Morons of the Internet: Re: Asexblogofonesown (22/01/15)

This is the segment where I scour my favorite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words from some of my favorite human beings.

In this edition we have the return of our opinionated blogger from last time who's been answering a few hate comments after her last post went viral. She's being less of a moron this time, but that won't stop me from giving my own views on what she has to say, after all she still hasn't answered the points that I brought up last time.
____________________________________________________________________________
https://asexblogofonesown.wordpress.com/2015/01/13/a-response-to-some-of-the-nonsense-ive-heard-over-the-past-week-and-a-reading-list-for-all-non-feminists-bleugh/
____________________________________________________________________________

Well apparently it's okay because it was all a bit of a joke. It certainly didn't read like one, especially when you insulted her personal life and then called her 'opinions' insular in your original article. I may have missed the punch line here, but it looks like a personal attack if anything else. She's right that you wouldn't find that sort of behaviour in a high brow newspaper, but that doesn't justify your comments towards Kaley Cuoco; you may not get payed to write, but that doesn't excuse stating absolute bollocks. I don't even care that you wrote in a very ignorant style, because at the end of the day it's your blog. What I do care about is the pathetic arguments you put forward, and what little relevance they had to blatantly attacking Kaley Cuoco.

Of course because the writer is a woman she is being victimised in every way possible. God if only you were a man, then you probably wouldn't make a stupid comment that hinge on the generalisation of a whole gender. As a man I can reliably inform her that what she wrote is not 'banter', as there is a fine line between that and a malicious attack. God knows where she got the other part from. Not only have I never seen men slapping each other on the ass because of some 'banter', but I have never even heard of it. I understand your writing style is meant to be humorous, but you can't expect me to listen to your points seriously when you just make up a load of bollocks like that. It's almost like she's totally misinformed, which I believe was what she was chastising Cuoco over in her previous article. That would make you a hypocritical bitch, and I didn't mean your 'brilliant' kind of bitch either. Oh look at me, I'm all revolutionary. I can change the meanings of words. That's it, fight that evil patriarchy by changing their words.

Oh it seems I was mistaken. I was apparently missing the point. How did I manage that? It must have been the point in your previous article where you said that "it is bad if you say no" when responding to the question of whether Cuoco was a feminist. In my funny little world that doesn't sound like you're permitting her to have her own views, but then I can't read minds so what do I know? Well I do know that if you verbally attack someone on the internet then you can expect some similar comments to be directed at you; after all that's exactly what you started, and so for you to reply in your same stuck up fashion is a little hypocritical. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. But then I forgot you were supposed to be playing the victim to a society that according to you is based on popularity. So what if the sheer volume of people disagree with her; does that instantly make Cuoco in the wrong? It doesn't say much for feminism if popularity is the reasoning behind its message.

Hmm you said that quite firmly. I can't imagine where people get the idea that feminism is promoting women's rights over others. Maybe if she decided to put down her teen fiction and actually read some facts then she might discover with a quick Google search that what she's saying is complete bollocks. For example, these are the various groups of people that call themselves feminists:

You're seriously telling me that all those people believe in equal rights for both men and women. Well how about clicking on 'radical feminism' like I did. I won't go into specifics, and hell neither do you so my reasoning will just be wasted, but a quick little read of that might convince you that your definition of feminism is completely wrong. I'm not claiming that the majority of feminists are like this, in fact I find most are respectable people, but out of all these subdivisions there is a significant number that disprove your point. So for the last time please stop using the umbrella term 'feminism' to generalise a whole philosophy, as otherwise you're creating the same problems that you want to eradicate.

What bad connotations? Oh I don't know, maybe the T shirts that read 'I bathe in male tears' can't exactly be considered good connotations, neither can the mugs that say 'male tears' on them either. There's even individual criticism on some of the pages that I found for my little bit of research, so you can't just live in denial, especially when that is a much more accurate picture than any fictional book will give you. She missed out the part of 'heroic' campaigning when women decided to become a public nuisance, and that didn't even get them the vote. So it's not 'heroic' and poor campaigning. In the end the starving she's talking about meant jack shit. I would also say that they weren't fighting for 'basic' human rights. They've always had human rights, and now they have equal rights. So you trying to justify a modern movement with evidence from the turn of last century is completely irrelevant.

You also say that people who deny that feminism has amazing connotations are 'ignorant', and no reading a biased book of fiction is not a valid argument to back up that statement. It's actually quite ironic that ignorant literally means "lacking knowledge or awareness in general", and I've just been accused of that by a person who lives in denial that a part of her philosophy might not be what she makes it out to be, yet apparently I'm the ignorant one. At least I bothered with a quick search; you obviously didn't as otherwise you would discover that you talk complete bollocks. Maybe she should do some research instead of reading those fucking fictional books. The examples she lists can only be merited as art and not sourced as factual information. Sure her examples might carry tropes and motifs of the time they were set, but that doesn't mean they can be applied to your argument as it occurs in a separate realm of fiction that may only reflect reality; not the other way round.

So to conclude I will call feminism a dirty word, and especially when it spews out the mouth of a social justice warrior like yourself. As an English literature student I've had the pleasure of reading many of the books you have cited, but I still disagree with you as its clear that the core principals of your philosophy are inconsistent and unsustainable. You can shove as many books in my face as you want, but the fact remains that without any real world evidence your morals are just words on a page. At no point have you justified your argument with reliable information and yet you still talk with the ignorance of someone who thinks they have the moral high ground. In your last article you used the term 'insular'. I think that applies to this one as well.