[dropcap]A[/dropcap] learning-disabled male feminist has taken exception to my article, two days ago, calling for the public identification of Swedish murder advocates. These are the Valerie Solinas followers who identify themselves as “Scum having fun” in a video depicting the gleeful shooting of a man for no reason.
Futrelle apparently thinks publicly identifying the promoters of murder is a problem. The video, which has been on youtube for a year – is in no danger of being taken offline – despite its unambiguous call for murder. Futrelle claims that “do your part” after depicting a young woman shooting a man point blank is only a performance piece. “Violence and murder have been dramatized in the theater since its beginnings,” says David.
And he’s right, however, horror, or action films depicting violence aren’t published under the title “manifesto” and generally don’t end with calls to action, emulating the depicted violence.
Shakespear didn’t attempt to kill his own uncle after writing Hamlet. Solinas, the author of The Scum Manifesto, did attempt to murder Andy Warhol. The same Scum Manifesto from which our Swedish murder enthusiasts take their identification.
There’s a difference between between depiction of violence – and advocacy of it, and Futrelle is trying to disguise that difference. Futrelle might even half-believe his own argument. It must require constant effort to keep cheerleading a doctrine of violence and hatred while telling yourself it’s humanism. However, seeking approval for conformance to the dominant ideology is more important than actually opposing murder for this depraved and futile male feminist.
So, the MRA is the bad guy for what, publishing the names of advocates of murder?
Our Depraved and futile murder apologist actually makes my points for me. In his copy-paste of my argument, he even highlights a key statement which I assumed readers didn’t need explicitly pointed out to them. [Emphasis Futrelle’s]
Some individuals may criticize the intent to publish not only names, but also addresses, phone numbers, employers and other personal information – on the grounds that such exposure create a risk of retributive violence against individuals who openly advocate murder based on sex. It is the considered position of the editorial board of AVfM that any such risks are out-weighed by the ongoing hazard to the public of these individuals continuing to operate in anonymity.
That’s right manboob, identifying a group of self-declared murder advocates to the public is more important than protecting those murder advocates from the consequences of advocating murder.
In the truth-is-fiction world of Futrelle’s mind, the men’s right advocates calling for public identification of a hate organization have been transmogrified into promoters of violence.
And what if they get killed David? What if rather than be arrested – as promoters of hate, and public advocates of murder, what if these depraved and murderous female supremacists come to harm at the hands of a citizen. If that happens, it will mean that a society’s system of law, designed to prevent hate organizations, and to allow redress of grievance through non violent due process is gone, wiped out by your ideology of violence and hate. That’s what you’re defending, David.
The futile and depraved collaborator carried on to cite several apparently inflammatory comments by readers of AVfM, and since no item of feminist agitprop is complete without lies, he throws a few in.
In his ideologically induced blindness – Manboob is unable to see that the phrase “shoot back” implies defensive use of force. It’s impossible to shoot back, if you are not already being shot at. You know – shot like what is clearly and unambiguously advocated by the swedish feminists.
Yes Dave, I advocate shooting back. As opposed to sitting still while hateful ideologues work themselves up to murder and the public endorsement of killing. Self defense is a moral imperative, although given the deep disconnect from reality demonstrated by our Futile and Depraved Dave – this most simple principal obviously needs explaining.
In truth, the Depraved and Futile attempt to characterize opposition to murder as if it was the feminists video endorsing murder is hard to rebuke, because in Futrelle’s failed criticism, he makes my own point for me several times. At one point quoting my thesis statement:
[box icon=”none”]
“Open advocation of murder cannot be allowed in a civil society, without that society devolving into a culture of brutal violence.”
[/box]
Unfortunately, he spoils this apparent moment of enlightenment by lying.
Evidently [John the Other] has no problem with, or has somehow not noticed, the comments on AVfM fantasizing about shooting and killing the women involved in the video.
Lets expose your lies, Dave.
Every comment posted on that article is still in place – and none advocate violent aggression. The very few hyperbolic mentions of the use of force are statements advocating defense. You would characterize these as murderous, you shameful worm. While you pretend a humanist ethic in defense of the open advocacy of murder.
In fact, I hope your article remains online, Dave – because no rebuttal of mine could exceed the job of outing your craven stupidity, and sickening support of murder-advocating hate organization naming itself “Society for Cutting Up Men.”
To those who support you or your ideology, beware. Not of violence – not of murder. Unlike David Futrelle, I do not and will not lend myself to the support of violence, or indeed, of murder. Beware that we will expose you, and illuminate your hatred and your support of violence for the world to see clearly.
David Futrelle is not, in my opinion, confused. He knows his position is immoral, unethical and in support of hatred and violence and murder. He takes this position not because he thinks it’s right, but because it is the dominant narrative, the dominant ideology. He is an authoritarian, and a lickspittle, and he knows it.
