http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/17...iel-greenfield
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com...l-rape-crimes/
Sometimes no words are needed.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/17...iel-greenfield
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com...l-rape-crimes/
Sometimes no words are needed.
https://itsnobody.wordpress.com/2011...lie-in-sweden/
http://www.geocurrents.info/geograph...en-rape-puzzle
Sometimes no words are needed.
Your move Roosh-e-victory
I agree with Harold here, actually. There's a pattern of hooliganism in football that has historically led to rioting, so you can't exactly say that being Rangers fans had nothing to do with it. That doesn't mean that all Rangers fans are rioters. Likewise, I think there's a pretty strong argument that women have less equality and freedom in Middle Eastern cultures, and it's not that extreme to suggest that that will have something to do with incidents like Cologne. That's not the same as calling all migrants rapists.Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
It's like when you all talk about Americans being gun-crazy. I, an American, am not gun-crazy, but I don't get mad because I know what you mean and there's some truth to it.
Yes, she can talk shit. That article goes off the rails a bit while she talks about white men obsessing over Islamist wife-beatings as an outlet for their misogyny. That strikes me as patent bullshit. Her wider point - of 'yes was absolutely terrible but it's nice you suddenly care about rape' is well made. At no point does she attempt to play down what happened in Cologne.
And of course you didn't get past the first paragraph. Let's not pretend that's the author's fault.
I'm glad it's presented you an opportunity to share a favourite video again. Great. I don't defend Laurie Penny in general, but you asked why feminists weren't discussing what happened.
It's not the case that people don't care about rape. She is full of shit. I've heard her talk many times - I know exactly where she would go with it. She is a proven liar and often, as in the video provided, makes personal (unfounded) attacks then cries like a bitch when she gets it back.
Yes, and I think what you posted only serves to show why that is. She is discussing it, in such a way as to make it seem not worse than what happens here. It is worse and it is something we simply haven't seen here. Just look at what's happened in Sweden - this is not a fucking coincidence.
Cool. She doesn't do that in the article so it's not particularly relevant.
She doesn't, but it's nice to have some background. Just as if Nick Griffin wrote an article you might not give it much time of day. Well, same here. I don't like frauds.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rge-Cross.html
Just one of her lies, after she supported the desecration of the women's war memorial. Which is nice.
If Griffin wrote an article it would be quite simple to challenge the arguments.
It's very simple to challenge hers, since she simply can't bring herself to say anything bad about Islamists without a 'but'. Just as she did on the Charlie Hebdo attacks:
'Murder is vile and unconscionable. Freedom of the press must be protected. But racist trolling is not heroism. Je Ne Suis Pas Charlie.'
I thought these feminists were against victim blaming?
What is it about her arguments that you find persuasive? You think nobody cared about rape before Islamists started their mass rape culture over here? Perhaps what makes it worse is that we are inviting these people in, against the wishes of the vast majority. We lock our perverts up.
That's not victim blaming. She's not saying, "they were trolls so they had it coming".
Feminists are obviously going to take the view that all sexual violence is bad wherever it happens, and it goes without saying that mass sexual violence is very bad. However, it doesn't really advance any feminist discussion to further a myopic discussion about this specific incident, and especially not in the face of masses of people like you demanding they do that so that you can co-opt the arguments for your own agenda.
Same. I can't fucking stand her.
You and many others pedalling similar arguments to you don't. You've evidenced that plenty on here.
A lot of the time we don't.We lock our perverts up.
She's very much inferring it and, given her past, it's an inference many will take from her.
Yes, my 'agenda' is the protection of our society from that of a backwards one. Everyone speaks with some kind of agenda, including you.Feminists are obviously going to take the view that all sexual violence is bad wherever it happens, and it goes without saying that mass sexual violence is very bad. However, it doesn't really advance any feminist discussion to further a myopic discussion about this specific incident, and especially not in the face of masses of people like you demanding they do that so that you can co-opt the arguments for your own agenda.
You made no attemtpt to answer my question. Have another go.
I think we might succeed in the case of hundreds of witnesses being present. I certainly don't think we would invite them over to see our female family members.A lot of the time we don't
She really isn't.
Is there a point to this?Yes, my 'agenda' is the protection of our society from that of a backwards one. Everyone speaks with some kind of agenda, including you.
She really is. She's at best accused Charlie Hebdo of 'racist trolling'. Which is as ill-informed as you could possibly get since they are/were a left wing, anti-racist publication. So she's either stupid or knowingly lieing.
And yes, the point is that saying I have an 'agenda' is pointless, because so do you. And anyone else who speaks from their own perspective on the matter.
To argue that some dickheads are using these sex attacks to support their own bigoted agenda when they've never exactly been campaigners against sexual assault closer to home is fair enough. To argue that the very fact rapes are and have been committed by non-immigrants means there aren't legitimate grounds for a honest discussion on the potential role different cultural norms have had on these recent attacks is not. Neither is dismissing the view that these recent events are of a completely different nature and scope to individual cases of rape and sexual assault that happen on a day to day basis.
I'm not sure what the answers are as I'm a fucking idiot, but it does get tedious when a lot of the left-wing seems more concerned with closing ranks and finding a way to argue that the discussion is inherently invalid, rather than engaging with it honestly. But it is always the way with things like immigration.
At what point does a 'bigot' become a person legitimately concerned by these rapists and cultural fuckwits? I'm glad you brought up immigration, because 10+ years ago I was derided by many of the left here as racist and bigoted for saying simply that there were too many coming in. The view now taken as completely legitimate by virtually every party. It takes time, but reality has to dawn on people eventually. By the time it does, it's often too late.
You just use your 'concern' as a cover for your racism. Being genuinely concerned but not a bigot would involve not being a massive fucking racist.
You're just a paedophile. You just use your 'concern' as a cover for liking kids, you do.
Now that's out of the way, shall we get back on topic?
Except I've not posted about fucking kids whereas you very much have posted racial slurs.
Such as? If you're talking about the fuge then I'll await you dismissing all of Lewis' views accordingly.
There and you've done it here too since you're often warned for racism. What was it you were calling Arabs recently that you got warned for?
Lewis is a racist too, yes. But at least he'd admit that.
As has Lewis. Both wrongly. I believe I said the Arab rapists came from a retarded culture. I absolutely stand by that. Maybe you might find 'retarded' too much for your sensitive soul to take. So let's say 'backwards'.
And that's great, so why have I never seen you smear him and attempt to silence him because of that?
The very reason for the existence of the leftie ignorance acknowledged perfectly by Igor is, in my opinion, due to the way that the likes of Harold seize upon these issues and the direction they seek to drive the debate towards.
This does require discussion and action. I've struggled to express an opinion so far offline to be honest, other than to condemn what happened and state impotently that's it's a genuine issue for Germany and one which other European countries should be observing. Which is like asserting that pigeons occasionally shit on people. Bit of a struggle this one.
Lewis is an intelligent poster with a better grasp of objectivity than most, perhaps?
Regardless of the general quality of posting and humour that would also endear him and lend itself to a more positive/forgiving outlook from his peers.
Damn right I will seize on it. You know, when you are smeared for telling the truth and holding letitimate views, it does make you a little more vitriolic when what you say comes to pass.
I'm not looking for forgiveness. I've done nothing wrong. And neither has he, actually.
I actually understand that.
But it really, really doesn't help.
I think you know what I mean by 'forgiving '. Maybe 'tolerant' is closer to the mark.
Yes, perhaps that's human nature. It's a shame though since people ought to be judged by what they say rather than the way it's perceived as being said.
Now if you'll excuse me I'm going for a cup of tea and a chocolate frog.
What's a chocolate frog?
Like a Freddo?
Hey if anything we have all at least agreed we can't stand Laurie Penny.
I consider my 'racism' to be pretty clever.
It's like Enoch Powell to Harold's Tommy Robinson.
I did. I agree with her point that the people she describes - a description that fits you quite well - do not care about rape by white people/non-immigrants to the same extent they do when discussing cases involving migrants.
We being the UK in comparison to where?I think we might succeed in the case of hundreds of witnesses being present. I certainly don't think we would invite them over to see our female family members.
They produce comics that on face value are pretty racist. They say they do so to satirise actual racists, but that nuance didn't come across when a lot of "Je Suis Charlie" plebs started reusing them (and creating their own tributes) after the attacks - which is what she appears to be responding to.
I didn't just say 'you have an agenda', I said I can understand feminists pushing back against you and people like you co-opting feminist arguments to suit your agenda.And yes, the point is that saying I have an 'agenda' is pointless, because so do you. And anyone else who speaks from their own perspective on the matter.
Agreed.
Yes, establishment vs man of the people.
Except I do. And if it wre the case that hundreds of white Christians were mass raping then I would equally have posted as I did about them. But they aren't, and won't be any times soon. You need to wake up.
In comparison to where these scumbags are coming from, obviously.We being the UK in comparison to where?
Yes, if you have no idea what lampooning is. They do it to everyone, and all races/backgrounds. Maube they're racist against themselves, eh? Of course they got more attention after the attacks - they were barely known beforehand. A proper journalist would have known this, of course.They produce comics that on face value are pretty racist. They say they do so to satirise actual racists, but that nuance didn't come across when a lot of "Je Suis Charlie" plebs started reusing them (and creating their own tributes) after the attacks - which is what she appears to be responding to.
Again, my 'agenda' (otherwise known as my perspective, which everyone else has) is bourne out of my disdain for what lieing tramps like Penny have said and done before.I didn't just say 'you have an agenda', I said I can understand feminists pushing back against you and people like you co-opting feminist arguments to suit your agenda.
Enoch 'Establishment' Powell.
Proper establishment figure.
As many of those jumping on the 'Je Suis Charlie' bandwagon appeared not to. As I clearly said, what she wrote appeared to me as more of a reaction to that than to Charlie Hebdo's own work.
If I'm wrong, fine. I'm not Laurie Penny and I'm not here to defend everything she has ever written, some of which is definitely bollocks.
Your views on immigration are borne out of disdain for people like Penny? Jings, she really must be terrible.Again, my 'agenda' (otherwise known as my perspective, which everyone else has) is bourne out of my disdain for what lieing tramps like Penny have said and done before.
Yes, a member of parliament as opposed to a street organiser.
Proper establishment figure.
Nonsense. She couldn't have made it more clear if she tried.
Good, because you would be here a fucking ling time.If I'm wrong, fine. I'm not Laurie Penny and I'm not here to defend everything she has ever written, some of which is definitely bollocks.
No, my views on feminism and victimhood cunts like her. Or rather, modern feminism.Your views on immigration are borne out of disdain for people like Penny? Jings, she really must be terrible.
Great. That has fuck all to do with the agenda I was referring to.
Yes, it does. You claimed I was 'co-opting feminst arguments'. The sort feminism she displays is a key reason she wants to equate these rapes with what we already see here and to defend immigration on the basis that 'well, everywhere has rapists....'. I will not have such lies. And if you want further evidence of her deception, then I invite you to read this. I wouldn't use anything she's written if I were you.
https://j4mb.wordpress.com/2014/03/2...st-journalist/
Life doesn’t get much better for me than when I’m demonstrably misrepresented by prominent gender feminists. I was (erroneously) branded a liar – twice – by Julie Bindel in the course of my talk in the Durham University debate. It’s a memory I’ll treasure to the end of my days. A supporter has just drawn my attention to a piece written by Laurie Penny for the New Statesman, published online three days ago:
http://www.newstatesman.com/laurie-p...ocide%E2%80%9D
The article appeared originally in the print edition, published 21 March.
I met Ms Penny sometime around Xmas. She’d contacted me while I was staying with friends in London, requesting an interview. When we met, I proffered my hand to shake hers, as is my custom. She visibly flinched but shook it anyway, as she had on the only previous occasion I’d met her, when she’d sat next to me on a bench at Covent Garden tube station. Initially I’d mistaken her for Kat Banyard, another gender feminist ray of sunshine, to whom J4MB presented the following award today:
140329 Inaugural Lying Woman of the Month award certificate – Kat Banyard
We had a coffee – she paid, I didn’t want to be accused in her article of ‘benevolent sexism’ – at a coffee shop of her choosing in London. I’d politely declined her earlier suggestion of meeting in a public house in Soho.
I was carrying a suitcase because I’d stayed the previous evening at a friend’s place in London, and was due to spend that evening at another friend’s place in London, before returning home the next day. My only reason for relating these mind-numbingly boring details is that they relate to areas in which Laurie Penny misrepresented me in her article, in the first of the following paragraphs:
Some months ago, in a nondescript London coffee shop, I met Mike Buchanan, a “men’s rights” activist and the leader of the small, single-issue party Justice for Men and Boys. The former procurement worker, in his mid-fifties, was dragging a suitcase – he described himself as between homes and without a stable job and was moving from one friend’s sofa to another’s that day. It was only a few years ago, when he was looking for work and “a huge woman” turned him down for a job in public-sector procurement, that Buchanan realised that women had too much power.
“I think men are trashed, as you go down the social scale,” was one of the first things he told me. “As you go down the social scale, men are totally disposable. A man on the minimum wage – what chance does he have?”
Now, what’s inaccurate in just one paragraph?
Far from being a ‘single issue’ party, we’re making proposals in 20 areas. Our public consultation document detailing those areas is downloadable from the menu.
The ‘job in public-sector procurement’ was a consulting assignment, as I explained to Ms. Penny.
‘… he described himself as between homes…’. No, I didn’t. I explained I’d stayed overnight with a friend in London (where I don’t live).
‘… he described himself as… moving from one friend’s sofa to another’s that day…’. I said I was staying overnight with another London-based friend that evening.
‘…he described himself as… without a stable job…’. No, I didn’t. I retired about four years ago from business consulting, and haven’t sought work since. I’ve been offered a number of well-paid consulting assignments over that period, and turned them all down.
Far more important than matters relating to me, however, is Laurie Penny’s conflation of men’s human rights with issues of race. Not once have I ever spoken or written about race during my advocacy of men’s and boys’ human rights. Penny appears to be presenting advocates of men’s human rights as racist, when they’re decidedly not. ‘A Voice for Men’ http://avoiceformen.com has published plenty of articles, videos etc. from non-white men, and continues to do so. A recent example is SparkyFister’s series on ‘I need feminism because…’. The eighth piece in the series:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/updates/...lained-part-8/
Penny is using a favourite tactic of hate-driven gender feminists, in a bid to pit men against one another along race lines. The tactic is both cynical and racist, and it’s rapidly becoming ineffective. But then all feminist tactics are rapidly become ineffective, pleasingly. Does she know how utterly ridiculous her analyses appear to people capable of thinking for themselves?
Shortly after I post this piece, I’ll be emailing Ms Penny a link to it. My public challenge to her:
Your recent New Statesman piece appears to suggest I’m homeless – is that what you meant by ‘between homes’? – and jobless, while I’m neither. I have a home, I’m living off my company pensions, and I haven’t once sought employment for the past four years. I challenge you to substantiate your assertions by 5pm next Thursday, 3 April, or publicly retract them, and apologise accordingly. Feel free to retract them and apologise by sending me an email mike@j4mb.org.uk and I’ll make the apology public on your behalf. If I don’t receive a retraction and an apology by the deadline – which is surely a racing certainty – I’ll add this to our long list of unanswered public challenges of prominent feminists.
I shall also be considering legal action on the grounds of defamation, and possibly other grounds.
Have a nice weekend.
She didn't equate them. She's doing what other feminists are doing and trying to shift the public discussion away from immigration and back towards women's rights because - shock horror - that's sort of a big interest for feminists.
Remember back a few pages when we started talking about this that it was because you claimed feminists weren't talking about what happened in Cologne? The entire point of posting it was that, yes, a high-profile feminist author had written about it and had decried it as terrible. She wasn't equating it to any other rape, but you wouldn't know that, because you didn't read it.
I couldn't give a fuck what else she has written. Take your ad-hominem shite and cake the walls with it you stupid bastard.
It's hard to think of a less Establishment-friendly right-winger than Powell.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote