A strange derailing “argument” I’ve encountered…

When trying to discuss the relationship between genders in general, I sometimes get the response that I’m forgetting the gay people, transgender people, third sex people and anyone else that is not the majority. When discussing the relationship between the sexes, it’s usually implied it’s about the majority, meaning straight people. All the other ones I mentioned don’t always enter the equation in many arguments, so there is no need to think about them. Just like the air resistance is usually not taken into consideration when calculating the time it takes a bowling ball to fly a meter towards the ground. Is it a sign of lack of respect if I don’t mention these people when making arguments that involve valid approximations? I would say no. Whether you’re solving a physics problem or a making an argument about society, approximations are allowed to be made.

Oh, and someone calls themselves queer and you dare to confuse them with and call them a gay person, the reaction might be extremely negative, almost like you committed a hate crime. You must know what all those things mean (QUILTBAG, asexual, genderqueer, intersex, things like that).

I don’t have any problem with people who are different from the straight norm (it’s a norm because it reflects what is average, not what is “moral and correct”, so don’t come here calling me names because I implied homosexuality or asexuality is not average). I judge people individually and anyone who derails the argument by pointing to some group not relevant to the argument in hopes of making me look homophobic is a two-faced lying jackass, or perhaps just overly politically correct. If the group really was relevant to the argument, they’d state the reasons, but so far I haven’t heard any. Anyway, it’s nothing but an attempt to steer you from your main point and an attempt to make you look bad. Look out for it, no matter who does it (heterosexual, homosexual, feminist, MRA, whatever)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to A strange derailing “argument” I’ve encountered…

  1. bob says:

    While I honestly don’t care what consenting adults do in private, the “in your face” attitude of the Gay activists is getting old.

    And the hotel I’m at obviously let gay interior designers go crazy. Everything is so over the top. It just screams “flaming faggottry. (And YES, heterosexual men, almost without exception, find flagrantly effeminate gay men disgusting.) There was actually a picture of the rear of a naked man in my bathroom. I went down to the front desk and said “I want that OUT of there.” By the most amazing coincidence, I came back to my room at the end of the day to fgind the room thermostat set ofr a steaming 81F (27.2 Celsius).

    • Emma the Emo says:

      Haven’t encountered too much in your face attitude in real life, but on the net some of them are really oversensitive. This behavior is not morally wrong, but so damn annoying.

  2. Mr. Roach says:

    Dump this feminism shit and get a real education for your own good. You seem to have some good instincts. Most of that feigned outrage is really just “alpha female” social control and ostracism not so different from what happens in junior high among cheerleaders. Also that whole group of fags and feminists is only intermittantly interested in truth; it’s all about power as they say. HBD is where it’s at. Educate yourself in that and on the personality disorders most sexual abnormals have–like BPD–and you’ll start to make sense of things.

    • Emma the Emo says:

      I do have a real education 🙂 I study material science, actually, and find it fun. Feminism is something I read about when I have free time, and that is why I got the books. I find it important to know about because I need to know if it’s really that bad. Some of it is quite bad. I can say so without doubt, because I took time to look into it.

  3. Firepower says:


    whenever I LEAVE, this blog dies

    emma spice it up – see what you can do

  4. Kazan says:

    Eivind Berge: “I regret expressing misgivings about my initial joyous reaction to Breivik’s activism at Utøya. The contrition wasn’t heartfelt, and recent escalations of the feminist police state make me feel so sheepish for vacillating that I hereby retract my disclaimer. The feminist state is so flagrantly out of control that it and its abettors most assuredly deserve anything they can get.”

    Emma, you have to get your boyfriend some help. These are not the words of a sane person.

    • Emma the Emo says:

      When someone is an abettor (helper and enabler, directly causing damage) of unfair laws, then one should expect something bad to happen to oneself. I don’t see anything insane in that idea. Note he didn’t say innocent young victims of Breivik deserved their deaths, we aren’t talking about that. He said “feminist state and its abettors”.

  5. Kazan says:

    Get a grip, Emma. Read what he is saying. All elected officials from all parties, and any member of all the main parties and their youth organizations (and their voters, and most people in the judiciary system and everybody in the police force) are targets for murder here. There is nothing to defend – this is not politics or disagreement, this is not something to be discussed. This is applauding mass murder. His mind is unsound. Period.

    • Emma the Emo says:

      I dunno, I don’t really see it. If something bad happened to the state without mass murder happening, I’m sure he’d be happy too. Anything bad happening to the state he hates makes him happy. He’s been clear about it. He doesn’t think the innocent murder victims deserved it. If he did, I would have a problem with it. But I don’t have a problem with feelings of joy when a regime you hate (for a reason) gets hit. Also, lots of people tend to feel all sorts of joyous feelings when their enemies get hurt, there is nothing unsound about that. It’s actually a common human trait. Some people are just stupidly honest about their feelings and get mad at things it’s not politically correct to get mad about. It’s perfectly accepted to wish the worst possible torture and gory death on someone who tricks small kids into drinking semen without letting them know it’s semen or hurting them (horrible prank I know, should be punished accordingly, but death and lasting torture is not proportionate punishment to the crime. Even if we go for the eye for an eye justice, all he’d had to do is be forced to drink semen a couple of times). If you do that, you won’t be called unsound, people will try to outdo you in how painfully they’d torture the criminal if they could. Trust me, angry reaction (and overreaction) to injustice is VERY normal.

  6. Kazan says:

    You have no problems with Eivind Berges feelings of joy? Really? NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER?
    Was the massacre of 69 youths and and the wounding of 66 at Utøya really “something bad” that happened to the state or “the regime”? “Something bad” happening to the regime would rather be something like loosing the elections than a savage butchering of teenagers. If anything, Labor (and by implication “the regime”) got more votes after the murders. By you tepid answer you seem to live in a “hyperreal” world where these were not living, breathing people with their whole life ahead of them, flesh and blood kids, not hypothetical people. Some of the survivors have brain damage after being shot in the head, others will have physical handicaps for the rest of their lives. Is it correct to call it “something bad happening to the regime” when parents find the shot-off jawbone of their dead daughter in the mud? Most people who disagree however strongly with Labor politics, are able to see clearly that this is something different. Eivind Berge is not just being “stupidly honest” here, he is showing himself as consumed by hatred and narcissistic rage to a degree that has removed him from any normal human decency and compassion. Publicly celebrating mass murder of unarmed teenagers is not merely shamelss, it is plain wrong.

    • Emma the Emo says:

      “You have no problems with Eivind Berges feelings of joy? Really? NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER?”
      I have no problem with his feelings of joy over the state being hit (the votes might be temporary, and it might be hit in the long run. It’s a shame it had to take 77 lives, i wish it happened differently, but I believe it spread doubt over the idea that we’re doing everything correctly). As for his “feelings of joy over deaths of kids”, they don’t exist. That type of thing is more likely to be my vice rather than his*. But even if he did feel some joy over their deaths, I would have to admit I’m okay with it, because FEELINGS are not controllable by will, and they don’t necessarily reflect what you truly think and believe. I don’t judge people by their feelings, just beliefs and actions. The only thing I’m somewhat upset about is his decision to express his joy at the wrongest time. I think his reaction is most accurately described as “see where your actions lead, your own people got killed, happy now?”, not “how great it was that so many people died”.

      Also, why is your sympathy only extended to these young people, and not to the victims of various sex laws? People imprisoned for “accidental rape”, for having sex with someone under 16, for owning drawn pictures of anime characters that look too young, people imprisoned for rape without proof but rather after a credibility evaluation? Don’t you see why someone might get angry at the state for enforcing this? How about the fact that we shorten the lives of mental patients by 10-20 years with those drugs they give them? It’s been in the newspapers.

      You also didn’t respond to why some types of anger and wishing death are accepted and thought of as normal, and not others, despite the crimes being similarly damaging. You just went right back to accusing my boyfriend of “narcisstic rage”. Where are your empathy and critical thinking skills?
      *I DON’T feel any joy over these murdered kids. I didn’t know any personally, so I can’t feel anything personal about it, but I thought the whole thing was incredibly creepy and horrible. A natural feeling people feel when they realize they could be killed at any time.

  7. Kazan says:

    Feelings are mallable, although not at our immediate command. It is possible to reflect about one’s feelings, and have different attitudes towards one’s feelings – I might for example feel schadenfreude at somebody’s misfortune, but recognize this emotion as undesirable. We have attitudes to our feelings, some we desire, some we feel ashamed by. By reflecting on our emotions we form them. Thus feelings are linked to what we think and believe. Feelings do not come from nowhere, flying in the wind like spores that attach themselves to us randomly, they express character and opinions, and we do take part in the formation of our own character. As you yourself described by the thought process you recommended in the “hypergamy” thread. However, to express feelings publicly in writing is an action, not a feeling.

    Have I anywhere expressed lack of empathy with any of the other cases you mentioned? Why on earth do you take for granted I don’t have it, just because I think your boyfriend is going over the edge here? What the cases you mention have to do with Breivik’s main issue, the whole “Eurabia” conspiracy, is not at all clear to me. I do not see the point of your crime analogy either. Which “damaging crimes” had the kids at Utøya committed? And what do your weird hypothetical sperm-swallowing example have to do with anything? Even if some people might answer their hypothetical gagging reflex here with aggression, what has that to do with the real massacre?

    Narcissistic rage is the fitting term. I do feel sorry for Eivind Berge in a way, narcissistic rage is generally a result of deep psychological injury, but I also think he comes across as genuinely unhinged and potentially dangerous – or maybe he just gets a kick out of appearing that way? In any case, he manages to utterly alienate people who otherwise might agree with some of his points. I, for one, am no fan on the ban on buying sexual services, nor crazy stuff like the anime-case, or the drug laws for that matter, but there is a lack of proportions here that warrants the label “narcissistic”. If you cannot see that, I give up.

    • Emma the Emo says:

      “Thus feelings are linked to what we think and believe.”
      Yes, but it’s incorrect to claim they are the same. I’m aware of most of my natural bad sides and it’s not like they went away (got better though…), I just know not to give into them and why they are bad. They are opposed to what I believe in and think.

      “..but there is a lack of proportions here that warrants the label “narcissistic”.”

      The sperm example is a real one. It really happened. The article said the kids thought it was a game and didn’t know what really happened, but the reaction from pretty much all the commenters was a violent bloodthirsty one. My main point was, that THIS IS NORMAL (and accepted). Not admirable, but normal. People get angered by things like that, and express joy when someone they see as evil gets punished. Their reaction was disproportionate to the crime, making them all narcisstic by your definition. Can you see this?
      In this case, Eivind is actually better than those commenters, as he only expressed joy over the state taking a hit and not the deaths themselves. That is the point! He DIDN’T feel happy over the deaths themselves, so no need to ask me what “damaging crimes” the kids committed, because it’s pretty clear to me and him that the answer is “none”.

      I think it’s a misunderstanding. I misunderstood you, thinking that what the state does to people doesn’t matter to you at all. I just thought that if you cared, it would be easier to understand where Eivind is coming from. And you misunderstand Eivind, thinking he’s happy people died. I’m sorry I got a bit irritated in the last comment, I confused something you said for an insult.

    • “Narcissistic rage”? Now there is a misnomer that reveals your deep hypocrisy. My rage against the feminist state is in fact very much based on altruism and idealism as well as compassion for all the men (and some women) hurt by the feminist police state. Clearly, to you these victims don’t matter, and anyone who feels joy when the state takes a hit for a change is a sick person. You call me “narcissistic” because to you, victims on the other side evidently don’t even exist! But really it would be more accurate to say that we are on opposite sides of a war. And if we are going to count casualties, the state has destroyed far more than 77 lives. It is really disingenuous to call me narcissistic while acting like all the feminist injustice is just fine and dandy.

      I don’t care about the “Eurabia” nonsense either, but Breivik also represents the Men’s Movement in a larger sense, and unfortunately he is the only real-life activist we got on Norway for now. I certainly wish he would have blown up a police station and opened fire on police rather than innocent kids, but I will also admit it felt good that the feminists state was under attack.

      And no, I don’t get a kick out of appearing “unhinged.” Men’s rights activism is serious business, not for fun. It is based on moral outrage and is usually no fun. There will be many martyrs and they are not doing it for kicks.

      The sperm swallowing example if from this case,
      and it goes to show how common it is for people to wish torture and death on their enemies for the slightest insult. Look at the comments. Abuse hysteria against men really has no limits and if someone went on a rampage against sex offenders, regardless of how slight their offenses, I assure you there would be an outcry of public joy. Singling me out as suffering from “narcissistic rage” out of proportion to insults is blatant hypocrisy. It escalates on both sides — Breivik represents men and the state represents the man-hating masses, who have won nearly every battle so far in the gender war. Neither is a good way to deal with things but it is the direction we are heading as long as the state is relentless. Actually there are some sensible comments there now in response to all the hate, like this one:

      Okay I realize that this guy is twisted but I see most people calling for his death. That is more stunning to me than his crimes. That we as a society have stooped that low. I’m not asking anyone to accept what he did as okay or even to forgive him, I am just as sickened as you are but how on earth can any rational objective person come to think that this is deserving of death even as sick as it was. It’s basically no more shocking than an episode of fear factor except that there were children involved and they didn’t know they were a part of this man’s perverted fantasies. But they WERE under the impression it was just a game. And though coersion WAS used they were willing participants. Meaning that the psychological impact will likely be minimal and not permanant. They aren’t ruined lives as so many have stated. And how dare you ever regard a victim as a ruined life anyways. But even the article suggests that these kids weren’t overly damaged by this. They are dealing with it just fine and there were no brutal details in the story to suggest any force or physical abuse. Coersed? Yes. But not physically forced. The only shock factor was the disgusting things that were offered to them to consume. And for that he should certainly be in prison. But c’mon, the death penalty? Isn’t that a bit extreme?he should certainly be in prison. But c’mon, the death penalty? Isn’t that a bit extreme?

  8. Emma the Emo says:

    “By you tepid answer you seem to live in a “hyperreal” world where these were not living, breathing people with their whole life ahead of them, flesh and blood kids, not hypothetical people”

    About that. Most people aren’t overwhelmed by sadness when people they never met or knew get killed (whether it was terrorism or just a tsunami). Whoever says they feel terrible sadness over deaths of strangers are most likely to be lying. If they really cared so much about each stranger dying every day, they would have killed themselves by now from depression, and wouldn’t be around to tell you this. People are more prone to moral anger than sadness.

    • jack says:

      Indeed. When the dreadful tsunami hit South-East Asia and Indonesia in 2004, an Xstasy pill dubbed “Tsunami” immediately arrived on the market. It was blue-couloured like the sea. All Jakarta partied on it in discos over Xmas and New Year. That’s as far as feeling go towards strangers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s