What?! Men’s Rights Redditor blames Newtown school shootings on Title IX
Over on Reddit, Men’s Rights subreddit regular 0bvious_Atheist has offered the most, well, inventive explanation for the Newtown school shootings I’ve seen thus far. Apparently channeling the old Man Boobz troll NWOslave, he argues that they were the result of … Title IX.
The only good news here is that this theory was too weird and opportunistic for even the Men’s Rights subreddit, and 0bvious_Atheist’s post got many more downvotes than upvotes.
Also, the 4Chan thing hasn’t been confirmed by any reputable media source. Here’s something from the not-exactly-100%-credible Daily Mail on it is definitely a fake.
Thanks to r/againstmensrights for pointing me to 0bvious_Atheist’s post.
Like this:
Posted on December 16, 2012, in antifeminism, crackpottery, men who should not ever be with women ever, MRA, oppressed men, reddit, whaaaaa? and tagged antifeminism, men's rights, MRA, newtown, newtown shooting, reddit. Bookmark the permalink. 241 Comments.
I’m failing to come up with a Latin (or Greek) suffix for the idea, but exclusionary monogamy?
The same usage, more or less, as in — 1-10 exclusive (not including 1 or 10) — monogamy not including anyone else?
Right. Maybe an opposite’s not quite right. There must be something out there that conveys “not serial or parallel” - if a TV series is a serial, what’s a standalone film?
Parallel monogamy would be interesting if a trifle difficult to organise!
Ooh, exclusionary’s getting warmer.
The serial thing reminds me of the (not) greatest joke of all time - just make up a long and boringish story about a cornflake, telling everyone it’s a joke, and when someone finally asks when the end will come, tell them there’s no end - it’s a cereal.
“Half of the old trolls seem to have disappeared since the election. ::smirks::”
Lol, I should’ve guessed as much.
lowquacks — a standalone film is um, a standalone…that’s the only term I’ve ever heard, but I might just have missed the term.
Exclusive monogamy?
A standalone film is one that hasn’t yet had an attempt to cash in with sequels or is, maybe, so bad it’s never going to … though that doesn’t usually stop ‘em.
The old standby ‘soulmate,’ in the romantic sense, is the only word I have that really describes the situation, but it doesn’t really convey the idea either. Hetero for one person and asexual for everyone else is what it is, but that’s not exactly pithy.
A cereal - argh!
“… – it’s a cereal.” — smh, had you actually tried using this joke, I’d have to send you to the corner of shame.
Other recent favourites:
Why’s it so hard to find painkillers in the Amazon jungle? Parrots eat ‘em all.
What’s the first step in the REAL Anarchists’ Cookbook? Mash the tate!
…I do not have good taste in jokes.
Go to the corner of shame. Go directly to the corner of shame. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
(Why does my keyboard not have a pounds sign? It isn’t real Monopoly unless it’s in pounds!)
Of course there’s always the cone of shame.
Or - even better - this cone of shame!
Don’t think I’ve ever seen Monopoly in pounds, actually. An odd LOTR one, but no pounds. I have experienced strip Monopoly, but that wasn’t an official variant.
“I have experienced strip Monopoly, but that wasn’t an official variant.”
I think my not-an-ex is going to wake up to that quote (I mean, if I’m going to be both slightly sleep deprived and slightly drunk, might as well have fun with it!)
kittehs’ — the Romney cone of shame is awesomesauce.
I’ve played Monopoly in Imperial credits — it was an Ep-p-p — an Episode Wuh — a Star Wars tie-in. From 1999.
Some people are more prone to socks than others.
The general rules I’ve noticed are:
1: Has something to prove.
2: Feels they are being denied the opportunity to speak.
2a: Is an outlier position, with little support.
If they are banned from speaking (directly, or indirectly) they may resort to a flat out sock.
If they are being isolated from a lack of support they may engage in secondary sock-puppeting (a la Torvus Butthorn).
So Owly, Meller, sunshinemary, et. al, aren’t likely to sock because they don’t feel the need. Owly and Meller thirive on being abused (Meller less than NWO), and the sunshinemary’s of the world make being the, “Truth-telling Outsider” their persona.
The last is the least likely to out and out sock, and they will be more likely to ask someone else to come in and lend support than to pull a Butthorn; since the inhabit other fora where their views are praised. They don’t need to “win” to get validation, merely to, “preach the good word”. They actually get more validation from being denied victory, since it allows the martyr complex,and the sense of persecution for, “the right” to reinforce itself.
No, he usually admits who he is. He’s egotistical; he wants people to know. Remember this?
Here’s another.
Al admitted up front he was a sock-puppet, and banned. It was sad. He was here because he was lonely. He wanted people to know it was him, so he could be part of the community again.
But that bridge was long burnt.
Yeah, if he can’t figure out that being a total shit is not a way to win friends, no wonder he’s lonely.
Hey Pecunium, have you looked over the ‘Latin word for something narrower than monogamy’ derail? Any thoughts, if so?
@ Argenti Aertheri
I hope you have good luck with the lamictal. My boyfriend is currently working up to an effective dose on it as well. He’s not bipolar, but I am and my experience was completely neutral. No help with moods, no side effects (at least none that were noticeable above the side effects of my other mere). I know someone who got the potentially lethal rash, though, so I know it can be terrifying. Most psych drugs make me suicidal, so I know at least a little how you feel. Good luck! I was lurking last time you were on, but it is good to have you back.
@pecunium
Good luck on your health stuff too.
Some Gal Not Bored At All — your timing is interesting, I just got back from the psych’s and they’re upping my dose because I seem to still be at sub-clinical levels. I am apparently out of the major SJS risk zone though, so that’s something. Good luck to you both. (And is there anything shorter that you’d like to be called? If not, I’ll just stick to copy-pasting to make sure I get it right)
@kitteh
How about soul-mated?
@ Argenti Aertheri
“Some Gal” is fine. And accurate.
Some Gal — kk, Argenti is fine for me btw (just please don’t call me AA)
@Kim - DING DING DING we have a winner!
Soul-mated works perfectly, esp. since Mr K is actually in Spirit.
::Oz high fives::
Unfortunately, it doesn’t lend itself to being an adjective.
That gives me the excuse to explain it in detail, though!
I love you. Just thought you should know.
Mousewife? Is that like in Beatrix Potter?
@Cassandra - awww. ::blushes::
@Katz - way too cute and smart to be like the Unthinking One!