Manosphere Civil War: AVFM fires back at the MGTOW rebels. Also, kitty pics.
Dude against dude. Not sure why the dogs are floating in midair.
Manosphere drama is always a bit surreal. You may recall my post the other day about the feud developing between two sites that are regular sources of material for us here at Man Boobz: MGTOWforums and A Voice for Men. As you may recall, the folks at MGTOWforums were working themselves into a lather because AVFM was committing the cardinal sin of allowing women – sorry, “cunts” – to post articles and comments. The horror!
Now AVFM has fired back. In a thread on AVFM’s relatively new forum, head cheese Paul Elam lashes out at the “MGTOW Forum Fuckwits,” declaring them a bunch of shit-stirring “piss ants” and announcing his plans to turn the AVFM forum into MGTOW central.
I see an opportunity here, This forum is very user friendly to MGTOW’s. MGTOW Forums is the largest one of its kind, but it is run by children. I will happily siphon off as many of the men they ban and shame for not measuring up to their cliquish little band of alpha wannabe’s as I can.
God knows [MGTOWforums admin] Nacho and his bootlickers run them off as quick as they come in.
AVfM is already a more traveled site than their forum, and as time passes the MGTOW presence here will eclipse their little circle jerk.
Speaking of circle jerks, here’s Paul, in an unrelated thread on his forum, banning a dude for having the temerity to suggest that “Reddit, not avoiceformen.com, is the most important online resource for Men’s Rights Activism.”
BANNED! Nothing must challenge the supremacy of PAUL ELAM!
Naturally, I found out about this by reading about it on MGTOWforums, where A Voice for Men is now being dismissed as — I kid you not — “A Vagina For Manginas.”
Still, the strangest development in this civil war is this: some MGTOWers who’ve been banned from AVFM’s forum have set up an alternative forum of their own, which they’ve rather confusingly named “AVFMforums.” Yes, that’s right, it’s a battle between the AVFM forums and … AVFMforums. How can you tell them apart? Well, when the latter group uses the acronym AVFM they mean “Alternate Voice for Men” rather than the original “A Voice for Men.” Also, the dudes at AVFMforums think that AVFM’s Elam is “a lying hippocrite [sic] with no credibility.”
If this is all a bit confusing, perhaps this brief video clip will help elucidate some of the issues here:
Also, for no particular reason, here are two new pictures of Sweetie Pie Jonus, one of my kittens:
Actually, the combatants in this latest mansophere civil war could learn a thing or two from my kittens. They fight, but always seem to end up licking each other’s heads. The kittens, that is. I’d love to see Paul Elam and his critics doing the same.
Posted on October 29, 2012, in a voice for men, antifeminism, are these guys 12 years old?, drama, drama kings, grandiosity, hypocrisy, internal debate, irony alert, kitties, men who should not ever be with women ever, MGTOW, misogyny, MRA, narcissism, no girls allowed, paul elam and tagged a voice for men, antifeminism, drama, hypocrisy, men's rights, mgtow, misogyny. Bookmark the permalink. 240 Comments.
“We all?”
Oh, you must be talking about
the Anglospherethe Manospherethe MRMa men’s rights forumsome angry guysthe other sad trolls who haven’t had the sense to leave.Also, when has a single one of us talked about libel? That’s pretty much y’all’s thing.
It could be Satan for all anyone cares, and we’ve gone over both the chair thing and the misandry thing ad nauseum.
Both are non-issues, unless you’re a raging halfwit.
whoa careful hellkell that sounds like libel right thurr
Raginghalfwitosphere …
http://static.tumblr.com/llk2gq8/AvWm9eeth/misandry2.gif
Could it be……..misandry?
Oh, no, not LIBEL!!! Next it’ll be slander, and then it will be CHAOS.
Tulgey - that’s double misandry! It’s pink and sparkly!
Oooooh, Tulgey. Sparkly blingy misandry, my favorite.
That’s it! I’m done. I give up. This has been a colossal waste of time from the start. Why I wasted so much time at a vile misandrist circlejerk I’ll never know. Bad luck to you, Boobzland.
- Steele
Steele, please stick the flounce. Pleasepleaseplease.
Could it be……..misandry?
Tulgey, even Ursula thinks misandry is bullshit.
You have just been watching another of Steele’s Flounces! Stay tuned for the next exciting episode!
Damn, does that mean I can’t argue that most chairs are actually MISOGYNY (gasp)? ‘Cos men have designed chairs for men by making them too high for most women. I have a choice - I can sit with my back nicely supported but my feet dangling (DVT time) or with my feet on the floor and me half reclining (hello, backache). I sneer at your paltry numb bums, MRM. Ha hah.
Happy Halloween, jackass!
Could it be……..misandry?
Could it be……..misandry?
Could it be……..misandry?
(I’m sorry. Steelebutt amuses me to no end.)
OMG, you can totally claim a word that has nothing to do with your movement in order to imply that it has a way broader reach than it actually does? This is a thing we’re doing.
OK. I rename feminism “humanity,” to reflect the goal that all humans will one day be feminists.
Tulgey, that My Dick Is A Block one is totally Steele.
AHA! So you admit that feminism should have been called humanism all along! This is a great day for men’s rights.
Meanwhile, in the future.
That’s no moon ….
…that’s MISANDRY!
Varpole: I don’t know why I keep posting here;
Because nowhere else does anyone pay attention to your incoherent ramblings, viz Anti-Manboobz.
Yet the chair issue is laughed at. Why is this?
Could it be…….. that calling is misandry is bullshit?
Who made the chairs?
Hard chair, hard chair, painful might,
In the classroom of the night
What immortal hand or eye, could frame thy fearful symmetry?
MISANDRY!
(with massive apology to Blake)
Does this count as misandry too?
Varpole: Elam informed me that Tom Martin was on the level – I was incorrect, in other words.
I see, you came to an opinion on Martin, based on what you saw him say… but Elam told you differently, and your opinion ceased to matter.
What a man of principle you are.
Well… That happened.
//i50.tinypic.com/5beiac.jpg
I am never, ever going to be able to read anything Steele writes again without picturing this.
Grr, broken link. Trying that again:
http://i50.tinypic.com/5beiac.jpg
“Yeah… the rights of people in those states to own slaves. They made a big deal of it in the months they spent campaigning for secession while Buchanan (the worst president in the history of the US) failed to do a damn thing to stop them.
And no, after the war there was no slavery allowed in the US. It was made part of the constitution, and everything.”
Between January 1, 1863 and December 18, 1865 it was still legal to own slaves. The popular tide had turned and yes, two of the three states had made it illegal in the meantime, but the idea that the war ended slavery is simply not true. What’s three years in the grand scheme of things? Not a whole lot. What was three years to the families held in captivity while everyone else around them were free because their side, which had gone so far as to allow blacks to serve in the military? A lot.
In 1902, a man by the name of Thaddeus Alonzo Benjamin Hunter died. In his will, he freed his slaves. The family had simply not told their slaves about the Civil War or the new laws. (http://www.landoverbaptist.org/thestaff/emeritus/hunter.html). He had broken the law, obviously, and what he was doing was very illegal, but it continued. In California, some slave owners didn’t give up their rights until 1872 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/2713792?seq=12). It’s also mentioned on the wikipedia article of the history of slavery in California, but it’s wikipedia. A baptist minister illegally owning slaves against the law is one thing, but Ulysses S. Grant didn’t free his slaves until the 13th Amendment passed in December 1865 and he absolutely, legally, had to. (http://www.rulen.com/myths/ and http://www.american-presidents.org/2007/02/grant-was-slave-owner.html) General Lee released his slaves in 1862. Delaware didn’t ratify the 13th amendment until they did it symbolically in 1901. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Delaware)
The emancipation proclamation was an incomplete document that did not end slavery. The last shots fired at Gettysburg did not end slavery. Slavery continued for two years after the war was over. The war was fought over the economic imbalance a slaver economy creates over a non-slave economy. While most of the people did eventually come around to the idea that owning people was wrong, it was not being able to leave the union once the disagreement over slavery had come to a head that caused the war.
I don’t want to muddy the water. It was a dark, horrible time and the casual racism of the era should turn anyone’s stomach. I recently watched a TED talk that said that the cost of slaves today ranges between approximately $4000 dollars in North America to $150 in Thailand and India. The cost of “freeing” someone (approximately $150 USD) isn’t the cost of purchasing them, but the cost of educating them to be able to support themselves in a trade. So much of today’s suffering wouldn’t be here today if people had wanted to actually end the environment that allowed one person to subjugated another.
Angela: And no, after the war there was no slavery allowed in the US. It was made part of the constitution, and everything.”
Show me where this is false.
Yes, it was not the split second Lee surrendered the Army of Virginia at Appomatox, then again the war didn’t end at that point either, so…
In 1902, a man by the name of Thaddeus Alonzo Benjamin Hunter died. In his will, he freed his slaves. The family had simply not told their slaves about the Civil War or the new laws.
Yep… didn’t tell them about the new laws, i.e. he was in violation of the law; because slavery was illegal. Your quotation and citation say that very thing.
In California, some slave owners didn’t give up their rights until 1872
No, in Calif. some slave owners didn’t start obeying the law. I have no “right” to keep slaves. In fact the US Constitution explicitly says I have no such right, just as the gov’t has no right to quarter troops without consent, nor to compell me to testify against myself.
You are using the word right as if it means, “something someone chooses to do”.
The emancipation proclamation was an incomplete document that did not end slavery. The last shots fired at Gettysburg did not end slavery. Slavery continued for two years after the war was over
Who here said the Emanicpation Proclomation ended slavery? Show your work.
Who said the Battle of Gettysburg ended slavery? Who said the moment the war ended so did slavery?
When do you think the war ended?
The general consensus for, “the end” is June 2nd 1865, when General Edmund Smith surrendered the Confederate Army of the West.
So 6th months after the war was over, a constitutional amendment was passed. That’s hella fast. It might even imply the cause for the amendment was something the nation thought worth, oh; I don’t know, fighting a war over.
But I never said the North went to war to free the slaves. Lincoln very plainly said that, if he could keep the Union together by keeping slavery legal, he would. What I said was the war was fought because of slavery, since the South thought it was that important.
This is the speech of the Vice-President of the Confederacy, speaking BEFORE THE WAR on 21 March 1861.
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it-when the “storm came and the wind blew, it fell.”
Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. [Applause.] This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It is so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North who still cling to these errors with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind; from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is, forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics: their conclusions are right if their premises are. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights, with the white man…. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the Northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery; that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle-a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of man. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds we should succeed, and that he and his associates in their crusade against our institutions would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as well as in physics and mechanics, I admitted, but told him it was he and those acting with him who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.
In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.
As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are, and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo-it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not therefore look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first Government ever instituted upon principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many Governments have been founded upon the principles of certain classes; but the classes thus enslaved, were of the same race, and in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. The negro by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, [note: A reference to Genesis, 9:20-27, which was used as a justification for slavery] is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite-then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is the best, not only for the superior but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances or to question them. For His own purposes He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made “one star to differ from another in glory.”
The great objects of humanity are best attained, when conformed to his laws and degrees [sic], in the formation of Governments as well as in all things else. Our Confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders “is become the chief stone of the corner” in our new edifice.
In their own words, slavery was the cornerstone, and they were, “fighting a war on principle” to maintain it. That’s what they said. There was a long campaign to cause the secession; because they are gonna take away our slaves!!!!!!.
I don’t want to muddy the water.
Then stop spouting nonsense.
I’ve showed my work. And you’re being deliberately insulting. You seem to think this is something I’ve come up, by myself, at the spur of the moment. I’ve shown all my documentation. Calling it nonsense (and your rant about nobody believing it) is untrue. What I’ve shown through all the links I’ve provided is that slavery was the hot-button problem that caused the splits between the states and the federal government. It could have been any issue that would have split the states in half. Yes, it was illegal, but those who continued owning slaves continued to do so. I can’t find the link now, but one of the people who owned slaves in California was a senator until 1870. He died, freeing his slaves in his will, but no one was going to tell a senator that maybe he shouldn’t be owning slaves.
You can look for the four or five comments that either insist that the emancipation proclamation freed all the slaves or that the war ended slavery. Neither statements are true. I’ve had to read up on a horrible, horrible subject for the past couple days and I’m so sick of it.
The one point you seem to have completely avoided though is why wasn’t anything done to give the freed people any ability to help themselves. What a noble sacrifice, sending a quarter of a million people off to die just to free the slaves, and yet pass laws that immediately back into a quasi-legal slavery. Men and women could still be legally beaten for not doing their work just like before. (see the Black Codes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Codes_(United_States) ) Passed in 1866, they reaffirm that just because people are no longer slaves, they’re not like, equal, or anything. They could be murdered for practically anything, and the chances of their murderers actually being convicted and sent to jail wouldn’t happen until the 20th Century. I’ve posted that link already. The Black Codes led to the Jim Crowe laws.
I get that slavery is the ultimate evil, and better to be free than a slave, but the racism of the day was still hell.
I’m getting the feeling that you haven’t read any of the links I’ve put up, but if you’re going to read a single post, read this one: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/26/1068168/-The-lie-about-when-slavery-ended
And then watch http://www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/watch/
I respect the opinion you hold. You obviously don’t respect mine, but please try. Whether you like it or not, it is a common opinion. I said nothing that was off the cuff. Good luck to you, I’m done here.