Drama in /r/badhistory when /r/mensrights poster starts to rage against feminists. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
111 ups - 35 downs = 76 votes
123 comments submitted at 14:49:41 on Dec 5, 2013 by Froghurt
Drama in /r/badhistory when /r/mensrights poster starts to rage against feminists. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
111 ups - 35 downs = 76 votes
123 comments submitted at 14:49:41 on Dec 5, 2013 by Froghurt
But you see some retard said that feminism caused the fall of Rome! Therefore MRAs are always wrong! On the other hand, some retard ranting about men being evil over at tumble should be ignored because Reasons.
Of course, the fact that /r/badhistory has a really bad habit of turning into a SJW jerk might become lost on the jerk brewing up here, but oh well.
He's wrong because of the stupid, wrong, and hypocritical things he said in that thread.
I did not contradict you in my above post.
You suggested that people will only call him wrong because of the fall of Rome.
> But you see some retard said that feminism caused the fall of Rome! Therefore MRAs are always wrong!
I think people will call him wrong because he's wrong.
You misread the quote you quoted. Read the second sentence again. Of course, it doesn't matter, because people really aren't paying attention to actual content in this thread. It's pretty much playing out like every other SJWsplosion that happens here. A lot of screaming "UR WRONG" with very little reasoning to do so. Ah well, at least the idiots lie dormant most of the time.
Eh I feel like I won't get far in this thread but I'll try. BTW, did you see that Argentinian feminism drama yesterday? Yknow the one about feminists sexually assaulting some people? Yeah that has like 12 upvotes and 190 comments. SRD isnt biased tho
http://i.imgur.com/nNb8kpq.png
You keep posting that like it means something.
The only people who disagree with this image are those who truly believe SRD is biased one way or another, which generally comes from the most extreme SRSS or SRS members.
Checks post history.
Yep.
checks user flair
Gee, I wonder why you have that...
At least I know not to take anything you say seriously now.
cool
S/he actually requested it. It was made for someone else who deleted their account.
I feel like /r/EnoughLibertarianSpam should be on there somehow. i've seen a lot of accusations about SRD being anti-libertarian before.
I didn't make it, but yeah.
Also, /r/theredpill should be removed because I've never (thank gOD) seen SRD sympathize with them before.
Bias =/= shill. I know the chart but discussing an obvious bias doesn't mean I'm labelling an entire subreddit one way
whoosh
This is so ironic
Don'cha think?
alternatively, did you see the thread about TIOL and the multiple SRS drama posts a few days ago? Cause those threads were filled with people ripping on SJWs and calling SRSers crazy.
SRD isn't biased tho.
Even in that thread there were top comments saying
"Wow, TIOL is undeniably crazy, I guess this proves that MRAs are shit because they're arguing with a crazy person instead of solving men's problems."
It's hilarious really, over the course of time I've seen most of the comments shift from "Wow MRAs are delusional, men's issues don't exist, male tears, etc". Then when people reply back about how men's issues kind of undeniably do exist... we get "Wow, all MRAs care about is arguing, why haven't they solved all of these issues that a week ago I was convinced didn't exist?"
Kind of. The comment I think you're referring to is more about pointing out the flaws in what gets upvoted in /r/mensrights. The plea for more male teachers in early education is ignored, but the creep shaming one is hugely popular.
Of course though, that post also got called out and it's response has more upvotes than the other one
Not only that, the top 3 comments (ignoring child comments) in that thread are about TIOL being crazy, a drama queen, and hypocritical. I don't really think MR gets a bad shake here except when an MRA posts something off the wall like feminism causing the fall of Rome
The only comment pointing out (correctly, might I add) that the guy talking about feminism causing rome to fall was from SRSs, not /MR is at -6.
Despite the crazy guy talking about Rome being from SRSs, you can still post something like "MRA posts something off the wall like feminism causing the fall of Rome" and you'll probably get upvoted for it, I don't really think that's a fair shake. Maybe if he posted it in MR, or MRAs were agreeing with him, or if feminists causing rome to fall was a MR talking point in the first place then it'd be fair to link this back to men's rights, but it's not.
And I think you know that saying X has more comments than Y, therefore X is more important is pretty dishonest. Whenever you have a big argument that's going to have a lot more comments.
I'm not even talking about the feminism/SRSs stuff here. I'm talking about how you brought up how people called the MRM crap in that thread.
Your point was that MRM was trashed on that thread by the top comments. I pointed out that there were far more top comments in that thread that called TIOL crazy, hypocritical, and a drama queen. And even though there was 1 top comment that called the MRM crap, it was also deeply controversial in terms of voting and in terms of comments responding to it.
>And I think you know that saying X has more comments than Y, therefore X is more important is pretty dishonest.
It's also dishonest to say that because there was 1 controversial comment saying that the MRM was bad, that there were multiple top comments calling it bad.
By top comments I meant the parent by to_lazy at +30, and its 2nd child by originalaks at +37, which were the 5th and 8th most upvoted comments in that thread.
I think it's fair to say that out of a 276 comment thread they were both top comments, but I'm sorry if my wording was ambiguous. Most of the comments in that thread being against TIOL is true, but my point is that even in threads where a feminist is clearly the one being crazy, you'll still find posts bashing MR.
Ah, you mean all the threads that this thread is already well on it's way towards eclipsing in size?
You aren't disproving his point.
His point is that SRD is biased towards feminism and that people are going to conflate the idea that rome fell because of women to SRSSucks.
My point is that I also saw multiple threads where people called SRS and modern feminism useless and stupid because someone from SRS did pretty much the same thing.
So unless there's been a stark and drastic change in SRD's readership in the past 3 days, I'm going to argue that SRD is more or less neutral, it really just depends on who makes themselves look like an ass in the linked thread.
When feminists on reddit say off the wall shit, they get called out. When anti-feminists say off the wall shit, it gets called out pretty consistently. This one just tends to be a bit more off the wall because the OP is literally arguing that feminism caused the fall of Rome.
The thing is is that one group has become much much larger than the other, meaning that drama from their side will be posted much more frequently and seen by more people due to the idiots who vote based on party lines so often.
You're comparing mountains to... well, not molehills, but rather somewhat smaller mountains.