feelthedarkness Posted July 13, 2015 i'm really sorry you're stuck with these a-holes. also, i sort of don't understand what subtweeting is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mangela Lansbury Posted July 13, 2015 Subtweeting is talking about someone, usually in a mocking or negative way, without @ing them so they can see what you're saying and respond. It's like vaguebooking, where you say "Guess you can't trust anyone" without saying who did what to upset you, but the Twitter version. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apple Cider Posted July 13, 2015 Subtweeting is the Twitter equivalent of vaguebooking (Facebook). It's a way to say something without actually saying who it is about. It's useful in some situations when you have no institutional ability to call someone out directly or can't talk about it with names, but there's also subtweeting that's vicious and abstract to such a degree that it could be about ANYONE. It runs a whole spectrum. Because Twitter is public but no one reads every single tweet from everyone out there, it's a way to talk to people "in the know" without dropping names or specific things. But it's also a great way to rile up a ton of people to your cause without actually detailing WHO you're getting mad at. I've seen a list of the same people in the "anti-gamergate" crowd very generally refer to my friends and I without being specific but just make up shit wholesale. But it could also be a lot of people! It's complicated. But it's also a way to get around people who obsessively namesearch and stuff by using corruptions of their names (TotalBisquick/TurtleBasket/Gamergonk etc) or generally just vent frustrations about things or people you can't come right out and address directly. Basically, it can cut multiple ways and sometimes it justifiably gets derided but it's also a way to gossip too, which has it's usefulness. I tend to stick a lot more stuff behind a private account or a private slack channel these days though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
feelthedarkness Posted July 13, 2015 ah, thanks, it also seems like something that is easily turned into something misogynistic by being vague, and then using that vagueness for cover to "discredit" or accuse you of "being crazy." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BadHat Posted July 14, 2015 Isn't Peter Coffin the guy who that one big-name GG harasser was trying to gaslight about having a fake wife or something? Edit: Roguestar is the one I was trying to think of. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apple Cider Posted July 14, 2015 Yep. they thought his wife and son were fake because he was raising a very large amount of money to pay for her jaw surgery but also because years earlier he made up a girlfriend. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Henroid Posted July 14, 2015 Mike Cernovich (the lawyer who abuses his position to make personal info of GG targets public) has been suspended from Twitter. From what I understand he posted an image of a child being raped. It was edited as far as the graphic parts go but uh, yeah. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vainamoinen Posted July 14, 2015 Do you have a source for that? I'm struggling to find one that's not the Roosh V forums. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Henroid Posted July 14, 2015 Randi was tweeting about it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
feelthedarkness Posted July 14, 2015 that guy sure says "cucks" a lot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gormongous Posted July 14, 2015 that guy sure says "cucks" a lot. I've been able to tolerate the misogynternet's obsession with whatever they've defined to be cuckoldry a lot more thanks to judicious imagining of General Jack D. Ripper from Dr. Strangelove ranting about purity of essence in a... well, a slightly different context. The level of delusional fear is about the same. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
feelthedarkness Posted July 14, 2015 haha! It's certainly telling when "being the subject of infidelity" / "not being in control of your female" is the greatest fear. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vasari Posted July 15, 2015 It really is all about sex. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mawd Posted July 15, 2015 "I discovered their evil plot in the bedroom.. They want to take away our precious bodily fluids!" I think that bit might be my favourite. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apple Cider Posted July 15, 2015 The paranoia and strange lingo of PUA shit permeating throughout all of MRA-Misogynydom is so weird - every weak man is a beta, every man with an opinionated woman is a cuck. They are like terrifying aberrations of human beings who are being slowly eaten away by the idea that no one loves them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperBiasedMan Posted July 15, 2015 The alienation they feel from women is terrifying. I feel so damn lucky that I never fell prey to it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apple Cider Posted July 15, 2015 I'd feel sorry for them but that alienation is pretty much the other side of the coin when you hate women so much that you only see them as things you acquire to have sex with and wonder why no one wants to talk to you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mawd Posted July 15, 2015 They put a lot of effort into testing each other for 'weakness' as well. Sure they depend on each other for the balm that shared complaining brings but there's always a hot undercurrent of competitive positioning. It turns out that being a superiority oriented jerk all the time doesn't net you a lot of friends. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
clyde Posted July 15, 2015 It really is all about sex. CJ633a0VEAAleDG.png Thinking of the assumptions necessary to get to this perspective frightens me.Edit: ok, I looked at some later tweets and he atleast felt the need to look like he was diluting his claim. I guess that is somewhat comforting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobbyBesar Posted July 15, 2015 They put a lot of effort into testing each other for 'weakness' as well. Sure they depend on each other for the balm that shared complaining brings but there's always a hot undercurrent of competitive positioning. It turns out that being a superiority oriented jerk all the time doesn't net you a lot of friends. I wonder how well the "Queen Bees and Wannabes" social model fits male social groups like that. Partially because its interesting, but also partially because if it was a good match, I think the MRA/PUA communities would find it abhorrent to know that they can be described in those terms. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vainamoinen Posted July 15, 2015 Thinking of the assumptions necessary to get to this perspective frightens me. Indeed... "the right to have sex"... is it in the US constitution somehow, I wonder, an amendment maybe? Because we don't seem to have anything like it over here. Dammit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gaizokubanou Posted July 15, 2015 Indeed... "the right to have sex"... is it in the US constitution somehow, I wonder, an amendment maybe? Because we don't seem to have anything like it over here. Dammit. According to wiki, it (taking away right to have babies, somewhat close proximity to having sex (especially back then when medical tech was much inferior and I assume artificial insemination was not a thing?)) was tested to be NOT unconstitutional by SCOTUS in 1927. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell Errrrrrrrrr Edit: clarified that it was not on topic of sex, but rather, to make babies. Edit2: nvm, looks like artificial insemination dates back to late 1884... won't post details for reasons. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
feelthedarkness Posted July 15, 2015 that kern tweet is so losery. also ironic given how the current shitshow zeitgeist was started by claims of a woman HAVING SEX. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mangela Lansbury Posted July 15, 2015 According to wiki, it (taking away right to have babies, somewhat close proximity to having sex (especially back then when medical tech was much inferior and I assume artificial insemination was not a thing?)) was tested to be NOT unconstitutional by SCOTUS in 1927. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell Errrrrrrrrr Edit: clarified that it was not on topic of sex, but rather, to make babies. Edit2: nvm, looks like artificial insemination dates back to late 1884... won't post details for reasons. Chemical castration is legally mandated in some states for repeat offenders of child molestation, if I'm not mistaken. You take a pill and it changes your body chemistry in such a way that you have no desire (or sometimes capability, depending on the pill) to have sex. Now, having your reproductive organs mangled or removed is another story. It's a weird legal thing that's really intricate in when you can and when you can't do a thing, and a lot of it is really awful. Taking away someone's sex drive or permanently changing their body as a consequence of the penal system is really, really wrong. But the laws are there, so there's no legal right to sex in America! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gaizokubanou Posted July 15, 2015 That pill actually sounds like it would be excellent for the problem you mentioned IF it was not permanent (cause our penal system is just so far from perfect). Otherwise yeah it's... very troubling to say the least because from my short google search, too much awful stuff resulted from allowing mandatory castration. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites