Outrageous Quotes Week, Day 3

(I’m reading Introduction to Modern Mathematics right now. It’s very entertaining)

Anyway, in 1967 children were learning too:

The little girl, showing in her domestic play the overriding absorption in personal relationships through which she will later fulfill her role of wife, mother and “expressive leader” of the family (Parsons & Bales, 1956), learns language early in order to communicate. The kind of communication in which she is chiefly interested at this stage concerns the nurturant routines which are the stuff of family life. Sharing and talking about them as she copies and “helps” her mother about the house must enhance the mutual identification of mother and child, which in turn, as Mowrer (1952) and McCarthy (1953) suggest, will reinforce imitation of the mother’s speech and promote further acquisition of language, at first oriented toward domestic and interpersonal affairs but later adapted to other uses as well. Her intellectual performance is relatively predictable because it is rooted in thi early communication, which enables her (environment permitting) to display her inherited potential at an early age.

The same thing happens in boys, but to a lesser extent because they cannot so easily share their interests. Their preoccupation with the working of mechanical things is less interesting to most mothers, and fathers are much less available. Probably too, effective communication about cause and effect presupposes a later stage of mental development than does communication about household routines. The small boy may be storing a great many observations, but his conversation tends to be limited to such remarks as Train stop until he is mature enough to ask Why is the train stopping? … His language, less fluent and personal and later to appear than the girl’s, develops along more analytic lines and may, in favourable circumstances, provide the groundwork for the later intellectual achievement which could not have been foreseen in his first few years.

(Moore 1967, pp. 100-101, cited in Macaulay 1978, p. 360, cited in Eckert, McConnell-Ginet, Language and Gender, 2003)

One has to mention that while extremely creepy, biased and unquestioningly supportive of the extant social order, this sort of pseudoscientific attitude is by no means gone. One only has to smirk derisively at The Female Brain, and lo, its brainless savanna-dwelling adherents come out of the woodwork, mumbling incoherent things about “savanna ancestors”, “hunting and gathering” and “men needing to rape because evolution and also science”, desperately trying to defend the pseudoscience that validates their biases, bigotry and prejudice.

(Incidentally, having read Mark Liberman’s deconstruction of The Female Brain – and other poorly done/described neuroscience research — one has to come to the conclusion that Louann Brizendine is a fraud and a kook. There are only so many end notes that give references to research that doesn’t support her most important claims — or in many cases has nothing to do with her claims at all –  one can read without suspecting foul play(1). Or possibly, she didn’t understand a word of what she hopefully *did* read.)

(Also, there are rumours that there’s a neat deconstruction of Brizendine in Cordelia Fine‘s Delusions of Gender, which I haven’t yet read, and which was recommended on PZ Myers’ blog earlier today. The comment section of that post is, predictably, filled with angry ape-descended savanna-dwellers. For them, I have a message: guise, penis enlargement stuff can be found in the “spam” folder of your mailbox. Have fun!)

(1) Liberman never says it, repeatedly assuming Brizendine’s good will. This is because he’s a nice and also a serious person.

I am neither.

Let’s call it Outrageous Quotes Week!

In 1884 J.W. Burgon says about the radical idea that women should be admited to universities:

Will none of you have the generosity of the candour to tell [Woman] what a very disagreeable creature, in Man’s account, she will inevitably become? If she is to compete successfully with men for ‘honours’, you must needs put the classic writers of antiquity unreservedly in her hands – in order words, must introduce her to the obscenities of Greek and Roman literature. Can you seriously intend it? … I take leave of the subject with a short Allocution addressed to the other sex … Inferior to us God made you: and our inferiors to the end of time you will remain.”

(Quoted in Manguel, A History of Reading, after Jan Morris, ed., The Oxford Book of Oxford)

126 years later, if there’s one thing I can vouch for, it’s that I have become the disagreeable creature — so disagreeable in fact that she demands to be called “human”, not “creature” — Burgon seemed to be so afraid of; and also, it was not Suetonius’ fault.

Not even Cicero’s, or Caesar’s.

I’ll take the whole responsibility for that. Disagreeably. Hah.

Vox Day proves that feminism will make your country flourish and prosper and a better place <3

You haven’t misread. Indeed, it is Vox Day who indeed pontificates the benefits  the society can gain if it embraces the feminist ideology. I can’t blame you if you twitch a bit, and ask yourself quietly whether this Vox Day, the defender of feminism and women’s rights, can really be the same person who wrote this:

Consider the two great laments of the modern American woman. For the unmarried woman, it is the reality that she must marry later in life than ever before, if she is able to marry at all. For the married woman, it is that unlike generations of women before her, she cannot afford to stay home with her children unless she is fortunate enough to have married to a man of the financial elite.

Both of these developments can be traced directly to women’s rights. Men’s increasing unwillingness to marry stems primarily from two causes — the feminized family court system that transformed marriage from a mutually beneficial contract into a financial and emotional liability, and the removal of paternal responsibility for the sexual behavior of young women. Ergo, the need for marriage has been eliminated while its liabilities have increased. As Blue America and de-Christianizing Europe increasingly show, in the absence of religion there is now very little impetus for marriage. (source)

or that:

I have said before that calling a feminist a feminazi is an insult to National Socialism. Now, it is clear that even Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot are second-rate killers in comparison with Ms. Sanger, Ms. Friedan and Ms. Steinem. (source)

or even this:

Since only the woman who is not entertaining the possibility of sex with a man and is subsequently raped can truly be considered a wholly innocent victim under this ethic, it is no wonder that women who insist that internal consent is the sole determining factor of a woman’s victimization find traditional Western morality to be inherently distasteful. (source)

And yet! In Why women have to vote? Vox Day points out several important reasons for why they should:

1. Although he starts his initial argument very uncertainly, by cautiously mentioning that there is very little conclusive research done on how the women’s suffrage positively influence societies, he soon gives a long list of examples where women’s suffrage and women’s rights movement did influence societies positively. In any case, we think that Vox Day, not being an expert on feminism and sociology, as painfully  evinced by the above quotations, would benefit from studying the relevant literature a bit more closely.

2. Vox Day’s subsequently indicates that countries whose governments focus on the support of the capitalist system at the cost of personal freedom of their citizens often tend to have severe restrictions on voting and political representation, also of women.

3. In his next argument, Vox Day points out that the increased liberalisation, which often follows the recognition of women as full citizens by the state, has many a time lead to a sudden change of priorities for the better, such as more restrictive gun laws in Switzerland introduced 22 years after women’s receiving suffrage, in recognition of the obvious fact that one’s right not to be more likely to be shot is more important that one’s right to own a boom stick. This was accomplished at a relatively swift pace despite Switzerland’s long tradition of private militia.

4.  To quote this short passage in its stunning perceptiveness:

The opponents of women’s suffrage have been proven correct with regards to their predictions of a) increased divorce, b) increased abortion, c) sexual promiscuity, d) increased paganism.

This means that despite many pessimistic predictions, various women’s movements throughout the last two centuries did manage to fulfill many of those movements’ demands, and that we are, despite everything, progressing towards equality for everyone, regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, race, religion and class.

(I would also prefer Vox Day not to forget that lesbians and trans* women also are and have been part of the women’s movement in a way, although I don’t want to erase their, or rather our *own* accomplishments)

It’s always very heart-warming to see the efforts of many generations of women around the world recognised by a, hopefully, former opponent.

5.  Next, Vox Day quotes John Lott (unfortunately, his website is now defunct. I’m certain I’m not the only feminist who would have liked to see his brilliant analysis of our, let’s face it, epic win):

“The two consistent results were: allowing female suffrage resulted in a more liberal tilt in congressional voting for both houses, and the extent of that shift was mirrored by the increase in turnout due to female suffrage. The effects are quite large.”

The above words refer to the US situation, so the correct re-interpretation for Europe would be “social-democratic tilt in parliament voting”; this of course means that women were smart enough to recognise that anti-feminist political parties, such as the most conservative ones, are least likely to represent their interests effectively, and voted accordingly.

6. Finally, in the last attempt at hipster irony, a stylistic choice of Vox Day I tend not to value very highly, he amusingly mentions that:

Perhaps not all women are fascists at heart, but without their votes, few fascists would ever be elected.

Some readers who are less well-read than Vox Day may misunderstand his sophisticated irony, so I’ll try to explain: Vox Day is wittily alluding to the fact that under the fascist regime in Italy women were not allowed to vote;  they receive suffrage only in 1946.

Thank you, Vox Day.

(Link to the Vox Day post was found in the comments of this post.)

Linkspaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaam!

1. If at 14 you believe you’re ready to have children, you are of course wrong.

However, if ten or even twenty years later you persist in your delusion  belief  that you were ready to have children at 14? You are totes not ready to have children still.

Hilary Mantel thinks you should be popping out children at 14, which is, like, absolutely not influenced by her being infertile and unhappy about it. Oh, I do realise it must be a terrible tragedy for her, but for some people? Getting pregnant at the age 14 is, too.

(Pity she’s such a douche, her books seem like something I could pick up when my brain needs several days in a semi-enjoyable stand-by mode)

***

2. How (Not) to Write About Africa. (Un?)surprisingly some of those boring, offensive, ridiculous, dehumanizing tropes still persist. Also, an audiovisual aid for those less willing to read (there’re no Morning Musume in there, I promise!):

***

3. NHK website about hikikomori (wiki on hikikomori). I just want to say, at first I snickered at the irony of NHK of all places having a website about hikikomori stuff, then I got sucked in and spent about two hours reading through the FAQ (STATISTICS!!!!!!!!11!1!!).

It’s in Japanese, though.

***

4. Shakesville post about rape culture. I just want to say, I’m sooooooo happy I don’t have to write it.

***

5. How to sell your snake oil thing, or any kind of woo, really. Should be read together with any of Orac’s excellent posts about woomeisters always blaming the patient.

***

6. I’ll freely and nonchalantly admit I only discovered it about a week ago: English without non-Germanic words, aka Uncleftish Beholding. I will also admit that my brain tells me to visualise “uncleftish” every time I hear/see the (non) word.

Suffering ensues.

***

7. An interesting article about the cancer that is killing vampire fiction like you could kill the cancer that is vampire fiction with a different cancer hurr durr Twilight and cultural appropriation. What it lacks is a mention of the problematic portrayal of Quileute in the books (ahahahahaha, BOOKS AHAHAHAHA) in the first place, but this can be easily found with the help of Google and some resourceful typing.

***

8. The crazy terrorist anti-tax guy who crashed into an IRS office is being white-washed by his daughter thus:

Asked whether she considered her father a hero, Stack’s adult daughter, Samantha Dawn Bell, said during a telephone interview broadcast Monday on ABC’s “Good Morning America”: “Yes. Because now maybe people will listen.” But she stressed that his actions were “inappropriate.”

The catch: the daughter lives in Norway. NORWAY! One would think a greedy sociopath tax protester could find a better place to live than Norway:

- The basic tax rate is 28 % of the net income. The social security contribution is 7,8 % of the gross income. Therefore, the total tax rate rarely exceeds 36 %. However, on gross income exceeding NOK 456.400 (relevant as of salary grade 60) a surtax (toppskatt) of 9 % is levied. On gross income exceeding NOK 741.700 (relevant as of salary grade 82) a surtax of 12 % is levied. (source)

Seriously.

(Btw, the income tax is not all the tax that an individual has to pay in Norway. There’s also the so-called wealth tax, so in many cases you’d have to pay much moar)

(Mmmm, taxes  <3)

***

9. I discovered Vox Day(1), the most odious person and at the same time the most pretentious cretin on the internets. Seriously. I expect to have time to make fun of him properly soon.

***

In other news, I’ve been hearing rumours about late (as in, in June) spring in Poland this year. I might have to reconsider my spring break plans.

Also, wisdom tooth is a whore.

(1) Bad pun is  bad, especially as “dei” is totes not pronounced like that.

Women = livestock. Pie is good.

It seems a bill that will make ~*MISCARRIAGE A CRIME*~(1) is a signature away from being actual real law in Utah.

Wow. And they said Handmaid’s Tale was, like, feminist dystopian fiction.

(1) This actually needs a glittery background.

OK so this was so stupid I decided it deserves an entire new post.

From the previous discussion; commenter(1) 10 shares his/her insights about atheism and gender with the rest of the internets:

I don’t think there are as many sexual advantages for women to say they are atheists.

Hurr hurr, “sexual advantages”? I know of no scientific studies dealing specifically with the sexual prowess of atheists as compared to theists. If any of you guys do, please let me know. I’d be very interested in the results.

(A conjecture though: a strong correlation of atheism with more progressive and science-based  views on human sexuality could mean that atheists do indeed have better sex lives, or, to put it bluntly, it’s moar fun to have oral sex when you don’t have to think about a bearded yet invisible omniscient deity with voyerism kink)

For a man, staking a claim in defiance of God and society can turn heads. For women, it’s just bitchy. Sad, but true.

Atheism is by no means “defiance to Dog”. You can’t defy something in which you don’t  believe it exists, because there is no proof that it does.

Also, that “it’s bitchy” is, sadly, the commenter’s opinion projected on the society in which he or she lives. Again, I know of no actual scientific study reviewing the attitudes of public opinion towards female and male atheists.  The commenter probably doesn’t know of such a study either.

Did she/he had a great time pulling anecdata from his/her arse? We will never know.

PERSONALLY, I’d think that for women the clear and obvious advantage of not having a powerful organisation policing our sexuality and our gender roles, and rationalising it with a swift yet effective “DOG SAID SO QED”  would be an awesome enough.

Frankly, I don’t understand how a woman could prefer to be oppressed by another sexist religious organisation at all.

(1) I know, I know; looking for stupid comments on the internets is like trying to nuke a fish in a barrel, but seriously. I JUST CAN’T RESIST.

Why calling a woman a “slut” is always wrong, and no, it doesn’t matter that you call men that way, too.

Because if it’s men, it’s only going to be funny, like calling white people “whities”, heterosexual people “heteros”, and so on.

Meanwhile, the “slut”, or, to translate the patriarchal lingo to contemporary standard  English, “a woman who has and/or enjoys sex”  is  a word that exists in a certain historical, political and social context. The context should be rather easy to understand: a woman who has and/or enjoys sex is a slut. This means she should be punished, because she “doesn’t respect herself”. If something happens to her, she was asking for it. If a man hurt her, she provoked him. She’s worthless. She’s a homewrecker in the making. No man will ever want an easy woman.

And so on.

(Cut for triggering content, mentions of sexual assault, bullying, and suicide, and also LENGHT)

So, try telling me that the Catholic Church is not misogynistic, now

Be cautious though, because I might bite off your entire face.

The internets have been in uproar because an USian politician was barred from taking the communion (also known as Le Cracker Game) for his pro-choice stance.

What, however, very few have noticed it that you will be barred from communion for being pro-choice, but not for being pro-death penalty or starting a war, actually:

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

The pope Palpatine wrote this memo before he was actually pope. It is however pretty apparent that his opinion has not changed much, at least not for the better. And, by all means, go and read the entire thing!

What you will find: you can also not be allowed to take the communion if you voted for a politician who supported women’s rights was pro-choice because of the fact that they were pro-choice.

So, let me get this straight. It’s OK to kill people and kill moar people just because your country tells you to, but as soon as so much as squeak out that maybe a woman should have the right to decide what happens to her body, you’ve committed a grave sin?

How nice to be reminded about the priorities that the Catholic Church has. Really nice!

 

Atheists are rational. Also racist. Also sexist. Also, I’m really pissed (AE)

First off, I believe I have a confession to make:

Guys, I came to your from the dark abysses of the Live Journal, originally. I’ve been there since 2003, at least. I’ve a different nickname, and you’ll never find me, and I don’t really post much anyway(1). I’m also not into fandom. I’m into meta.

And the thing is, if that sort of discussion happened in my happy LJ meta-corner? Several hundred comments worth of dogpile would follow, rightly calling out the racist fuckwads on their racism and fuckwaddery, linking to Derailing for Dummies, and The Linguistics of Colour-Blind Racism, and politely asking the OPs to die in a fucking fire. I personally would lead the Troll Legions, calling people names, being petty, and vomiting thesaurus all over the place(2).

This is what I’m used to. This is what I would like to see in a community that is not made up of disgusting loathsome and ignorant excuses for human beings.

Atheist communities, it would seem, have much lower standards. Yes, lower than LJ(3).

So, what have actually got here? It’s an innocuous link to a rather interesting interview with a black atheist feminist, Sikivu Hutchinson. She makes several interesting points, but also says some obvious stuff about racism and privilege(4).

(The interviewer, by the way, is Greta Christina from Greta Christina’s Blog. This is important, because it’s a good blog, full of sense-making and nice reads.)

Anyway, what are the impressions of the first reader?

I propose affirmative action:
We give privileged access to black people with equal qualification. Don’t let anybody tell you they found it too difficult getting into atheism because all the white people were favored. :)

Yay, making fun of affirmative action, and dismissing valid concerns of a black person who feels marginalised with a lame racist joke. So hilarious!

NOT.

On to the next comment:

I am not qualified

If you’re not qualified, why don’t you just shut up?

to comment on how difficult it is to come out as an unbeliever in theism within the black community, but I don’t think there are any negative pressures from an atheist community to shun anyone of any race or ethnicity.

Holy non-sequitur, Batman! Like it was about shunning. Haha.

NO.

As most of us are well informed thanks to evolutionary biologists such as Richard Dawkins, we can see any prejudice based on race as utterly ridiculous given how we are all African Apes and one species, this nullifying any idiotic objection to equal opportunity. To think for yourself does not require permission in any case.

This is the  “I’m not racist” part of the more sophisticated and sciencey version of “I’m not racist but…”

Again though, I am ignorant of this particular experience

Yes, you are ignorant, so why not shut up like now?

and of the real reasons why, there might not be quite so many non believers of other ethnicities, proclaiming aloud their non-belief. I strongly doubt the idea of prejudice coming from any well educated, free thinking atheist community though.

The education, it didn’t help you at all.

The third comment:

So where are all these “white atheist communities” then? Where do us “white folk” get together and gleefully delight at excluding others?

O WOW.

But wait! The white atheist community, it’s right there where the commenter writes.  Surprise! It’s main preoccupation at the time the comment was written seems to have been invalidating non-white people’s experiences,  and condescendingly whitesplaining stuff by the means of non sequiturs, all the while  telling stupid racist jokes. Ooops!

The fourth:

That woman has one expansive vocabulary… or one heluva thesaurus… Don’t know when I’ve seen so many big words in one place.

There are land-mines placed throughout this interview as well.

EDIT: I smiled at the “white folk” references as well : )

Because racism is so funny, dontcha know? Nudge nudge, wink wink! Also, commenter number two should maybe rectify his take on what real red-blooded atheists think about the education, right? Big words! Funneh!

Commenter 5 loudly proclaims himself to believe in the universality of the atheist experience:

I guess I’ll read the articles later this weekend but just how banal is the premise?

Let’s rephrase it;

What is it like to be a Chinese non-stamp collector?
What is it like to be a white non-basketball player?
What is it like to be an African non-chess player?

He will mansplain it all! As a real human being to a non-white person, totes!

Commenter 6 is really commenter 4 again, as s/h/it seems to have got really verbose. Let’s not allow him to steal commenter 7′s thunder though:

That’s what we need, more divisiveness in the atheist community.

Yes! Non-white people shouldn’t be such haters! Dontcha know about the importance of always being a team player?

Commenter 8:

“Hence, the European- American atheist community can’t be truly inclusive unless there is some recognition of how privilege and positionality undergird the very articulation of atheism as an ideological space that empowers white folk to deconstruct the cultural tethers of organized religion, without having their authorial right to do so be questioned.”

Is she channeling ’1984′ here or not? I can’t tell…

Well, what I can tell is that s/h/it fails at reading comprehension. Also:  she’s just oversensitive, all right? Oversensitive! I mean, commenter 8 might even have some black friends, so there!

Commenter 9 mostly copies commenters 2 and 5, but also, you know, everybody, s/h/it’s got a Token Person of Colour Atheist! Look!

In addition, the black female author of Infidel has been welcomed and specifically mentioned in debates and other places by the “white atheist” leaders. Not so because she is black and female but because she is making a worthwhile contribution to the discourse of the role of religion in our society.

A worthwhile contribution, unlike all those black females who don’t. Like, you know. The majority of them. ‘Cause they’re busy. Certainly. With something.

Commenter 9 doesn’t really know, but it must be something black and female. Just so you know.

Commenter 10 is  sane if brief. Impossible! Fortunately, commenter 11 swiftly arrives to set the record straight and make his worthwhile contribution to the  fight against the oppression of political correctness. His special attack is unguided sarcasm. Let’s hope s/h/it doesn’t hurt themselves.

Too much, anyway:

Yeah right. You priveleged white atheist bullshitters. Stop writing books questioning dogs existence until I’ve authorised your diploma in ideological racial right on-ness. WHAT are you thinking off! Tch.

The thing is, no one’s got nothing against the atheist authors, who are cool, and don’t leave racist comments on the internet. This is however irrelevant; non sequiturs are a racist fuckwad’s best friends.

Commenter 12 is a disgrace to all Europeans ever. If s/h/it is really European, that is.

Wow, talk about cultural differences! Just what is this American ‘thing’ with race?
I, and probably 99% of Europeans, don’t give a fig as to who is ‘black’ or ‘red’ or ‘pink’ or whatever, I just listen/read what they have to say. I might disagree with them, but that is not predicated on any personal attribute they may have. Can you imagine an article bemoaning the ‘…ideological space that empowers TALL folk’? or ‘…ideological space that empowers brown-haired folk’?
What (almost racist) nonsense this article is!
Let’s have no more of it….

This would get me several bingos on the racist bingo card. Reverse racism? Check! Concern troll is concerned? Check! Colour-blind racism? Check! Ridiculous  comparing of actual living people to made-up colourful humanoids? Check! No racism in Europe? Check and check! Bravo!

Commenter 13 points out that blond people, much like rich people, are America’s most oppressed minority:

Rather than allow white atheists to control the terms of debate…’

I’m sick of brown-haired atheists controlling the terms of the debate. Where are the prominent spokespeople representing the unique interests of blonde atheists?

This is as  sick as SS is tall, blond and blood-thirsty, and I would call Poe, only I don’t believe in unfounded optimism.

And so on, and so forth. The owner of the first comment that is longer than one sentence and doesn’t make you want to join VHEMT is commenter 16, but then comes commenter 18, who is offended by the ubiquitous presence of sensitivity trainers. Darwin forbid we learn how to treat fellow human beings like they’re fellow human beings or something! I mean, I’m absolutely appalled. The sheer gall of sensitivity trainers! I only hope commenter 16 will be as politically incorrect and unwavering in his controversial convictions as heretofore. The world needs moar douchebags!

As others have suggested (and they got the quotes just right!), Sikivu Hutchinson is a pretentious windbag. Her big claim: “I’m offended”.. not unlike what we hear from some other familiar quarters.

What is she actually asking for? Between the lines: expand the Cultural Studies & Gender Studies and Black Studies curricula to include courses on black atheists and feminist atheists, courses for which she and “experts” like her get to dominate the hiring committees.

The pomo radical feminists and sensitivity trainers have too much influence in the schools and universities, and have contributed (without claiming they are the most important cause) to the lowering of intellectual standards.

She just likes being offended! And wants to leech grant moniez! ZOMD STOP HER BEFORE IT’S TOO LAAAAAAAA-

All I can say is, yeah, I can totally see how the intellectual standards got indeed totally low.

But wait! The most faily of them all, commenter 20 weighs in:

At one time, when I was younger and more insecure, I could be made to feel guilty about being a white male, but not anymore.

OMD! It must have been so hard for him! What with everyone and everything pandering to his white male entitlement, and the one lone non-white feminist harshing his squee, it must have been so terribly haaaard! And yet! It took enormous guts, several enemas, it took courage, and it took unwavering moral principles and intellectual honesty, but here we are!  Commenter 20 was, still is and always will be a complete douchebag. Proud, whiny entitled douchbag. Obviously, atheism needs more people like commenter 20!

Ladies, gentlemen, and poo-flinging monkey, a well-deserved applause for commenter 20, a true rational atheist!

(Via Pharyngula. PZ  is predictably awesome. Still afraid to look at the comments)

(1) More like nothing, really.

(2) This is of course a blatant lie. I troll somewhere else. You will never catch meeee!

(3) In case you’re not internet-savvy, I would like to clarify that you’ve just been terribly insulted.

(4) That it’s obvious doesn’t mean it’s not worth repeating. Many times. If possible, accompanied by beating with the clue bus.

OH WOW

I mean, wow.

A GROUP of past and present University of Sydney students set up a ”pro-rape” page in the sports and recreation section on Facebook, describing themselves as ”anti-consent”.
The students, mostly from an elite, all-male college, initially ensured the ”Define Statutory” group had an open and public profile, and proudly displayed their membership on their personal Facebook pages.

I’m almost tempted to start a page like that in a local language in hopes that it would get flooded with hate-mail and bannination requests, only the cynic in me has very very little hope.

For the sake of their future employment prospects, I hope there’s a cached /screen-capped copy of the Facebook page, somewhere.

(via Unfunny Business)