Please Join Me for the Pitting of LinusK

I am just so tired of the anti-feminism threads where he APPEARS to solicit other views…and then he ignores or steamrolls over those views. Feminists believe this…but al of the feminists in this very thread don’t count. Women say this…but the women in this thread (or are cited)-- well, they don’t count. It does seem like he has this very narrowly bounded view of life and he doesn’t accept that his view may not actually be accurate.

It’s the “one trick pony” of the American right wing at this time, and has been since Rush Limbaugh barfed his way onto the scene.

In the current thread he’s complained repeatedly that feminists don’t listen to men, but you’re right – he can’t listen to feminists even when they’re responding to a question he asked of feminists.

Well, if he asks a question and they give an answer that doesn’t support his opinion, obviously, they didn’t listen to the question. :dubious:

Jeez Crize, tomndebb cuts him a new hole in this post! Worth reading for the pure joy of it.

Remind me not to get on tomndebb’s bad side!

I actually think tomndebb was going kind of easy on him with this bit:

Since LinusK has started at least half a dozen threads on basically the same topic within the past month it’s perhaps unsurprising that he’d get them mixed up. But it’s worse than that. LinusK has claimed that posts that he made himself in previous threads were made by other people in the current “Anti-Feminism” thread.

Although this has been pointed out, with links and everything, in the current thread (see here, here, and here), LinusK has yet to acknowledge this. Instead he complained that people weren’t interested in having a “real debate”, as if it were possible to have a real debate with someone who cannot tell the difference between things other people are saying to him now and things he said himself a few weeks ago.

This guy makes Grandpa Simpson look like Clarence Darrow.

Yep. He linked to the debate in the OP of the canaries thread. Now he’s claiming that “someone” did. That’s weird.

Definitely weird.

*I was responding to “someone” [me] that posted a link [in another thread] and that’s why i am a master debater, faced with posters who simply snipe and don’t address my fantastic arguments [that i haven’t actually made]. *

I think it’s because none of it is coming from his own reasoning. He came across the MGTOW sites and the Karen Straughan videos and found their ideas personally appealing. He has taken their ideas whole cloth and presented them here, expecting us to be as convinced as he was.

What he is overlooking in his enchantment is that none of their assertions are backed by cites and sources. I checked out Karen Straughan, and she is in the habit of making claims like"studies show…" without citing the study. I even went so far as trying to find the study based on her description and mostly couldn’t find anything. In one case, I found the study, and it didn’t say what she claimed it said.

Her videos and speaking engagements are emotionally appealing to unhappy men, who don’t bother to verify what she is claiming. Very profitable for her and those like her, but I haven’t been able to find any instance of them actually helping disadvantaged men.

A post in ATMB got me thinking. I think LinusK seems more like someone from certain parts of Reddit than a Doper.

The reason I still come here even though I use Reddit more often is that I sometimes need to get away from the insanity when it pops up there.

Not only has he still not acknowledged any of this, he’s now claiming that no one has bothered to explain the flaws in his arguments to him:

Nature gave you nothing to work with, LinusK.

That’s pretty pathetic. Why do you need other people to join the pitting? Why can’t you just do it yourself. It’s like you’re too much of a wimp to stand by your pitting yourself, and need your howling buddies to prop up your courage. Grow a spine for your next pitting.

Well, generally, people post so that other people can read it. Otherwise it’s pointless. Keep a journal at home.

And pretty clearly I am not the only one frustrated, irritated, annoyed, and of the opinion that **LinusK **is missing a few bats from his bellfry. If anything, I’ve learned more about that since starting this thread. Asking others to read my thread doesn’t seem out of line.

Happy to stand by my pitting, but the pittee hasn’t joined. Alas, alack.

I would apologize that you find my phrasing annoying, but I don’t care.

I can state that the Pit is an odd place. The absolute weirdest things will set people off. Case in point. :dubious:

I find it difficult to deal with the threads like that, and comments from him and others asserting that women have no problem, do not live in patriarchy, are very valued, etc, when I just spent an entire afternoon walking and doing errands and receiving numerous catcalls. Catcalls which, overall, are low on the scale of harassment women received, but are still harassment. And one men don’t get nearly as often.

You’ve joined it, moron.

Is it wrong that I wanted to upvote this?

some of his comments are annoying or I find them disagreeable but removed from the MGTOW topic I seem to recall t hat I basically like the guy

After reading the anti-feminism thread tonight, I basically throw in the towel. If it’s not bad enough that LinusK can’t be bothered to read or respond coherently to the comments of others, he’s been joined by his new friend, Jack of Words, who combines the aforementioned traits with belligerence, and calls it snark.

Neither one can be arsed to actually debate anything and JoW is actively unpleasant. I asked him to provide a cite on a statement he made that suffragettes worked to provide the vote for only some women, not all, and he said

Still no cite. I’ve asked again. Others have asked. I guess we’re not worthy.

I’m thrilled. I would point that I don’t know LinusK from Adam - he’s ’ a doper’ inasmuch as you’re ‘a doper’, so your use of the word ‘friend’ is one of the least friendly interpretations I’ve encountered. It really just means “they both disdain the ideology I identify with, and since I don’t have an argument as such I’ll just go where we don’t have to pull our punches and try to slur them both by saying they’re chums with each other”. Predictable enough - and your first…error, let’s say error (I know you can insult people here, I’m not sure if you can outright call them a liar).

Second error: I have read everything in the thread, and responded to those who addressed me. As for ‘coherence’, I have had to explain metaphors to one poster - and I will grant that in the heat of a turbulent ‘debate’ the layered references of the whole ‘horse/duck’ thing might have whooshed over you, but my writing is both published and lapped up by live audiences so you’re certainly not convincing me when you claim I’m incoherent.

Third error: Belligerence? Only if ‘declaring that I don’t swallow the precepts of your flawed ideology’ can be considered a casus belli. It’s been a ding-dong thread, but it isn’t me that felt obliged to drag it to the Pit so that the boot can be put in properly.

Fourth error: I never call anything ‘snark’. It’s a detestable americanism. I seem to recall the word cropping up in that thread (was it you), but it’s not me that’s been setting the tone. I’m not sure there’s any legitimacy in dragging someone to the Pit because they keep showing you up in tones you don’t care for, but it’s not somewhere I visit often (I check the ‘new posts’ link when I log in, and instinct had me check your contribution to this one…)

Error 1a: There you go again, trying to tie the two of us together. I’ve read LinusK’s posts in that thread, just as I’ve read yours. He hasn’t insulted me at all, or addressed me directly as I recall, so I’ve not had cause to be ‘belligerently snarky’ as you might say (or show him up in public, as I might say…) Quite why you feel the need to pretend we’re a ‘gang’ (of two; vastly outnumbered by the gang of belligerent snarky adherents to a discredited ideology) escapes me - am I to assume you’re prone to paranoid conspiracy theories?

Fifth error: I don’t really want to drag that whole thread over here (though if your gang of snarkists want to waste their time here rather than my time there, go ahead) but your characterisation of that one exchange is flawed on so many levels. If you gave a hoot about reliable citations, you’d not be a feminist in the first place.

Sixth error: It has nothing do with worth.

Making a grand total of six and a bit, let’s call it seven. Magnificent :smiley:

I suppose it’s okay when your frie… um, fellow ‘doper’ LinusK does the same thing, right?

I’m beginning to think you’re more than a friend, maybe you’re his Mr. Hyde. He does appear to suffer memory lapses where he can’t remember what he’s posted. Hmm…

What reliable citation? That ridiculous Tumblr link? That’s your alleged “reliable citation” for your claim about suffragettes?

Funny how you seem to suffer the same memory lapses as LinusK, thinking you’ve provided evidence of anything other than your own delusions.