Forum Moderation Suggestion

[Marx]

This forum is primarily moderate, with a few 'hards' as Timocrat likes to name them. Some 'hards' have been removed becuase of their disregard for the site's wellbeing and intented purpose. As this is a fairly tolerant site (and thus, admin team), most remain on the grounds of mutual respect.

One of the advantages to this system, of the 'softs' (aka moderates) enabling discourse with the 'hards' (aka radicals) is that unlike feminist radicals who simply get away with spreading misandry, we confirm and reinforce that our movement is not about hatred of the opposite sex.

We fight against hatred - feminism refuses to.

[Incognito]

I think Ms. Clinton would agree with you, though she is said by the secret service to have hit the Mr. C many times. Yet that didn't stop you for voting for her, or asking for her arrested now has it.

Tera one way indirect violence is what you want, and you want indirect violence so you can act as Ms. Clinton and look good and show your peace symbol. Ms. Clinton plays up her 60s profile too, but all you really want is non-stop indirect violence. Your threads here are indirect moves at war, though with just a wiff of herbal tea and group hug talk to hide the poison you bring to innocent men.

O.k. let's get a few things straight. I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton. I did, however vote for Bill....TWICE, so you can put that in your pipe and smoke it.

"Ms Clinton plays up her 60's profile, too" - that's really cool...haven't seen it, don't really care, and guess what? I was born in 1970. I wasn't even alive in the 60's.

Yes I challenge what I see here. I'm not a blind follower. Been there, done that, sorry you don't like it. Oh well.

[Garak]

Hards vs Softs.

Softs become hard in time. I see it as a growing process. Just as many MRA's were once feminists.

Softs grow more and more tired of the misandry being accepted as the norm in western societies and realize that "playing nice" won't change anything, so we become hards. Sooner or later all MRA's come to realize that playing nice is why things are as fucked up as they are and insanity is defined by doing the same thing you have been doing all along but expecting a different result.

[Dylan MacVillain]

There will always be violent whackos, but sometimes they get some "encouragement" from the government. Sometimes the "gubment" does even more than that. If anyone in your "group" encourages you do commit an illegal act, view them as an agent provocateur.

The Bipartisan Homeland Security State by William Norman Grigg

For two years, Bart McIntyre was deeply involved in the insignificant, thinly populated white supremacist movement.

Though it may be difficult to believe, this actually represented something of an improvement in McIntyre's social circle, since his paying job was a position in one of our country's most repellent criminal syndicates, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives, and Persecution of Unsanctioned Political and Religious Minorities (or ATF, for the sake of convenience).

Unsavory as their personal beliefs may be, most adherents of the white supremacist movement actually work for a living, unlike the tax-engorged parasites of the ATF. Tiny though that sub-population is, I'll bet that less than one of every 1,000 white supremacists ever commits a crime against the person or property of another human being. The core mission of the ATF, on the other hand, is to commit various kinds of aggression against gun owners and other harmless people, and the agency is indelibly tainted by its role in the 1993 mass murder at Mt. Carmel.

But this is simply the predictable fruit of a very evil tree. The ATF's progenitors were the properly despised 18th-century "Revenuers" whose haughty impositions helped precipitate the Whiskey Rebellion; the agency also played a key federal enforcement role during the demented quasi-puritanical social experiment called "Prohibition." In that role the agency's immediate ancestor was an appendage of the federal Bureau of Internal Revenue, as the IRS was known at the time...

[Garak]

If anyone in your "group" encourages you do commit an illegal act, view them as an agent provocateur.

That depends on the law in question. It is with bogus laws that the feminists have won thus far.

For example, if MRA's tell other men to boycott the child alimony system, would that be justified?

[haahoo]

Fine.

I'll pack my bags and let judgmental, narrowminded, prig assholes like you run rampant in these forums. You're a poser and a sniper, Timo -- worthless and intent on sowing discord. You're no better than the marxists you claim to fight. You deserve no respect, and you get none from me. People like you are a disgrace to the MRM, and I want no truck with you -- and since others seem to support you, I will simply find other places to speak what I have to say. Stuff which, I think, has a much broader reach than your narrow-minded, judgmental nonsense.

Have a nice life.

Timo is a good man. Dont judge him by his sometimes ineffective efforts to get across his noble ideas, the written word often fails to show a mans good character underneath and dedication to helping all men as best he can.

He certainly wont be packing his bags, and neither should you.

[haahoo]

This forum is primarily moderate, with a few 'hards' as Timocrat likes to name them. Some 'hards' have been removed becuase of their disregard for the site's wellbeing and intented purpose. As this is a fairly tolerant site (and thus, admin team), most remain on the grounds of mutual respect.

One of the advantages to this system, of the 'softs' (aka moderates) enabling discourse with the 'hards' (aka radicals) is that unlike feminist radicals who simply get away with spreading misandry, we confirm and reinforce that our movement is not about hatred of the opposite sex.

We fight against hatred - feminism refuses to.

Yes, indeed.

Personally I would see myself as "hard" under Timo's scheme, but i dont think "hard" would necessarily be the appropriate label for some folk..

"Knobheads" sometimes seems more appropriate..

Anyone who suggests killing innocent or marginally deluded folk in need of "re-education" is surely a knobhead?

Then again, anyone who suggests self-defence, or defence of ones family does not sometimes have an unfortunate side effect that may even be fatal to the initial aggressor, is deluded?

With regard to the "rape" debates that sometimes crop up, I have decided it is impossible to debate such an issue that is confounded by emotionalist hysteria and impossible definitions effectively on a site such as this frequented by the standard levels of intellect heavily influenced by state feminist anti-male ideologies..

Hence, in order to avoid bannings (which I think usually occur here because of escalated interpersonal clashes and disruptiveness over petty crap such as labelling "misogyny" more than any other reason)..

I have decided to avoid debates that risk misunderstandings becoming the norm as they only ever move towards disruption, banfests, folk stomping out, etc..

Anyone can create their own forum if they wish.

Its free and they can say as much, or as little, as they wish..

And like the other 100,000,000,000 MRA forums and blogs, you can always create a few fake posters so it looks like someone may be reading them!!