Pro transgressione eorum, qui negant mali

Both Helen Gibbs and Joshua A Humphries did not like my comments to them in a post on Facebook (PDF available here) that I was invited to participate in. They decided to SWAT them as being 'contrary to Facebook community guidelines'. Good try, MRAs, but poor execution. Allow me to reproduce those comments here:

-----

Joshua A. Humphries: You don't believe Chick promotes violence? I see. You apparently have never read very much into them or who they finance.

-----

Helen Gibbs: You are free to associate with whom you choose to associate with. If you wish to associate with Paul Elam, a man who has no problem promoting sexual assault and harassment of feminists in order to reassert male dominance and roll back equality, then you are free to do so.

I am also free to call you out on it. By associating with him and supporting his website, you support him and his statements. It means you support his statement that the reason women are raped is because "they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though [sic] life with the equivalent of a [sic] I'M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads." It means you support his site Register-Her.com and all the shaming and misogyny that site embodies.

So my question to you is, since you support Paul Elam, and thus support what he thinks and does, why do you do so? A person only supports those who they think are right in what they do and think.

I ask you no question that I wouldn't ask of someone who supported the thoughts and actions of anyone else I oppose, like the Phelps family, or the Klan, or whatnot.

"The many men of the MHRM would treat me with far more respect because they trusted by ability to be self-aware and self-determining."

Yeah, I'll need citations for that. My experience with the MRA community is that they don't treat women as such unless they are completely obedient and submissive - and I'm a frequenter of AVFM, MGOTOW, and Return of Kings.

-----

Joshua A. Humphries: Your point is that Livingstone, Bachmann, et al are right in their opinion that the definition of hate group is too broad.

I'm pointing out that the reason they think that is because the current definition INCLUDES THEM and they think that they're the shining crusaders on the hill. Except they aren't. They're evil, hateful assholes, regardless of their political affiliation. But no one likes to think of themselves as evil, so they ignore that they are. Willful ignorance.

Here's also my point: Livingstone and Bachmann and et al are wrong about the definition of a hate group being too broad.

-----

You should have just left them on the post, folks. Now it will remain with me forever. And I will make sure you and yours know all about it and who you support. If you want to see the whole conversation, it's immortalized in PDF here.