Subscribe via RSS Feed

Racist Sexist Gun Nut Thuggery

[ 216 ] March 9, 2013 |

As a white male, being attacked by the hate-spewing mouthbreathers of the internet gun lobby was horrible. Were I a black woman like Zerlina Maxwell who rejected the ludicrous notion that women should be responsible for preventing their own rapes by carrying a gun, the awfulness would have been magnified 100-fold.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Comments (216)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. cpinva says:

    i had just read that on TPM, before coming over here. my first thought, on seeing those “tweets”, was that it was too bad the author’s couldn’t be traced, and their “tweets” printed on the front page of their local newspaper, for all of their neighbors to see. i know, it would be wrong, but also, i think, a public service. i’d like to know if my next door neighbor is a barking mad, racist loon.

    • Scott S. says:

      This is one of those times when anonymity gets… irritating.

      The thugs get to track down innocent people so they can scream abuse at them and make horrific threats, by email, by phone, and in person. But the trolls always seem to get to stay anonymous.

      I’d love for the thugs to get some “Here’s their real name” publicity. I’d also love it if the Zerlina Maxwells of the world (and the Kathy Sierras and the Anita Sarkeesians) could enjoy some of the anonymity that the trolls seem to have a monopoly on. :/

      • Ed K says:

        I’m fairly sure that harassment of that sort is illegal, and opens one up to various kinds of official action. Just saying.

        • efgoldman says:

          …and opens one up to various kinds of official action.

          Maybe, maybe not. Campos has written extensively on it in the past week.

          • Ed K says:

            IANAL, no doubt. But my point was that there might be more ‘official’ channels that could be fruitfully pursued…

            • cpinva says:

              “IANAL, no doubt. But my point was that there might be more ‘official’ channels that could be fruitfully pursued…”

              absent a specific threat, of specific harm, no, there are not. it’s a first amendment issue: you have every legal right to be a total asshole in public or private, as long as you make no actual threat of harm, or urge others to commit harm. that’s why i went with the “out them and post on the front page of their local newspaper” approach.

      • ironic irony says:

        Sounds like a case for Anonymous.

        • DF says:

          Not to go all “Watchmen” on you, but I think relying on Anonymous is a terrible idea. They do some good things I like, but they might not always. I don’t know what the right way to handle this is, and I chafe at the idea of them getting away with it, but we need to find official, fully-in-the-light-of-day ways to deal with situations like this.

          • ironic irony says:

            Oh, I agree with you, but I doubt we’ll get some kind of official action from this. Too many officials seem to be hell bent on taking us back to biblical times when it comes to women’s rights and the treatment of women. I’ve heard too many excuses for rape from politicians in the past year to be optimistic.

  2. efgoldman says:

    Why did I click the link – and then why did I scroll down. I should know better by now.
    Every time you think they can’t get any worse, the exceed [not the right word – I mean in the negative sense] my expectations. By a lot. Thank FSM they’re a small minority, but they make up in noisiness what they lack in numbers. Some people really don’t belong in civilized society.
    (Having said that, i recognize that they’ll spout shit in the anonymity of the tubes that they’d never say out loud. Nevertheless, they’re letting their true inner thoughts out.)

    • Jeremy says:

      I’m not seeing comments at TPM (is their comment system done through Facebook or something?) but you really don’t want to follow through to the article that links to at The Blaze. I wonder what sort of moderation policy they have there, as everything I saw seemed vile, but stopped short of things like actual rape threats or tossing the n-word around.

    • Hogan says:

      Every time you think they can’t get any worse, the exceed [not the right word – I mean in the negative sense] my expectations. By a lot.

      Yeah, it’s a low bar, but they always manage to crawl or dig under it.

  3. commie atheist says:

    To flip this around, I can’t imagine that the other woman that Hannity had on – Gayle Trotter of the Orwellian-sounding “Independent Women’s Forum” – would be subject to the same kind of abuse from gun control advocates. Maybe I’m wrong, but there seems to be a vast divide between how the two sides in the debate respond to their critics.

    • cpinva says:

      “Maybe I’m wrong, but there seems to be a vast divide between how the two sides in the debate respond to their critics.”

      yes, on the one side are batshit crazy, mysogynist, racist loons. on the other, those who support moderate gun control measures and making attacks on women not acceptably by society.

    • evodevo says:

      Hey, but “both sides do it”, right? So the commentariat at RedState and Freeper and StormFront are the equivalent of commenters at Maddowblog, Washington Monthly, The Nation, etc., right? Right?
      I was a centrist a decade ago. No longer. The word has become so tainted by the Villagers’ total disregard for reality that I cringe when I hear it.
      I can’t believe that any sentient being would confuse the racist, homophobic, misogynistic, spittle-flecked screeds one sees regularly on those sites with reasoned discourse.

    • DrDick says:

      Intimidation has always been the favorite tool of fascists and the modern American right is at least proto-fascist (I would say full blown).

    • Djur says:

      There’s certainly sexist abuse on the left side (plenty of unpleasant stuff about such as Sarah Palin) and it sometimes gets excused in ideological terms, e.g. “oh, she’s an antifeminist woman so she deserves to be told to shut up and suck it” or whatever.

      It’s not nearly as common nor as virulent, and it happens a lot less in leftish “base” venues like GOS where there’s a shared ideological commitment against sexism. And at least some of the cases I’ve encountered in person are just misogynists with a vague Democratic affiliation — I’ve seen the same guy go from saying awful shit about Sarah Palin to calling Nancy Pelosi a “dumb bitch” and Hillary Clinton a “ball buster”, even though he was vaguely professing preference for the Democrats.

  4. mojrim says:

    It’s clear that the people attacking her are sort of, well, sick in the sense that much of far-right spectrum is. That said, she’s absolutely, unequivocally wrong. Libertardians are generally hilarious, but they have one thing right: the community cannot protect the individual, it has no mechanism with which to do so, and expecting it to is foolish.

    Rape, murder, robbery, etc… have been with us since we climbed down from the trees and stopped flinging poo as a form of argument (though clearly not all of us, which furthers my point) and persist despite all efforts to eradicate them. We have laws, we have police, we have courts, and we can diminish the rate of such things by their application, but we cannot eliminate them. Consider murder: no one approves of it, yet it’s still with us everywhere on earth. Even if you assume that rape has a certain amount of social approval (or lack of disapproval) it’s complete withdrawal will still leave a certain amount around, just as with murder and robbery.

    So yes, of course we should all disapprove of rape, and police our associates on the subject, but that won’t solve the entire problem. In the grave extreme of this (as with other things) it is left to the individual to protect themselves. Pretending otherwise is puerile and stupid, and only leaves you to be a victim.

    • efgoldman says:

      In the grave extreme of this (as with other things) it is left to the individual to protect themselves.

      So you go along with the NRA: Let everyone have a gun and return to the Wild West. All the bystanders who might be shot are just collateral damage. After all, they shouldn’t have been there in the first place.

      • mojrim says:

        Ummm… what? If I understand you are proposing that the individual (rape, murder, robbery) victim be left to rot to prevent the off chance a bystander might be harmed in their self-defense. That is morally perverse.

        • nixnutz says:

          I think we can answer some of these questions by looking at the statistics. We are a relatively well-armed society, we know that that has brought with it a high number of gun deaths; if your thesis is correct it should also mean a relatively low number of rapes. Is that the case? No it isn’t, therefore the innocent bystanders are dying for no net societal benefit.

          Personally I would have a hard time telling a woman she shouldn’t arm herself, but the argument doesn’t scale up from the personal very convincingly. The fact is that their largely illusory security comes at the cost of a lot of extra dead people.

          Arguing away hundreds of thousands of deaths so glibly, now that’s morally perverse.

          • ajay says:

            I think we can answer some of these questions by looking at the statistics. We are a relatively well-armed society, we know that that has brought with it a high number of gun deaths; if your thesis is correct it should also mean a relatively low number of rapes. Is that the case? No it isn’t, therefore the innocent bystanders are dying for no net societal benefit.

            Plus one, as they say.

          • Lego My Eggo says:

            We can also look at actual cases where the victims had access to guns and were raped and/or killed anyway.

            • Lego My Eggo says:

              Also, all the women who shot or killed an abusive husband/boyfriend in self-defense and were convicted of manslaughter or murder anyway. It’s a long list.

    • Jordan says:

      “So yes, of course we should all disapprove of rape, and police our associates on the subject, but that won’t solve the entire problem.”

      My God! You are right! We must immediately inform all those people who think otherwise! Please, tell us who they are so we can get on that!

    • commie atheist says:

      You miss her point entirely: the majority of rapes are committed by men who the victim knows, and who feel entitled to treat the victim as someone not deserving of autonomy, but as a lesser form of humanity. But then you probably didn’t even watch the clip, did you?

      • timb says:

        oh, no, every conservative knows rapes are committed by gangs of toughs who roam the streets and tell women — with crazy, evil sounding laughs — that they will rape them. It’s generally right before Spider-Man appears to chase them away

        • BubbaDave says:

          oh, no, every conservative knows rapes are committed by gangs of toughs dark-skinned toughs who roam the streets

          FTFY

        • Warren Terra says:

          The part of the incident where the would-be assailant declares their intentions clearly enough and from far enough away that their potential victim has the time to dig out their gun and prepare themselves to use it is of course an essential part of the Conservative fantasy crime narrative. It is obviously inconceivable to the gun nuts that a violent criminal would have the effrontery to initiate a confrontation already prepared to use force and within arm’s reach. Just not cricket, old boy.

          • Morzer says:

            And that’s before we even get into two other facts:

            1)Handguns are extremely inaccurate, even at close range.

            2) Most murders (like rapes) are committed by someone known to the victim.

    • cpinva says:

      “but they have one thing right: the community cannot protect the individual, it has no mechanism with which to do so, and expecting it to is foolish.”

      which wasn’t what she was actually saying, of course. what she was saying is that (in this instance) rape should be considered loathsome enough by society, that boys/men are taught that from the start, and that rape is treated as just a serious a crime as stealing a loaf of bread from the supermarket is. no one laughs about theft in rightwingnutosphere, they do about rape, and blame the victim for being a victim. the grocery store owner doesen’t get blamed, because someone stole his loaf of bread. that’s what she was saying.

      • mojrim says:

        That goes back to the “we must disapprove and police our friends” clause I mentioned. I do not for a second dispute the idea that we should treat rape as a violent assault, that it’s not just a “boy’s night out” prank. Let us all agree that rape is a terrible crime which violate the deepest recesses of the human spirit.

        My dispute with Miss Maxwell is her contention that the individual should not arm herself (or himself, it does happen) against this transgression of their self. The issue in this debate, as framed by Maxwell & Co. is not rape, but guns. Given that the community can never adequately protect her or anyone else, they should arm themselves against attack.

        We all want to live in a world in which this not an issue, but that’s not really possible considering we only stopped using poo-flinging as an argument a few thousand years ago. Given the reality we live in, young (old/middle-aged/etc…) women should be taught and equipped to defend themselves from this heinous form of assault.

        • commie atheist says:

          Given that the community can never adequately protect her or anyone else, they should arm themselves against attack.

          Why is that a given? Violent crime rates are declining; the position of gun control advocates is that intelligent regulations will prevent gun crimes, which will cause society to be even safer. If women, as statistics show, are actually more threatened by violence from people they know, how is arming them going to affect that? Does everyone sit in coffee shops with a loaded gun on their laps, on the off chance that the person they are with or may encounter may threaten them in some way?

        • herr doktor bimler says:

          Given that the community can never adequately protect her or anyone else, they should arm themselves against attack.

          Many countries disagree.

          • Random says:

            “Many countries with far lower crime rates and lower incident of sexual assault disagree.”

            • herr doktor bimler says:

              So that experiment in “Arming the population to prevent crime”, how’s it working?

            • herr doktor bimler says:

              The “far lower crime rates and lower incident of sexual assault in other countries” demonstrate that communities can “adequately protect her or anyone else”.

              • Hogan says:

                Sorry, it’s not “adequate” unless the bad thing never ever happens. Which, obviously, will totally be brought about by everyone packing heat.

              • mojrim says:

                In reply to all the above…

                Lower rates can be achieved by action of the state. I’m not sure how this ever got put on the table. The issue is the individual, at the moment of assault, when they are about to become part of the relevant statistics. At that moment society generally cannot protect them, all the mechanisms it uses to lower the rape (or whatever) rate have succeeded exactly as much as they can, and have left that person on their own. That is the meaning of “can’t protect the individual.”

                Violent crime is declining throughout the industrialized, now at a 30 year low, compared to the mirror image increase in crime which began in the 60’s and reached a 30 year high in the late 80’s. We have no idea what caused either of these trends, but we can say with confidence it had nothing to do with either policing or social programs as they varied greatly from country to country, yet all had the same result. The only difference was the baseline they started from, lower just about everywhere than in the US. It is not established, but I suspect the baseline varies with how a society is constructed: does it take care of community members or leave them to swing in the breeze. The US, having chosen the later program, and having the highest GINI index of industrialized countries, suffers the worst rates of violent crime (among a host of other ills).

                As to gun crime, or gun violence, that is a propagandistic tautology. There is crime, sometimes violent, and some of that is committed with a gun. If we accept that it doesn’t matter what the instrument of your murder is (dead being dead, after all) it becomes clear that preventing “gun crime” is a kind of chimeric quest; Under a given set of social conditions, crime will occur at a given rate and people will use whatever is available to carry it out. Given that Switzerland and Japan have the exact same murder rate (0.3 per 100k) and that neither the UK nor Australia saw a drop in the overall murder rate after they went about confiscating guns, I cannot be sanguine about the prospects of preventing murder by removing guns from pool.

                On the subject of self-defense killings followed by conviction I can only ask which thing you prefer: that she be dead, or at trial? But really, given the extreme rarity of convictions (at least in the US) for self-defense killings I can’t really consider this a problem. Where I live, as in most states, the “battered wife defense” allows the accused to show that a pattern existed allowed them a limited form of pre-emptive self defense. As with rape, spousal abuse is something we should police our associates on, and teach our children not to do, but that won’t prevent every case. The individual (usually woman) is still left to protect themselves when they are caught at the tail of the bell curve.

                Which brings us to the issue of applicability. Warren Terra argues, essentially that self defense is impossible because the assailant has the advantage of surprise. This is complete and utter bullshit, and is belied by the DoJ’s own stats. According to NCVS there were 108,000 defensive gun uses in 2010. Even if we assume that half of them were someone’s fantasy, that’s 54,000 people not robbed, raped, beaten, or killed each and every year. Somehow or another all those people managed to clear leather fast enough to not be a victim.

                • Malaclypse says:

                  According to NCVS there were 108,000 defensive gun uses in 2010.

                  Let’s not discuss how many were only necessary because of lax gun laws. Best to just have manly gun fantasies.

                • Hogan says:

                  neither the UK nor Australia saw a drop in the overall murder rate after they went about confiscating guns

                  Where, at least in Australia’s case, by “confiscating” you mean “purchasing.”

                  But I’m sure everything else you say is in no way tendentious or misleading.

                • thebewilderness says:

                  Oddly enough gun ownership decreased right along with violent crime. Fancy that.
                  No srsly, you can look it up. There are far fewer gun owners in the US now than in the past, but the ones who do own guns tend to own lots and lots of guns.

                • djw says:

                  Out of curiosity, how does someone of your worldview account for the finding that those in possession of guns is considerably more likely to be shot than those who do not? This is the most famous study, but those conducted with similar methodologies usually produce similar results.

                  The view you express here reminds me of someone who is afraid to fly, so drives instead: the illusion of control makes them feel safer, but it is indeed an illusion.

                • According to NCVS there were 108,000 defensive gun uses in 2010. Even if we assume that half of them were someone’s fantasy, that’s 54,000 people not robbed, raped, beaten, or killed each and every year. Somehow or another all those people managed to clear leather fast enough to not be a victim.

                  I would assume that 90% were over-reactions or escalations that would not have happened without the presence of the gun, and that 9% were responding to the presence someone else’s unnecessary gun.

                • mojrim says:

                  @Hogan: My understanding is that the “purchasing” was mandatory. Even when paid for I think that fits a reasonable definition of “confiscation.”

                • herr doktor bimler says:

                  Even when paid for I think that fits a reasonable definition of “confiscation.”

                  Dictionaries and usage concur that it is precisely the absence of compensation that separates ‘confiscation’ from ‘compulsary purchase’, but if you are making up your own definitions then there is little room for argument.

                • Pseudonym says:

                  Now you wanna run around talkin’ ’bout guns like I ain’t got none there’s no alternative? Are you intentionally dishonest or just stupid?

        • cpinva says:

          “My dispute with Miss Maxwell is her contention that the individual should not arm herself (or himself, it does happen) against this transgression of their self.”

          wrong again, that isn’t what she said. she said that women shouldn’t be put in the position of having to arm themselves, to prevent their being assaulted. she’s right. just as i (a male) shouldn’t have to army myself, in order to prevent being assaulted, or my home invaded. if that’s the case (and it isn’t), the reasonable next question is: why are we, as a society, spending billions of dollars a year on law enforcement, since it’s clearly inadequate to the task? the real answer is: law enforcement is, for the most part, up to the task, it’s society in general that isn’t.

          • cpinva says:

            i meant “arm”, not “army”, obviously.

          • mojrim says:

            Your point is well taken about the exact nature of her remarks. That said, there is quite literally nothing that can be done to relieve the individual of the need to provide for their personal defense. Yes, law enforcement does work in protecting society generally, but reducing the [insert crime here] rate is of no help to the person being victimized when it is happening.

            The difference as I see is between the ideal world and the real one. In a perfect world no one would ever be the victim of any sort of crime, from casual assault all the way to having your pension stolen by the CEO of Chase Manhattan. But we don’t live in that world, we live in this one, with all the other poo-flinging monkeys, with all the violence and greed and stupidity that comes with being an upright animal just recently down from the trees. In this world we do have to take steps to defend ourselves from a host of insults and assaults. Saying that women should not have to arm themselves against rape is arguing for the perfect world.

        • John Protevi says:

          Miss Maxwell

          This is the point where we get to say “fuck off mansplaining troll”

        • timb says:

          bullshit. Plenty of societies have few guns and lower violent crime than we do. 300 million guns haven’t saved us; why would 500 million

        • rm says:

          “Miss” Maxwell made no such contention. I do not think you read or viewed the source material with any comprehension at all. She said while any woman might have a right to a gun, this is in no way any kind of answer to the problem of rape.

          She is right, and you are wrong. You are a troll not because you are wrong, but because you argue in bad faith and because your unspoken premises are fundamentally sexist and racist.

        • Liam says:

          Let us all agree that rape is a terrible crime which violate the deepest recesses of the human spirit.

          Yes. Let us all agree to that. Get back to us when that happens, then we can talk about how guns are relevant.

        • Djur says:

          “Given […], they should arm themselves against attack.”

          Odd, […] doesn’t seem to include “that women arming themselves has been shown to deter rape” or “that women arming themselves has been shown not to increase the likelihood of their being murdered in the course of a rape attempt”. Without that information, we don’t know if that’s “given”.

    • Random says:

      She is definitely right and you are definitely wrong. No question about it. Incident of rape and sexual assault varies pretty dramatically along cultural lines, with society undeniably able to play a definite role in both encouraging and discouraging such behavior.

    • Major Kong says:

      I can think of few scenarios that are so dire where a gun is going to help you, yet at the same time not so dire that you’re still in a position to employ the weapon by the time you figure out what’s going on.

      • DrDick says:

        Please do not try to confuse gun nut fantasies by injecting that reality.

      • Lego My Eggo says:

        Clearly, the woman should just ask her would-be rapist if he’d wait for a moment while she powders her nose or touches up her lipstick. The rapist, being the courteous, well-mannered individual that he is, says, “Sure.” The woman reaches into her handbug, pulls out her Beretta Bobcat, conveniently disguised as a makeup kit, and wastes the guy.

    • EthanS says:

      Lots of choices for defensive force. Why must it be lethal AND ranged?

      Pepper spray, Tasers, martial arts, knives, pointed sticks… Nobody Tasers or pepper sprays innocent bystanders.

    • Thers says:

      Women on Native reservations have more access to guns than to the kinds of “community” protections available to other women elsewhere. How’s that worked for them?

    • Eli Rabett says:

      Such an elegant argument for putting women into chaldors. And it would be best for them to cover their face, no?

    • Nigel says:

      Nothing she said precluded the individual from taking whatever steps they feel necessary for self-defence. She was simply pointing out that ‘you chose to not carry a gun’ is in danger of becoming the next ‘you were dressed provocatively so what did you expect?’

  5. Erik the Parrot says:

    *whistles*

    SQUAAAAAWK

    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    RACE CLASS GENDER
    CRITICAL THEORY
    CRITICAL THEORY
    RACE CLASS GEDNER
    CULTURAL MARXISM

    *whistles*

    SQUAAAAAWK

    • efgoldman says:

      Thank you for the intelligent and well thought-out reply. I presume that Professor Loomis has gone abed, but that he will prepare a lovely stack of pancakes especially for you in the morning. With delicious strychnine syrup.

      • Keaaukane says:

        Now you’ve done it. What’s the over/under on how long it’s going to take the wing nuts to say you threatened them?

        • efgoldman says:

          Threatening somebody with pancakes? Well I suppose if we left them out to harden, and then filed the edges, we could fling them like Oddjob…

          • NewHavenGuy says:

            Was listening to Oi Polloi earlier today, but I wouldn’t think of linking to the YouTube vids of “Let the Boots Do the Talking”. (Bob Woodward would think he was Jack Anderson or something. And your Troll would think he was Alex Jones.)

    • Scott S. says:

      “How did you fight against the evils of liberalism, Grampa Jenbob?”

      “I complained when people said women shouldn’t be raped.”

      “You suck, Grampa Jenbob. I’m glad we signed you up for the death panel.”

    • Ed K says:

      Given how utterly offensive the subject matter here is, this kind of thing really comes close to hate speech in my mind. If I were someone who might have been subject to the kind of epithets dipshit here is trivializing, I think I might feel this as being more or less on the order of a repeat performance.

      Yes, this is an argument against tolerating this particular troll.

      • efgoldman says:

        Yes, this is an argument against tolerating this particular troll.

        Well this one, at least, usually hits and runs, unlike whatever iteration of Winchester is around on any given day. Farley replaced all his posts with doggerel in one thread, and he still didn’t get the hint.

    • Let’s get something straight right now, fucknut. It’s not that Erik addresses issues of race, class and gender that bothers you. If he were addressing race, class and gender by saying that white men were an aggrieved minority oppressed by shady blacks and essence-stealing bitches, you’d be all over it.

    • Erik the Parrot the Parrot says:

      *whistles*

      SQUAAAAAWK

      PEOPLE BLOG ABOUT TOPICS THEY’RE INTERESTED IN
      PEOPLE BLOG ABOUT TOPICS THEY’RE INTERESTED IN
      PEOPLE BLOG ABOUT TOPICS THEY’RE INTERESTED IN
      PEOPLE BLOG ABOUT TOPICS THEY’RE INTERESTED IN
      PEOPLE BLOG ABOUT TOPICS THEY’RE INTERESTED IN
      PEOPLE BLOG ABOUT TOPICS THEY’RE INTERESTED IN
      PEOPLE BLOG ABOUT TOPICS THEY’RE INTERESTED IN
      PEOPLE BLOG ABOUT TOPICS THEY’RE INTERESTED IN
      PEOPLE BLOG ABOUT TOPICS THEY’RE INTERESTED IN
      PEOPLE BLOG ABOUT TOPICS THEY’RE INTERESTED IN
      PEOPLE BLOG ABOUT TOPICS THEY’RE INTERESTED IN
      PEOPLE BLOG ABOUT TOPICS THEY’RE INTERESTED IN
      PEOPLE BLOG ABOUT TOPICS THEY’RE INTERESTED IN
      PEOPLE BLOG ABOUT TOPICS THEY’RE INTERESTED IN
      PEOPLE BLOG ABOUT TOPICS THEY’RE INTERESTED IN
      PEOPLE BLOG ABOUT TOPICS THEY’RE INTERESTED IN
      POINTING THIS OUT MAKES ME FEEL CLEVER SOMEHOW
      POINTING THIS OUT MAKES ME FEEL CLEVER SOMEHOW
      POINTING THIS OUT MAKES ME FEEL CLEVER SOMEHOW
      POINTING THIS OUT MAKES ME FEEL CLEVER SOMEHOW
      POINTING THIS OUT MAKES ME FEEL CLEVER SOMEHOW
      POINTING THIS OUT MAKES ME FEEL CLEVER SOMEHOW
      POINTING THIS OUT MAKES ME FEEL CLEVER SOMEHOW
      POINTING THIS OUT MAKES ME FEEL CLEVER SOMEHOW
      POINTING THIS OUT MAKES ME FEEL CLEVER SOMEHOW
      POINTING THIS OUT MAKES ME FEEL CLEVER SOMEHOW
      POINTING THIS OUT MAKES ME FEEL CLEVER SOMEHOW
      POINTING THIS OUT MAKES ME FEEL CLEVER SOMEHOW

      *whistles*

      SQUAAAAAWK

  6. NewHavenGuy says:

    Thanks, I almost went to bed without throwing up in my mouth a little bit all over the place.

    Was reading Nick Turse’s “Kill Anything that Moves”, listening to MLK’s 4/30/67 speech on Vietnam before I took a break to come over here, to see if SEK had any visual rhetoric or Loomis had some fun Labor History to cheer me up.

    It took me until a few years ago to realize it, but “the giant triplets of racism, militarism and economic exploitation” have company.

    Jesus, they hate and fear women too. Maybe even more.

  7. thebewilderness says:

    Why do people always feel they have to add qualifiers? The internet isn’t representative? Like hell it isn’t.
    It absolutely effing is. There is nothing unusual or exceptional about this. This is exactly what we effing live with day after day, year after year.
    The only thing that surprises me is when people act surprised. How is it possible not to know this is effing standard procedure?

    • efgoldman says:

      The only thing that surprises me is when people act surprised. How is it possible not to know this is effing standard procedure?

      Because the same people wouldn’t dare say the same things out loud in a workplace, church, or a town council meeting. Whereas I think most of the rational people (speaking of myself) wouldn’t say anything here that we wouldn’t say elsewhere, including the snark. Might leave out a few of the “fucks,” though.

    • cpinva says:

      “The internet isn’t representative? Like hell it isn’t.”

      agreed. you can extrapolate the % of extreme rightwingnuttery, from the net, out to the general population, i believe. however, the fact is, the most extreme still (thankfully) represent a very tiny % of the population as a whole. as someone else noted, they really are a tiny minority, with really, really HUGE mouths.

      • jim, some guy in iowa says:

        thing is, when push comes to shove, a lot of folks who wouldn’t actually say that shit themselves *will* end up siding with those who are

      • evodevo says:

        You obviously don’t live out in the sticks.

        • cpinva says:

          “You obviously don’t live out in the sticks.”

          no, i don’t. however, that actually proves my point. the reason they’re called the “sticks” is because they’re sparsely populated. hence, more trees (sticks) than humans. the “sticks” represent a tiny % of the total population, but have a disproportionate level of representation in the rightwingnuttery population.

          • efgoldman says:

            …but have a disproportionate level of representation in the rightwingnuttery population

            And in the US Senate, also too.

            • thebewilderness says:

              Check out the response of the lefty liberals when you dare to suggest that the rape torture and abuse of women in porn isn’t actually “free speech” but rather rape torture and abuse.
              Then come back and mansplain how misogyny is a right wing problem.

              • Joey Maloney says:

                Rape, torture, and abuse in porn (or anywhere else) is not free speech, it’s what we call a crime.

                Pretend rape, torture, and abuse in porn is free speech. (Just like it is in Titus Andronicus.) You can argue that it’s a manifestation of ugly and damaging aspects of our culture, and/or that it’s more harmful in the long run than suppressing it would be. But you can’t argue it’s not speech, it’s just speech you don’t like.

                • Origami Isopod says:

                  Just because it’s not legally actionable doesn’t mean it can’t be discouraged with social opprobation.

              • JL says:

                It is free speech (assuming that it is fictionalized, rather than porn actresses actually being raped etc). So are KKK rallies. Free speech includes disgusting pernicious speech.

                Tempted to include the ways in which I’m involved in feminist activism, but it’s not the point, so I’ll say that I’m a woman and leave it at that.

  8. Leeds man says:

    Doc Ostrow: But the Krell forgot one thing.
    Commander John J. Adams: Yes, what?
    Doc Ostrow: Monsters, John. Monsters from the Id.

  9. cpinva says:

    it occurs to me, this would be a good place to invite her to post a column. she would get vigorous, but intelligent feedback, on policy. you know, if you guys had a mind to invite her.

  10. anon says:

    wasn’t the point not that women are responsible for their rape but rather that they should have the choice to carry or not carry? who can argue with that?

  11. c u n d gulag says:

    And I bet a lot of these loathsome creatures spewing their bile at this woman go regularly to church and call themselves, “Faithful Christians.”

    Maybe their Bible has Jesus giving his sermon at a gun-mount?

    Please, someone, next time, remind me when I’m warned that there are evil and nasty comments somewhere, not to go and read them.
    It makes me sad that the Mayans were wrong.

  12. Data Tutashkhia says:

    Erik,

    the awfulness would have been magnified 100-fold

    just outta curiosity: were your death threats more civilized (sorry, I should say: ‘less uncivilized’) than hers; is that what you mean? Is there a link where I can read those?

    Thanks.

  13. rea says:

    It’s a curious conflation of means and ends–these people start arguing for carrying guns to deter rape, and end up arguing for rape to deter not carrying guns.

    • Ed K says:

      No, they’re arguing for rape as a means of punishing the black woman who had the temerity to disagree with them in public, thus joining a long chain of men throughout history who have used it as a means of colonizing and taking control of women’s bodies, especially those of women who are also ‘other.’ This is an old, very ugly story.

      • NewHavenGuy says:

        Well put. I have just begun to pollute the intertubes myself, and have been reading up on trolls, just in case anyone starts reading my crap.

        A lot of horrifying ugliness out there, but the stuff directed at women bloggers in particular is appalling, even to this very crude and profane man.

        • Ed K says:

          Sure.

          ThoughI was talking about actual rape as an actual means of actually colonizing women’s bodies and exerting ownership and control, though. The symbolic or discursive kind piggy backs off of that, and reinvokes it.

          Google ‘rape as a weapon of war’ or some similar phrase…

    • c u n d gulag says:

      rea,
      They came for the guns.

      They stayed for the rape.

    • Sly says:

      Anita Sarkeesian wanted to do a series of videos exploring video game tropes about women as a possible explanation of why most video game players are boys and men, since those tropes tend to center around women as either eye candy or a secondary damsel in distress. For her trouble, she was received all manner of death threats, rape threats, and other assorted goodness (someone went so far as to make a flash game called “Beat Up Anita Sarkeesian,” where you could click on a photo of her face to create bruises and black eyes).

      So if you’re a woman and you don’t like how women are portrayed in video games as ever-helpless victims to be rescued by the male hero… well… then we’ll just beat the bitch out of you. The Princess needs to be in chains and silent for our adolescent fantasies to be believable.

      • Shakezula says:

        Do the young uns still play Tomb Raider? Although I guess the fact that L. Croft is a one off is central to the point. Never mind.

        • ironic irony says:

          Yes. A new Tomb Raider game was just released, and there was a controversy about a possible attempted rape of Lara Croft in it. I wish I had a link for you about it, but I don’t.

          The only possible female character in a video game that is both the main protagonist and not really eye candy is Lightning from Final Fantasy 13. There might be others, but they are few and far in between.

          • Shakezula says:

            I have heard that there is or was going to be or was rumored to be some sort of sexual assault in the new TR. I think the upset stems from the assumption that if she doesn’t beat/elude the bad guys she WILL be raped. But all I’ve heard suggests it will be in the trailer.

            And honestly, the woman gets killed in dozens of creative ways. The freak out about that seems … ill timed? Propagates the nonsense about rape being a fate worse than death? Anyway, it was odd.

        • Pseudonym says:

          Did Mario walk around everywhere with a giant cucumber stuffed down his cutoff overalls?

  14. rm says:

    Depressing as the phenomenon of online attack mobs is, what’s even worse is the revelation that “protecting white womanhood” is still the frame of reference for a number of white American men when asked to think about the issue of violence against women.

    • ironic irony says:

      Yeah, I saw that tweet from “Michael Shapiro” about how “white women need to be armed.” Pretty sure Native American and Alaska Native women have to deal with higher rates of rape and sexual assault, but no one cares about rape unless it’s a virginal, wealthy, Christian white woman. And even then, they still might not care.

      • If they get raped, they are not a “virginal, wealthy, Christian white woman.”

        Logic, man, logic.

        • Pseudonym says:

          FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Napoli says most abortions are performed for what he calls “convenience.” He insists that exceptions can be made for rape or incest under the provision that protects the mother’s life. I asked him for a scenario in which an exception may be invoked.

          BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

  15. Shakezula says:

    Gosh, it sure would be nice if the igNoRAnce urged its faithful mass of Glock fuckers to calm down and play nice.

    And I would like two sparkle ponies for my birthday.

    Random question: Is there any negative comment about guns Maxwell could have made that would not have triggered this hatefest.

    Yeah, I didn’t think so either.

    • BigHank53 says:

      “I don’t like the Para Ordinance P14 because my hands are too small for the grip.”

      Which would have produced a different batch of clueless comments, though probably a lot less ugly.

  16. Timb says:

    The Donalde, while not following LGM, obviously, manages to accuse the Left of racism and ill manners, prior to typing this:

    She shouldn’t be threatened for making stupid statements, but she should certainly hit “block and report” rather than cry like a freakin’ little black baby whose mom’s too busy with a crack pipe to pay her any attention. Duh.

    [sighes] even when they try, they cannot stop themselves

    • Malaclypse says:

      This proves liberals are the Real Racists.

    • witless chum says:

      He’s an interesting fellow, The Donalde. At first thought, you wonder why the hell a black guy who’s almost certainly experienced shitty racist things in his life would throw this kind of stuff.

      But it obviously feels really good to tell yourself, “I’m special and too smart so the people who don’t like black people make an exception for me!” You see that from the ladies against women lobby, majorly, but there’s an “I’m the exception!” for every ism.

      And really, aren’t we all fighting for a world where a facist nutbag like the Donalde can be a conservative clash of civilizations drip and beg for the blood of innocents to be shed while experiencing no discomfort whatsoever due to his race? We shall overcome?

  17. Uncle Kvetch says:

    there’s an “I’m the exception!” for every ism

    This was precisely Andrew Sullivan’s schtick for many years with respect to LGBTs. He was one of “the good ones.”

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.