~ archived since 2018 ~

Petition to remove SRS from Reddit

takebackreddit · 2012-10-14T09:29:01+00:00

I have started a petition over at change.org to remove this caustic and divisive subreddit. I know that most people think this will achieve nothing. Yet I have...

takebackreddit

October 14, 2012

0 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Petition to remove SRS from Reddit
Author	takebackreddit
Upvotes	0
Comments	418
Date	October 14, 2012 9:29 AM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/11ge7r/petition_to_remove_srs_from_reddit/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/petition-to-remove-srs-from-reddit.1011392 https://theredarchive.com/post/1011392

Comments

[–]SpanishGuy 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ArchangelleMystery 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CW8_Fan1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThrowAway233223 31 points32 points33 points 13 years ago (378 children) | Copy Link

[–]Froolow 715 points716 points717 points 13 years ago* (356 children) | Copy Link

[–]atomicthumbs 64 points65 points66 points 13 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]eagletarian 65 points66 points67 points 13 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]ONXwat 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]sybelle 68 points69 points70 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sappow 23 points24 points25 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]eagletarian 51 points52 points53 points 13 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[+]ONXwat -33 points-32 points-31 points 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]RobotAnnasSRDAlt 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Haven't seen anyone get banned for them

If you're talking about from SRS or one of the "fempire" subs (that is what the srs-affiliated subreddits are called, so I'm not sure why you're so mad about that being used to talk about them) slurs against people with autism spectrum disorder is very much a bannable offense. Click report, message the mods of whatever it is, people posting such things will be banned in short order.

Moreover, just like with any other slur, anything with a net 10 upvotes or more that uses slurs against people with ASD is eligible for submission to SRS. If you're complaining about how they are infrequently submissions like this are featured, it likely has to do with that in pluming the dregs of this godawful site, instances of misogyny, gsm-phobia, and race hatred are much more common, at least in my experience.

However just for you right now I'll go run a metareddit on an ASD slur or two and see if I can't find something to submit on your behalf!

[–]eagletarian 29 points30 points31 points 13 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[+]ONXwat -31 points-30 points-29 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]pyrkne 16 points17 points18 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FredFnord16 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]eagletarian 21 points22 points23 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ONXwat-23 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]eagletarian21 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ONXwat-4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]balla_ass_spoon15 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FredFnord 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RobotAnnasSRDAlt 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cranberrykitten 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ONXwat 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ngwoo 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]RiseAgainst826 13 years ago* [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

I don't get it... I actually HAVE social anxiety and I don't see the connection with neck beards, I find the whole neck beard thing funny, never put those two together

[–]lavalampmaster 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]RiseAgainst826 13 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

Well, for me, it means vomiting when exposed to a social situation, despite this, I still try to go out, maintain good hygiene standards and (try!) to keep a good appearance! Social anxiety is a very complicated thing and symptoms differ for every person, some people will never experience sickness and may instead faint or something, and it comes in varying extremes.

Anyway, this isn't the place for a more full explanation, but in conclusion, Neckbeards =\= some People with SA, Neckbeards just = some people.

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]FredFnord 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]FredFnord 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]legitimategrapes 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]diredyre 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zosimasie 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gimpythecrutch 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Modthryth 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]motherflutter 112 points113 points114 points 13 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk 25 points26 points27 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]motherflutter 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pyrkne 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]JeefyPants -13 points-12 points-11 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -30 points-29 points-28 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]motherflutter 16 points17 points18 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]Gandalv -14 points-13 points-12 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]motherflutter 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fempire 55 points56 points57 points 13 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]EatATaco 22 points23 points24 points 13 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]Swan_Writes 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I find them..hideously immature. My own ban came from answering a question they asked. There was a post in srs discussion asking how a woman could consider herself an M.R.A. When I answered..they banned me for being a M.R.A claiming to be a woman (which I am) I am horrified that they claim to be a protector of goodness and reason and are illiterate to reasonableness themselves.

I think they are a worse blight then r/spacedicks, at least one knows they are stepping into shit gong there, with SRS, it is like the mods are the worst grieffer trolls ever. The only time I have ever felt threatened on reddit was/is by the SRS team. (they accused me of being girlwriteswhat when I refereed them to her for a good source on how women can be M.R.A.'s) They seem very willing to reveal or search for the identity of people they don't like. As a (nearly) middle-aged woman on reddit, I find their existence shameful. They are the least safe space on reddit I've ever been to.

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]paleDiplodocus -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]paleDiplodocus -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're not looking in the right places. Any r/video where a crime is being committed and the person is black receives an onslaught of racist comments and justification for why blacks are predisposed to crime or are bringing society down. And it's not just troll comments.

Are you not going to mention the statistics at all? The 'poor black male' one? Or the 'black culture'?

In a 2004 United States Department of Justice report which analyzed carjacking trends over the previous decade, carjacking victims identified 56% of the offenders as black, 21% as white, and 16% as members of other races. This is a blatantly obvious one.

Considering that 13% of Americans are black that is a pretty impressive number don't you think?

So while it is a bit simplified, saying that black people, in some cases, are more likely to commit crimes isn't racist, it's observation. (overly simplified and all that, but still.)

Then there are places like r/gaming where literally, a woman MENTIONING her gender in the title will be berated with comments like "there's no reason to bring up your gender, attention whore" or in askreddit, where the women who own up to cheating or not putting out sexually for a "nice guy" receive criticism and harassment compared to men who do the same thing.

Could you provide a recent example of this happening? While I think I've seen a few of these I think those are a minority.

Or, see literally any instance where a female user posts an image of themselves to show something they made. Theyll just be received with objectification, rude ocmments about tits, and mentions that they are karmawhoring since the person included too much of themselves in the image, so they must be doing it for attention.

For a time that was the case, that when a woman was in a photo of something interesting, she would get "attacked" for it, and that was quite stupid, but I've noticed a very obvious decline in those comments. As in, whenever I see them they are very much downvoted.

[+]Fempire -8 points-7 points-6 points 13 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

Just based on the tone of your post, it seems like you harbor at least a measure of arrogance. If you were banned, it's because you broke a rule. The rules are all pretty clearly stated in the sidebar, and if you were expressing unexamined and unchecked privilege, or were being homophobic, misogynist, or just a pretentious douche, then they have every right to ban you.

That said, I personally haven't read the comments that led to your ban or resulting correspondence with the mod team, so I can't speak to your attitude/demeanor/opinions/etc. I do believe that there are problematic users, but that is not unique to SRS. This happens in every subreddit. What I can tell you is that from my experience, most SRS users are not as douchey as portrayed by reddit.

In fact, many if the users are open to having dialogue with users regarding issues of privilege, racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. of course most users are not approving of these opinions, and will explain why these things are wrong. It ultimately depends on the individual - if both parties are not open to learning and discussion, then the conversation will be a wasteful use of time.

This issue is not unique to SRS, and labeling a whole subreddit as unproductive or unfruitful, or packed with hatemongers disrespects both the subreddit and the rational users that are a part of it.

[–]dumpstergirl 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]FredFnord 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fempire 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gandalv -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DeliriumTW 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Gandalv 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you please...see the last sentence of my previous comment.

It's not like we don't have things to agree upon. Even the most ardent of MRA supporters is against child pornography. We all have Mother's, most have sisters and of course we have friends who are woman. Some have family members who are members of the LGBT community (my step-brother is gay). I abhor pedophiles (male and female), rapists (male and female) and abusers (male and female). I feel certain that most MRA members would agree on these points. Yes, there are lots of other "positions & discussions & disagreements", to have on equal pay, fair access, etc. Those positions, discussions and disagreements notwithstanding, the list above IS the middle ground on which we all agree and could be a basis for moderates.

The truly sad part is that each community is at such odds, there's no middle ground despite there actually being, a middle ground.

[–]elahrai 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Welp, I was about to point out that you sounded far more arrogant than EatATaco does in his post (note: you do), but I figured I'd give some benefit of the doubt and read through his comment history.

Based on that comment history, he can be kind of a dick, so the ban seems a lot more logical than it would by just reading that one comment there.

That said, in my opinion, one of the reasons SRS folks can get a bum rap among the reddit "peanut gallery" (i.e. the non-vocal majority) is a combination of their haste to enter attack mode and their heavy use of big ol' words (see Argument of Prestigious Jargon in the List of Fallacious Arguments). Your post there serves as a good example.

Don't get me wrong, it's an effective tactic: when faced with a proverbial wasp's nest of aggressive, pretentious folks who seem to revel in instigating and escalating these kinds of flame wars, the average person's going to "fuck that" right on out of there. But in the long run, it ain't doing you any favors insofar as your reputation's concerned.

Were ya'll to seem less eager to fight and more willing to listen, it likely wouldn't change anything with your main detractors, but it'd do heaps of good with your relations with the more common redditors.

Just sayin'.

[–]amliner 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

As someone who lurks a lot on SRS, but almost never posts there...I gotta say, I adore SRS and would never want them to change, even if it's not where I usually want to be. When I first came to reddit, and started trying to engage people in civil, mannered, informed and informative discussions of feminism and other stuff dear to my heart, the rain of shit I got was pretty stunning. It's funny--before Froolow's post blew up, I was reading his back catalog of posts, and it's kind of nuts, the disparity between his erudition and thoughtfulness, and the indifference and downvotes his posts seem to have met with (previous to this bestof). Me, I'd never in real life encountered the kind of unfiltered, unthoughtful, frankly festive hostility I met here. It was making me pretty prickly pretty fast; my contributions grew less considerate, and more reactionary. There's nothing quite like pouring your heart into a solid mini essay and getting one reply calling you a flat-chested cunt.

Finding SRS was kind of like being able to breathe on reddit for the first time: oh all these people have experienced that too. I think, SRS isn't out there to change the minds of the people who are calling me a cunt. They're out there for me.

Something about it let me get the kind of emotional armor necessary to go out in the deep end again--as the kind of citizen I wanted to be: tough enough to laugh of the sexism, focused enough to take it down, and not so obsessive than I can't just talk about video games and kittens and bullshit for a while. Without SRS, I really couldn't be happy on reddit.

[–]Gandalv 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]amliner 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Because it's lively, funny, exciting, dramatic, and sometimes even educational. I too like cat pictures, video games, internet drama, procrastinating, bullshit, and the occasional moment of heartwarming human kindness. I like r/beer, r/wine, r/orchids, r/depthhub, r/literature, and r/aww. Those all represent huge pieces of myself that also clamor to speak and be heard among similarly interested folks.

Masochistic? Sure, but is that really fundamentally different from most redditors' experience of the place? I view reddit as kind of a big, exciting, and fairly toxic cesspool. I don't expect it to be a bar, or my friend's house. srs doesn't make me feel welcome in the rest of reddit, per se, but it makes me feel like I'm not utterly alone. And that, it turns out, is all I really need.

Sometimes it feels salubriously eye-opening. My real life friend circle is the internet equivalent of a few cherrypicked subreddits. I forget that the world is like this sometimes. Mostly it's depressing, but sometimes the scope and scale of the war of ideas at play here is breathtaking to watch--even if many of the ideas are really scary.

Why people who are more involved in actual SRS do it? Not sure. I imagine it varies completely from human to human (like most reasons for being in a given community?). From what I've seen, it looks like plenty of people start out regular redditors and make a transition to SRS, but still are in the unbreakable habit of being redditors. I've seen it mentioned that reddit's got great technology. If you ignore the circlejerk, the other forums can function perfectly well as a community within a community--you never have to see the rest of reddit, if you don't want to. Any and all these reasons.

You can take my word in return that none of this is meant to be snide, and if I'm a little inarticulate, well--I've been up all day after a night shift, and now I'm gonna go watch TV and pass out.

[–]Gandalv -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I sincerely and whole-heartedly appreciate you taking the time to respond and it's exactly the response I'd hoped for.

Correct me if I'm wrong, however, here's my takeaway...

You don't abhor reddit as a whole...or even the vast majority
You have a great dislike for a few of the comments made by a few redditors.
You find true enjoyment in some of reddits communities

...If the voice coming out of SRS was more like yours, rather than vilifying anyone who isn't part of SRS, or who go along, lemming like, with their every idea, perhaps the middle ground wouldn't be so difficult to find for us. I'm someone who could've been an advocate for SRS...three older sisters, a gay step-brother, Mom was the bread-winner of the house...all of which have helped give me a view of the world I might not other wise have seen. However the vitrol and combativeness of my exchanges with most of the SRS members over the past year has shown me they aren't here for change, they have no interest in civil dialogue (even in /r/SRSDiscussion despite the pretenses they claim) nor are the attempting to do anything good outside of reddit. TO my knowledge, there's been no mention of starting some sort of offline, non-profit, advocacy group. Or even attempting to disseminate information on WHY they are putting up the good fight. In short, lots of noise...not a lot of action...other than to sit behind their keyboards. I digress though.

Regardless, again, I thank you for your prompt and honest response. Be well.

[–]amliner6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's such a weird idea, to "hate" reddit. I come pretty close to hating reddit culture. Day to day, I generally find it intellectually dogmatic and aesthetically desolate--compared to, say, the sort of concentrated wealth of ideas and discourse I could get from the blogs which I read much more frequently before I got hooked on reddit. That's on me, of course--that's my decision that the sheer entertainment I get here, and the sense of being closer to the pulse of the world, is worth the tradeoff. Probably not, but, y'know, cat videos.

Reddit goes a long way toward making me think that goodness is extraordinarily contextually contingent. I'm not sure that the folks in the interest-focused subreddits are different from the folks in the big defaults. I'm inclined to think that its just the expectations and mores that are different.

There's a lot of really vile people saying vile things on here. The standard reply to that is "oh, they're all immature 15-year-olds!" And maybe that's a good excuse, or maybe our society has recently normalized really appalling behavior in its youth, or maybe it's a bunch of grown ups hiding behind 15-year-olds. I don't really know, and I'm not sure which is more troubling than the last.

I'm not here to be a spokesperson for SRS, or to try to make you understand them. Maybe only rage understands rage. I think they're pissed off, and I think anger is lifeblood sometimes when you've been hurt enough times. The humor and wisdom and camaraderie of sheer rage can save a life, and I do believe there are a lot of precarious lives in SRS. In real life, anger has a certain persuasiveness to it: I've seen naive, blindly privileged people run up against the anger of people who've been really wounded: and been shaken. I have a certain cynicism about people's capacity to ratiocinate their way to justice, which doesn't help my optimism about reddit generally. I think sometimes you have to be shaken by someone's rage. Of course, on the internet, there's plenty of rage, real and apparent, to go round--so maybe it's all being drowned out. I really don't know. I think it's a fascinating experiment.

I can't really prove it, but i would bet that lots of those people do lots of good outside reddit, even if SRS isn't the platform they do it on.

[–]FredFnord 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

But in the long run, it ain't doing you any favors insofar as your reputation's concerned.

Assuming that reddit isn't going to ban SRS outright (and one tends to doubt that it will), I don't think most people in SRS are particularly concerned with reputation.

Were ya'll to seem less eager to fight and more willing to listen, it likely wouldn't change anything with your main detractors, but it'd do heaps of good with your relations with the more common redditors.

There are a lot of people who are willing to fight 'the good fight', be understanding and calm, and generally carefully talk to people about these issues. Some of those people then go to SRS to blow off steam. A lot of other people in SRS are there because they got tired of going through the same arguments over and over, and almost never having any lasting effect whatsoever. They're there to blow off steam, and to reassure themselves that they aren't the only people in the world who believe what they do. Especially online, being progressive and inclusive can be a pretty lonely experience.

(Tangential to this conversation: contra your assertion, in my experience, just about the only thing that pisses 'the more common redditors' off just as quickly as SRS itself can is to tell them that straight white males really are privileged in American society today. And the only way to piss them off even more quickly is to prove it, using, say, sociological/psychological survey data. People absolutely hate the idea that they might be playing life on something other than the hardest difficulty mode.)

Regardless, SRS prime is not intended to be an educational resource, or a way of winning people over to a point of view. Sometimes it actually does that, more or less by accident, but it's definitely not the prime intent. So given that, even if we take your assertion at face value (which, as I note above, is somewhat problematic at least in my experience), it's largely irrelevant.

[–]Gandalv -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FredFnord 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And therein lies the rub. You don't get to simultaneously scream that you're being oppressed and then, oppress others (regardless of being right or wrong).

If you believe that that is what is happening, you are using a definition of 'oppress' that is entirely different than that which pretty much anyone from SRS would recognize. And so it is SRS's opinion that they explicitly do not do what you are saying they do, and it is your opinion that they do. And I'm afraid the discussion pretty much ends right there, because there's nothing left to say on that subject.

If you're going to advocate for change, having the vocal minority of their sub actively work aganist it by not encouraging civil dialouge when (and where) possible, than nothing will ever change and by default SRS (and all of its subs) are just a circlejerk playing thought police.

This is what is known as 'the tone argument'. It's advanced by lots of people all the time, with varying degrees of honesty. But what it really boils down to in all cases is, 'if you minorities would just pipe down and act like model citizens, and never do anything bad, and carefully explain over and over what you think your problems are, and not obect to loudly when people mangle them, refute them with crap, or just don't bother to listen to you at all, than the people who are oppressing you will eventually realize that you're great people and just spontaneously stop!'

It has never in the history of the world worked that I have ever heard of. There has never in the history of the world been an oppressed group that became significantly less oppressed without making an extreme nuisance of themselves. (Indeed, I am not aware of a group that has done so without shedding a fair amount of blood.)

I am sure you are making this argument in earnest, and not using it as a way to silence people you disagree with. (Well, mostly sure. I can't read your mind. But you seem sincere.) But you're just wrong.

SRS believe it's the moral police of reddit

You must be joking. Police have authority, power, and responsibility. SRS does not have, think it has, or want any of those things. SRS is what it is: a circle-jerk that points and laughs. Any authority, power, or responsibility assigned to it is assigned by the people who are getting upset at being called out by it.

No, seriously. Think about that for a few minutes, before you respond. Maybe even sleep on it. It's an interesting concept and I really think it's worth mulling over.

[–]EatATaco 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

First, congratulations on opening your debate with an ad hominem attack. You pretty much proved my point right there. That's not the way to have a civil discussion, that's not the way to encourage a good debate. This is the typical tactic I see used there whenever I am stupid enough to let my curiosity get the best of me.

The claim of arrogance had me laugh a bit, considering pretty much every "best of" post in the subreddit is pointing out how "stupid" the person they are belittling is and how they don't get it.

But on topic, they have every right to ban me for whatever reason they want. It's their reddit and they are free to moderate it as they wish. Although, I would say that squashing the ability of a poster to defend themselves is pretty clearly the opposite of "being open" to discussion. But, whatever, I digress.

My issue was with the complete lack of respect and childish way they treated me when I asked what I had done to get banned. I assure you, I was nothing but civil with them when I requested the information and I assure you, they were not open to discussion with me at all.

And I'm not talking about some random poster in the subreddit, but at least 4 different mods of the reddit were responding to my messages. All intentionally provoking me.

It ultimately depends on the individual - if both parties are not open to learning and discussion, then the conversation will be a wasteful use of time.

And this is exactly my point. By banning people so they cannot publicly defend themselves, they are making it pretty clear that they are not open to discussion.

This issue is not unique to SRS,

Totally agreed. And, as I already said, "They aren't the solution to reddit's or the internet's problems, they are very much part of the problem."

[–]Fempire 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I appreciate your point of view and the arguments that you made. I find that it is valuable criticism of the sub, and most users would do well to critically examine the way that they belittle people that don't share their point of view. I completely agree that you were treated unfairly by the mods who run the sub. Outside the subreddit is where the most fruitful and useful conversations happen. I do think that civil conversations should be allowed and users like yourself should be able to contribute in a positive manner because both sides of an issue are subject to, and should be able to withstand criticism.

This idea is list in SRS for the simple fact that it is a circle jerk and interruption of the circle jerk is a bannable offense. Unfortunately, I can't see the logs, so I only have your word and the attitude of the sub to go on, and I think that open dialogue is crucial to learning - and as we both agree on, an integral part of a conversation is the idea of giving both viewpoints their space an venue so that both parties can learn.

I do think that you were treated unfairly in the sub, but because of the nature of the sub, you posting in it and being critical of it would have similar results to if I posted a feminist manifesto in /MR. Personally, I am open to dialogue and would appreciate hearing more of your views. :)

[–]Luckymusing 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sappow 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fempire 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EatATaco 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Really what it comes down to for me is that their goal is mostly noble, but their method despicable.

I go back to the arrogant comment. I think this is a weakness that they share with those they disagree with. Pretty much every post is belittling the people, they are all of the tone "can you believe what this person said?" It's like they have it all figured out and the rest of us are clueless. I'm not sure what's more arrogant than that.

I always sort my comments by "best" and one of the top few comments, or at least a reply to them, contains some kind of belittle comment about the person they are responding to, something dripping with sarcasm or the typical, as I said above, "how could they possibly believe/say that". To me, their goal is not to correct behavior, but to circle jerk over over how right they are and how wrong everyone else is. At least that is how it comes off, especially when you ban people before they even post there.

Don't get me wrong, I have many controversial opinions and it does not surprise me that people would find what I say offensive, and I am definitely guilty of being intentionally offensive. So I am not surprised that I got a guest appearance on that subreddit.

They are not alone in this, as I said, but if they really want to change reddit or get the support of reddit, they should try to be a bit more respectful of people with differing opinions. Clearly, right now, even the reasonable people of reddit are rejecting them based on how they conduct themselves. They may have the most noble goal in the world, but if they are going to tolerate asshats among themselves, and even have mods acting like asshats, they are going to continue to have zero credibility and be widely despised.

[–]Gandalv -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gandalv 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Fempire 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't claim it doesn't. I've merely been trying to explain that not all SRS users sare the views of the sub. Take myself for example, I like to have open, civilized discourse. This is not true of many of the mods, of multiple subs (not just SRS) who will either ban a dissenting opinion immediately or preemptively. This is the reason that I stated earlier that has to do with engaging in conversations with SRSers outside the sub. Save for the extremists, there are many of us who are down to earth and willing to talk. (Note: many of us doesn't include the mod team). In any community, there needs to exist a place for satire of dissenting opinions. One of the unfortunate things about SRS is that it doesn't provide a space for dissenting opinions, only a space that satires and ridicules reddit's more offensive postings. Have you looked at /r/goldredditsays? It's also a part of the Shevil Fempire (SRS), but focuses on the positive things that redditors say and post. It's a pretty good read. :)

[–]matttcauthon 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Fempire -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HittingSmoke -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Therefrigerator 46 points47 points48 points 13 years ago (95 children) | Copy Link

[–]Noltonn 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

No, stop it. Men's Rights is NOT there to be the oposite of Feminism. They are not there to fight you, or cry "We have it worse!"

The point of Men's Rights is that there are problems for men too, some very serious. Male rape is seen as comedy (see: the subject of male prisons on TV), men are seen as the lesser parent, whatever the case, especially in legal situation, women abusing men is seen as socially acceptable, or again, comedy... Among other things, these are the issues Men's Rights focuses on. They are NOT out there to cry "we have it worse", but I will not deny those people are not in here, but as said somewhere else, every subreddit has its bad apples.

MR is not against women, it is not for the return of men to the top. It is for equality. Especially in the legal sense. The argument that "women's problems are far worse" does not negate that these problems don't exist and shouldn't be fought. Telling someone that women have it worse, and thus MR should not exist, opens them up to argue that there are always people worse off. Should we stop what you fight for because AIDS is worse? Should we stop fighting AIDS because cancer is worse? Should we stop fighting cancer because poverty in Africa is worse? How far do we take this?

Let me repeat. MR does not say male problems are worse. They do not say women's problems should be ignored. They are just fighting other problems than you. This should be respected, not ridiculed.

[–]Therefrigerator 19 points20 points21 points 13 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]Noltonn 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

I have to admit, a few months ago, when I started to frequent /r/mensrights, it was a lot less circle jerky. I looked at the first page posts a bit just now, and noticed a lot of the posts barely had anything to do with Men's Rights, and were more about the bitching others have about Men's Rights (while a real problem, not one that should be focused on so much). I personally think there should be a real cleanup of this subreddit, and bring it back to actually addressing the problems there are instead of continuously whining about Reddit.

With real problems, I mean, for instance, people seeking to get informed on their rights after being sexually discriminated against, like a post last week, for instance, I believe, about a man being kicked out of his legal residence by his girlfriend who is not on the lease, and her claiming abuse unrightfully. Or getting people informed on what MR actually entails. I can honestly say I'm getting sick of seeing articles about another man being falsely accused of rape/abuse.

[–]Therefrigerator 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]Noltonn 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]Therefrigerator 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]Noltonn 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]Therefrigerator10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]paleDiplodocus3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Therefrigerator0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]paleDiplodocus5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Nobody is getting wrongfully convicted of rape.

Yes they are? I've seen number of people who were released from prison years after being convicted because the accuser finally admitted to having lied. This one for example.

It would also be pretty terrifying to be raped. Rape happens more, so we should make it at least slightly easier to report rape than to worry about false accusations.

So you think rape is worse than being wrongfully incarcerated for years and years? And just because rape happens more often it makes it tolerable that innocent people are imprisoned as collateral damage?

Murder also happens a lot, and only a portion of murders actually end up in a conviction. So shouldn't we start to imprison more people? To increase the amount of actual solved murders? And just ignore the innocent people ending up in prison because of it?

I honestly think your way of thinking is disturbing. A decent legal system should only imprison those who are beyond the shadow of a doubt guilty, to avoid convicting innocent people.

Also, finally, let me ask you one thing. Would you still agree with what you just said if you were the one being wrongfully imprisoned?

[–]Therefrigerator2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That's not the way I'm thinking at all. For one, murder is a poor comparison for a few reasons but namely because false murder accusations aren't really a thing as it requires a body as opposed to a person.

Yeah, that's a shitty thing to happen to the dad, but that seems to be failing of the justice system that could have just as easily happened for any crime. But how many times do we actually see this happen? A lot of the examples that you might see are women lying and then the man getting acquitted. Rarely does the case result in a conviction of the man. The fact that it did is a failing of the legal system.

I'm not saying rape is worse than being incarcerated for a long time. What I'm saying is that rape is relatively more common with a very low report rate, so it seems as though that's worth focusing on by making it easier to report (not necessarily convict) rapes.

[–]paleDiplodocus2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That's not the way I'm thinking at all. For one, murder is a poor comparison for a few reasons but namely because false murder accusations aren't really a thing as it requires a body as opposed to a person.

They must be a thing considering people can be convicted without finding a body.

Also Notable Murder Convictions Without a Body.

What were the other reasons for why it's a 'poor comparison'?

Yeah, that's a shitty thing to happen to the dad, but that seems to be failing of the justice system that could have just as easily happened for any crime. But how many times do we actually see this happen? A lot of the examples that you might see are women lying and then the man getting acquitted. Rarely does the case result in a conviction of the man. The fact that it did is a failing of the legal system.

Yes and when the system starts to imprison innocent people it's time to up the evidence requirement for a conviction. It sucks and it would let more people get away with crimes but we just don't have the means to get all the evidence needed to convict everyone who commits a crime. And the appropriate response to that is not to simply jail more people, innocent or not, but to jail fewer, to make sure no innocent gets wrongfully imprisoned.

Rarely does the case result in a conviction of the man.

Also, I would like to know where you got that from? I've seen several stories of men getting imprisoned by false accusations, and I am fairly certain that there are some in prison at the moment as well.

I'm not saying rape is worse than being incarcerated for a long time. What I'm saying is that rape is relatively more common with a very low report rate, so it seems as though that's worth focusing on by making it easier to report (not necessarily convict) rapes.

Yes but you can't do that without increasing the number of false accusations, so it becomes a one step forward - one step backwards thing only, in my opinons, it would be two steps backwards since I think it's way more important that no innocents get imprisoned than a criminal getting imprisoned. Isn't it also already very easy to report a rape? You go to the police and report it? It's the convictions that are more difficult, but that's not what you are talking about?

Also, you didn't answer me earlier about if you would still hold your opinion if you were the one whose life was utterly destroyed by wrongful imprisonment.

And a little beside the point, do you not think that spending years in prison for something you didn't do is worse than rape? Like, a lot worse?

[–]Therefrigerator1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There have been over 350 murder trials in the United States where the body has not been found.

That is for about 100 years quickly scrolling through the list. I'm sorry that you need to nitpick me on small points but there is such a scale of magnitude between 350 over about 100 years and 10,000 convictions every year. That's where the comparison dries up. There are approximately 85,000 rapes per year of which about 3% are considered false.

Now I'm going to step back a bit and try to put things in perspective. Strictly speaking, I have no idea if rape or prison is worse. To be honest, I have no experience in either of them and it doesn't seem like you do either. So on that I'm not going to be able to say and I don't think you should be dismissing rape as being strictly a better option. It doesn't seem that way to me.

seen several stories of men getting imprisoned by false accusations

Yeah, several. It happens, but it's not nearly as close to actual rape.

You point out how easy it is to report rape, but then why do so many rapes go unreported? That's the problem with rape is that its not just the rape that's terrible about it, but also the fact that it showcases some of societies flaws. What you are talking about imprisonment is more related to how the justice system operates and the need for a legal overhaul, but that's something that laws can easily change. Rape shows just how men can view women in a way that is just not OK. That's why rape can be worse, is that our society can warp men into thinking that rape is an OK way to go about life. Our society as a whole needs to show some more initiative into making people know that rape is not, and never will be OK. So there's your answer.

[–]paleDiplodocus2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yeah, several. It happens, but it's not nearly as close to actual rape.

But what you are saying there is that you are content with knowing that innocent people will be incarcerated. That's the problem I have with your opinion, I think that any legal system's top priority should be to never convict innocents, no matter what.

You point out how easy it is to report rape, but then why do so many rapes go unreported? That's the problem with rape is that its not just the rape that's terrible about it, but also the fact that it showcases some of societies flaws.

That's not what I was saying, or at least not what I was trying to say. I was strictly talking about the legal part of it.

Rape shows just how men can view women in a way that is just not OK. That's why rape can be worse, is that our society can warp men into thinking that rape is an OK way to go about life. Our society as a whole needs to show some more initiative into making people know that rape is not, and never will be OK. So there's your answer.

I've heard this before and never really understood it. How is society warping men into thinking rape is ok? I mean, how do you get the impression that anyone other than some dirtbags think rape is "an ok way to go about life"? Rape is condemned by basically everyone.

[–]Therefrigerator3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Society doesn't warp men into thinking rape is OK (well, most of us), it's that rape jokes make rapists think that rape is just something everybody does. Rapists interpret rape jokes, and a lot of other things in society (objectification), to justify what they do.

There is so much more to this issue than just the legal part, and as such you are taking a very black and white stance. This has to do with society, with how we handle victims (blaming the victim) and yes, the legal part as well. If you want to handle this issue solely from the legal side, you are probably right. We shouldn't be imprisoning for any false crime. However, there are too many other things that are factoring into this particular crime for us to just look at the legal aspect.

Now I'm going to ask you a hypothetical. How many guilty men would you be willing to see go free to not convict any innocents? Because you are making it sound like you would be willing to let millions go free to make sure no innocents go to jail, which just isn't practical.

[–]paleDiplodocus1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Society doesn't warp men into thinking rape is OK (well, most of us), it's that rape jokes make rapists think that rape is just something everybody does. Rapists interpret rape jokes, and a lot of other things in society (objectification), to justify what they do.

I see what you mean, but I don't really agree with it. What about movies with high speed carchases? I can imagine that some of these movies inspire some idiots to try it out for themselves and they end up killing themselves and maybe some other people with them. If we applied your way of thinking into our everyday life we would have to severely limit 'artistic expression' (sounds pretentious I know). No 'offensive' books, movies, music etc. We would end up with very dull lives because we would always be making sure not to do something that some idiot could take as justification for their heinous crimes. I firmly believe that rapists will continue to rape, no matter what,and if they don't find justification in one thing people do they will either find another one or make one up.

There is so much more to this issue than just the legal part, and as such you are taking a very black and white stance. This has to do with society, with how we handle victims (blaming the victim) and yes, the legal part as well. If you want to handle this issue solely from the legal side, you are probably right. We shouldn't be imprisoning for any false crime. However, there are too many other things that are factoring into this particular crime for us to just look at the legal aspect.

But we just can't do any better at the moment. We don't know how to catch everyone who commits a crime, and there is no use in trying to artificially increase the number we catch at the cost of innocents. We could maybe try to work around the problem (socially such as help centers or something, I'm all for that) but there will always be people who get away with crimes, even one as bad as rape. It will forever be a black dot in our society and we just have to learn to live with it instead of making knee-jerking changes to try to counter it.

Now I'm going to ask you a hypothetical. How many guilty men would you be willing to see go free to not convict any innocents? Because you are making it sound like you would be willing to let millions go free to make sure no innocents go to jail, which just isn't practical.

I think millions is quite an exaggeration, I don't think there are nearly enough innocents in prison to justify that number, or at least I really hope not (If it were then I would be out of ideas, as the system would just be too broken). But yes I would trade however many it takes to make sure every innocent goes free. The world is inherently unfair, and once again we have to learn how to live with it, and not make it worse.

[–]Therefrigerator0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There's a specific article that I'm looking for that specifically links rape jokes to a study where admitted rapists thought that all men were rapists and didn't know it was abnormal at least partially due to rape jokes. This isn't the exact article but it gives a good idea of what I'm talking about. This effortpost also goes through a lot of the problems with rape as well.

Rape happens behind the scenes, where as any person can see that high speed car chases don't happen often so it is not a social norm. Rape jokes make rape seem to rapists like it is normal, as they can not peer behind closed doors to what actually happens they assume that "jokes" are actually what happens.

knee-jerk changes

I think that letting all the guilty go free just so that a few innocents can go free is well is an incredibly knee-jerk reaction. The fact that you are willing to let that happen is a testament to how extreme of a position you are in. It's simply not realistic to expect that to happen. Society would collapse with that way of thinking. Seeing a non-guilty man in prison sucks, but its way worse than not being able to imprison the guilty who would make the world incredibly unsafe for anyone else.

[–]paleDiplodocus2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There's a specific article that I'm looking for that specifically links rape jokes to a study where admitted rapists thought that all men were rapists and didn't know it was abnormal at least partially due to rape jokes. This isn't the exact article but it gives a good idea of what I'm talking about. This effortpost also goes through a lot of the problems with rape as well.

And yet again this way of thinking turns into dust when you realize you could apply this to almost everything in our life. It doesn't work.

Rape happens behind the scenes, where as any person can see that high speed car chases don't happen often so it is not a social norm. Rape jokes make rape seem to rapists like it is normal, as they can not peer behind closed doors to what actually happens they assume that "jokes" are actually what happens.

All right, murder happens a lot in movies. It's also behind the scenes. According to your way of thinking it must have been the justification for a quite a few murders. So the next step is to ban or discourage all movies because they justify this and that? You can see why this type of thinking doesn't work don't you?

Bad people will continue to do bad things and if they need justification and can't find it, they will make it up.

I think that letting all the guilty go free just so that a few innocents can go free is well is an incredibly knee-jerk reaction. The fact that you are willing to let that happen is a testament to how extreme of a position you are in. It's simply not realistic to expect that to happen. Society would collapse with that way of thinking. Seeing a non-guilty man in prison sucks, but its way worse than not being able to imprison the guilty who would make the world incredibly unsafe for anyone else.

Let all the guilty go free? Where did I say I wanted to let 'all the guilty' go free? I said I would be willing to trade the few innocents for many times more criminals. That should still only be a tiny tiny fraction of the whole prison system since there can't really be that many innocents behind bars. And like I said before, if there are enough innocents behind bars to 'let all guilty go' then the system is too fucked up to save.

[–]Therefrigerator0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]paleDiplodocus2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You said you "But yes I would trade however many it takes to make sure every innocent goes free" That seems to imply that you are willing to let everyone go free to make sure the innocent go free.

The number would never go anywhere close to that high. Also you wouldn't need to simply release a portion of the inmates, only the ones where the evidence against them is on the verge of lacking. I think there is pretty solid evidence against most convicted felons.

Murder still doesn't apply as you can still know how many people are affected by murder as, well, there's a body. You know that there can't be that many murderers or otherwise there'd be a lot more bodies.

What has that got to do with it? How does knowing the number of murders have anything to do with justification? Based on your logic murder in movies would have very similar consequences to rape-jokes. Numbers have got very little to do with it. A dirtbag could look at those and see 'justification' in them both.

[–]Therefrigerator0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]paleDiplodocus2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But the fact that you would rather have all guilty go free so no innocent are in prison is a little disturbing.

And I would say it's a little disturbing that you would be all right with innocent people in prison. But to each their own I suppose.

It's relevant because of what I pointed out before (you know, about how rape jokes, as rape is something that happens behind closed doors?). I'm not really sure I can explain it much better, I'm still looking for that one specific article but I guess it's lost to the internet at this point.

Murder also generally happens behind closed doors, although, I think I know what you are trying to say. Maybe that it's not talked about quite as openly as murder, and maybe there is more shame and embarrassment surrounding the whole topic but even then I don't see how that changes that watching murder in movies can just as easily be used as a 'justification'.

I think we might just have to agree to disagree on this one.

[–]Noltonn2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]endercoaster4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Workchoices3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Therefrigerator2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]davidquick-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Therefrigerator1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]davidquick0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Therefrigerator2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]davidquick0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why are you being a dick? I wasn't even really looking to debate you, i was just curious if you had any sources to back the somewhat dubious claims that you're making.

And while you may think this is obvious, I don't. Further, I can't really see how my asking for some sort of justification for a point that is pretty integral to your argument, is "why SRS hates you?" Anyone who gets pissed off when being politely, or at least not aggressively asked for sources for assertions that your argument/opinion is based on is disturbingly reminiscent of a certain republican presidential candidates "War on Facts" or rather his campaign which "wouldn't be dictated by fact checkers"

So while you may live in a world where you can make a questionable claim, that should be fairly easily verifiable if what you're saying is correct, and then when you're questioned on the source for your assertion you calmly sit down clamp your hands on your ears and scream "STOP OPPRESSING ME! SEE! SEE! HE'S OPPRESSING ME! THE VERY AUDACITY THAT YOU WOULDN'T TAKE MY OPINION AS GOSPEL IS THE MOST OFFENSIVE THING I'VE EVER HEARD".

and the reason SRS hates people is because that's what SRS is for. It's there to poke the ant hill or beehive or whatever. Its the same thing as so many other groups that don't really have a mission statement they just do things a la heath ledgers Joker. They don't have a plan, they just kinda let things happen. But I digress. Further this wasn't really apropos to my point and I don't really care to argue or discuss it with any rigor. I don't really care for either /r/mensRights or /r/SRS.

[–]Therefrigerator2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]aweeleprechan -13 points-12 points-11 points 13 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk 51 points52 points53 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]deerderp 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Godspiral -9 points-8 points-7 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Stating that women are more oppressed than men is actually completely absurd.

Its illegal to rape or beat women. The state and other males will come to women's beck and call if she accuses anyone of it, and far more serious (or arguably at least equal) harm will be inflicted on the male she accuses.

Other institutional state sponsored biases against men include paying for children they don't want or are prevented from seeing or denied primary caregiver status, and being forced to fight in wars.

Its blatantly insulting to consider some cultural expectations that women can face as anything but pathetic whining when you compare them to the full force of the state that imposes unfairness on men. The state will also grant to every woman, the full rights to ignore any requests to make sandwiches regardless of cultural expectations.

Judicial system persecution is always much more serious than cultural inconveniences.

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Stating that women are more oppressed than men is actually completely absurd.

This is gonna be good.

Its illegal to rape or beat women.

It's illegal to rape or beat men.

The state and other males will come to women's beck and call if she accuses anyone of it, and far more serious (or arguably at least equal) harm will be inflicted on the male she accuses.

Generally when someone is accused of a crime people assist the accuser. Also generally the punishment for a crime far outweighs the damage done by the crime, as a punitive measure to stop crimes from being committed as a forced form of trade.

Other institutional state sponsored biases against men include paying for children they don't want or are prevented from seeing or denied primary caregiver status, and being forced to fight in wars.

Women are denied equal pay, women are denied equal job opportunity, women are denied equal housing opportunities, women are denied lots and lots of things. If you say the situation objectively falls one way or the other (or is perfectly even) then the only thing objective about the situation is that you are wrong. These things are apples and oranges. They cannot be compared.

Its blatantly insulting to consider some cultural expectations that women can face as anything but pathetic whining when you compare them to the full force of the state that imposes unfairness on men.

You're great. This is an opinion also, not a fact, but you persist in presenting it as a fact. Why?

The state will also grant to every woman, the full rights to ignore any requests to make sandwiches regardless of cultural expectations.

Your attempt at humor is the dying sputter of a rage engine out of fuel.

Judicial system persecution is always much more serious than cultural inconveniences.

Fascinating. Another thing you're presenting as an objective fact which, objectively, is not one.

[–]Godspiral -5 points-4 points-3 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

It's illegal to rape or beat men.

There is a large segment of MR that advocate for male victims as well, but let me ignore that for a moment.

rape is brought up as a female oppression issue, when in fact it is a reasonably balanced system when you consider victims and rapists. When you consider innocent accused rapists, the system is far more oppressive to men, because the accusation is incredibly damaging, a corruption of the process that shifts the burden on proving innocence rather than the state proving guilt, the significant time and expense involved in dealing with the state's accusations, and the fear of a corrupt system and prison are about as stressful as prison itself.

Women are denied equal pay, women are denied equal job opportunity

Those are complete myths.

women are denied equal housing opportunities, women are denied lots and lots of things.

These are new claims to me. I doubt you can substantiate these in ways that men are not denied similar services. If there actually was legitimate gender discrimination in these areas, there would be resources for class action lawsuits for women but none for men.

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

rape is brought up as a female oppression issue, when in fact it is a reasonably balanced system when you consider victims and rapists.

Really? You have numbers on that? Because sociologists would die happy if you could provide them. Literally, you could make the career of a sociologist or six if you had those numbers. Rape is dramatically under-reported, rape against males doubly so. There are no accurate numbers. You cannot possibly know this.

When you consider innocent accused rapists

How are we determining innocence here? Because this subreddit holds the opinion that at some point consent cannot be revoked, which is a fascinating but ultimately unpopular opinion.

the system is far more oppressive to men

"more oppressive" how?

because the accusation is incredibly damaging

Is it not damaging to women as well? Do you have numbers here?

If you don't have numbers here then you're literally part of the reason it's so damaging to men. Because you believe it is.

a corruption of the process that shifts the burden on proving innocence rather than the state proving guilt

Perhaps. Does that make it somehow less illegal for women to rape men?

the significant time and expense involved in dealing with the state's accusations

IE All court cases ever.

and the fear of a corrupt system and prison are about as stressful as prison itself.

I... this is an opinion. Also stress is the least of your worries in prison.

Also you fucking love commas.

Those are complete myths.

Ahahahaha okay. Cite facts here. You can't just shoot down a claim with no facts. I'll start, so you don't complain. Citing the following as evidence of my second statement, that women are denied equal job opportunity: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109.full.pdf

These are new claims to me.

You, uh, new to this whole gender inequality thing?

I doubt you can substantiate these in ways that men are not denied similar services.

Boop: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/12/business/la-fi-harney-20110612

Happens a lot, especially with pregnant women. So often with pregnant women, in fact, that's it's hard to find substantial information on women who aren't pregnant being denied housing. Happens though. When I was in college one of the communities in the are was investigated and fined tremendously for taking male applicants over females 2 to 1 despite no appreciable difference in applications. That was back before newspapers dumped their every article online, though.

Also, men not being denied similar services is not men being denied the same services. Apples ot oranges again.

there would be resources for class action lawsuits for women but none for men.

That doesn't even make sense. Class action lawsuits are exceedingly rare, you know that right?

[–]Godspiral -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Its apparent you have no idea what institutional oppression is compared to what cultural inconveniences are.

Institutional oppression: Force. The state decides what happens to you. If you fight back, the state will win.

Cultural inconvenience: Expectations. You still have the free will to go counter them. If a man disagrees that he should be expected to pay for dates, then he can only go on dates under conditions that he approves of. STFU to him, if he's going to complain that the world doesn't revolve exactly as he would prefer.

Rape is dramatically under-reported

Absolutely no ones problem. If "she" wants to report it, she can. If she doesn't want to report it, she doesn't have to. Either way there are armed thugs ready to go punish someone she accuses.

balanced system when you consider victims and rapists.

That means that rapists are punished when a victim wants them to be. The system works as it should.

because the accusation is incredibly damaging

You're possibly being dense in not understanding this either, but it should be blatantly obvious that being accused of rape, with your family, friends, and town knowing is going to create shame and stress. Even if they are supportive of you, there will be some doubt that something could have happened.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109.full.pdf

not impressed. Didn't read far, but an article complaining about male privilege in academics is pretty shallow when 2/3rds of admissions and graduations are women.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/12/business/la-fi-harney-20110612

That is more financial profiling then gender discrimination. The same way 20 year old men with porshes pay higher car insurance premiums.

Since you complained about a lack of source's for wage gap myth, here is google's first hit.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Its apparent you have no idea what institutional oppression is compared to what cultural inconveniences are.

Hey nice underhanded attack. Cool bro. Keep doing that, it wins you friends and proves you points.

Institutional oppression: Force. The state decides what happens to you. If you fight back, the state will win.

Okay, so of the two you posted, glass ceilings and job prospects fall under this one. So sorry.

Cultural inconvenience: Expectations. You still have the free will to go counter them. If a man disagrees that he should be expected to pay for dates, then he can only go on dates under conditions that he approves of. STFU to him, if he's going to complain that the world doesn't revolve exactly as he would prefer.

Bawww I go on dates at least twice a week and sometimes I pay and sometimes I don't. How dare society try to stop being a patriarchy! Bawwww.

You do realize that by paying for the date you're implying that you're owed something, right? You've paid, now she has to wink wink. Except she doesn't. It's a date. That's why modern civilized people generally go dutch unless there's money issues or whatever. I don't always go dutch and I don't expect anything usually because I'm a decent civilized human being capable of controlling his libido.

Absolutely no ones problem. If "she" wants to report it, she can. If she doesn't want to report it, she doesn't have to. Either way there are armed thugs ready to go punish someone she accuses.

Thank you for agreeing with me that the fact you cited cannot possibly be judged by a reasonable person to be accurate. Also getting mad about police I guess? Point me.

That means that rapists are punished when a victim wants them to be. The system works as it should.

That interpretation cannot be gotten out of that sentence. No, seriously, I've taken an awful lot of English classes and I cannot see it.

You're possibly being dense in not understanding this either, but it should be blatantly obvious that being accused of rape, with your family, friends, and town knowing is going to create shame and stress. Even if they are supportive of you, there will be some doubt that something could have happened.

Depends entirely on the situation. Maybe if you're a kinda shitty person, sure, but I can tell you with absolute certainty that were I accused of rape this afternoon, I'd have a dozen character witnesses who'd be like "lol no" because they have complete faith and trust in me. Sure, people who don't know me might doubt me, but they don't matter much, do they?

Also this is a shitty situation involving crime in general. It's not just man-on-woman rape. What if I were accused of stealing cash at work? It'd be me against the accuser, and people would make bizarre and arbitrary decisions, and I doubt that nearly any of them would take into account my having a penis.

not impressed. Didn't read far, but an article complaining about male privilege in academics is pretty shallow when 2/3rds of admissions and graduations are women.

Good on you, dismissing sources you admit to not reading.

That is more financial profiling then gender discrimination. The same way 20 year old men with porshes pay higher car insurance premiums.

Learn to spell Porsche.
The point is that their gender is being used against them. I hate hate hate the phrase "check your privilege" but seriously, just fucking do it.

Since you complained about a lack of source's for wage gap myth, here is google's first hit. http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/

You've made a terrible mistake.

the Department of Labor's Time Use Survey isn't only about full-time employees and therefore does not apply to the top cited statistic.
Men and women gravitating towards different industries would matter if the survey didn't break down by industry, then add the averages per industry. On an industry per industry basis, women make less. How do I know? Here's the fucking survey: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.pdf

Women tend to seek jobs with regular hours, more comfortable conditions, little travel, and greater personal fulfillment. Often times, women are willing to trade higher pay for jobs with other characteristics that they find attractive. Men, in contrast, often take jobs with less desirable characteristics in pursuit of higher pay. They work long hours and overnight shifts. They tar roofs in the sun, drive trucks across the country, toil in sewer systems, stand watch as prison guards, and risk injury on fishing boats, in coal mines, and in production plants. Such jobs pay more than others because otherwise no one would want to do them.

Even if it weren't for 2, this is hilariously sexist and uncited. My father drove long-haul freight and I've worked in production. They don't pay well. Roof tar is often applied by illegal workers at under $5/hr. This is hilariously sexist nonsense bullshit.

Unsurprisingly, children play an important role in men and women’s work-life decisions. Simply put, women who have children or plan to have children tend to be willing to trade higher pay for more kid-friendly positions. In contrast, men with children typically seek to earn more money in order to support children, sometimes taking on more hours and less attractive positions to do so.

Yes, the United States, unlike most western countries on the planet, offers no paternity leave. This makes this point the fault of a sexist construct at best, and a hilarious lie at worst (my manager has three kids, for example. She took the position from a man who stepped down when he had his second to concentrate on family)

Academics can debate why men and women make these different choices. The important takeaway, however, is that there are many reasons that men and women on average earn different amounts. It’s a mistake to assume that “wage gap” statistics reflect on-the-job discrimination.

Nope. This data's been sanitized of all your cited biases. Over. Done. The pay gap is real. Get over it, then fix it like an adult.

See what happens when you cite one of the biggest joke articles of the last 10 years on the topic?

[–]throwaway51920 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

the Department of Labor's Time Use Survey isn't only about full-time employees and therefore does not apply to the top cited statistic.

Although the survey does include part-time workers and the unemployed, the data sets are publicly available and can be filtered for only full-time workers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics did so for a news release (Page 1, second bullet point).

Yes, the United States, unlike most western countries on the planet, offers no paternity leave. This makes this point the fault of a sexist construct at best, and a hilarious lie at worst (my manager has three kids, for example. She took the position from a man who stepped down when he had his second to concentrate on family).

Do the western countries not on the planet offer paternity leave?

Setting your anecdotal evidence to one side, it's only "at best" a sexist construct if you assume men and women are naturally equally inclined towards childcare. This is not necessarily the case (see Baron-Cohen), but let's assume it's correct since it isn't an unpopular assertion even on /r/mensrights. Good news! Fathers & Families (linked to on the sidebar) are in favor of equalizing parental leave.

This data's been sanitized of all your cited biases.

There are three influences listed in the Forbes article: 'danger pay', childcare, and working hours. The data compares median weekly incomes and makes no attempt to control for tenure or career breaks, so it does not control for working hours or childcare. It also does not control for age, experience, or education, which are particularly important when trying to differentiate between the effects of current and historical discrimination. 'Danger pay' most likely does not contribute to the wage gap, so that's one out of three covered.

Here's a more balanced article on the wage gap.

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Although the survey does include part-time workers and the unemployed, the data sets are publicly available and can be filtered for only full-time workers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics did so for a news release (Page 1, second bullet point).

Are we starting halfway through the post for a reason?

Point ceded. Now I take issue with this statement from the article:

Employees who work more likely earn more.

In my workplace (admittedly extremely specialized) the non-management employees who pull down the biggest paychecks, regardless of gender, tend to work less than others, due both to their extraordinary productivity in a task-oriented work environment (task orientation is perfectly normal in many fields, IT is one of them) and due to the likelihood of them having to wake up at 2 AM to solve a production problem in 15 minutes that would take others several hours. For this they are provided double comp time, which can result in some of our employees working as little as 5 hours a day in a given month.

Do the western countries not on the planet offer paternity leave?

Ah yes, let's play this game.

Setting your anecdotal evidence to one side

Which you cannot do, as anecdotes are only invalid in countering statistics, not exemplifying situational organization, AKA literally what an anecdote does.

it's only "at best" a sexist construct if you assume men and women are naturally equally inclined towards childcare.

Hilarious also wrong because the lack of paternity leave unequally compels the woman toward childcare.

This is not necessarily the case (see Baron-Cohen)

I... this is a study of child autism. I didn't read the whole thing because I have better things to do, but glancing across his citations either the point he makes that you're transposing is uncited or uncitable.

but let's assume it's correct

Heh, no.

since it isn't an unpopular assertion even on /r/mensrights

Popularity is not and never will be a gauge of the value of a theory.

Fathers & Families (linked to on the sidebar) are in favor of equalizing parental leave.

Which has nothing to do with the discussion, since this is about decisions that have been made or are being made, not decisions that will be made if a single bullet point on an MR action group's agenda gets pushed through.

The data compares median weekly incomes and makes no attempt to control for tenure or career breaks

Except that it compares median weekly pay which is only A Thing That You Have if you're getting paid, so if you take a career break, you're immediately not in the statistic anymore. How tenure factors into this I have no idea, you brought it up and it weakens the argument as a whole.

It also does not control for age, experience, or education, which are particularly important when trying to differentiate between the effects of current and historical discrimination.

I don't really understand what you're getting at here. Are you saying that women are no longer experiencing wage discrimination? You can't say that without citing a source, or I can say 'you're wrong' without a source and we're back to where we were before.

Here's a more balanced article on the wage gap.

So you cited something that's completely and utterly wrong and relies on so-called 'common sense' arguments to come to a conclusion that is objectively unsupportable and now you're changing horses?

Let's roll.

The 77 cent figure has become a rallying cry for those who seek to eliminate employment discrimination based on gender. And it’s a genuine statistic.

So the 77 cent figure is a literal fact. Okay, we're off to a start that indicates that you don't really read these articles before you cite them. Furthermore, I never cited 77%, so all I have to do is prove that this article doesn't disprove the concept of a wage gap and we're golder. (spoiler alert: I read ahead. It doesn't look good for you)

Whether due to a historical legacy of discrimination or because of personal choice, women and men are disproportionately represented in certain jobs.

Significant bit bolded. This is part of the wage gap issue and you can't just disappear it. They can, because of the "same work" comment juxtaposed with the 77% statistic. But I didn't juxtapose them. They did. Now, bringing that into our argument, you did. So you might not even know what we're discussing.

Indeed, if you look at men and women working in the same professions, the pay gap is much smaller (though for most professions, it doesn’t disappear entirely).

Read this part. Read it over and over. This is the part where you cited an article that planted a bullet squarely in the forehead of your argument. This is the part where the article you cited literally contradicted you. This is where your evidence proved you wrong.

Women who are personal financial advisers, for instance, earn just 58 cents of what men in that job earn.

This is your article dancing on the grave of your point.

One involves hours worked. While calculations that led to the 77-cent figure did not include any part-time workers, the label "full time worker" can actually be applied to employees with a wide range of hours worked per week.

Already defeated, but I'll do it again. An appeal to the common-sense statement "the more work you do, the more money you make" is nonsense. The inclination to work overtime is independent of all relevant facts and statistics, and we have no correlative graph to prove that men who work more earn more than women in their fields, or that women who work less than men in their fields earn proportionally less.

This variation can work its way into the gender pay gap if women seek more flexible schedules or if men happen to fill jobs with greater opportunities for overtime.

This assumption is only valid in context if the 'jobs with greater opportunity for overtime' are jobs where pay is good. If pay in these jobs is necessarily poor, or if, like in IT, much of the overtime involved is uncompensated, the bottom drops out. We have no evidence either way, so the point can be discarded.

The other complicating factor involves seniority on the job. Men have typically held their jobs longer than women in the same position.

Only a factor if the 'common sense' statement "seniority begets better pay" is actually true. Since we have no evidence, we cannot say. In IT at least, seniority is irrelevant in the best of cases and terrible in the worse. Most environments encourage a 4-year stay with an organization before moving on for a number of reasons. Many other disciplines are moving to this contract concept as well.

"Women have shorter job tenures than men because they have more work interruptions than men, usually because they have children and assume heavy responsibility for rearing those children,"

This is, as I previously touched upon, still a result of sexism. Men are expected not to take time off to raise the children in the US. But I didn't have to say that because...

Improving access to child care or offering stronger protections for workers who leave the workforce temporarily to raise children, as some other advanced industrialized nations do, would probably decrease the wage gap, Burtless said.

... the article already did.

Nothing in our analysis suggests that gender discrimination doesn’t exist.

They've gone and buried your point in the yard now, and will be sodding over it shortly.

In fact, the experts we consulted agreed that no matter how much you adjust the models to equalize for outside factors, a difference in pay between men and women remains, and it’s one that can’t be explained away.

They've opted to plant an oak on it instead.

Still, those same experts also agreed that ad goes too far in claiming that the 77-cent statistic describes the pay gap for women "doing the same work as men."

And I've acknowledged that and I'm fine with it. a 23% gap is far larger than I'd have guessed.

"Sexism may explain differences in occupation, industry, education, hours and weeks worked, so it’s hard to know how much of the gap is due to discrimination. But (77 cents) isn’t the right statistic for saying ‘the same work as,’" said Betsey Stevenson, a business and public policy professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and visiting economics professor at Princeton University who previously served as chief economist for Obama’s labor secretary.

I'm actually so validated by your cited article right now that I feel a little bad for how utterly you've demolished yourself. You literally cited a near-perfect deconstruction of your points that even goes so far as to audaciously handwave away your more ridiculous statements using experts. Experts! I didn't even bring any of those in yet!

[–][deleted] 35 points36 points37 points 13 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

The problem I have with r/mensrights, is that any time there's an article about a woman being raped, or assaulted, or shamed, or whatever....instead of focusing ON THE ARTICLE -- like normal people, they will chime in with an unsolicited, "Men can be raped too," or "Men have it just as hard," or "Do you know what men go through?" when it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the article (obviously) and everything to do with this made up war between men and women they've concocted.

My feeling is that if someone signs into Reddit to ask for advice, or posts an article to discuss, we should discuss the article...and not go off on these tangents that make absolutely no sense, and quite frankly, remind me of a kindergartener complaining that no one is paying attention to them.

Can you imagine if a subreddit took on r/aww and just kept posting "My puppy is way cuter then that." "A cat?! What about puppies?" It's like GIVE ME A BREAK ALREADY!

I, myself, am banned from posting in r/shitredditsays because I followed a bot in and broke one of their sidebar rules (which of course I didn't know about) but that didn't stop me from seeing their point. The fact that these bots exist at all are a good indicator of who the real "thugs" of Reddit are, IMHO. If you actually wasted a decent portion of your time and energy programming a bot for the sole purpose of creating hate then there is something desperately wrong with you.

[–]aweeleprechan 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I agree that r/mensrights appears to go off on tangents with articles like that, but what you have to remember is articles about women being raped are not rare. Our mass media, where must people get their news is rife with anything that will generate website hits, and female rape stories generate those hits. So commenting on how terrible a crime rape (any rape) is quickly gets old since there only so much moral indignation one can experience before getting burnt out. You also have to consider that, on most of the larger websites, when a rape story is covered it's often accompanied by statistics about how many women are raped each year and things of that nature, but rarely are male rape victims mentioned. It's the same with domestic abuse and divorce stories. So the appearance in much of the mass media is that women are the only victims of these crimes.

Combine the lack of coverage of male victims, the support/sympathy already present for female victims, and this subreddit's focus on men and of course readers here on going to home in on the female focus and make comments you highlight. And this, unfortunately, spills over into more "centrist" subreddit's, giving the impression to outside communities that MRAs are unconcerned about female victims/issues, when most of us are, just not to the exclusion on make victims/issues.

[–]cranberrykitten 17 points18 points19 points 13 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]aweeleprechan 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]cranberrykitten 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]aweeleprechan 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Articles about murder by kitten are rare too, but frankly I'd rather not get sidetracked onto whatever agenda a different subreddit wants to talk about when CLEARLY the discussion should be murder by kitten.

I don't care what the politics are...I just want to stay on topic! If they want to discuss male victims, great, post stories about male victims and we can discuss those...INSIDE THAT thread. If they are rare, then post a thread about how rare they are and we can gladly discuss that. But to suggest that all threads must become public service announcements on someone else's agenda, or that female victims who are presented to Reddit should be ignored because there simply aren't enough male-centric articles to discuss, is ludicrous.

To be quite frank, hijacking threads that don't deal with the subject matter they prefer to discuss hurts r/mensrights in my opinion, and turns it into a conspiracy group. To suggest that the ENTIRE planet is willfully under-reporting an issue, despite the entire world being dominated by the very people they are subjecting is .....hard to swallow. I don't doubt that male rape, assault, shaming, happens all the time, but when you say "I swear it's there, you just can't see it!" I feel like the theme from the X-Files should be playing in the background.

[–]amliner 16 points17 points18 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Froolow has another great post explaining "intersectionalism", which is a pretty central idea of much of current feminism. I'll quote from it, because I think it might clarify things:

"Modern feminism used the term 'intersectionality' instead, meaning societies and institutions are structured in such a way to benefit a privileged class - usually white, male, heterosexual and fully-abled. You should think of these intersections of privileged as being orthogonal, so (stating the obvious) no amount of 'male-ness' can make a black guy white, but the resulting Eucledian vector means a gay black guy can be better off than a woman depending on the exact socio-economic conditions.

Feminism has been very good for a certain subset of the female population of the West: upper-class straight white women. For plenty of other women in the US, feminism has accomplished suffrage, and not a whole lot else. The median wealth for single black women is a hundred dollars. Childcare provisions are not really better than they were a hundred years ago, even though women head 80% of single-parent households. Transwomens' reported rate of sexual assault is astronomical. For these women, there are many third world countries that could give them better justice, if not a better standard of living. Thus, there are a lot of working-class guys whose lives are on the whole rougher than the most visible beneficiaries of mainstream feminism, so they think it's ridiculous than anyone would say that women are more disadvantaged than them. But feminists would point out that women in the same social situation that that guy is have all his problems--class problems, race problems--in addition to a host of other gender-specific ones.

I'm not under the illusion that this information squares feminism with men'srights, but I do want to point out that feminists aren't blind to the fact that many men are in a great deal of social and economic distress right now; they just have a different interpretation of the determining forces involved.

[–]Therefrigerator 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Annoyed_ME 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Therefrigerator 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]notcaptainkirk -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

SRS is interested in gender equality from the women's side but the way they see it MR is just butting in and saying "oh yeah, me too".

Honestly, the couldn't the same be said about feminism in the western world vs. feminism in the developing world. I mean, couldn't someone say that feminists in the western world are crybabies because women in Africa have it so much worse?

No, because that is stupid. Having it better than someone else is not equatable to having it swell. And just because there are ass hat rich white men like Mitt Romney around, that doesn't mean that every white male is rolling in the dough. Most aren't.

Anyone that discounts the opposite side's view (opposite in terms of how men are opposite of women, I mean) because their own side has it worse, well, that's a mighty persecution complex that doesn't really leave room for discussion. Or room for intelligent thought.

And both sides do it.

[–]Therefrigerator 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]notcaptainkirk -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Therefrigerator 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]contrarianism -9 points-8 points-7 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Therefrigerator 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LordLoki 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]specialk16 -7 points-6 points-5 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Therefrigerator 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]specialk16 -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Therefrigerator 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Old-Hickory 16 points17 points18 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]specialk16 -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You guys.

What guys, specifically? See, this is one the biggest issues here: you truly think it's a matter of us vs them, black and white, no gray areas. You don't even know my opinions, or my views. Anyone who isn't SRS is "you guys" and it must be bad.

What makes this irony more delicious is that I'm Hispanic. How do you call that, an uncle tom or something, a special snowflake? A minority must agree with you, otherwise, he is also wrong.

So while there is no doubt that some people don't like men, to us that doesn't make Misandry real because overall society acts in a much much more discriminatory manner toward women.

This is a very ridiculous argument, it's just a cheap way of saying "you don't have problems because ours are bigger". In the end, it proves that it [SRS] really isn't about equality, it's about power and attention. How much better do you really think you are than the rest of people out there?

God, I miss the days when it truly was about pointing shitty behavior in reddit.

[+]HyperactiveJudge -10 points-9 points-8 points 13 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]Therefrigerator 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[+]HyperactiveJudge -6 points-5 points-4 points 13 years ago* (22 children) | Copy Link

I live in Norway, a country where every company has to enforce 40+% female boardmembers, where women are given economic incentives and support to go to the military, school, jobs, social security, kids ++++. Our whole nation is built around giving women an edge.

Have you lived here? Do you read about how it is here? No, didn't think so. Maybe you should not talk out of your ass before checking facts? Yes that's what I thought.

Oh and lets talk about the US.

How much does a women earn per dollar a man makes in the same job?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male–female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States

The difference now doesn't seem to be that big and there seems to be some sensible reasons as to why, NOT ALL, but some.

How many women are now CEOs due to the "matriarchy"?

On the rise, but finding competent female CEOs is not easy as the pool is much smaller and finding a woman that is suited for the job, that has the balls and confidence is not easy. Don't give men the blame for women subjecting themselves to being weak.

edit: Yea downvote me when I'm right as usual. No wonder there is issues in the world.

[–]blow_hard 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[+]HyperactiveJudge -6 points-5 points-4 points 13 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]blow_hard 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]HyperactiveJudge -5 points-4 points-3 points 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]blow_hard6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HyperactiveJudge-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blow_hard3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]youseeah2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nizzie2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blow_hard6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HyperactiveJudge-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blow_hard3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Therefrigerator3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HyperactiveJudge-4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Therefrigerator6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HyperactiveJudge-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jakartaa2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HyperactiveJudge-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Therefrigerator 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]HyperactiveJudge -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ngwoo 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]HyperactiveJudge -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Is this really what you want men's rights activism to be about? Trying to convince everyone that women just aren't as good as men?

I never said that, I said genders should not be equal and they are not. In some areas women are superior, in other men are superior. To think anything else is down right unintelligent. I never said I'm against equal pay, I'm saying men and women do different jobs better than the other. Our brains differentiate, our bodies differentiate, our hormonlevels are different and so forth. Does some of those roles correlate with stereotypes? Absolutely. I honestly prefer being protected by a man and nursed by a woman. Do I think a man does a better job selling hamburgers at macdonalds? No. Should they be paid equal? Yes.

But I'm against a kindergarden teacher making as much money as a biochem engineer.

[–]LtGumby 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Froolow 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]LtGumby 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sick_burn_bro 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]amliner 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LtGumby 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZankerH 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Grickit 51 points52 points53 points 13 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

I am so fucking tired of the circlejerk advertising bots, though. (And not just for SRS... they can all go DIAF.)

You might be interested to learn that those aren't ours. They're from /r/antisrs. They disable the CSS so that people can't read our sidebar, rules, and FAQ (They don't see it's a circlejerk). And so that "the vote buttons aren't messed up". Gee. Why would you need the vote buttons if you're not bridging a subreddit you don't belong to?

They want people to follow the bots into SRS and troll us.

Also, when their bots get banned from enough subreddits, they make new accounts for them.

~~They recently shut the bots down when our regular surveys revealed it as our main source of subscribers.~~

Note: I got here via /r/bestof. SRS has a moratorium against /r/MensRights and my only vote has been an upvote for the parent comment because it's pretty damn good. So anyone below me can stfu about bridging.

Edit: The bots are apparently still online. They were only discussing shutting them down.

Edit2: Not sure why you're being downvoted. I guess you're not allowed to like SRS even the tiniest bit. I've now upvoted you too.

[–]brucemo 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Grickit 28 points29 points30 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Also, bridging seems to be yelling at the poop, not touching it.

It's important to remember that there are 25,000 of us now. And despite our problems with the hivemind, we use reddit. Nobody registers for reddit and goes straight to SRS. It's a meta subreddit. Nobody even knows what SRS is when they first come to reddit. We sign up because of some other interest like /r/Minecraft, but we get pushed towards SRS over time.

If you see one random SRS user yelling at poop (oh... uh... hi) it's entirely likely that they happened upon that poop when they just wanted to read Return to Ravnica spoilers in /r/MagicTCG but some ass is calling women MtG players "fat and weird". They just wanted to comment on the girl's cute dog in /r/aww, but someone "just had to" stick a brazzers logo on it. They just wanted to ask if health-steal-on-hit weapons work for weapon DPS based abilities in /r/Torchlight but the mods are banning gawker.

[–]LemonFrosted 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sappow 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]LemonFrosted -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]FredFnord 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sappow 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]halibut-moon -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]FredFnord 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]halibut-moon -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]blow_hard 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grickit 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]blow_hard 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Froolow 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]relatedartists 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

it is a shame there's no leeway to discuss ideas when I don't understand why they're offensive

I remember people being told to go to a related subreddit to go discuss this rather than doing it in the main r/shitredditsays subreddit. Wasn't it r/srsdiscussion?

Edit: I've been told that SRS has devolved. It used to be what you described as a group that calls out negative things but now has largely become a trolling offensive? Done to get their own jollies off as much as any "regular" troll might? They just have developed the affordance of a cover, by being SRS and hiding behind their mission statement? It's not that I hold this opinion specifically, but just something I've heard from others and wonder if you might have something to say to that.

In addition, I'd like to ask who polices SRS if SRS polices Reddit? I use "poilce" to mean monitor and call out those things. Who monitors and calls out SRS? I mean, it's one thing to be a group that holds their policies up but when it becomes cliquey and exclusive in their highfalutin or pedestal status, who keeps them grounded from being arrogant about it? Because if anything, this is something I've specifically seen. A sense of higher morality rather than an entity that might want to make things better - it's mocking to mock. For example, a racist person being an idiot - might it be better to reason with that person on some level that might get through than just belittle them? You don't change anyone's mind for the better by making them feel worthless, do you? And if their goal isn't to change their mind then what's the point? It's circlejerking hate and when that happens, calling out the negative stuff is useless. It's just an in-joke for in-joke sake. SRS isn't anything useful at all then.

[–]sirdomino 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JustGotFuckingOwned 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]PotsyThePontificator 15 points16 points17 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Sappow 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk 19 points20 points21 points 13 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]JustGotFuckingOwned 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]JustGotFuckingOwned -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]blow_hard2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JustGotFuckingOwned -5 points-4 points-3 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]FredFnord 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chopperz-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you think having a group of people shame people (who it could be argued, half the time aren't even doing anything wrong) is 'expanding the community' then I think what you said was silly.

I don't. I think they're shaming the uglier parts of the community out of existence, or at least into the minority. This, in turn, makes the community more attractive, which grows the community. Your statement is like saying that tilling soil makes food. It doesn't. It does however allow other forces to make food.

Seriously, the world, including reddit, doesn't need jackasses, but we sure as hell don't need a bigger group of jackasses for those jackasses.

The difference, you see, is that SRS is captive jackasses. /r/shitredditsays is not and never will be default. Ever. It's too divisive. If you never go into /r/shitredditsays or the related subs, you never know about them. The groups they shame, however, are frequently on the fucking frontpage, racisting up the joint. Do you want someone's first impression of Reddit to be that it's a mysogynistic racist shithole? Would you be eager to join such a community? If SRS really wanted to kill Reddit, walking away would probably be pretty effective.

[–]Chopperz-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I did not join reddit for the community

If you joined for the content (which is posted by the community) then you joined for the community.

I did not enjoy posting a comment to a thread, in which SRS took note of (not my comment, but apparently the entire reply history to whatever I posted) and clicking a link to me being made fun of, belittled and insulted.

Important thing bolded. You clicked a link. You walked into the SRS cage where they are free to do things by their rules per the way Reddit works. You can bawww all day, doesn't change the fact that they're in a handful of subreddits, and that makes them better than the people they shame because the people they shame are all over the site.

You might feel like SRS is some sort of godsend

More or less necessary, not a godsend. A godsend would be a community that didn't need an SRS.

but I assure you that to a group of reddit users, even possibility the majority (no citation),

If you can't cite it, don't say it. It weakens your argument to have things that are unverifiable. Furthermore, I seriously doubt the majority of Reddit users even know what SRS stands for.

that SRS is a complete fuckall waste of time and complete shit hole.

Great. Don't visit. They don't need you.

You don't solve problems by becoming a bigger problem and then hiding behind a wall whenever someone calls you out on being a hypocrite.

That's the glory, innit? They don't hide when people call them out. They hide all the time. If you never visited an SRS subreddit, you'd never notice them. Save, of course, for the actions of those who wish to not allow them to operate in peace. Get mad at those people, SRS isn't doing anything to you.

[–]blow_hard2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NiggerJew944 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

SRSters advocate doxing.

http://i.imgur.com/N4JoM.png?1

SRS is also most assuredly a downvote brigade.

Written by u/kambadingo

Since when is SRS a downvote brigade?

Lets examine the facts. Luckily SRS requires posters to post the original upvotes of the post so fact checking becomes easy.

Note I'm taking the top posts in SRS as of this writing.

http://www.reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays/comments/11f0nm/in_a_thread_about_amanda_todd_since_she_showed/ +19 when linked, -83 now

http://www.reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays/comments/11eyxo/its_pretty_obvious_you_just_cant_say_it_what_the/ +10 when linked -18 now

[third post excluded because it's a picture specifically to avoid linking to the comment]

http://www.reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays/comments/11f880/on_a_screenshot_from_big_bang_theory_nice/ +10 when linked, +2 now

http://www.reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays/comments/11f8a4/op_complains_there_is_no_iphone_emoticon_of_a/ +22 when linked, +45 now

[6th post excluded because it's a picture]

http://www.reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays/comments/11f880/on_a_screenshot_from_big_bang_theory_nice/ +236 and +195 then +255 and +205 respectively now

http://www.reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays/comments/11f8xw/billy_mays_here_for_coke_whores_use_them_and_just/ +227 when linked +272 now

http://www.reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays/comments/11esse/anytime_i_hear_someone_is_religious_i/ +881 when linked, +988 now

[10th post omitted because it's like 5 links and I'm lazy]

http://www.reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays/comments/11f2k7/you_did_the_right_thing_men_should_never_hit_a/ +10 when linked, +2 now

http://www.reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays/comments/11fmoo/to_a_gay_man_commenting_on_the_difficulties_of/ +20 when linked, +13 now

http://www.reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays/comments/11fh5p/boys_tend_to_sexualize_girls_its_just_life_6/ +6 when linked, +3 now

http://www.reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays/comments/11fc90/1014_retards_715/ +715 when linked, +1416 now

[15th post omitted because it'a meta-project panda post]

http://www.reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays/comments/11f8zp/should_been_shaped_like_a_viking_boat_pig/ +24 when linked, +20 now

http://www.reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays/comments/11fn5z/people_in_the_ghetto_hate_white_people_for/ +44 when linked, +42 now

http://www.reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays/comments/11fh2m/they_took_in_the_rejects_kids_who_had_been_banned/ +107 when linked, 104 now

That's 15 links in all. Of which we find 9 have been downvoted since being linked by SRS. And 5 of the 6 that have not been downvoted had around 200 upvotes or more already in which case a downvote brigade by a sub as small as SRS would be inconsequential. Posts that have been upvoted tend to get more upvotes over time which would imply that the linked posts would be upvoted more. Which is not the case when SRS links to them unless they have an upvote count large enough to easily counter it. Not to mention this very thread where you have been upvoted despite SRS being universally disliked by pretty much every other subreddit on reddit.

The verdict being that SRS is, among other things, most assuredly a downvote brigade.

[–]Froolow 19 points20 points21 points 13 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sappow 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]NiggerJew944 -10 points-9 points-8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]contraryexample -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]prof_eggburger 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]reddit_feminist 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]sybelle 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

hypocritical to complain about the 'misogyny etc' but ban anyone wanting to discuss such issues in a serious way. it is hypocritical to criticise the speech of others whilst at the same time curtailing their right to reply. SRS is proof they are being listened to, but they aren't willing to engage with criticism of SRS.

Hypocrisy isn't talking bad about someone and not letting them reply. It's saying one thing and doing another. There are SRS discussion subreddits for discussing SRS things. The actual shitredditsays subreddit isn't about responses and is, in fact, for discussion on shit Reddit says and how shitty it is.

I. RULE X: SRS is a circlejack and interrupting the circlejack is an easy way to get banned

That's a rule there. You can't just violate their rules and expect not to get banned any more than they can violate yours and expect the same.

By the way, hypocrisy would be if you called someone by a racial epithet and then they disparaged you for doing it, but also called others by racial epitets. Double points if they used the same racial epithet. Triple points if they called you by a racial epithet for calling someone else by one.

Your problem here is that you literally do not know what hypocrite means. Which is kind of hilarious.

Also there was no 'point two:' in your post. I feel falsely advertised to.

have you ever been there?

Yes. Mostly today. Also some other days. Not often. It is a silly place. I don't really enjoy public shaming like they do.

it is just the creation of shit, meaningless threads that keep it going

No, no. All of their threads have content. That content is a shitty post from another subreddit that got upvoted and is horrible.

They are laughing at that post. Which is content. Who are you to judge a sense of humor?

the overall tone of your comment makes me think i made have touched a nerve with you, making you say odd things in defence of your position

This sentence makes me fear that you may not have a solid grasp of the English language.

i've got no desire to get into a slanging match, so have a great day.

I'm not slanging, I'm debating. I don't even know what slanging is. Why won't people who hold your opinion reply to logical, well thought out posts? It implies bad things.

[–]TierceI 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TierceI 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

their reaction to what they see as abuse of free speech is to abuse that freedom themselves

Their reaction to people abusing others based on race or gender or weight or attractiveness is to make fun of it. You're really reaching here.

also i should point out how it negates any potential they have for being taken seriously.

Your argument doesn't make any sense. They're not aiming to be taken seriously. They're aiming to point out what shitty posters there are in Reddit, and what shitty people there must be because shitty posts from shitty posters are consistently upvoted.

in snarky internet terms this could be considered slanging

I have been on the internet for a decade and this is literally the second time I've even seen that word, the first being the other post you made.

i was correct to anticipate your hostility in the end.

It is hostile to say you don't know what a hypocrite is?

I am going to go out on a limb here and say you don't know what hostile means either.

if you'd like a logical conversation please feel free to continue with a more polite tone.

You literally accused them of being hypocrites when tehy aren't being hypcrites except in terms so broad the word loses meaning ('their reaction to what they see as abuse of free speech is to abuse that freedom themselves' is incredibly brad and can be applied to anyone making fun of anyone for saying anything ever, a definition so broad it isn't worth saying.) which implies that either you're willing to degrade your point to near-meaninglessness to be 'right' in some sense (an irrational conclusion as such victory would be hollow) or that you do not know what the word hypocrite means (which at least preserves your dignity to some extent by making it look like you're not arguing on the internet for the sake of arguing).

finally, you should think on the fact this conversation started with me replying to a logical, well-thought out post, and i removed that reply for fear of a long, snarky exchange. if that is your aim, feel free to downvote and move on.

Downvoting is for people who are not contributing to the discussion, not people who are wrong. You are wrong. We're having a rather good discussion, hampered only by your issues with H words longer than 6 letters. I'm sure we're beyond that now, though.

Removing your post did you no favors, as all it could do is allow you to hide from what you said. If you stood behind it, you wouldn't want to hide from it.

I'm not being snarky, I'm being reasonable. You're calling me snarky a lot, perhaps it's you who's trying to be snarky.

[–]phattsao 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sriad 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]blow_hard 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]blow_hard 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]FredFnord 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Some of the things I saw there were legit cases of x-ism but they are way over the top.

I honestly don't get this complaint.

Let's take where we agree: someone on reddit, in the last week, somewhere, has posted something sexist. Right? It sounds like you agree that that does happen sometimes.

So it gets posted to SRS and it gets mocked.

And you're saying it's... somehow getting blown out of proportion. What proportion? It's being discussed on a medium-traffic subreddit. It's getting mocked. Tomorrow it will be forgotten.

Blowing something out of proportion is suing someone over a casual comment. Blowing someone out of proportion is pulling a gun on someone for calling you an ethnic slur. Blowing something out of proportion is delivering a disproportionate response to someone else's action. How is talking about it, on a subreddit that, without the auto-troll bots, the author wouldn't even know about, 'blowing something out of proportion?'

This is not me being sarcastic. This is me just being baffled. If a friend of mine and I hear a coworker call someone a bitch, and I talk to my friend later and say, 'I can't believe X was being such an asshole to Y earlier today', is this 'blowing it out of proportion'? Even if X happens to overhear what I say? I'm not getting him fired, I'm not ruining his life, I'm not even making him pay for lunch.

I dunno. It just boggles my mind.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]blow_hard 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]blow_hard 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chopperz 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chopperz2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The point you should take is what I say is true in some cases.

How? They keep to themselves. They don't post SRS-related content outside SRS. How is it true that people hate them? Show me. Cite anything.

You can ignore that if you like but it's been pointed out before.

Just because a person said a thing at some point doesn't make them right.

Just because I don't feel like doing it right now doesn't mean I can't find it.

No, it means that proving it is neither simple nor important to you. Or you're hoping I'll forget because you're lacking evidence.

Also, they don't bother me until someone comes along trying to say they are bastions of equal rights when that is not true.

I don't remember seeing anyone say that. I remember them attacking people for making shitty posts. Are you perhaps confused? Attacking hilarious -isms and fighting for equal rights aren't the same. I can get mad at someone for calling you a honkey even though white people are definitely not oppressed or anything.

It's hard to not touch the poop when you waddle in it.

But they don't. They point at it. You obviously have no idea what I'm talking about. Also thank you for noting that the posts they point out are on par with poops. Moral victory.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Now that I'm at my computer, I found you one example after a painful couple of minutes of browsing.

The bestof post that lead me here was specifically about some person giving an "unbiased" opinion and saying that SRS is good for reddit, that they fight against reddit's (as if it's one body) -ism, and you say the same. Your bias clearly shows, yet you try to deny it. You can call me biased, as well, but I don't have a dog in this fight.

But they don't. They point at it. You obviously have no idea what I'm talking about. Also thank you for noting that the posts they point out are on par with poops. Moral victory.

Of course some of the posts they link are shit posts rife with -ism, I have also stated that elsewhere. However, that doesn't mean that some of the things they say are ridiculous. You misunderstand me when I say they waddle in poop. To clarify, I mean that their awful circle-jerking is shit. You say they don't touch the poop and I say they are neck deep in it. Not because they only deal with shit posts, but they are shitty people themselves.

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Your example isn't a joke. Your example is someone okaying people being discriminatory by saying "well, I'm a member of some pretty frequently disparaged groups, and I don't see a problem with disparaging people based on the groups they're in" which holds no water. If you have a black friend who encourages you to call him 'nigger' and then you call some other black guy 'nigger', your excuse about having permission from some other, unrelated black guy will have no weight or bearing, and will not stop you getting punched in the mouth.

Also, if you're not biased because you 'don't have a dog in the fight' then how can I be biased? I'm a member of neither MR nor SRS. I just happen to think that Reddit is a firehose of shitposting on top of a social linking site. It's not an uncommon opinion, and the unabashed racism and sexism in the comments isn't helping.

You misunderstand me when I say they waddle in poop.

No, no. I brought it up. 'touching the poop' in the context of their rules is interacting with shitposters. They don't do it. You can't change the definition of the metaphor to somehow make my statement incorrect. They do not touch the poop. It is a rule.

they are shitty people themselves.

Woo hoo personal attacks all up in here!

[–]Grindl -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grindl -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

It is directly equivalent.

No, it is not. This is not a matter of opinion. Wal-Mart baggers do not appear on televison is association with a company. They are not strongly tied to a brand identity. E-Sports sponsors tie their brand identity directly to the players. In fact, most have clauses in their contracts about shitty behavior and how they have no truck with it. You can literally lose you E-Sports contract for being a shitty person on the internet. Being a shitty person on the internet is, in fact, a violation of your contract. How is it unethical to inform a party to a contract that the other party is in violation of it?

it's because you want to prevent them from being able to play professionally

Or perhaps you wish to forewarn them that their name is literally attached to a pedophile.

Without the sponsors, they don't have a job.

This is little but a sad side effect and something that should have been thought of before advertising on your Twitch stream that you are, in fact, a practicing pedophile.

There's no way you can claim that getting Stephano fired wasn't their goal.

Never said it wasn't their goal. Said it wasn't unethical because he represented the company. It was his only job. Representing the company. Had he not worn their swag, he wouldn't have gotten paid. Being a pedophile and advertising that fact on the internet is doing a shitty job of representing the company.

[–]Grindl-7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sappow2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Grindl0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Oh no! You caught me! I didn't fully read a thread. Does this make it more legitimate somehow? No. Let me lay this out for you in big bold letters, so you can understand it and reply to it and not attempt to edge around it with semantics. Again. Here we go:

If you have an account and that account is directly sponsored by organizations then it is a shitty. fucking. idea. to go about admitting to illegal activity while on or associated in any way with said account. It's like showing up to a Klan rally in your work shirt. That is what he did, literally exactly what he did, and he paid for it. All SRS did is inform his sponsors, which is totally fine because he was almost certainly contractually obligated not to be a shithead using that identity and yet there he goes, being a shithead and using that identity to do it.

Happy?

[–]Grindl1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It does mean that your opinion is uninformed.

I apologize for not knowing much about this single situation you only just brought up.

How do you know so much about it?

Because that is how contracts work. I've been sponsored in similar competitions before, and they always tell you that 100% of your pay and the contract is forfeit if you do dumb shit in their shirt. I have known people to, believing that the rules didn't apply to them, do dumb shit in their shirt. The rules applied to them. This is normal. I bagged at a grocery store and the contract there said not to do dumb shit in their shirt.

Furthermore, given that such an act would be perfectly legal in nearby Spain or Germany, you can't even claim that he admitted to doing something illegal.

Yes I can. He did something illegal. He broke the law. He was in a place that it wasn't legal and he did it, ergo law broken. By him. He broke the law.

No, because you are still saying things that are not true.

And you're still failing to provide examples of them.

[–]dumpstergirl -5 points-4 points-3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dj_soo 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Isthereanyonethere -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

They're not suspected of the doxxing of VA but the twenty creepyshots poster that a mysterious Samantha doxxed on a tumblr blog.

There is also the fact that they don't account for context for the comment they chose. For instance a joke = a racist theory.

And finally there is the fact that they (sometimes) brigade and invade. Proof here. There is also logs of their IRC channels where they sometimes ask for help.

But the more important, the thing that you forget, is that they are not here to call out reddit on their use of free speech, to make reddit better, but to troll reddit (I love how you don't mention the name they chosed to describe the MRA subreddit or names they've chosen for MRA people).

You forget that they love to witch-hunt. You forget that they created the Panda Project to take down reddit.

[–]blow_hard 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dumdum_style 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This doesn't sound unbiased to me at all. Moreover, in a great number of points of fact its wrong.

active discussion about whether 'neckbeard' is discriminatory against those with Social Anxiety Disorder, but at the moment 'neckbeard' or 'shitlord' seem the most popular insults).

The casual, continuous, and widespread denegrating of reddit and of other redditors in regular discourse to me is disturbing. I don't know anywhere else here so large where that's so widely practiced and accepted -- to the point of being a regular feature on the front page. Where else here are so many barbs so frequently hurled at so wide an audience? Futher, its not just at specific persons, but at the archtype of a redditor in general, and reddit as a community. That's poisonous, and it certainly should be rooted out, before the factionalism and divisiveness they're spawning spreads any wider than it already has. Its dangerous to reddit as a cohesive community itself, and it needs to end.

r/SRS tries not to 'bridge' subreddits and downvote comments they don't like Contra .. and it's right someone steps up and says, "This right here? This is unacceptable", especially since the hive mind is sometimes incapable of doing it.

Those two things seem pretty diametrically opposed. Putting aside for the moment the invalid supposition that SRS has the carte blanche to say what is and isn't acceptable, the fundamental premises of the group seem internally contradictory. You're claiming that the group sticks to itself, but then you give as its reason for being that it draws attention to things that displease you, which necessarily requires "bridging" to be in any way effective. Carring out what you describe as their raison d'être means forgoing what's the strongest positive point in its favor -- that they leave everyone else alone.

Moreover its clear the actual actions belie those stated intentions. See: SRS logs http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=mFNvMdbz http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=32aM2ShL

. At the moment it is because they seem to be implicated in leaking the personal information of a famous redditor. When I say 'implicated' I mean there is no evidence at all

So, aside from SRS actually taking credit for having it done: http://i.imgur.com/Lscan.jpg, and having a group setup to do the same to other people predditors.tumblr.com (now password protected), and having a project dedicated to getting media outlets to do their work for them, and the other similar activities that have been taking place http://i.imgur.com/AL52y.png, short of collectively catching the group in flagrante delicto with a picture of that day's newspaper (as I've said elsewhere) what more could you seriously expect? Given the availability of free anonymous proxies and throwaway accounts, what would more evidence would you reasonably expect to be forthcoming. Its interesting that you should talk about putting "/r/MR in the crosshairs next", as, it appears from the screenshot above, thats what SRS has already done. I would like to see banned groups whose existence is specifically dedicated to attacking and demeaning the reddit community as a whole. That would include worstof and certainly SRS. There's a clear difference between the goals, attitudes, and actions of SRS and MR, and to conflate those together is disingenuous.

"Obviously the same logic doesn't apply when the information identifies women, since reddit doesn't think they're people"

That's a great example of the regular strawman argumentation and caricaturing that exemplifies why SRS is bringing down, not up, the level of discourse around here. Even the phrasing you yourself use

and they are more interested in attacking the larger subs.

seems to make it perfectly clear this is acting from animosity, and towards reddit as a whole.

There's plenty more that your writing suggests, including the hypocritical acceptance and praise of misandry and your implicit assumption that your moral instincts should be felt universally, but I think I'll leave it at this:

The issue isn't that I don't understand how SRS works. I understand perfectly and fully how it works, and find the project appalling and wrong. Judging, as I've said before, from the response across this site and the nostalgia for reddit from a few years ago, most agree -- reddit was a much better place before SRS got here. Would that it could be again.

[–]tweentoes 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EatATaco -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]elahrai 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EatATaco 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_Tuck_It_In_My_Sock 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]EatATaco 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]I_Tuck_It_In_My_Sock 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]salami_inferno 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thebeginningistheend 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WolfgangSho 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Froolow 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]b0w3n 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Your post is pretty good. The only part I don't agree with is your second to last statement.

They're hardly doing it for the "this right here is unacceptable" aspect. It may be a fortunate side effect, but there entire point is to mock. It's a circlejerk, what did you expect? We can all agree rape and gay jokes are in bad taste, but when your sub exists with a whole bunch of bonding exercises and in-jokes, you're hardly a safe place for feminism (LOLEFFERT).

TwoX and feminism are better for that, and I'll actually put forward like I have a few times, mensrights is also a better place for feminism. Since most MRs tend to want a more egalitarian society.

I think this is the reason they want it banned, it's a circlejerk with little point other than to mock. I also wouldn't shed a single tear if circlejerk itself kicked the bucket.

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]xhytdr 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kiwilolo 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_Tuck_It_In_My_Sock 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

If you're not ashamed to have a penis you are not welcome on SRS.

Also - specific instances here -

If you say a woman who is in a serious relationship takes another man up on his offer for an expensive date without letting him know she is attached is taking the guy for a ride, then you're just out of line. Obviously there is no way that could have happened.

If you feel that a man can use violence to defend himself against violence from a woman - you're out of line.

If you think that (in general, there are always exceptions) men are more biologically fit for manual labor that requires heavy lifting - science be damned - you're out of line.

If you think a woman should not be able to call rape because she made a bad decision when her AND the guy she was with got drunk - you're out of line.

These are threads I've seen SRS get involved in, and they were clearly in the wrong.

SRS does legitimately call people on their bullshit fairly often. Where they go wrong is making issues out of things that are non-issues. They seem to - in almost any circumstance - turn things into a gender or sexual orientation issue. This doesn't help their cause. It just alienates reasonable people from them. SRS doesn't care about educating or helping anybody. It's a circle jerk subreddit related to anything anti-male. They don't seem to understand that you don't have to be sexist to be feminist. You don't have to take up the defense of the indefensible based on their sexual organs/orientation. Take a stand where it matters and wrong is actually being done.

[–]FredFnord 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]I_Tuck_It_In_My_Sock 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Froolow 16 points17 points18 points 13 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]contrarianism -10 points-9 points-8 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Froolow 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Absnerdity 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Froolow 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DreadOfGrave 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Froolow 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]ThrowAway233223 -7 points-6 points-5 points 13 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for your reply. I am not sure if it was intended or not, although I am guessing it is, but they sound as if they are a very contradicting and hypocritical group. I do see them sticking to their own subreddit to talk trash as being a good thing though. It keeps the trash contained. While I am quite apprehensive and weary of /r/creepshots for its questionable content, I feel that posting a persons personal information over a matter that is still under debate to cross the line. While the descriptions painted here do seem to paint ShitRedditSays as being unintellectual and slightly bigoted, I do agree that they shouldn't be banned over something like that. They have the right to freedom of speech just like everyone else. We would have to ban some other subreddits as well (some of which are top subreddits and in some cases even auto-subscribed to). However, I do thing there should be a debate on whether to ban them over the posting of a individuals personal information over a matter that has not been widely condemned and is still under debate. That is underhand and out of line.

Edit: Somehow I missed the part about the picture being taken and uploaded of a naked woman without her consent. There are very few exceptions where this would be exceptable (one being if she were willingly walking nude through a public area). Without further information on the matter, I would have to agree that a picture such as that should be taken down.

[–]blow_hard 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThrowAway233223 -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

call people 'faggots'

"No-one should have identifying information posted on the internet without their consent" could have SRS-ers posting as replies to the r/SRS thread, "Obviously the same logic doesn't apply when the information identifies women, since reddit doesn't think they're people", an image macro of a man in a smoking jacket saying, "Consent... is for paedophiles"

specifically do not allow links from various subs

reject r/MR as a legitimate movement in gender-politics

Any attempt to argue with them about any point they consider worth mocking gets you banned from r/SRS.

There you go. That about sums up where that came from.

The last quote alone is enough to make the group seem unintellectual. If there is no room for debate at all, then it is just a group that follows a very narrow-minded dogma and won't even consider the possibility of a different outlook.

Before I end this though, I would like to point out that these are not my personal views of SRS, but merely a statement of how Froolow's long post appears to depict them. I haven't seen much of what SRS post so I can not form a valid opinion concerning them as of yet.

[–]blow_hard 21 points22 points23 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

"No-one should have identifying information posted on the internet without their consent" could have SRS-ers posting as replies to the r/SRS thread, "Obviously the same logic doesn't apply when the information identifies women, since reddit doesn't think they're people", an image macro of a man in a smoking jacket saying, "Consent... is for paedophiles"

You understand that this is a satirization of the views of the rest of reddit? SRS does that quite a lot, probably worth mentioning.

Any attempt to argue with them about any point they consider worth mocking gets you banned from r/SRS.

this is because they have specific areas where discussion and argument is welcomed/encouraged; to argue that the main SRS is anti-intellectual would be like calling english class anti-intellectual because it doesn't cover math or science.

You still indeed have a lot of work to go in forming a valid opinion, as your previous statement was pretty unfounded, even with the feeble justification in those quotes.

[–]halibut-moon -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]blow_hard 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]halibut-moon -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -16 points-15 points-14 points 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

What I find more interesting - as in: spectacularly bad - is the whole philosophy behind it. I don't know what is the proper name for it, progressive, post-modernist of feminist, but it is quite suprising.

Basically this philosophy:

1) wants people to have extremely, uncommonly large amounts of compassion/empathy, for example not ridiculing 500 lbs fatties or not finding post-op transsexuals weird repulsive frankensteinian artificial monsters, which are pretty common and normal sentiments in real life outside the small circle of white first-worlders middle-class university-educated ultra-liberal people, so basically they want compassion to totally overwhelm every other possible consideration,

2) yet despite the huge amount of compassion expected, they call it "basic human decency" as it was something basic, simple and common,

3) similarly they want men to have infinite amount of willpower, for example a woman could change her mind in the middle of a sex act and a man should be able to instantly pull out and stop it or else he is a rapist, which is obviously an extremely large willpower requirement, remember that Gandhi, who had a lot of willpower because his religious practices, used to test his willpower by sleeping with naked girls and not putting his penis in them, so basically this philosophy would require every man has even more willpower than someone like Gandhi,

4) yet they generally don't condone those (conservative) practices that make people develop willpower (from religion to military service to discipline-oriented schools or spanking children)

5) they probably think this infinite willpower should come from infinite compassion

6) yet they are not compassionate with "shitlords" at all

7) and it is intentional, they think if you remove people's "privilege" i.e. show them how underprivileged people feel it will make them more compassionate with the underprivileged people, which is OBVIOUSLY a huge crock of shit as every normal person will react with pure rage and hate if his privilege is removed and will fight twice as hard to get it back, so it actually makes people even LESS compassionate.

This philosophy, I don't know what is its name, feminism, or progressivism or post-modernism, is so spectacularly bad that it really interests me. I often spend hours reading SRS and trying to figure out how can people think in so wrong ways. Does it come from reading Richard Rorty or Andrea Dworkin or which philosopher?

[–]ANewMachine615 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

pretty common and normal sentiments in real life outside the small circle of white first-worlders middle-class university-educated ultra-liberal people

And? Appeal to popularity doesn't mean anything if it's morally wrong. Lots of shit is common but also terrible.

similarly they want men to have infinite amount of willpower, for example a woman could change her mind in the middle of a sex act and a man should be able to instantly pull out and stop it or else he is a rapist

This isn't that fuckin' hard, dude. It's happened to me. You just go jack off in the bathroom and come back for cuddles. You're the one perpetuating a shitty view of men as uncontrollable animals when it comes to sex.

yet they generally don't condone those (conservative) practices that make people develop willpower (from religion to military service to discipline-oriented schools or spanking children)

They're actually quite anti-/r/atheism for its insane hatred of religion. And spanking kids doesn't "build willpower," it builds pain tolerance.

yet they are not compassionate with "shitlords" at all

We don't need to tolerate intolerance.

and it is intentional, they think if you remove people's "privilege" i.e. show them how underprivileged people feel it will make them more compassionate with the underprivileged people, which is OBVIOUSLY a huge crock of shit as every normal person will react with pure rage and hate if his privilege is removed and will fight twice as hard to get it back, so it actually makes people even LESS compassionate.

Funny, it definitely worked on me.

[+][deleted] -12 points-11 points-10 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

And? Appeal to popularity doesn't mean anything if it's morally wrong. Lots of shit is common but also terrible.

The point is if people do a common wrong it is not right to be mad on them because they were just following social standards. When people do common wrongs other people must accept that this is the status quo, and politely explain them why not.

This isn't that fuckin' hard, dude. It's happened to me. You just go jack off in the bathroom and come back for cuddles. You're the one perpetuating a shitty view of men as uncontrollable animals when it comes to sex.

Don't know, I was never a bodily type, and thus never liked body things like eating or sex much, but I think for normal, bodily men who do, and moreover see sex as the expression of their masculine power of taking and conquering and not just a pleasure thing, which is healthy view probably, it must be hard. I mean, historically, why is the sleeping next to naked virgins a famous and often celebrated demonstration of supreme chastity of a monk? There must be something hard about it if it was such a famous test.

Funny, it definitely worked on me.

Probably you have no nuts then. My basic instincts are this: ethics is about people asking me to use my power to good, I will try to do so. But when they are trying to take my power away, then I am not unashamed to say they are my sworn enemy, I will hate every piece of their guts, and will not rest until I hurt them a lot. Because this is the basic rule of how to handle men, never try to take away or question their power. This is why men developed complex rules of honor and respect, basically they are ways to ascertain each other that we respect each others domain of power, because when people question each others power the result is usually unrestrained violence.

[–]ANewMachine615 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

it is not right to be mad on them because they were just following social standards

Slavery, Jim Crow, India's caste system... totally normal social standards, not at all deserving of any outrage!

Or not.

see sex as the expression of their masculine power of taking and conquering. . .which is healthy view probably

Jesus fuck why would you think that is healthy!? So, so very rapey.

Probably you have no nuts then

Guy disagrees with me? Insult his masculinity!

/r/mensrights, where if you're not in lockstep, YOU'RE JUST A DAMNED WOMAN (but seriously guys we're not at all sexist)

ethics is about people asking me to use my power to good, I will try to do so.

Wat

But when they are trying to take my power away, then I am not unashamed to say they are my sworn enemy, I will hate every piece of their guts, and will not rest until I hurt them a lot.

SUPER WAT

Because this is the basic rule of how to handle men, never try to take away or question their power.

WAT WAT (IN THE BUTT)

[+][deleted] -12 points-11 points-10 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Slavery, Jim Crow, India's caste system... totally normal social standards, not at all deserving of any outrage! Or not.

Not deserving any outrage AT THAT TIME. (And later on there is little point.) In fact I think the caste system does not even deserve outrage now, it seems normal to me - why do you think everybody is an egalitarian liberal? I am a conservative, I have no problems with hierarchy. Why should I? At any rate: if anyone would have been outraging about back then, everybody would have thought they are idiots. Seriously, why isn't it obvious that anyone who has a minority opinion must have the patience to explain them politely, and it is the majority who can afford to be impatient? What good would it do to anyone to piss people off if he lacks the power (numbers) to force them to swallow his unpopular opinion? If you don't have the power to coerce, play nice. Isn't it totally self-evident somehow?

Jesus fuck why would you think that is healthy!? So, so very rapey.

I don't even understand why are you asking it. Because the male life is about dominance-seeking, period. Take for example any random computer game like Medieval - Total War 2 and see how many aspects of it are about dominance. Pretty much all. Or much of history.

/r/mensrights, where if you're not in lockstep, YOU'RE JUST A DAMNED WOMAN (but seriously guys we're not at all sexist)

I am not from mensrights, I just got here from the front page. I am more conservative than them, they are egalitarians while I condone power-seeking and inequality-seeking as a normal behavior because of history.

Wat

What wat? Since when is "wat" an argument? It is just an immature way to signal surprise.

[–]ANewMachine615 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -7 points-6 points-5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ANewMachine615 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Human beings like to persecute. They like having a scapegoat that they can berate, abuse, and blame with no compassion. The world is gray, but life would be so much easier in black and white. It's a lot simpler to have a party to blame everything on, and be backed up by a philosophy that allows you to do so without considering the fact that there's more to life than "we're good and they're bad." SRS has ridiculous expectations because it gives them more people to hate. I honestly don't think these people even realize this, they think they're doing good.

Does anything constructive come out of SRS? Do they discuss any real world methods for making people accept their philosophy? Do people from SRS try to help "shitlords"? Fuck no. They revel in their hatred.

Call this a stretch but to me it isn't much different from racism. It's just easier to justify.

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alytia -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm someone who attempts to be logical, rational and polite when disagreeing with other people's views on Reddit. I don't always succeed, but I make a lot of effortposts. It takes time, thought and a lot of energy to do this.

I can count the number of rational, thoughtful replies I've gotten on one hand. How many people have I persuaded to think a little bit more about what they do? I don't know. None, probably. What I do is exhausting, ignored, and feels incredibly futile. I'm not an srs-er, but I feel like they've done more than I ever could to bring awareness and discussion to issues that I care about. I used to say that I disagreed with their methods, but now I'm not so sure.

(This is taking your statement about the minority needing to be meek and polite about their issues at face value. But really, that doesn't make sense either. How many protest and civil rights groups have succeeded with that tactic? If it came down to bring ignored, or making people angry and generating awareness, I know which choice I would prefer.)

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

But really, that doesn't make sense either. How many protest and civil rights groups have succeeded with that tactic? If it came down to bring ignored, or making people angry and generating awareness, I know which choice I would prefer.

Wait, this is actually I gave a lot of thought too! In 1:1 life say high school, you are a weak guy or alone and no matter how right you are if you are going to be mad at the strong guy or the majority you get your ass beaten. So how comes protests and demonstrations that are quite angry and disrespectful are actually succesful? Or if not why do people do it? I was actually meaning to ask /r/askhistorians sometime these days because it never made sense to me and I am really curious. I would never give anything to people who are disrespecting me and certainly would not be compassionate with anyone who is not playing nice. Why would I? And apparently do others, and if yes why?

I have come up with 3 explanations:

1) In todays society violence is frowned upon. It would have been easy to end such demos with a few fusillades or two hundred guys armed with clubs beating the crap out of everyone, but this would be unpopular today. When and if violence is frowned upon, that empowers aggressive speech in a certain way. Basically if someone is repeatedly in your face and yelling at you and you absolutely cannot end the problem with a nice punch in the nose, and he is just wearing your nerves down, you often surrender, because really you just want to live your life in calmness and tranquility. You don't want your nerves wrecked. This is of course very unfair, and probably unstable, I think we will see a culture of violence coming back because at some level people will realize that their non-violence is being abused.

2) It could be that a lot of people were already two-minded and kind of guilty about that specific thing. It would not have moved someone who proudly says I have my privileges, you don't, and I like it this way. But maybe it moves someone who is a bleeding heart and just tries to convince himself there is no problem at all, out of laziness. This kind of person is perhaps moved when people yell loud enough that they have a problem.

3) Maybe they were not so succesful, maybe we just see a correlation, not a cause. Maybe there is thing X that both causes such social changes and causes both the protests, but it is not the protests that cause the changes. For example such a thing could be a change in the zeitgeist.

[–]Alytia 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Pardon me for not replying, but your world view is so utterly different from my own that it feels futile to argue with you.

You seem to think that the only way civil change should be enacted should be through the under privileged meekly asking the powerful for justice. This... doesn't work. At all. At best you'll be mocked, and at worst you'll be completely ignored. Does that mean when inequality is rife, people should just accept it? That's unacceptable to many of us, both on a day to day scale, and on our moral conscience (which you seem to lack/think is weak.)

I think that when people display a little empathy and put themselves into another's shoes, they understand how intolerable life can be. Most people have some sense of altruism, and feel sympathy for those who experience hardship.

I also think that when a minority gets desperate enough to lose everything in defence of their cause, you'll find that they have power over a majority who are too comfortable and apathetic to do anything to change.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I think it is worthvile to discuss radically different worldviews because it makes both of us understand how our political opponents "tick".

First of all I think the first law of right-wing thinking or at least mine is that power inequality does NOT mean injustice. Injustice is using power wrongly, in selfish and wrong ways etc. For example a king is unjust if he makes unjust laws. Just being king in and of itself i.e. enjoying power inequality is not unjust. You could call it socially not useful, and stuff like that, you can make utilitarian arguments for the dispersion of power, but not a moral wrong. (Of course, then again, in the right-wing logic, or at least mine, you cannot fully reduce morality to social utility, because it would lead to absurdity. I have a good argument for that, I call it the karate master argument. Interested?)

So basically, the idea over here is never reduce power inequality to using that power inequality in a self-serving, oppressive, cruel and brutal way. (Strange how we conservatives are supposed to have a more pessimistic view of human nature, yet in such discussion it is the opposite. My view is that there are always good people who care about using their power good. Apparently your view is that everybody who has power will ruthlessly exploit it.)

So this is where the empathy argument fails. Yes, we can see others people's suffering and want to stop it, but we want to stop it by using our power in a right way, and not by giving it up.

The second problem is that empathy has prerequisites. For example fear or moral anger generally works against it. Generally speaking if someone wants to take away my power, he immediately loses all rights to compassion for these reasons. Given that having power in itself is not wrong, everybody who wants to take it away is pretty much openly an enemy, right?

A third component is respect and so on. There are ages-old ways how to invoke pity in others. Even small children know how to do it, by what behavior. Hell, even dogs know. It is probably biological I guess. Calling people names and being mad at them and pissing them off how is that supposed to invoke pity?

[–]Godspiral -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]FredFnord 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]blow_hard 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]thelordofcheese -14 points-13 points-12 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zebba_Odirnapal -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Sappow 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tomatoh -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Bit late to this post, but I'd just like to point out what a poor job you did at describing SRS in an objective manner. It couldn't have been more obvious prior to the last few paragraphs that you were an SRS supporter.

Do you actually go to SRS? How can you not see what a hateful community it is? How have you not noticed that they wildly exaggerate constantly and are desperate to be offended? How have you not noticed SRS members goading on members of subreddits they don't like to commit suicide (said person did end up committing suicide)? How have you not noticed that in their attempt to create a 'safe space' they've created a hateful echo chamber that treats the words 'cis' and 'white' as slurs, utterly disregards the possibility that men face any issues at all, claim to speak for minorities when they overwhelmingly comprise of the opposite and so on? Even gay people aren't immune to their bigotry. And before you try and claim that this is just some random person, that is a popular moderator in the SRS subreddits - care to guess how many comments such as this that seriously advocate bigotry cause people to get banned? Yeah, not many. Meanwhile, even the most innocuous comment from someone who disagrees with them (even on their 'serious' subreddits like SRSdiscussion) results in a ban (I say ban, I mean BENNED with large images of pink dildos or penises, again showing their maturity).

SRS is an echo chamber that masquerades as a serious subreddit (good subreddit, by the way, which SRSers recently took over and tried to destroy, naturally, as that is the kind of mature things SRSers do. Try /r/srssucks for the replacement if you ever get sick of the crying penises and dildo spam on SRS) whilst acting in the most vile, bigoted and juvenile (seriously, dildos are so funny am I right?!) way possible. This was a pretty good thread where people shared their experiences, but when you inevitably claim that everyone there is lying, I'll be more than happy to find more examples for you.

How is SRS a good thing? Certainly not for the people it claims to represent, who they make look like absolute morons. Certainly not when it silences any attempt to have a reasonable discussion instead of a mindless, counter-productive circlejerk. Certainly not when it responds to issues of custody inequality and prison rape with 'LOL MISANDRY DONT REAL.' Certainly not when it downplays any issues anyone that doesn't belong to their very strict definition of underprivileged has. Certainly not when it causes suicides. Certainly not when it calls any minorities who speak out against it 'uncle toms' or other horrible terms. Certainly not ever.

I don't understand how someone like you who otherwise seems like an intelligent and reasonable human being can have anything but disgust for a place like that.

[+]Dwayne_Jason -12 points-11 points-10 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FlamingBearAttack 24 points25 points26 points 13 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

ShitRedditSays. They're somewhat controversial on reddit. They satirise and mock things people say on reddit.

Recently they had a campaign to draw media attention to CreepShots, a subreddit dedicated to voyeurism, some of the images there were of underage girls, some were photos a teacher had taken of his pupils. The subreddit gathered a great deal of media attention and someone took it upon themselves to expose the people behind CreepShots and the people who submitted to the sub. This culminated in Gawker writing an expose of Michael Brutsch, the man who was behind a subreddit dedicated to sexualising children and child porn.

Some people say that SRS are responsible for doxxing these users, or that are guilty linking to Gawker and Jezebel articles which expose the people behind the voyeurism subreddit.

[–]ThrowAway233223 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]blow_hard 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThrowAway233223 -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]blow_hard 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]zacistan -14 points-13 points-12 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]753861429-951843627 -17 points-16 points-15 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]FlamingBearAttack 23 points24 points25 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]753861429-951843627 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]alpalpharrell 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]753861429-951843627 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]alpalpharrell 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]753861429-951843627 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

No, that is not what we mean when we say porn, and for good reason. Let me illustrate by example, because your argument is not all that good:

within the context erected by jailbait, everything would be porn under your argument, provided somebody sexualises it. If a fetishist projects eroticism onto shoes, pictures of shoes are now porn. The Mona Lisa is porn. The picture I have of my partner in a heavy coat? Porn.
under an interpretation more charitable to your argument, where "group sexualisation" defines porn, the shoes can still be porn.
even more charitably, requirung a human subject, and "community sexualisation" (as a restriction on the "groups" so that they aren't arbitrary, but explicitly formed around the sexualisation), a completely innocent picture of, say, Tina Fey, is porn, because there sure as hell is a community of people who get stiff or moist whilst showing each other pictures of her, possibly even on reddit.
even more charitable: Let's say you mean what you didn't write, and porn is defined as media which is made with the purpose of sexualisation, and everything else granted to your fucking non-thought is still in place. Well, jailbait is mostly off the hook now, but we are finally getting away from a "somebody wanks to it, it's porn" argument.

So to make your definition even work a bit in the wider context or the (un-)acceptability of jailbait or VA, you'd need to dismantle it until it says the opposite of what it used to say. Well done.

[–]alpalpharrell 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]753861429-9518436271 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]alpalpharrell2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]753861429-9518436271 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lcefcn 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThrowAway233223 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]takebackreddit[S] -14 points-13 points-12 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HardCoreModerate 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I am absolutely fascinated by the ongoing debate concerning the violentacrez issue as well as seemingly all of reddit verses r/shitredditsays.

I am seeking two people to debate the issue on a podcast (hosted on urbannerd.com). You can be anonymous, you can disguise your voice, you can call in from a blocked number. It doesn’t even have to be you, if you have a person in mind who you think might discuss the issue well.

I just want someone from each side to discuss the issue for 30 minutes directly. Let’s bring this issue out into the open, I want to hear both cases and have them explained more clearly to those of us who are more “casual” redditors.

I have had elected state representatives on my podcast, congressional candidates, even the president of the American league of lobbyists. How hard can it be to get 2 redditors on the show to discuss this issue? ;)

PM me if you are interested

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]HardCoreModerate 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]HardCoreModerate 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I understand that you want a debate, but debates need two opposing viewpoints. There are two topics here, and let me summarize how the debates would go:

DEBATE THE FIRST SRS: I think it's pretty lol that Violentacrez got doxxed MR: It was inappropriate of him to get doxxed SRS: Inappropriate perhaps but it's foolish to imagine that any internet identity you keep for any significant length of time will nto eventually be linked back to your identity. MR: But it's wrong SRS: But it's funny. And he kinda deserves what he gets.

Conclusion: Nobody here is disagreeing.

Debate The Second MR: I think mods should block Gawker from their subreddits because they outed Violentacrez. SRS: Sounds like censorship to me. MR: It is censorship. But they deserve it because they reported something we don't like. SRS: You guys really like to censor things you don't like. MR: But it's wrong to doxx people. SRS: More wrong than posting pictures of women without their consent? MR: THAT'S NOT WRONG! SRS: lol.

And on the second topic both are so self-assured they won't debate. Is that what you want to see? It can probably be arranged, but it's just going to be two horrible circlejerks. Then again, people watch the presidential debates, so I guess I see your point.

[–]HardCoreModerate 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]taguo 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]HardCoreModerate 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ftardontherun 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArchangelleMystery 19 points20 points21 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 35 points36 points37 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]takebackreddit[S] -33 points-32 points-31 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]InnerPartisan 74 points75 points76 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 28 points29 points30 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Manzboobz 13 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Gotta admit, the chickbeards have a good sense of humor.

[+]drinkthebleach -26 points-25 points-24 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]blow_hard 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]drinkthebleach 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]takebackreddit[S] -20 points-19 points-18 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kuhrazy 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rightsbot -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peil -5 points-4 points-3 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peil -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peil -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peil 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peil 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

he doesn't lurk, he's pretty active. he starts out friendly enough but i can sort of detect something is awry when i read what he says even if there's no sexual connotations. then he starts private-messaging the girl and asks about her, innocent questions then it's like "have you got skype? i want to talk to you outside of kongregate". as i don't have skype i'll have to guess what happens next. he'll lead on two or three girls at once for a few days calling them "princess" and slowly starts asking for nude. he wants to take it outside of kongregate so he can't get in trouble with admin. if the girl does not have skype he pressures them to make one of give him a yahoo email address and if you don't go along with it he'll straight out want nudes and start telling you something's wrong with you for not complying.

[–]Peil1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wild-tangent 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I think it's both good and bad.

They say they stand for good/shutting down privilege. But on the other hand, I feel that their goal is to shout down opinions that run contrary to their own, to bury them so nobody can see those opinions. Similar to Online Persona Management that was a major scandal with HBGary a couple years ago, SRS aims to shut down opinions that are not in line with their own, hiding them from easy view (most people don't scroll past four or five responses to a thread) that they disagree with or think is fucked up.

As for why it's banned from /r/mensrights and vice versa...well, the two are diametrically opposed, but not in ways one might expect. They hate male privilege. They see all men as privileged. It's entirely possible that yes, men are, but SRS uses that as an excuse deny that there are any issues facing men. To them, men being raped in prison = "lol". Domestic violence against men? Same reaction. Exclusion from certain events? Workplace death rates? Suicide rates? Life expectancy? Men's reproductive rights/need for a sexual revolution? I'm sure you're getting the idea here. They don't take MRA's chief concerns seriously, and those topics are of serious concern to MRA's.

This is part of the reason why MensRights is banned from SRS is that they largely don't care about issues facing men. Yes, a cornerstone of the movement is political incorrectness.

The instructional aspect of which is this: when we became openly contemptuous of Feminism and PC-think, this meteoric rise began. There's valuable insight to be gleaned there, I'm just sayin'.

This not only doesn't help the kneejerk/reactionary image, but more to the point makes SRS even more hostile to MensRights. Mensrights has a persecution complex that SRS delights in poking at. SRS enjoys removing any privilege they perceive you to have. Unfortunately, they don't check their own at the door.

One problem I have with this is that the answer to never having had privilege isn't to deny it to others and only enjoy it for yourself while simultaneously pretending you're taking the high road in a discussion. Frankly, I think it's time SRS acknowledged that it's not the '60s anymore, and that a re-assessment of the present standing between genders needs to be carried out, using the 2010 Census Data. Women, especially younger women, now have some privilege that isn't handed to them by the patriarchy in a demeaning fashion.

Maybe they'll look at this data and the statistics that concern men, and find that yes, there are things that need addressing, but each gender has a grievance against the other, and they aren't all just reactionary. Then again, maybe my closet is a gateway to Narnia and we'll all take it to the promised land where marshmellows sing as you roast them. But I severely doubt it. At this point, they're so dogmatic that you can't even approach with a new idea or suggestion that runs against the grain. Hell, I've posted submissions at mensrights that said to support Obamacare even though it had women's medical programs and none for men, because it would bring down premiums as a total (women's are higher), and that they weren't "just women," but our wives, daughters, sisters, cousins, aunts, mothers and grandmothers. And you fellows were receptive to the idea. For posting something about men being raped in prison on an alt account at SRS, I got banned.

Now, as for why I think SRS could stand to be banned by Reddit from a logical perspective. It has nothing to do with their policies regarding women/men, or the doxxing of VA. I don't support or deny that SRS should be banned at present.

Operation Panda is probably the most legitimate reason to ban SRS, however. Reddit is a company. Making a place infamous (as they are deliberately doing) hurts ad revenue. 4Chan has struggled for years to be profitable because of how hesitant advertisers were to put ads on 4chan due to its notoriety. I do not want to see Reddit in financial trouble. I also do not want to see users uploading CP to controversial boards for the express purposes of having that board be banned. /r/morbidreality was listed as a CP thread. A news outlet that's as sensationalist as Jezebel/Gawker will not hesitate to write down as such without doing real journalism. (Morbidreality is not a CP site.) My point is, this has the capacity to really hurt reddit. I saw this on a tumblr associated with Project Panda. Curious, I explored the remaining links. Three were satire (one about "kids" was goats). Two weren't real links ("not found"). The rest were banned, with one exception. I found one still active. Apparently the reason as to why most of the Creepshots clones went down is not because users were violating TOS, but because SRS was posting CP (of the 4chan type. I'm talking caged naked toddlers, links to films of 8 year olds, etc., some really sick shit) and then reporting it. This apparently started only after Project Panda was put live. The surviving subreddit had an announcement stating that only moderator-approved content would be visible, as he was flagging the SRS-uploaded content and not allowing it to be seen.

Now, my question is, what if the same happened to /r/morbidreality? That's one of my favorite subreddits. It has nothing to do with Child Pornography.

[–]Foxtrot53 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Slack_Irritant -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]takebackreddit[S] -10 points-9 points-8 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]blow_hard 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Anonazon2 -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rainymood_XI -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]phattsao -6 points-5 points-4 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]phattsao -7 points-6 points-5 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]phattsao -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]phattsao -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Please_Pass_The_Milk 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link