8 Kinds of Assholes

Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by Asmodeus, Feb 22, 2015.


What kind of Asshole are you?

  1. Duh-Do

  2. Semantic Quo

  3. Saint or GTFO

  4. Accusing Victims of Faking It

  5. Nicer Detonator

  6. Feminazi vs. Boogeywoman

  7. Ignorance by Induction

  8. Equalist Equals Asshole

Multiple votes are allowed.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Something for us all to reference in the years ahead. Applies not just to feminism, but universally to debating.

    I do believe the answer is to NOT be insecure.

    I was a Number 4 at one time. My apologies, @Kooriryu

    #8. The Duh-DoS (open)
    The first and worst asshole technique for arguing against feminism is demanding proof of sexism every single time the subject is raised. It's a popular strategy because it pretends to be in good faith. New claims do require proof. But sexual inequality isn't a new claim. Sexual inequality is almost the entire history of our species. When nearly every social statistic in every country on the planet is evidence of the problem, people fighting it don't have to list them all to justify the discussion.

    A Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack is when multiple sources overload a target computer with requests to prevent it from getting anything done. The Duh-DoS is the organic equivalent, with multiple people asking duh-worthy questions. If the target answers, they're wasting their energy on someone with no intention of listening. If they don't answer, they're accused of admitting there's no real problem. No matter what they do they're at a disadvantage, which is exactly the problem they were fighting in the first place.

    It works on more infernal and shittier levels than a Malebolgian leak. It resets every discussion (imagine a basketball forum demanding that the concept of points be re-explained at the start of every thread). It automatically devalues the woman's experience, because her statement that she experienced sexism is invalidated by implication: She must provide external proof. It also elevates the questioner to the position of authority, the ultimate judge who must be satisfied before he'll deign to consider the problem. As opposed to an asshole rando begging for the block button.

    The solution? Screw them. Duh-DoSers try to claim the moral high ground by turning you into a human Google. But they don't win when they're ignored. If I stand in the street and start demanding that passersby prove gravity, I'm not a flying wizard when nobody can be bothered.

    #7. The Semantic Quo (open)
    As well as wasting your time, assholes want those specific lists so they can move on to their second front: wasting more of your time. They'll try to disprove your points with all the obsession and specificity of someone proving Green Lantern could totally beat Superman. But less connection to reality. They'll apply more minute attention to detail than the search for the Higgs boson, and act like their results have more massive effects on reality.

    These commenters are Kings of Polysyllabilogic (the art of proving a point with really long words they aren't actually using correctly). They write like Vulcans cheating at Scrabble. They try to sound like alien energy beings who've never even heard of these hu-man "testicles" but feel an altruistic compulsion to list impossible errors in anything threatening their scrotal sanctity. As if the desire for equal rights was a Star Trek computer malfunction that could be exploded if you convince it of one mistake.

    Sexism isn't a scientific proof: Someone can't unravel the whole thing by picking at one point. And unless they're a wizard they can't reshuffle syllables until reality changes. Sexism isn't "identifying that a gender exists," it's "unfair treatment of people because of that gender, especially women." It's such a universally understood problem it's in the dictionary. It doesn't matter how much someone obsesses over the exact phrasing of a Twitter rape threat: A thousand more have been posted since. The Semantic Quo is an extended waste of time. Because when someone's arguing semantics from the side of the status quo, wasting time is all they need to do.

    #6. Saint or GTFO (open)
    This imperfection attack is digging through someone's Internet history to see if they've ever said anything less than perfect. Because the only allowed options are immaculate saint or total asshole, and the antifeminists have the asshole side locked down. They're the Asshole Emperors, defending their rule by defecating over everything and everyone who's made the mistake of facing them. They'll extract something sort of stupid said several years ago, usually by ripping it more dangerously out of context than the core of an atomic warhead, and wave it around as if it was exactly that powerful.

    This attack assumes that only saints and particularly blessed Buddhas are deserving of even the most basic human rights or empathy. You'll see this attitude when women are sexually assaulted, when black men are murdered in broad daylight in front of cameras, and in all the other absolute worst things about our species.

    It also ignores the human ability to learn from mistakes and improve. In their defense, these guys don't seem to have that. In their offense, fuck those guys. Learning from our mistakes and improving is the entire point of feminism. And the species.

    #5. Accusing Victims of Faking It (open)
    Anyone denying the existence of sexism can go to any YouTube video with a woman in it, read the comments, and fuck off. Victim-accusation isn't an impartial quest for truth or "hearing both sides." It's piling extra pressure on the victim as standard operating procedure.

    While accusations of sexism apparently require a Supreme Court ruling as a cited source, accusations of faking sexism need no support whatsoever. "I'm just looking for proof," smiles the scumbag. "I'm just calling every woman a liar and acting like that's the unbiased course of action, instead of proof of the problem I'm denying, and if there was any justice in existence I would cease to do so."

    These magical conspiratorial women would have to be faking more electronic output than the Matrix. And that's a movie where they killed almost every major female character. Sometimes twice! Demonstrate a specific example of someone clearly receiving threats of sexual violence and they'll say, "Oh yeah, but she deserves it." Which means that all accusations are either false or deserved, or, in other words, there is no such thing as an attack on women that this asshole will not find justified. Which is the worst possible truth someone can have.

    #4. The Nicer Detonator (open)
    Assholes act as if anger in response to centuries of systematic oppression is equal to centuries of systematic oppression, and the two cancel out. "Maybe if you were nicer about asking," they say, and it's impossible to respond properly, because only comic characters can scream so loudly it ruptures their eardrums and pulps their skulls.

    "Maybe if you were nicer about the constant stream of poison you're subjected to, I'd consider not pissing into it." Someone being aggressive in reaction to sexist abuse isn't attacking anyone. Someone being aggressive in reaction to sexist abuse is reacting to sexist abuse. The tactic of getting women as mad as possible and then acting innocent was developed by studying 6-year-old boys. No, sorry, being 6-year-old boys.

    It's another way of reframing an urgent discussion of sexual equality as a patriarchal indulgence. "Asking nicely" is for a child who wants more ice cream: an inferior petitioner begging the favor of a stern authority figure for something they don't really need but think would be nice.

    The kicker is that deploying the nicer detonator is the best possible way to trigger an explosion of anger. A result the asshole uses to smugly prove to themselves who the real problem is, infuriatingly unaware of how they've truly done that.

    #3. Feminazi vs. Boogeywoman (open)
    "Feminazi" is a real timesaver, because someone saying that just freed you from listening to them ever again. It's such a specific strawman that it has its own name. But the term "feminazi" is far too evocative and powerful a phrase for this phantom. I suggest the term "boogeywoman," reducing the concept to the appropriate level of maturity and power.

    Those who fear the boogeywoman claim feminism is a crusade of man-hating assholes, instead of a struggle against a patriarchal system that damages men as well as women. But don't worry, there's a useful quick check to find out if someone's an asshole, and it works on both sides: Ask them how they feel about transgender people. That'll identify who truly cares about equality and who's just being an asshole real quick.

    Even if a woman is mean to you, boohoo. You can't dismiss an entire concept because one supporter is an asshole. If "one of them was a jerk" was reason enough to censor entire concepts, men would have become extinct long ago, along with every political and sociological concept ever conceived. I've met dickhead professors of quantum mechanics, but that doesn't mean my computer stops working.

    #2. Ignorance by Induction (open)
    "How can you be complaining about this when there are starving children in Africa? Starving children I'm doing less than nothing to help, because merely nothing would be ignoring them. But I'm specifically pointing out that I know about them to use them as underfed weapons against things I actually care about."

    I'm not saying you should punch people who use this tactic in the face, steal their wallet, and spend all the money on charity donations and sweet victory whiskey. Technically, they're saying that, since by their own argument nobody is allowed to complain about anything if they're not reincarnated into one of the worst situations on the planet.

    Nobody is allowed to complain about anything except the young and starving, and they're not allowed to complain about anything unless they're the youngest and most starving, all the way down to one tragic soul who can't help but notice that nobody's actually bloody doing anything about the situation. (If you want to do something, Kiva is a great way to do that.)

    #1. Equalist Equals Asshole (open)
    "I'm not a feminist, I'm an equalist." They're not an equalist, they're an asshole. This doesn't bring enlightened impartiality to the problem, it smugly pretends to bring enlightened superiority to the problem while implying that silly women are being distracted from the wider picture by their own selfishness.

    Equalists claim we must tackle all bad things everywhere but start by derailing the discussion of even one of them. Entering a centuries-long struggle affecting billions of lives, their opener is, "Heh, let me fix this cute little mistake you made." Even if they had a point, and they really don't, their first priority is branding.

    Imagine being on fire, running up to a firefighter screaming for help, and they hook their hands in their pockets and say, "Actually, before we start, I think you should say you're violently oxidizing. Not all oxidization is bad. I mean, some of my cells are performing oxidation right now, and I think it would be better if we ..." Your last act would be to SET THAT PERSON ON FIRE.

    Feminism is gendered not because women want to be treated better in the future but because they're being treated worse right now. Insisting on "equalism" means defining yourself by ignoring that fact. As if sexism, street harassment, pay differences, and rape threats affect genders equally. But the only way everyone could be affected equally is if we were conquered by the universe's worst aliens. And should we enter that dark space-future, and you get the job as commander of Babylon 5 with its dozens of alien races, then sure, equalism will be the way to go. But here on Earth we have a gender spectrum with two definite poles, and one of them is clearly treated worse than the other.

    It's amazing how many people are prepared to publicly be on the wrong side of progress. We have never looked back on any part of history and said, "Actually, we were totally right to diminish and ignore the complaints of that mistreated demographic group. That wasn't a humiliating monstrosity at all!"

    Feminism is the idea that women should have equal rights. Anyone claiming otherwise is explaining what's wrong with themselves instead.
    • Love Love x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  2. ... Holy shit.

    I just made a reply to this on facebook earlier today.

    I'll just paste the reply here and...

    The response (open)

    Edit: For anyone wondering why I'm mentioning feminism. Asmodeus's list actually originate's from this article here where it being from a feminist perspective is more clear cause of bits cut out.

    #8 So feminists are basically claiming they don't need proof or evidence? I'm not even gonna bother to explain how stupid that is. The only possible defense they have is if they're being expected to prove sexism overall exists, which obviously it does.

    But sexism existing =/= all claims of sexism being true. You make a specific claim about sexism? Sorry, you still need to prove it no matter who you are. Being a woman is not a "Get out of evidence free" card.

    #7. So feminists are basically claiming specific's don't matter? Seriously? So ALL rapes are the same? All sexual intercourse is the same? All conversations are the same? All flirts are the same? All men/women are the same? Have they ever heard of "One size fit's all" and why it doesn't work?

    #6. I have never seen anyone do this... From either side. I've seen some people background check mind you, get a decent idea of the history of the individual they're dealing with. But never have I seen them use it as ammunition to discount someone else, they've always treated the present arguments as is and debunked the present arguments as is.

    #5. I've seen people be skeptical of people claiming to be raped. Which in a court of law we are supposed to do with the "Innocent until proven guilty" part of our legal system that feminists hate so much. And has also shown to be of our benefit since we have found at least a few cases where the rape was a lie (Mattress Girl, Rolling Stones) etc. But rarely have I seen someone simply go "She's lying" and then not dig any deeper or do so without any reasoning.

    And most of the the time's I've heard "They deserved it" it's been about a man being raped, not a woman.

    #4. Wait... They're mad about being expected to use basic human manners and decency? *gasp* The horror!

    And no, centuries of systematic oppression is not an excuse. No one has lived for 100 of years to be victim of such sexism. And since most of feminism's claimed 'sexism' today is either made up or completely exaggerated? That leaves next to no legitimate issues to be angry about.

    And even if there were, once again feminists you are (supposed to be) adults. Act like it.

    #3. I'll give it *some* credit here. Tossing around terms like Feminazi generally doesn't accomplish anything. But what they're conveniently missing is that Feminazi is not used in reference to feminism as a whole. It is used in regards to specific feminists, who use mentality very similliar to fascist like reasoning.

    It is not a term used to discount feminists as a whole, just the insane and hateful ones. Besides, the article is playing dumb to all the times feminists will throw names at others like "Privileged", "Misogynists", "Fedora wearing neckbeard". "Potential rapist" etc.

    #2. Now, actually saying one can't complain about X because Africa is a recognized logical fallacy. So someone legitimately claiming that is in the wrong.

    However generally where I've seen this criticism come up has not been that but been someone asking the simple question of "If feminists are fighting so hard over here, why are they not ALSO fighting over there?". Border's on the same gray line, but it's not the same thing.

    #1. Feminism is called feminism because of great sexism against women in the past, not in modern days. Feminism was not just invented today you know, today the issues are basically equal for men and women (and btw the pay gap has been dis-proven countless times). Granted women may get some of it worse, and men may get some of it worse, but overall it's basically the same.

    As for the fire example? Yea... if a gender egalitarian saw a woman who was say being raped, they would step in and help. They would not stand back and say "Well, this isn't actually rape". But what they would do is question a claim of rape if it sounded something like "This guy asked me out for coffee! This is rape!".

    Then for history? You're right in that never have have we looked back and patted ourselves on the back for picking on people. So why the hell is feminism doing it against anyone who is male, white or straight? Practice what you preach.

    Have fun!

    *Runs for the nearest exit*
    #2 Gwazi Magnum, Feb 22, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2015
    • Like Like x 4
  3. This is a poll, not a debate thread.

    Or even a discussion thread.

    Because there's a lot of heinous opinions out there about feminism in general. Seen them all.

    Don't care. Won't change anyone's opinion with your ass holery.

    So take a look at your own asshole habits, participate in the poll. Learn something about yourself.

    Or don't. Go do something else.

    Because no one is impressed by opinions of randos on roleplay forums.
    #3 Tegan, Feb 22, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2015
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Alright, but the poll had none of my answers.
    So I inserted my own answer.

    Like I said with "runs for nearest exit" I have no intention of getting into a debate on the issue.

    Edit: Which I might add, we are allowed to post our own opinions on a topic in non-debate threads. It's the challenging and back and fourth of people's opinions that's not allowed. I'm not doing that.
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Anyone offended by Gwazi's comments, please do not smite him. Negative ratings have now become a source of pride for most people (I would know).

    Instead, hit the REPORT button and paste this in the reason box:

    • Love Love x 1
  6. I should also note, normally if I saw this I would have just left it alone and not put in the effort.
    But since I literally made a reply for this just earlier today elsewhere already, I figured I might as well share it here.
  7. And contribute to the culture we have, where a band of bullies (including yourself) police General and intimidate anyone who tries to post an opinion.

    That's exactly what's happening.

    And you will tell me that it's just in your nature, and you're just being rational and standing up for truth.


    You don't need to be here. No one forced you to post except your own insecurities.

    And you believe you are untouchable because "everyone else is like this!"

    I very much hope to prove you wrong.

    You are Number 7.
    • Love Love x 1
  8. Holy fuck, Asmo.

    Holy motherfuck of all fucks.

    You can't just drop a truthbomb like this out of the blue. My body can't handle it. I need to go grab a glass of water or something.
    • Love Love x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  9. From someone who's been interacting with Gwazi on forums for years... just don't bother with the truthbombs (to borrow @Lady Bernkastel's term). He won't change or learn anything, and the fault is never his. Entire forums haven't been able to convince him otherwise. And as proven rather recently, eventually he'll turn into the ultimate intentional shitposter with the excuse "I'm just being me lol" if you criticise him too much.

    And Gwazi, before you have a passive-aggressive go at me for "bullying" you, this isn't what bullying is. This is a relaying of events that factually happened. Sigh.
    • Like Like x 3
    • Love Love x 1
  10. Good to know there's a previous track record. *adds this to the staff file*

    @unanun - now THIS is progress. :)
    • Love Love x 1
  11. I think I can hear angry typing on keyboards in the near future relating to this thread, so lemme just stop everyone in advance.

    This isn't a debate thread. It's a poll. If you disagree with it, fair enough. Don't post in it.

    I'm fucking tired of threads like this descending into scuffles and clusterfucks, so anyone after this trying to kick up an argument is getting locked from the thread, their post deleted and a warning slapped on their profile for good measure.

    There you go, you've been warned. Now go have fun.
    • Thank Thank x 6
    • Like Like x 2
    • Love Love x 1
  12. @Gwazi Magnum don't make me include passive-aggressive ratings in that list too.
    • Love Love x 1
  13. I was legitimately thanking you for breaking it up.

    Like I said at the start, I had no intention of getting into a debate.
    So you coming in and breaking up those trying to start one was helpful.
  14. Nah, not on me, on the others.

    Hadn't noticed your rating, actually. I should pay more attention, it seems.
  15. He was referring to the "Go Home, You're Drunk" ratings you put on all the females who called you on your shit.


    • Like Like x 1

  17. #3 I suppose would be the one I'm most guilty of by default. I use buzzwords and made up terminology, it's infectious. :ferret:
    • Like Like x 1
  18. I'm guilty of Equalist Equals Asshole for sure, but that's not the main thing I do that would piss off feminists. I propose a 9th form of asshole to cover me: The Source Hound.

    I don't do the thing that Duh-Dos do with demanding proof of sexism, I demand rigorous sources for any data presented. When people try to back up their arguments and statistics by linking to opinion posts from bloggers who also just say those things without giving a good source, I shoot them down. When they cite heavily biased sources, I tell them that's a tainted source and that it wouldn't be accepted in an academic setting so it holds no real weight. When they drop statistics without giving a source, I say that's baseless nonsense unless they can provide such numbers from a credible source. Opinions can't be objectively wrecked, but when you involve numbers and statistics you'd better believe I'm gonna hound you for good sources.

    Oh, hounding after sources also totally applies to me in non-feminism debates too. The equalist thing doesn't really have a comparison for most other topics.
  19. I think depending on which debate I've been in during the past one points to I could be guilty of any of these except for #6.

    Note: This isn't me revoking my first post. Just answering as if we were treating the OP at face value.

    But I think my main ones would be:

    #7 because I have a tendency to look at the specifics of a situation for accuracy sake. Which leads people to sometimes accuse me trying to be smart/sneaky with words.

    #5 when regarding Anita and her claimed harassment.

    #3 I'll use Femi-Nazi, SJW and Third-Wave Feminists when I remember to in order to address a specific group of feminists.

    #1 I speak out against both Feminism and MRA's often, finding both to be inheritingly flawed by focusing on only one sex. Thereby promoting/favoring Gender Egalitarianism.
  20. I'm not sure what to put. I know I'm an ass, but I've never done any of those things. At least, not any of those specific things. My dickishness is reserved for messing with my friends and making them uncomfortable.

    ...Huh. I guess I'm not an asshole after all. Just a jerk.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.