RE: Anti-lads’ mags – and anti-people

RE: Anti-lads’ mags – and anti-people (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Anti-lads’ mags – and anti-people (8/30/2013 1:07:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: naughtynick81 quote: One? How many do you want? Come on, give me a number. How about at least more than one example at this modern age where it's classed as "humorous" to kick a woman up the vulva or damage her vulva one way or the other in mainstream media entertainment? Tosh.0 has a whole series on "cooter kicks" http://www.liebtag.org/2010/03/11/cooter-kicks/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJnxWeqaUDk Comedy Central http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/vstijx/stand-up-mike-destefano--vagina-punch Even video games http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNB414gNVFM http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/iq4o3x/vagina-punch--------

tazzygirl -> RE: Anti-lads’ mags – and anti-people (8/30/2013 1:08:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl One? How many do you want? Come on, give me a number. Bwahahahahahha... and the jaws of the trap close. Aww.. you know me so well [;)]

naughtynick81 -> RE: Anti-lads’ mags – and anti-people (8/30/2013 2:02:07 AM)
So now tazzy is resorting to: 1. Bloopers 2. A pussy punch which wasn't intended to hurt at all, it was a very slight tap. If it was a hard and purposeful mean to hurt, it wouldn't be classed as funny. 3. Some random comedian making jokes about pussy without actually doing the action. 4. Video games where the characters randomly punch any opponent regardless of gender as a fatality. Sorry to say, but this is a very poor and laughable stance compared to INTENTIONAL gendered violence against another. Not to mention, even when this intentional gendered violence happens in real life. It seems that tazzy is desperately scraping at anything but failing to compare actual intentional gendered violence of one gender torturing the other's genitals while it being classed humorous when a woman is the victim.

JeffBC -> RE: Anti-lads’ mags – and anti-people (8/30/2013 2:18:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Aww.. you know me so well [;)] I was kind of hoping he'd say something like "234". Then I could time you in how long it took :)

naughtynick81 -> RE: Anti-lads’ mags – and anti-people (8/30/2013 2:21:00 AM)
quote: I was kind of hoping he'd say something like "234". Then I could time you in how long it took :) I don't prioritise my replies over other things in my life. I had other things to do before I got to the reply. Me getting a subway is more important compared to my next reply.

Lucylastic -> RE: Anti-lads’ mags – and anti-people (8/30/2013 2:33:21 AM)
I noticed you conveniently didnt comment on the radio show host about shooting hilary clinton in the vagina. Why is that??? you also missed Rush Limbaugh proposing abortions should come with a gun?

naughtynick81 -> RE: Anti-lads’ mags – and anti-people (8/30/2013 2:42:00 AM)
quote: I noticed you conveniently didnt comment on the radio show host about shooting hilary clinton in the vagina. Why is that??? you also missed Rush Limbaugh proposing abortions should come with a gun? How acceptable is that to western society compared to the genders being switched? When it happens one way, the way you expressed, nearly everyone would not find humour in it whatsoever, it would be considered as misogyny, no excuses. When it happens to men, many people everywhere are full of excuses. It's only a joke, stop hating blah blah blah. Just like the video I linked in the other thread. When will people finally admit that there is a whopper sexist double standard going on? Is it that people fear that the female victim status will get threatened?

naughtynick81 -> RE: Anti-lads’ mags – and anti-people (8/30/2013 2:45:05 AM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JA4EPRbWhQ Gotta laugh at the idiotic excuses people make to give the double standards a pass.

JeffBC -> RE: Anti-lads’ mags – and anti-people (8/30/2013 2:48:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I noticed you conveniently didnt comment on the radio show host about shooting hilary clinton in the vagina. This, I suspect, is why I struggle with Nick even though I agree with him. I see many of the same issues he does. I think they are important. Women who blow them off lose my respect pretty much instantly. But I also understand the other side of the coin and I understand that globally women are still WAY worse off and in the US they are still worse off in a bewildering number of areas. Nowadays I'm a humanist not a feminist because I prefer to treat the whole problem.

tweakabelle -> RE: Anti-lads’ mags – and anti-people (8/30/2013 2:53:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: naughtynick81 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JA4EPRbWhQ Gotta laugh at the idiotic excuses people make to give the double standards a pass. naughtynick81, you are the beneficiary of double standards here. Usually most people ignore the kind of infantile gibberish that you continually post here, no matter who posts it or why. But they seem to make an exception in your case, and reply, trying to make you see some kind of sense. A thankless fruitless endeavour I might add. I've always found it a good idea not to bite the hands that feed you.

naughtynick81 -> RE: Anti-lads’ mags – and anti-people (8/30/2013 2:56:15 AM)
quote: This, I suspect, is why I struggle with Nick even though I agree with him. There is a major difference between shock jocks doing their thing than it is for people considered normal in society to do the same against men and having a wide socially acceptable audience to make excuses for it. The examples she gave, this would make these people a social outcast. It is well known that people like rush are widely hated and are simply social outcasts to america, even that he earns money in making outrageous opinions. On the other hand, that TV show I cited about women joking about a man's penis being cut off, the people involved in this will never ever be socially punished as for being considered a sexist social outcast forever and ever. The show where it was done still runs alive and well in mainstream TV channels.

naughtynick81 -> RE: Anti-lads’ mags – and anti-people (8/30/2013 2:59:25 AM)
quote: naughtynick81, you are the beneficiary of double standards here. Usually most people ignore the kind of infantile gibberish that you continually post here, no matter who posts it or why. But they seem to make an exception in your case, and reply, trying to make you see some kind of sense. A thankless fruitless endeavour I might add. I've always found it a good idea not to bite the hands that feed you. But yet, you post all of this without a challenge to my claims. What an irrelevant piece of garbage your post is in this thread. People who keep harping on about me being wrong and yet not refuting and proving I am wrong shows that they have a weak existence to this discussion.

Lucylastic -> RE: Anti-lads’ mags – and anti-people (8/30/2013 3:08:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: naughtynick81 quote: I noticed you conveniently didnt comment on the radio show host about shooting hilary clinton in the vagina. Why is that??? you also missed Rush Limbaugh proposing abortions should come with a gun? How acceptable is that to western society compared to the genders being switched? When it happens one way, the way you expressed, nearly everyone would not find humour in it whatsoever, it would be considered as misogyny, no excuses. When it happens to men, many people everywhere are full of excuses. It's only a joke, stop hating blah blah blah. Just like the video I linked in the other thread. When will people finally admit that there is a whopper sexist double standard going on? Is it that people fear that the female victim status will get threatened? and yet you ignored it as an example of men harming a womans vagina. and these men got their laughs and chuckles from plenty of men. I didnt make a joke of the video, I didnt laugh and think it was funny... actually I dont believe anyone did you...ONLY your posts, were the butt of the comments. Lots of men, who I respect a great deal made comments, yet only YOU are arguing for yourself. not anyone else... Ive read some of these "lads" magazines they are amusing in many ways. they appeal to baser instincts, like sex being dirty still, taboo, daring, I grew up reading porn, I sell sex toys, I have more porn on my computer than most people, Ive worked with victims of violence and rape, MALE and female, three of the men in my family have personally been harmed by DV by females. Im active in many things, oh and Im a feminist, who believes in equality....not supremacy, or all men are violent rapey pigs. Im a sadist...but not violent, I believe in consent..... Try being an activist where it matters, make a difference, but doing it here, is about as useful as a chocolate fireguard. if you think she is a misandrist, fine. there are many out there, have you commented on her you tube page??? why not?

Lucylastic -> RE: Anti-lads’ mags – and anti-people (8/30/2013 3:19:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: naughtynick81 quote: This, I suspect, is why I struggle with Nick even though I agree with him. There is a major difference between shock jocks doing their thing than it is for people considered normal in society to do the same against men and having a wide socially acceptable audience to make excuses for it. The examples she gave, this would make these people a social outcast. It is well known that people like rush are widely hated and are simply social outcasts to america, even that he earns money in making outrageous opinions. On the other hand, that TV show I cited about women joking about a man's penis being cut off, the people involved in this will never ever be socially punished as for being considered a sexist social outcast forever and ever. The show where it was done still runs alive and well in mainstream TV channels. how many views do you think that chick got about her video, I bet half of them were from your post * i bet she is grateful* ... Rush and Sartelli reached hundreds of thousands if not millions, yet you pass it off as if its nothing, LMFAO which has the greater outreach...Their faithful listeners dont think they are social outcasts... you havent proven anything, youve been refuted in almost every post, yet simply because you cant see the similarities you refuse its you that has the problem. It really is like poking yourself in the eye with a fork because you have a eyelash dangling. SO im done with your sad lil attempts, you have no interest in doing anything but whinge.

Politesub53 -> RE: Anti-lads’ mags – and anti-people (8/30/2013 3:24:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsMJAY I was going to say "well shoot, its just a magazine," Considering the song`s lyrics "Well shoot" made my day. [8D]

naughtynick81 -> RE: Anti-lads’ mags – and anti-people (8/30/2013 3:28:47 AM)
Lucylastic Can you give a clear citation to Rush's speech on this?

naughtynick81 -> RE: Anti-lads’ mags – and anti-people (8/30/2013 3:30:39 AM)
quote: I noticed you conveniently didnt comment on the radio show host about shooting hilary clinton in the vagina. Why is that??? And this one

JeffBC -> RE: Anti-lads’ mags – and anti-people (8/30/2013 3:31:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Usually most people ignore the kind of infantile gibberish that you continually post here, no matter who posts it or why. But they seem to make an exception in your case, and reply, trying to make you see some kind of sense. A thankless fruitless endeavour I might add. For me, I give him more latitude than I would anyone else only because I DO think the issues are important... important enough to try to add my own voice to them but in a hopefully more rational way. But I can only tolerate so much and then he goes back on hide. Nick: No friend of mine would approve of that song.. male or female. Carol would be something near horrified by it. As I go through my entire mental inventory of female friends not a one of them would think that was anything other than ghastly or some similar word. Obviously I am well acquainted with women who also agree with you. I might have missed something but on this very thread I think it might have been me who was the most positive about it only because I classed it as art and censoring art is a truly bad idea in my mind. Did anyone give it higher approval than that? On these very boards and elsewhere I have listened to females talk about their concerns about their male sons growing up in this culture. So apparently some mothers are clued in also. Yeah, there's some work that needs to get done but you are hardly alone and many of the people who would want to be your allies are women. Look at the actual responses you are getting. Who here is your enemy? Let me clue you in here... the biggest enemy in this battle is men not women. The early history of feminism should tell you why that's so.

Lucylastic -> RE: Anti-lads’ mags – and anti-people (8/30/2013 3:37:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: naughtynick81 Lucylastic Can you give a clear citation to Rush's speech on this? why??? so you can make excuses for it? find it yourself google is your friend

naughtynick81 -> RE: Anti-lads’ mags – and anti-people (8/30/2013 3:39:12 AM)
You are the one who presented this from your words, you are the one who brought it up. so it's your job to cite it.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

5.078125E-02