Opinion of Memphis

[Gustaf]

He doesn't seem to get women or gender or any of that jazz at all which is impressive for someone claiming to be an adult. His statement that it's easier for women to get high-paid jobs like CEOs is a memorable example of a total disconnect with reality.

If he had a blue avatar he would have been bullied off the forum a long time ago, but the anti-intellectual left on here (Lief, Opebo, et al) tend to have a soft spot for fellow misogynist anti-thinkers.

One of the relatively rare cases when I can vote HP and mean it literally.

[Gustaf]

He's clearly a massive douche and not particularly smart about it either. He doesn't seem to get women or gender or any of that jazz at all which is impressive for someone claiming to be an adult. His statement that it's easier for women to get high-paid jobs like CEOs is a memorable example of a total disconnect with reality.

If he had a blue avatar he would have been bullied off the forum a long time ago, but the anti-intellectual left on here (Lief, Opebo, et al) tend to have a soft spot for fellow misogynist anti-thinkers.

One of the relatively rare cases when I can vote HP and mean it literally.

So you also promote bullying?

Nope. Merely noting a fact.

[Gustaf]

So, are people not encouraged to point out the obvious any more then?  I mean, we've seen what happens whenever people do that for religious folk and so on, and I guess this is what got memphis his personal lynch mob to start with.  But are we all now to pretend Santa is real just to keep the delusional happy?

I'm sure you know better than this Joe. Don't be an idiot.

[Gustaf]

The case Al mentioned is a pretty good example of why Memphis and his supporters are pretty horrible people.

But I guess in Memphis world view anyone who kills themselves after bullying is just too weak to deserve our sympathy anyway.

[Gustaf]

So, are people not encouraged to point out the obvious any more then?  I mean, we've seen what happens whenever people do that for religious folk and so on, and I guess this is what got memphis his personal lynch mob to start with.  But are we all now to pretend Santa is real just to keep the delusional happy?

I'm sure you know better than this Joe. Don't be an idiot.

What.  The hell.  Are you talking about?

This random unwarranted abuse is becoming harassment.

I like Gustaf, but BRTD's posts about his pearl clutching seem true here.

Memphis wants to go after a small, vulnerable minority which is very prone to suicide. And he thinks that objecting to it is being stuck-up, prudish whatever. It's not. It's being a good person. And I'm surprised you take his side. What you're engaging in is equivalent to following the one black kid in school around saying "you're black, you're black, you're black" and then going "what, it's true, isn't it?"

To anyone who has any understanding of humanity that's stupid BS. You have to be a pre-teen, and a pretty stupid one at that, not to get why such behaviour is morally abhorrent.

[Gustaf]

Well, in this case Memphis has been very adamant that people can't get emotionally hurt by bigotry and suggesting they might is just condescending sexism. I seem to recall the word 'weak' being bandied around.

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sure you know better than this Joe. Don't be an idiot.

Actually, the fact that Joe is content to write off anybody who subscribes to notions that don't fit into a strict 'A=A' rationalist Wittgensteinian episteme as 'delusional' and leave it at that is one that he's demonstrated many times.

The case Al mentioned is a pretty good example of why Memphis and his supporters are pretty horrible people.

But I guess in Memphis world view anyone who kills themselves after bullying is just too weak to deserve our sympathy anyway.

You guys have made up so many positions for me lately that it's hard to keep them all straight. I'll have to check with the mob and get back to you.

Not every bias that we have or assumption that we betray is an explicit 'position' of the sort that one can fit into a political manifesto or philosophical tractate. Surely you know at least that much?
[/quote]
That makes two people who've taken it upon themselves to make the supremely defamatory suggestion that I want people to kill themselves. Any others? Perhaps someone should go for the Full Godwin and declare me pro-Holocaust. It'd be such a shame to waste all that perfectly good demonization
[/quote]

That's not what I suggested. What I do think is that you don't care about people you don't understand and that you're willing to see them hurt and bullied to whatever extreme since that's life and people should be able to take a joke. And, yeah, if your insistence that a transvestite is not a real woman drove such a person to suicide I'm not convinced you'd feel any remorse or guilt over it. Would you? 

[Gustaf]

His statement that it's easier for women to get high-paid jobs like CEOs is a memorable example of a total disconnect with reality. 

Did he say that or is that just a parody of what he said?

I don't know why the gender imbalance of CEOs would be relevant to most people's lives in any case.

He claimed that women in the US face no career obstacles for being women and in fact have it easier than men because corporations are falling over themselves to hire women and look gender-progressive, thus conspiring against the poor men.

He did concede that backwards places like Sweden may have discrimination against women, but in the US it doesn't exist.

[Gustaf]

His statement that it's easier for women to get high-paid jobs like CEOs is a memorable example of a total disconnect with reality. 

Did he say that or is that just a parody of what he said?

I don't know why the gender imbalance of CEOs would be relevant to most people's lives in any case.

Well, below it is. I bolded the relevant part about how it's much much easier for women to become engineers than it is for men.

It's not about legal or physical barriers. Have you never known a woman intimately? And I don't necessarily mean sleeping with one. Just knowing a woman pretty well is sufficient to see this. I had a girlfriend who avoided working for investment banks. Not because she didn't want to, because she did. Not because they said they didn't like women, because they actually did the opposite, claiming to want more female employees. But because she very acutely felt the barriers of the sexist culture of those places and the way society expects men to do such jobs better. That's just a tiny anecdotal example from a country usually considered one of the most gender-equal in the world.

You're clearly viewing this from the perspective of a man. Which is natural since you are one. But the whole idea of tolerance and human rights is that we attempt to understand those coming from other positions in life. Not only do you fail in that but you seem uninterested to even try, content to retain misogynist positions. You should really reconsider that.  

For whatever reason, my closest friends tend to be women, so please spare me the "have you ever known a woman "spiel. The question that struck me immediately after reading your post was, why do you position women as some sort of extraordinarily fragile creatures unable to advance merely because they "feel the [perceived] barriers of a sexist culture?" Are they really that weak? I certainly don't think so. What you just said is far more insulting to women that any position I have stated. I'm not at all familiar with Swedish customs or business policy, but in the United States, companies are constantly going out of their way to find female employees, especially in traditionally male dominated fields like finance or engineering. It is, in fact, far easier to get a job in one of these fields as a woman than as a man. We all had a good laugh about "binders full of women" but companies really do this. Women have a serious edge in many fields just because we're all trying to overcompensate for something that nobody can ever define concretely. Which is a bit crazy to me, but companies are more than welcome to run their HR any legal way they see fit. Regarding the Atlas, and I think that was how this thread got started in the first place, nobody takes more crap here than fat people. I would much rather be a woman posting here than a fat. But we still have plenty of fats who are able to "overcome" the slings and arrows enough to post here. I'm even a little husky myself. And as I told Nathan, who remains in his sad little trench with his fingers in his ears, you should be far more reluctant to drop words like misogynist and sexist when they don't truly apply, if only because you may need these words in the future in more appropriate circumstances. When your racist/sexist/whateverist reflex is too strong, you completely destroy the meaning of these words.

[Gustaf]

His statement that it's easier for women to get high-paid jobs like CEOs is a memorable example of a total disconnect with reality.  

Did he say that or is that just a parody of what he said?

I don't know why the gender imbalance of CEOs would be relevant to most people's lives in any case.

He claimed that women in the US face no career obstacles for being women and in fact have it easier than men because corporations are falling over themselves to hire women and look gender-progressive, thus conspiring against the poor men.

He did concede that backwards places like Sweden may have discrimination against women, but in the US it doesn't exist.

This one time Gus said that all men should be hung slowly by their testicles. Fact. I bet he thinks that all cisgendered people should be put into concentration camps

See, the difference here is that you just made up something weird while I just quoted what you said.

Anyway, I'd never be so condescending so as to assume you're one of these weak people who could be hurt or offended by anything. You're a man, after all. So I'll continue to point out that you should probably have a restraining order from women in general, so as to save them from you deciding to 'compliment' them. I'm sure you're not enough of a sissy to complain about some rowdy banter between mates, right?

[Gustaf]

I'd like to observe one thing about where this thread has now gone. Being really self-righteous about lofty principles can certainly be annoying. The reason while I and I think some others on here actually go after people on gender issues is that it is one of the few areas where it actually matters.

Almost everyone will have plenty of opportunity to act out misogyny. Both directly against a girlfriend or wife but also indirectly by the culture you help foster in your social circle. The probability that someone like Memphis helps making a woman he knows not report a rape because she thinks it was her fault for "not locking the door" is pretty high. That's why this isn't something I'd just shrug at.

Lots of the other stupidity that abounds on a political forum is ultimately irrelevant - sure, you love the gold standard, whatever. It won't change anything. But this kind of stuff actively harms people. And harms them a lot. I know gay people who have been on the brink of suicide, women who have been raped and so on.

Now, I think plenty of people can attest that I'm no stranger to offensive jokes or to playing around with stereotypes. But I draw a clear line at actual bigotry of the Memphis variety. I agree that arguing on an internet forum doesn't make one a hero. But that's precisely the point. I'm not asking anyone to go volunteer at a shelter for battered women. I'm not doing that myself. The very least one can expect from a decent person is to cast an HP vote for someone who displays a sickening level of prejudice.

-------------------------

BaconKing, I see your point though. I argued that side myself many times. I simply think of it as a judgment call. In this case I think Memphis has had plenty of chances - several people have tried to explain the concept of empathy or patriarchy to him. He has approached this with the attitude that anyone who cares about women isn't a proper man and doesn't get laid. I think he has exhausted any goodwill on it, basically. Beyond that I think this is a sufficiently socially liberal forum that it should be ok for people to actually stand up for this issue. I'm all for moderate heroism when it's appropriate but I'm also enough of one to abandon even that principle when I deem it best.

[Gustaf]

Just as an aside, from my own experience, the problem that many people have with trans folk is that some of them can be abrasive (particularly on teh interwebs) and that attitude embarrasses those who are trans who couldn’t be nicer (two people I know fit one of those categories!) People don’t know what trans people know; they don’t know the reasons, or the terminology or the correct things to say. Well meaning people make mistakes or genuinely enquire about which I understand can be uncomfortable but can then be faced with a disproportionate response. If I did the same every time someone assumed I was straight or asked a question about my sexuality out of curisity I doubt I'd be taken seriously after a while.

No, I totally get that. Believe me, I've taught people manners on those issues plenty of times. The thing is, in this case it isn't about not undertanding the word cisgendered (which I don't think is a crime). It's much more basic than that. Expressing views such as women having an easy time in careers or that men who are feminist aren't getting laid is on a cruder and properly bigoted level.

[Gustaf]

In all seriousness Nathan I apologize for my sharp sarcastic tone; I try to avoid that sort of thing, and I really don't want anyone to feel bad.

Taking a step back though, I do want to make a point about the earlier issue, which is that I wish everyone on all sides would be clearer about distinguishing the issue of sexual harassment from other theoretical questions about the nature of gender. It actually doesn't take any complex theorizing at all to see that something can be a desirable and healthy part of life but still inappropriate in some contexts . It's not "anti-eating" to point out that in some professional contexts it's inappropriate to randomly start chowing down on a pizza. It's not "anti-sleep" to point out that it's often very disrespectful to fall asleep in front of someone. And the same applies to making a sexual pass at someone. This whole flare-up actually started not with a discussion of the transgendered at all, but with a poster reporting that he had been sent some directly sexual messages when he was thought to be female. Pretty much everyone there of different political views and generations, including Duke and Gramps, recognized in that thread that this was kind of creepy, because they understood that in a world in which some men do not respect women's consent at all and in which there is a long history of women being considered unfit for serious intelligent work, it might reasonably cause even a women who might be quite happy to be hit on by certain men in certain contexts to feel upset and threatened to be sent sexual propositions from behind a veil of internet anonymity when she had come to discuss political geography and not voluntarily entered the sort of bar, party, etc., where there might some expectation of loosened boundaries. And yet Memphis responded that "being hit on is not a problem" and the only reason that the discussion turned to the transgendered was that he appeared to think that the only reason one could possibly be offended by this attitude was an opposition to heterosexuality more generally. It doesn't actually depend on any theory of the nature of gender to recognize that this is an outrageous attitude.

This is a mistake I often make - I consider this point to be so obvious I sort of assumed everyone was debating on this premise. I mean, let's take another step back and consider how any sane person would not think this way?

So, yeah, I'm not a radical feminist. I'm not necessarily on board with Nathan et al (I like that term so I'll stick with it) when it comes to cisgender and whatnot. But anyone who thinks that it's just dandy to hit on women regardless of circumstance has something a little bit wrong with them, I think.

Joe, for someone so anti-religion you're surprisingly anti-intellectual.

Memphis, I don't get your point. I'm quoting you. If you agree the things you said were abhorrent or stupid maybe you shouldn't have said them. I'm not making up random slander so stop pretending that I am.

[Gustaf]

I don't really mind 'Nathan et al' so long as it's not being used in such a way that I feel I'm being, for lack of a better word, accused of something. When it's being used as shorthand in the way that Bacon King was using it I guess it's actually kind of flattering.

Also I'd like to inform the forum that I've officially changed 'Wittgensteinian' to 'Vienna Circle-esque'. It has the twin virtues of being more accurate and working better as an insult, since Wittgenstein actually did do a lot of really important, impressive work in fields that I wish I understood better.

I feel better now.

Since no one really understands Wittgenstein I don't think you should feel bad about that.

[Gustaf]

Ok, I read the longer posts on the last page now. So I should comment.

I don't consider what Sbane said to be particularly offensive. Nor do I necessarily disagree.

There seem to be 3 important points of rebuttal coming from Memphis or people supporting him.

1. Men and women display inherent differences

There are a couple of things to say on this. Everyone agrees men and women behave differently, on average. That's pretty clear. The question is to what extent this depends on biology. This is an open question. The short answer is that we don't know for sure. What we do know is that social norms play a big part - this is evident in part due to changing gender roles throughout history and across the globe. But also in how peoples' behaviour in general is clearly very variant with culture. Thus, the idea that society is currently going too far in forcing gender equality onto natural differences is quite dubious. If one wants to argue this you need to indicate awareness of this other stuff to be taken seriously.

Secondly, and this is more important, even if there are such differences how should society treat them? If women are on average less suited to be engineers there will still be plenty of excellent female engineers. Constantly pushing the narrative of how women are worse engineers will do these women a great disservice.

To give a random example. If I'm making a movie about some criminal I could say that the criminal should definitely be black because blacks are so overrepresented in crime. But many of us might consider such an attitude to be problematic, precisely because it leads to people crossing the street when they see a young black male on the same side. Social stigmas matter, which leads to the next point.

2. Memphis has previously claimed that social norms and expectations wouldn't affect any normal person and that the claim that women might be held back by such things is the same as calling women weak and fragile. The same apparently goes for the idea that women shouldn't be subjected to constant sexual advances.

This is, basically, wrong. It shows a very shallow understanding of human society and psychology. People are very much affected by how society expects them to act and such things constitute major obstacles to people. People report posts on this forum because they're offended. People kill themselves over bullying. Examples abound of this sort of thing.

What makes this particularly offensive, at least to me, is the sheer nerve to say this from a privileged position. Most of us here are men. White men, at that. And in spite of the jokes I think the majority is also straight.

As such we don't have to live with this kind of stuff. Of course, you can have plenty of other problems, be it poverty or depression or whatnot. But the current topic, this thing, you don't have to live with. The condescension of informing others that they shouldn't whine about a problem you will never have to face yourself is deeply offensive. I'm all for arguing against victimization, but you need to be sensitive about it if you don't want to come off as a bigoted asshole.

3. This leads nicely into the last line of rebuttal, which goes something like "those who disagree that women can be sexually harassed and aren't fit for work are probably total pussies who like to dress in mens' clothing and will never get laid"

(ok, that was nasty hyperbole, but you know what I mean)

First of all, this is not true. At all. Me and most of my good friends get laid plenty and would never peddle this type of misogynist BS.

But more importantly there is so much wrong with this imagery. Invoking the concept of the 'real man' as an ideal to follow is highly oppressive, denying people the right to form their own identities. It promotes the idea that I have to act a certain way due to my gender. It is at the end of the day highly moralizing. It also indicates bigotry towards people who don't conform to stereotypes. Gay men is an obvious example of this but it really is about anyone.

Beyond that it is disturbing because it indicates that I could only care about women if I'm basically a woman myself. This goes against empathy and universalist values.

Finally, and this really needs to be stressed for people to get this context. This kind of stuff drives people to suicide. Which is why it isn't just a bit of a joke or something we should shrug off because you agree with Memphis on Obamacare or something. I'm not affected by it. I'm a white, rich, straight man. But as much of an asshole as I am I do have some empathy. And I know plenty of people have a damn hard time. And I'm willing to let them decide what makes their life a bit easier and not tell them they're men in women's clothing or chicks with dicks just because it's the kind of thing other straight men may laugh at in the pub.

[Gustaf]

Ok, I read the longer posts on the last page now. So I should comment.

I don't consider what Sbane said to be particularly offensive. Nor do I necessarily disagree.

There seem to be 3 important points of rebuttal coming from Memphis or people supporting him.

1. Men and women display inherent differences

There are a couple of things to say on this. Everyone agrees men and women behave differently, on average. That's pretty clear. The question is to what extent this depends on biology. This is an open question. The short answer is that we don't know for sure. What we do know is that social norms play a big part - this is evident in part due to changing gender roles throughout history and across the globe. But also in how peoples' behaviour in general is clearly very variant with culture. Thus, the idea that society is currently going too far in forcing gender equality onto natural differences is quite dubious. If one wants to argue this you need to indicate awareness of this other stuff to be taken seriously.

Secondly, and this is more important, even if there are such differences how should society treat them? If women are on average less suited to be engineers there will still be plenty of excellent female engineers. Constantly pushing the narrative of how women are worse engineers will do these women a great disservice.

To give a random example. If I'm making a movie about some criminal I could say that the criminal should definitely be black because blacks are so overrepresented in crime. But many of us might consider such an attitude to be problematic, precisely because it leads to people crossing the street when they see a young black male on the same side. Social stigmas matter, which leads to the next point.

Yes, Gustaf, there will still be plenty of excellent women engineers, and in case you missed it, my mom is one of them. I know you are having fun with strawmen, but please stop misrepresenting my position. Got it?

All I have said is that GENERALLY (hopefully you understand the meaning of the word Gustaf) women are not as interested in being engineers as the subject matter does not appeal to them. That does not mean there aren't other reasons why so few engineers and doctors are women. I was just pointing out that the imbalance in genders in the medical field will likely even out very, very soon while the imbalance in engineering and math is likely here to stay. Again, I am speaking GENERALLY here.

There are real issues women still face today. Why don't we just listen to how Sheryl Sandberg herself describes the problem. One of them is that women many times don't take the lead. At least there the problem is mixed between biological and societal standards. I can't say what predominates there. The other more pressing issue is familial pressure. If you want to talk about women's issues and why you don't see them in the high ranks of society, this is the big elephant in the room. As Sheryl described on Meet the Press, she was once dropping off her kid at school. When they got there, one of the other parents (likely a woman but she didn't say) informed her that the kids were supposed to dress up like something or the other, and her kid was not dressed up in such a manner. After dropping her kid off, she felt terrible about it the whole day, and felt that she was a horrible mother. Then she got to thinking, if it was her husband dropping the kid off, would he even be told about it by the other parent? And more importantly, would he even beat himself up about it like she did? As you can see here, both biology and society are at play. This is a complex issue, Gustaf. I don't see why you and others want to simplify it. That is not the correct approach if you really want to find a solution.

How the hell am I straw-manning? I literally said I did not find what you said offensive and that I to some extent agreed with it! If anyone is misrepresenting someone's position it seems to be you, weirdly enough while quoting me in a way that disproves this straw man.

Like, where do you get the idea I want to simplify it. My post made clear that I think both biological and social factors play a role.

My problem is when people like Memphis argue that men are being oppressed and persecuted and need to strike back for their rights to hit on women and so on. Because that's, frankly, a bit deranged and not adding either nuance nor complexity.

[Gustaf]

You've beaten the crap out of some strawmen, Gus. Good job.

They're not strawmen just because you say so. I'm quoting things you said. If you want to run away from those things now, that's your business, but stop the lying. If you say stupid or morally reprehensible statements you're going to have to live with it.

In this case you made the claim that it's easier for women than for men to get fancy jobs. You said that being hindered by things like social norms implies that one is weak and fragile. Those aren't straw men. I even took the pains of posting your quote on it somewhere.

Either defend your statements or admit you were wrong. Don't pretend as if you never said them.

[Gustaf]

This happened over the last few days and is quite nicely timed to fit in with this discussion.

So, this girl I know recently went to Africa to work on her thesis (which is about development in poor rural areas, etc). She's been staying with a guy who is at the local university there.

Then she got malaria and was quite ill so he had to take care of her a bit. Then he decided to make a move on her, began to talk about how he wouldn't let her go back, tried to pull her in for kisses and so on. Now she feels terribly unsafe around him and it's making her freak out, because when she's hit by malaria she gets to the point of passing out, so she feels dependent on him.

This has led her to decide to reschedule her flight to get out early (because she doesn't really know anyone else there either).

Now, in the world of say Memphis I guess this is a sign of weak character and thus one should not show consideration for her, being weak and all.

But in my world it's a decent example of how it can be hard to be a woman, particularly when you're an engineer as in this case. And I think it's unfair.

His inability to empathize with this sort of thing clearly stems from the fact that he would never have to face this type of problem. I think it's a bad aspect of a character to not have a shred of empathy for others. Especially when there is a streak of petty and mean-spirited vengeance to it, like there is with Memphis' attitude to women.

[Gustaf]

These discussions about gender - and gender-related behaviour - made by people who seems not to have any clue about anyone but themselves (and this, surely, on the very shallow level of self knowledge most people have) are a very good way to lose the very last hopes about human beings as individuals.

Dammit!! Reading an argument between 15 years old machista thinking patterns against 15 years unsophisticated-pseudo-feminist thinking patterns is a very bad exercise on self-inflicted psychological torture.


Why don't you boys and girls of all ages and chromosomes just go around meeting people, treating them like people, knowing them deeply (once you really connect to someone, he/she will always open up their soul to you; try it kids, it's not that hard, you just must demonstrate you're not wanting to use them or take something from them - just be sincere and amicable) and, doing so, start to perceive how contradictory the individuals of our species are?
How prone to be douchebags and, and the same time, to be selfless we all are?
How males and females of any body configuration are different one of each other as groups? And how oddly we are the same and we're doing the same stupid things all the time, again and again?

Let me tell you somethings, for you seemingly inexperienced in life folks to start:

- men are all douchebags;
- women too, but a bit less conspicuously;
- but if you like one of those groups (or both, if that's your thing) It's marvellous to hang out and to live together;
- and it's also like hell;
- and coexisting with your own kind is much more easy;
- and men are plainer than women and easier to deal, in any kind of relationship (love, friendship, whatever);
- but this doesn't make us any less complicated - we are very complicated too;
- but once you understand the other group (and you'll just not understand if you spend energy on not paying attention to them) it's like learning another language without formal study - that immersion technique, you know?
- and people behave differently, and many of them go way out the stereotypes;
- and there's absolutely nothing remarkable in what I wrote here: it's cliché, over cliché, over cliché, just because it's obvious - but such a few people stops to pay attention to those clichés.


So, please, stop this stupid discussion and go meet the world. It's not far at all; I bet that in your extended Family and neighbourhood you can find all the material you need.

Porra!! Cambada de cabaços!


(sorry for the bad expeletives in Portuguese, but I just needed to relax a little).

I think the issue is precisely that some of us have bothered to understand how it is to be other people in the real world and some of us haven't.

[Gustaf]

This happened over the last few days and is quite nicely timed to fit in with this discussion.

Now, in the world of say Memphis I guess this is a sign of weak character and thus one should not show consideration for her, being weak and all.

Why not ask him? I mean, she’s vulnerable due to her illness, is in a strange land and a stranger is coming on to her repeatedly. That would be considered harassment. I think Memphis would consider it harassment too;

I am not a supporter of harassment. Persistent slimy behavior is inexcusable.

He thought messaging a young girl asking her to come to a hotel room to get drunk was totally cool, so I'll admit I'm inferring.

He also seemed to think that it was ok for a woman to rub herself all over him and that this should go both ways, so he seemed to imply that it was all right to feel someone up in the workplace as long as it's not persistent.

When is someone is as far beyond the pale as he is, it's hard to make charitable interpretations of their positions though.

[Gustaf]

I agree with afleitch that Gustaf's example here isn't something memphis would agree with.  I think Gustaf is bordering on beng very unfair at this point.

Gus has created a monster in his head, and no amount of reasoning can slay the dragon. He sees it and so will forever insist it is real.

You've created an impression of yourself through repeated posting on these topics. And the impression is not very pleasant. I've been very careful to stick to things you've actually said and you've had plenty of opportunity to explain them. That you resort to just ad hominems and playing victim cards is quite indicative. I posed you a series of questions in your thread trying to de-mod me. You're still free to answer them, you know.

[Gustaf]

Memphis supports raping sick and disabled women!

Lol. Classic Gustaf.

Eh. Now you're ironically engaging in the behaviour I'm being accused of. I never used the word rape.

Also, you don't have to worry. I still rank you lower than Memphis in terms of likability.

Memphis is very oblivious to how it feels to be a woman and what it is like to feel vulnerable. His posts repeat these notions ad nauseam. So I thought it might be instructive to give an example of it.

[Gustaf]

Why doesn't Gustaf ever rave about hating any right wing posters?

Because I don't enjoy lynch mobs. We've been over that. And before you get started, I've opposed Memphis since before it was cool.

[Gustaf]

Because you've never been on a hate bandwagon against any poster before....

I don't do it in a bandwagon way. But often there are others who agree with me at some point. That's not so strange.

I don't have your need to pick a side to root for. I'm more individualist in my mindset, you like to have something to follow.

[Gustaf]

Memphis supports raping sick and disabled women!

Lol. Classic Gustaf.

Eh. Now you're ironically engaging in the behaviour I'm being accused of. I never used the word rape.

Obviously. It is kind of fun, so I see why you do it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh goody! Does that mean I rank higher in other areas?

Well, I don't think that's what I do.

I certainly think you're smarter - being nasty seems to be more of a conscious choice for you, while Memphis more comes off as clueless and bigoted. I don't think he fully understands how cruel his attitude is.