he really thinks that he is agreeing with you by the way. Why is that?

You should think about this long and hard. You claim that you are opposed to this sort of sexist crap, and I don't reject that claim, I just question how much strength of conviction you can have if you are aligning yourself with a movement where the exact opposite of what you believe is taken for granted.

gottlieb really doesn't even have a clue as to what you said except that you were telling him he was a sexist male undermining women somehow --- well really he knows if he's a male he's sexist doesn't he? That goes without saying because men are evil and irredeamable from birth in the feminist religion. The original sin of feminism is to be born male. His response was like a grovelling slave who's been told by his mistress "Don't call me 'mistress'" and he can't help it so all he can say is "No, mistress."

Your religion has turned him into a self-loathing worm of a man.


Having said that the question you answered last time was somewhat rhetorical because of course there have always been *SOME* feminists who disagreed with the idea that men were evil. These days not many. Personally I estimate it used to be about one third but that was 150 years ago and since then the haters have pretty much squeezed out the others.

Usually the closest you get these days to feminists who don't hate men is feminists who just haven't thought about it. That says something all by itself doesn't it? That's like joining the KKK and never having though about what you feel about blacks, but I believe many people did actually do that back in the day of the KKK being a popular and respected movement as feminism is today. Back in the 1920's.


But that's not you. You've thought about it and rejected the idea that men are evil. What you may not have thought about is the fact that most other feminists promote the idea that men are evil.

I look forward to seeing your response to gottlieb.

DavidByron

Anonymous said...

Hey!
Well done.

Interesting dynamic you have going on down there. Do you think you are getting through to any of them? It always seems odd to me that such an incredibly simple idea as equality needs (apparently) such a huge amount of explanation and discussion with confusion all around and about -- and that on a supposedly liberal board!

"Equality."
What word did they not understand?

Thanks for giving it a try. I think you might begin to see how I got banned for bringing the same truths you are trying to bring from the position of an accepted insider. people are already suspicious of me to begin with so they fully rejected anything I had to say even as you seem to want to a lot of the time (I wonder why)

"I think he's a misogynist, and I've told him so. But his unfortunate apologia for beating pregnant women with baseball bats aside, credit where credit is due."


Do we have to go over this until you understand why I was right?

Or can you simply trust me enough to realise that regardless of what conclusions we might currently have come to, on our basic ideals, on our moral axioms, we are the same in this case -- equality as we both understand it (and as very few others appear to)?

I'm happy to go over the baseball bat abortion thing with you if you can't simply trust me. I'm not insulted by your reaction or whatever, but you do know me well enough by now to know that it's not like I'm *pretending* to believe in equality or whatever, and nor do I believe in a shallow idea of equality that is full of prejudicial contradictions such as gottlieb appears to have.

Basically you are saying I am a "misogynist" because you have come to a different conclusion based on the facts and the axioms as we both see them.

That would be like me calling you a warmonger because you have a different view of the military than I do. I admit I might have done that but the truth is I think you're heart's in the right place but your conclusions are wrong. it's not a great analogy because I think we have different basic assumptions about the morality of responsibility for actions under orders too.

Anyway....
Is calling me a "misogynist" really working for you at this point?
==============================

BTW?
Off-topic I guess but that stuff about "balance" is such a crock. I am guessing you were just throwing gottlieb a bone. I don't care if someone is "unbalanced" in the gender identity. In fact most people are. Most people are pretty sure they're either male or female and like it that way.

Balance? meh. In life it's often best to specialise instead of generalise. To be an extremist not balanced. This idea that balance is always the best thing is romanticised pseudo-buddhist nonsense. In any case most of life isn't about sex so the choice isn't male or female but male, female or nothing.

Here's the thing: it's not about whether one gender is "exalted" or whatever. Because a gender isn't a person. A gender doesn't have feelings. It's about whether individual people are suffering. You know if conservatives didn't try to foist their ideas of gender on others I'd be just fine with them doing whatever on a voluntary consenting adults style basis.

Some people will be extremely "male" or extremely "female". It's all good. Of course extremists have special vulnerabilities but they also have special strengths. People are just not all the same and I am fine with that. I am even fine with people being assholes or sexist or racist so long as it doesn't hurt other folks. It really is that simple.
===================================

I wonder if the same people who are conservatives on the board will be the ones to take the hard feminist line on female supremacy. The same people who take the line that Israelis are superior to Palestinians. Or support American Exceptionalism. The in-crowd bunch who favour censorship because they know some people's opinions are worth more than others. In short: those who see people as falling into one of two groups: the in-group or the out-group, you're either with us or your with the terrorists mentality.
================================

Once again, jolly good show at MLW :)

DavidByron

Anonymous said...

Is this the remark in question? TINS is correct to say that most people, normal people, including women, and especially young women would say this is not rape.

what about the rape class instruction video in which a woman gets passed out drunk, goes up with a guy to the bedroom, they lie down.

She's says "I don't know..." He says it's ok. She never says no. They have sex; she passes out.

The next day she cries and calls the police to accuse him of rape.

The class instructor asks the class if this was rape. Most of the class says no.

The rape instructor says, "yes."


If you think this is rape do you also think that the woman is a rapist for having sex with the man while he was drunk? Are you saying that because of the alcohol they both raped each other willingly?

This sort of thing brings the word rape to mean nothing, although I expect legally the woman is raped and the man is not because of the apartheid nature of US laws -- discrimination against men that is that feminists endorse and have lobbied for.

What is your response? Do you think the woman also raped the man or do you endorse gender apartheid?

db

Anonymous said...

Universities and teachers unions are pretty much the only places these sorts of world views continue to have even marginal relevance.

He forgot "law courts". A law such as this basically gives all women a huge gun held to the head of all men. It's basically the same situation black people were in vis-a-vis whites. There's a legal presumption towards the guilt of men when accused of sexual "crimes" by women today. This is directly because of lobbying by feminists to remove or reduce the presumption of innocence laws. This unfortunate legislative tendency continued into the laws treating suspected terrorists today.

It seems like most older people today know some poor young man who was screwed over by some false accusation of rape or abuse, or domestic violence. It's an easy and routine way for women to get the upper hand in any legal dispute.

Perhaps TINS thinks he's bullet proof as the young often seem to. Perhaps he just assumes he has equal rights with a woman because that's what society's propaganda says.

db

Anonymous said...

TINS' summary seems accurate on onelevel:

there is an out-of-touch group that thinks that consent of a drunk person is revocable ex post facto--and the only way to make that work is to claim that no drunk person can ever consent.

The logical conclusion of which is that two drunk people are raping each other.


What he doesn't grok is that this silly rule works because it is selectively only applied to women and never to men so that men who get drunk and have sex are rapists never victims.

It's because TINS doesn't comprehend that he's in a gender apartheid system that he thinks it is silly. As a piece of feminist supremacy law, as gender Jim Crow, it works just fine.

But he's young and he just hasn't realised how sexist the people he is talking with are. He really thinks you lot were saying BOTH people would be rapists. How naive.

db

Anonymous said...

It's a very funny thread.

TINS is correct of course but the feminists just have a knee-jerk response to any criticism of any kind so they have to hound him off the board. TINS himself doesn't really understand what the argument is all about because he's so naive.

All the feminists pretending to be soooo concerned about rape victims when their position is the one denying rape --- of drunk males. TINS himself isn't denying it so much as saying it's silly to say two people raped each other and use the same word as a violent stranger rape. He just doesn't get that the feminists take it for granted the rules only work one way; for women and against men.

And the feminist whine on and on about how TINS is ignoring rape --- the very thing the feminists are doing of course. Same as ever.

And what about you Curmudgette? Do you deny rape? Do you deny that if a woman has sex with a drunk man she is a rapist?

Anonymous said...

What is the feminist opinion on gay drunken sex btw?

Two drunk lesbians -- are they both rape victims but without either one being a rapist?

What about two drunk gay men? Both rapists neiother of them rape victims?

What about bi-women having drunk sex? If you know you got drunk and had sex but can't remember if it was with a man or a woman are you a rape victim?

Anonymous said...

You didn't have much to say but this statement was interesting:

The blog we've taken over?!!!
Oh right. You're used to a controlled environment, where people who disagree with the party line get driven off or banned. Free speech and dissent are too uncomfortable for you, I guess? It is a shock when one ventures outside the bubble and encounters feminists who actually call themselves feminists.


In fact MLW is a controlled environment for feminists and any critics are banned or harassed until they leave. There have been several examples, some of them women. You were actually fighting on the side of the censors there briefly. Reading the thread as a whole it's clearly a mob attack to remove the perceived outsider the one who disagrees with the in-group ideology.

Your comments though are accurate when turned on the correct target. Feminism cannot withstand criticism - that is the conclusion of this sort of behaviour. And incidentally that more than anything is why I can never be allowed to post at MLW again. Can you imagine the outpouring of hatred and fear? I'd be 100 times worse than TINS because I am not a naive kid and I know a lot more than he does.

DavidByron

Curmudgette said...

David,

This is the TINS quote that started the firestorm:

MAYBE, if a woman does not want to get taken advantage of, that MAYBE she shouldn't get passed out drunk at a frat party.

He said repeatedly that no one said passed out, but someone did; him. He gave himself away completely with those words. If she's left her body unprotected, it's up for grabs. Nothing he said afterwards could ameliorate that sentiment.

Do I think men can be raped by women? Absolutely. But it's harder because of some basic physical realities; strength, the role of erections, etc. The problem with conversations like the one that took place, is that it's dealing with abstractions, generalities, and assumptions. Every charge of rape, should be dealt with individually and the problem of proving or disproving it is that it rarely happens with an audience; or at least with an audience that has no vested interest in the result of an inquiry.

I may have more to post about this issue, when I actually have the time and energy to really write, rather than comment. I just don't have it right now.

Anonymous said...

Oh give it up; they all picked on him over something he didn't say and you damn well know it. 'Nuff said about TINS.
===============================

You are punting on the question of whether the woman rapes the man if she has sex with him while he is drunk. It's not a hard question. You didn't have any problem answering it when the sexes were reversed.

Do you or do you not believe that if you are drunk you cannot give consent and sex without consent is rape? Where does anything you offered as an excuse enter into it?

Do I think men can be raped by women? Absolutely.

Was that what I asked you? Absolutely not!

But it's harder because of some basic physical realities; strength

How does strength enter into it when it's all voluntary sex?

the role of erections

Who says there was even penetration? Do you think men who are drunk cannot get it up?

The problem with conversations like the one that took place, is that it's dealing with abstractions, generalities, and assumptions

True but none of that was an issue when you were considering if he raped her was it?

Every charge of rape, should be dealt with individually

Really? So are you now agreeing with TINS that it's ridiculous to say that a woman is always raped if she gets drunk and has sex? because you cannot say in general? isn't that what he got bollocked for saying?


And I would like an answer on the question of two lesbians getting drunk and having sex. See the reason I ask this is because if you ask that bunch of sexist a-holes at MLW - the liberals so-called, they will all agree it's obvious that two lesbians drunkenly groping each other isn't rape. How ridiculous to suggest otherwise!

In other words they essentially agree with TINS position when it's two women (or two men). His position is intuitive and it's this: if the two are basically the same then either they must both rape each other -- which is just plain daft -- or else nobody rapes anyone. Therefore the obvious answer is the second one.

That is the logic the others will apply in the lesbian case and it is the logic TINS applied in the male/female case.

In other words TINS disagreed with the feminists because he assumed the man and the woman were equal which no feminist can agree with because they all know women are angels and men are devils - or rapists in this case.

TINS is a natural equalitarian so he didn't get what the feminists saw immediately. male = guilty.

The stuff about being drunk and drunk people not being able to give consent is bullshit. I repeat: they do NOT believe this. They just said that to explain their sexist opinion.

If I were to ask one of those feminists they would just get pissed off because they don't give a crap about being consistent logical or treating the sexes the same. I'd be humiliating them by pointing out their lies and they'd attack me to stop it. But you have a real problem here don't ya? You have that old integrity thing going on.

So which is to be Curmudgette?

Do lesbians really rape each other if they have drunk sex? Or is that stuff about drunk women being unable to give consent just a smokescreen for anti-male prejudice?

DavidByron

ps

I dare you!
I double dare you to post the lesbian question at MLW :)

Ok I don't-- but I think it would be funny to see what they say (if they actually understood it).

Curmudgette said...

David,

I will not be your straw feminist. You want to bandy about hypotheticals, you're going to have to do it on your own time. I'm not interested in this game. Never was. I quoted TINS exactly. Check the cache. It's there. If you want to align yourself with a man who thinks a woman's sleeping body is community property -- that's she's responsible for her rape, by getting too inebriated to defend herself -- knock yourself out, but it demonstrates quite clearly that we have nothing to say to each other on this issue.

Anonymous said...

Ha. It's feminist tantrum time.

I guess you reached the limit of your integrity then. TINS said nothing of the sort as we both know, not that it matters. And you have been unable to reply to what I said once again. You can't reply because any answer screws you and your prejudicial belief system over.

Debating feminists is like trying to play chess with a four year old. You either let them move any piece however they want and let them "win" just to placate them or they get bored and throw a tantrum if you play by the rules.

At some point you need to stop being a four year old. A grown woman shouldn't act like a baby.

Anonymous said...

"bandy hypotheticals"

Yeah because people never get drunk and have sex. Never happens. LOL.

You know for a four year old you had a decent attention span this time around. Take it as a compliment.

DavidByron

Curmudgette said...

Are you calling me a liar, David Byron? Fuck you.

**********

is this it?
actually, i'm saying that (0+ / 5-)
the "victim" doesn't even know if she was victimized here.

She was too fricking drunk--if the eyewitnesses are correct--to even remember.

She left smiling, she arrived battered, and people are REALLY quick here to scream "rape" and blame these "horrible" men.

And quick to lambaste the WSJ writer for suggesting that MAYBE, just MAYBE, if a woman does not want to get taken advantage of, that MAYBE she shouldn't get passed out drunk at a frat party.

And that's insane.

What is the Nexus?

by thereisnospoon on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 02:21:10 PM PDT

by: HunterHawk @ Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 13:36:02 PM CDT
[ Parent ]

*******

HunterHawk posted said comment and it can be found in the cache that you claimed to have read. As you can see from the ratings, it was troll-rated into oblivion, so I do not have a link to the original comment on DKos. Perhaps you can do as Peeder initially suggested when raising this issue, and find someone with TU status to read it.

Anonymous said...

Oh don't be a silly.

As he said a few times he didn't mean anyone was having sex with anyone who was unconscious. It was just a term he used to me "drunk".

I mean he said originally that a girl who was "passed out drunk" went home with someone. So immediately you think, "How does someone go home with someone else if they are unconscious?" I don't think he realised he said that but from the rest of what he said it was very clear, and he repeatedly clarified that she was not unconscious at any point.

C'mon Curmudgette. This is simple English comprehension.

At any rate, no, I didn't intend to call you are liar, just a silly billy.

Curmudgette said...

You're confusing two different comments, David, which is amazing, because I just posted the one I'm referring to.

Anonymous said...

I am not nit-picking any single comment but referring to the whole conversation.

Curmudgette said...

Nitpicking? I pointed out the specific comment that lies at the heart of the flame war; the comment that reveals how diseased his thinking his. If you want to avoid it and dance around it, insist he never said it, that's on you. But that statement gives the lie to every other protestation he made. In sum: a woman is responsible for her own rape, for being "taken advantage of," if she is fool enough to get drunk and pass out. Getting totally inebriated is a come on, in his world.

This statement is even more insulting to MEN than it is to WOMEN. The implication being that it is a man's nature to "take advantage" of a woman who lets her guard down. That men are aggressors, by nature and it's up to us girls not to drink, to stay in control of the situation, to stay away from places where the air is thick with male bonding, because if a man sees an inebriated, or even unconscious woman, a woman who doesn't clearly articulate the word "No," he just has to fuck her. Can't help himself.

Pay attention David. Words matter. A woman is responsible for being "taken advantage of." Is that how you think of sex? As taking advantage of someone? Because see, I don't. Sex is supposed to be a mutual act; not a case where someone gains and someone loses. Not a case where someone gave up their right or opportunity to decline sex because of the situation they put themselves in.

"MAYBE, just MAYBE, if a woman does not want to get taken advantage of, that MAYBE she shouldn't get passed out drunk at a frat party." -- thereisnospoon

Hideous.

Anonymous said...

You're just being a silly four year old feminist again.

I asked you serious questions but you can't and won't answer them. Your feminist temper tantrum. But you go and on about this irrelevancy.

I guess you're lying at this point but it's so pathetic I wouldn't bother to call it that. Really you are just ducking and diving to avoid answering the questions I asked. TINS didn't say what you quoted. The comment you quoted was by HRH. In that comment there's a supposed quote of TINS (from who the hell knows where) talking about what someone else again said. And this all in one throw away comment that was nothing to do with the thread.

I can't take you seriously when you are like this.
===============================

You appear to be supporting a sexist view of rape which is standard for sexist feminists and says that a man is a rapist if he has sex with a drunk woman but a woman is not a rapist if she has sex with a drunk man. In other words all men are rapists and that's all they are. Maleness = rapist. I asked you if that was so and you refused to answer. Two, three, four or five times I've asked you. You blathered on for another 4-5 comments about I don't care what.

It's obvious if your answer was that you thought the situation was the same for both sexes you would have said so immediately.

db

Curmudgette said...

Stop playing games. I answered you several comments back. Yes women can rape or molest men... as can other men which is far more common. And, yes, that would certainly include cases in which a man is too insensible from drugs or alcohol to consent.

I already explained about the origin of the quote. Believe what you want. I'm wasting no more of my precious time on your disingenuous bullshit.

Anonymous said...

I didn't ask if women "can" rape men. (2nd time of noting that)

I didn't ask if a man "can" be too drunk to consent either.

I asked if a woman who has sex with a drunk man is a rapist. Do you say that in the example that was being discussed in that thread that the woman raped the man? That they both raped each other in fact? Do you treat men and women the same and hold them to the same standard or are you a feminist who says men are inherently evil?

If you think men and women are the same why wouldn't you have said so ten comments back? obviously your constant ducking and diving means you can't bring yourself to say it. Not to mention the fact that if you really thought men and women were equals you'd have substantially agreed with TINS that it was silly to end up concluding they both raped each other.

You can't answer a simple question when it's about men but you easily could with the sexes reversed therefore you are sexist.

Ducking the question doesn't make you look better you know. It just makes you look dishonest as well as sexist.

Curmudgette said...

Except David, that I never said that sex with any drunk person is rape; only a thoroughly inebriated one. The law on what constitutes too intoxicated to consent varies from state to state. But of course it should be applied equally to men and women. Now lets give that poor straw feminist that you keep beating the crap out of a rest, shall we?

This, by the way, is why I don't care to debate or discuss anything serious with you. You put words in my mouth, ascribe beliefs to me that I don't hold, twist my meaning, trot out straw man arguments, ignore inconvenient facts and, in general, waste my time.

Anonymous said...

Waste YOUR time?
It took you ten comments to answer a simple question but I am the one wasting time?!??!

So are you now saying that you agree with what TINS said despite all this time suggesting that you disagreed with him? You agree with him when he said,

The logical conclusion of which is that two drunk people are raping each other.

The only difference being that TINS takes it for granted that if you conclude two people raped each other then your premise must be faulty because the conclusion is silly.

But you seriously claim that you can have two people rape each other? Would you prosecute the two people as rapists Curmudgette? Calling each other in as rape "victims" in the others' trials?

Incidentally you know that nobody else thinks this way, right? Your feminist pals over at MLW would all say that only the man is a rapist if a man and woman have drunk sex and if the two drunk people are of the same sex then no rape occurs.

TINS is making an argument ad absurdam in saying that the logical conclusion is both rape each other he is saying the premise that if you are drunk you can't consent is wrong. That there is a process of consent involved with going out to a party and getting wasted in anticipation of going off with someone and having sex.

MAYBE, just MAYBE, if a woman does not want to get taken advantage of, that MAYBE she shouldn't get passed out drunk at a frat party

This is just saying there is a process of consent. If she does want to get "taken advantage of" (ie does want to have sex) she goes to a party and gets drunk etc. The action, the process (together with later pairing off going back to someone's place and having sex while drunk) is presumptive of consent. A reasonable person would see it as consent. TINS says that is exactly how most people in these situations do see it. Therefore if you don't want to give consent don't act like someone giving consent because people will reasonably interpret what you do as consent.

He doesn't literally mean "passed out" as he stated. He doesn't literally mean "taken advantage of" the way you took it either.

db