Tenth: Your man is passionate about states’ rights. Racists and homophobes love states’ rights. Be afraid.It's unlikely that he knew that the Ninth Amendment was the "foundation" for Roe v. Wade, since of course the decision has no actual foundation in the Constitution. It was "penumbras" that were the alleged foundation, which is to say that the whole thing is built on shadows.
Ninth: Your man picked the foundation for Roe v. Wade. Good egg!
Eighth: No “cruel and unusual punishment” for your guy! It’s unlikely that he’d be cruel to strangers.
Seventh, Sixth, Fifth, or Fourth: He’s really into criminal justice but probably not a troll. Breathe a sigh of relief.
Third: If he picks an amendment this useless, you should just dump him anyway even if he’s not a troll.
Second: Run. Seriously, just run! Your man might not be an asshole to people on the Internet because he’s too busy being an open-carrying asshole in real life.
First: This could be a huge warning sign. Trolls cite the First Amendment as frequently as college application essays cite “The Road Not Taken.” They think that it gives them the right to verbally harass, stalk, and threaten whomever they want without any consequences. If your man picks the First Amendment, just ask him to explain what it means. If he thinks it means that “it’s a free country” and “people can say whatever they want,” tell him to go back to the playground he learned his politics from and find a new boyfriend.
Love the Bill of Rights? Hater.
It's good to know that young ladies are being taught to think critically about their precious Constitutional heritage.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
And if it is not satire, it is a useful tool-for the men.
Unintended consequences-it's something the Left never quite understood-and does not want to understand, because it implies there are considerations outside their ken.
For ones who seek to elevate themselves to god-like status, this is blasphemy- they have to know all, or their claim is forfeit.
The American Left has learned to satire in the manner of John Stewart: it allows them to forward a message they really mean, but then can laugh off really meaning if you call them on it. So, really, the piece is about what she takes to be a serious issue -- a woman married a man who turned out to be a Reddit troll, and how can we avoid this happening to us? -- and the commentary is at least as serious as not.
But call her on any part of it, and hey! It's just a joke.
And if it is not satire, it is a useful tool-for the men.
Indeed. The woman who believes this claptrap is unfit for a man.
Unintended consequences...it implies there are considerations outside their ken.
And
The American Left has learned to satire in the manner of John Stewart: it allows them to forward a message they really mean, but then can laugh off really meaning if you call them on it.
It's easily countered, though, with another of the Left's favorite tools: Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. Take them at their word, and hold them to it. "So. You're not really serious, then? Just what is your position on [...], then?" John Stewart tried that "I'm just a comic" schtick on The O'Reilly Factor back when I was still watching it, and even O'Reilly burned him with it.
Eric Hines
Well, I also think she's quite wrong in her basic assumption -- whether made for humor or not -- that the best way to assure you aren't going to marry someone who would troll girls on Reddit is to apply an ideological test that assures you they are liberal. My guess would be that close to 100% of the people she is worried about think of themselves as being on the left in terms of sex and gender issues. A generalized support "for women" is how they give themselves permission to be terrible to this particular woman -- just like Bill Clinton. Because he was a supporter in public of things like abortion and birth control, he could be thought of as a feminist President even though he was a serial sexual harasser, adulterer, and so forth.
The American Left has learned to satire in the manner of John Stewart: it allows them to forward a message they really mean, but then can laugh off really meaning if you call them on it.
Hmmm. Reminds me of those guys on the right who yammer on about how we'd be better off if women couldn't vote/if we abolished the 19th Amendment and then when they're called on it, say, "Lighten up.... I wasn't *serious*!" :p
Being passive-aggressive online is a well documented human failing hardly confined to those on the Left. It's just that we notice it more when the Left does it.
My guess would be that close to 100% of the people she is worried about think of themselves as being on the left in terms of sex and gender issues
Then why have I and most female bloggers I know run into this sort of thing so often? I don't frequent lefty sites, or reddit either (though I agree they can be full of vile people). The vast, vast majority of sites I read lean right. Guys like this have shown up at VC many times in the past, and the ideas they were spouting weren't at all progressive.
The linked article is insular and clearly written for people who share her world view, but literally every single day I see similar stuff from righty bloggers with the same kind of politicization of every day incidents. I agree she's a twit, but what mystifies me is the notion that there aren't tons of folks writing the same kind of dreck on the right?
From the comments:
"Allen [author of the linked article] was born male and raised in a Mormon household. In 2007, she left the church. Last year, she began transitioning, and started hormones in November 2012. She officially changed her name earlier this year. On Sept. 16, she reached the $8,000 Indiegogo goal for her sex reassignment surgery, which will take place in April 2014." (From The Daily Dot by Audra Schroeder on September 21, 2013)
Hoo boy. Not even sure where to start with this one...
Perhaps we'll just leave that where it is.
Maybe it's true that many men, in general, hate women and want to lash out at them. Maybe they often feel constrained from doing it in non-anonymous environments -- certainly there are strong social protections, especially from other men, against lashing out at women in public -- and relish the ability that the Internet provides to spew hate at people like the ones they've had to repress hating all their lives.
Such men are cowards, of course, and I care nothing for the opinion of cowards. They aren't welcome here. When they do show up here, I just erase their comments until they give up and go away.
Well, I also think she's quite wrong in her basic assumption....
Certainly. That makes it even easier to emphasize (perhaps not to her) the absurdity of her position simply by holding her to her words.
My guess would be that close to 100% of the people she is worried about think of themselves as being on the left in terms of sex and gender issues.
Yep. "What do you mean you won't have sex with me? Aren't you liberated?" And that actually fueled quite a number of rapes at Woodstock. Still does, I suspect, if not of the strictly legal variety, at least of the moral kind.
Eric Hines
Maybe it's true that many men, in general, hate women and want to lash out at them.
I suppose that's possible, but I'm inclined not to believe it. Or at least I hope that's not the case! Over the years, I've gotten the impression that some (I hope!) small subset of men feel rejected by women, and that makes them furiously angry and bitter.
The Internet presents them with an almost endless supply of sexually explicit images and content and encourages them to think people are having a lot more sex than they are IRL. I would imagine that doesn't make it easy to keep their unhappiness in perspective.
But that's just one theory - I don't claim to understand trolls.
Maybe they often feel constrained from doing it in non-anonymous environments -- certainly there are strong social protections, especially from other men, against lashing out at women in public -- and relish the ability that the Internet provides to spew hate at people like the ones they've had to repress hating all their lives.
Could be. Or maybe people in general just act badly when they can do so anonymously and men are more likely to push the aggression envelope (especially with people they think can be intimidated?).
I still come here precisely b/c you don't allow that sort of thing (as I don't). But I do see it elsewhere. It's especially prevalent in the PUA community. I used to try to read some of the better blogs to see if they had anything worth discussing, but the toxicity level was just too high.
Cass,
What is the "PUA community?"
"Pick Up Artists," a/k/a enthusiasts of the "Game" theory of dating. The ones who think that women secretly want to be mistreated.
If your boyfriend identifies "penumbras" as his favorite Amendment, watch out! He's a nuanced thinker who, if you ever try to pin him down on anything, will scurry into the brush like a small, frightened woodland creature.
I think I've said this before, but 'normal' guys who are in a 'normal relationship' generally aren't the sort of guys who either frequent PUA sites or those sites where they get to bitch about women.
They're much more likely to be off doing something normal, with their families.
Likewise with 'normal' women.
So generally what is left over are the malcontents. Who, thanks to the magic of the internet, can put their thoughts out there for any who are unlucky enough to come across them. Like the writer of that article. Like anyone is really going to take relationship advice from a transgendered individual who wasn't comfortable in their own skin.
Probably doesn't say anything good about any of us that we've actually spent time commenting on this.
I'm not sure I'd agree that it's 'not good' to be abnormal. So was Socrates. So was Beethoven.
On just how bad the ruling in Roe vs. Wade was both in philosophical as well as legal terms, I strongly recommendTen Universal Principles: A Brief Philosophy of the Life Issues by Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. PhD. If you know anyone who is willing to listen to an argument against abortion, handing them this book could be a great thing to do.
I think I've said this before, but 'normal' guys who are in a 'normal relationship' generally aren't the sort of guys who either frequent PUA sites or those sites where they get to bitch about women. They're much more likely to be off doing something normal, with their families.
I think that's a great point, Eric (and it's exactly what my husband says) :p
It's sort of what I assumed when I first ran across them, but then I noticed a lot of conservative bloggers linking to bizarre things they wrote, seemingly in approval/agreement, and I began to wonder what I was missing.
The Internet has a way of distorting the importance of things that are on the fringe. Just like the media distorts reality by relentlessly hyping things that happen rarely (or in some cases, never happened at all), the Internet amplifies the distortion. A few bloggers with a lot of traffic and an ax to grind can make it seem like something is a really big deal by hyping it 24/7.
I think the PUA thing got a lot of attention because it aligns with the backlash against feminism. With more exposure, the newness wore off and people started to see more of the whackjobbery :p
I actually ran into a post yesterday blaming Robin Williams' suicide on the unfair divorce customs in this country, the idea being that he was in despair over his financial situation because of an ex-wife.
You have to be pretty mad at an ex-wife to go there.
I had forgotten I'd written that post, even the story about HR Haggard! I'm glad you uncovered it.
:)
They won't be laughing at the power of Death. It's something above even the Left's theological mysteries.
H.Rider Haggard? I must go read-!
As a lad I spent many hours reading his adventure tales. Back when young boys were encouraged to read about hero's, villains, comeuppances,courage, etc., instead of the pap they smear on young brains today. No wonder kids don't want to read.. speaking of which, Jerry Pournelles wife Roberta just has re-published the California Reader from the early 1900's. Worth a look for those with kids around. The expected level of literacy was far advanced from what we think children capable of today.
That reader solved a mystery for me. As a kid I encountered a number of "Jason and the Argonauts" references in stuff left over from the previous generation, and none of it was helpful to me in understanding the story. I could only assume I was somehow supposed to know the story, but I'd never heard it told.
Years later I encountered a similar argument in Tolkien's The Monsters and the Critics, where he points out that the Beowulf must be a late part of a tradition. Why? Because the poet merely alludes to whole stories he expects you know. Tolkien used the same technique, to allude to stories that he didn't actually think you would know, to make his world seem very deep -- like it had a huge backstory that you just hadn't learned yet, as our world does.
As for H. Rider Haggard, I have the collected novels on a shelf about eight feet from me. :)
Post a Comment