Tuesday, July 22, 2008

The Troll Results

There are currently many sites where trolls bait feminists for a pastime - it seems surprisingly popular. This blog is however, not one of them. Even though there are plenty of other opportunities on the web to do their 'pig-tail pulling' elsewhere, they still seem to find my policy of deleting their comments when devoid of an actual point a little bit upsetting.

So trolls, here is your space. Feel free to follow in the footsteps of jackart- this blogs first troll - and comment to this post with homophobic, misogynistic, bigoted, juvanile and ill-informed insults til your hearts content.

Tips: Why not give your comment a quasi-intellectual veneer by using the slippery-slope argument against making new laws (which fails to take into account checks and balances), cries for absolute liberty (which conveniently avoids the reality that this inevitably leads to the strong oppressing the weak), suggestions that feminsm aims for superiority not equality (which reveals your lack of education) and ill-founded parallels between feminism and religious oppression. Jackart's comment is a perfect example that you might want to use as a template:

If the BoJo's of this world listened to every loony with an axe to grind, we'd be swimming in ludicrous laws, with busybodies sticking their noses into areas of conscience and personal choice just because someone like you is a bit of a Puritan and likes to ban stuff of which you disapprove. Well I dislike androphobic lesbians, but I'm not calling for them to be banned.

I know trolls don't like being confined to the play-pen where they belong, but I'm afraid that on this blog that is your only option. I will continue to delete trolls in any other comments section.

12 comments:

Jackart said...

Please Point me in the direction of the blog where I can indulge in "pigtail pulling" You're merely using the left-wing "debate" tactic of deleting comments then telling everyone how offended you are by the thought-crimes of Homophobia, sexism and racism. I've seen this argumentative style elsewhere.

You want people to come here and say "ooh, isn't bug clever and right" rather than "this stuff doesn't need banning" Which is a rather feeble beg for approval.

You're clearly humourless, probably hirsute, definitely patronising, certainly unsure of yourself and in need of reassurance. I'm sorry I can't give it.

BoJo and his team have gone up in my estimation for telling you to 'sod off' so clearly. Now why don't you take the hint and start banging on about something else? You've lost this fight.

DC said...

Is that a self-portrait?

Just asking - I think you look quite fit.

Henry Crun said...

"I will continue to delete trolls in any other comments section."

For this read: I will not engage in any debate and will continue to supress opinions with which I do not agree.

The Bug said...

I'm putting this comment where it belongs

Jackart said...
I can't believe you read this letter as anything other than "we've hoofed it into the long grass, so please stop bothering me".

Oh well. This campaign is magnificent in its quixotic lunacy.

Keep up the entertainment...

July 30, 2008 3:04 AM

The Bug said...

Sour grapes:

Jackart said...
Oh... C'mon! That comment was fair!

Which word offended? Quixotic? Lunacy? or maybe the Idea that you are not and never will "make progress" on this issue while you include The Sun in your campaign...

July 30, 2008 5:44 AM

Jackart, please only comment if you have a new point to add. Repeating yourself with increasing hysteria is not the same as having a point. I know you are not remotely interested in this campaign and that you visit this blog because you are simply bored and feel like throwing your weight around. Please look for negative attention from people who have time to give it to you - I don't, and I will block you if you don't calm down and take a more thoughtful tone.

The Bug said...

Someone else who appears to have stumbled onto the wrong blog:

btscl said...
What gets me is the old chestnut of "exploitation" that gets thrown around by feminists an awful lot; sure sounds like it from the following article:

http://gendermender.blogspot.com/2007/10/women-of-fhm.html

July 30, 2008 8:24 AM

The Bug said...

'silly little girls'?

will he never learn?

Jackart said...
You suggest "Seeing these magazines from a female perspective". I have consulted widely (GF and several of her friends) Not one of them is offended if a fellow sits down next to her with a lad mag.

You are taking offence where none is intended. It's not an act of hostility to read 'nuts', and the reaction of most men when you do suggest that, is a roll of the eyes.

Indeed this sort of campaign sets the cause of female emancipation back because it lodges in mens' minds that you silly little girls can't stand the heat of an equal society and need laws to protect you.

If you need laws to protect your vulnerable sensibilities, you aren't equal. QED.

I think women ARE equal, therefore I'm not offended by "torso of the week" (jonny wilkinson, in case you're interested looking all blonde and muscley) which I saw in some girly chat mag any more than my Girlfriend is offended by page 3!

July 31, 2008 7:29 AM

Laura said...

Jackart -I never said I can't stand the heat of an equal society I just said cool it with the pornographic misogyny in the press.

Consulted with your GF AND a few of her friends? WOW that's some wide research man - you can unequivically say then that lads mags are not offensive to women.

Guess what? I used to so the 'yeah i'm not bothered by it thing' until I gre a social conscious and realized that actually the stream of pornography, increasing misogyny in porn in to mainstream society is not a healthy thing. It os unhealthy for both women and men. I would not wan tyo bring a child into a world where as a female she would be subject to demeaning treatment and as a male he would be disillusioned and inhibited from forming a fulfilling relationship because of the way he has grown up being taught about sexual relations.

What is only acceptable viewing for ADULTS is completely accesiblle to be viewed by CHILDREN.

I don't care if you and you GF don't have a problem with misogynistic BS. This is a bigger problem.

Do us all a favour and go read your economist/jonny wilko magazine.


Yours truley a silly little girl xoxoxo

Laura said...

I also never said it was an act of hostility to read nuts beside me.

You're inventing an argument you can nay say because you either cannot understand or find fault with mine.

Come on - engage with with man. All quite on the nonsense front.

marry said...

Blogs are so informative where we get lots of information on any topic. Nice job keep it up!!
_____________________________

Accounting Dissertation

princethrash said...

"2. It is inappropriate to sexually arouse oneself in public"

Interesting. I have argued that the pornography of men is overwhelmingly consumed in private. But in contrast to this, women read Harlequin novels (romance novels) in public. Are these not arousing? Does your policy extend to them? It would be, in a British context, an unfortunate repeat of history for the UK gov't to censor womens' romance novels. This happened after the Obscene Publications Act, late 1800's, if my memory is serving me. The first target was not the pornography of men -- which is the primary modern day focus -- but rather the pornography of women. Women read Harlequin in public, getting quite aroused on their front lawns while school children play close-by. What should be done?

balta ismail said...

Home free hardsexporn watch and tube pornmovieswatch tv. for amateur ledporn sites.