Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Transference, Projection & Selective Reading

  When discussing serious issues amongst the blogosphere, there is often disagreement over content, semantics, and deep ideological differences, but perhaps the most unfortunately common problem is that many bloggers are simply unable to control their own knee-jerk reactions. This is often coupled with a mild form of illiteracy.

As for my own latest round of inflammatory posts, they have created something of a stir amongst the Hater Elite of cyberspace. And while each response is unique in the brand of bigotry they aspire to, nonetheless there is a common thread tying them together.

1. Transference of prior conversations, arguments, and opinions onto present conversations based on perceived similarity.

2. Projection of fears, paranoia, ignorance, prejudice, and other non-rational emotions due to the aforementioned transference.

3. Selective reading of posts, comments, and debates through use of misquoting, misrepresenting data, evidence, as well as general misunderstanding of opposing viewpoints through either ignorance, willful intent, or general miscommunication. This makes the above points possible.

I shall now provide examples.

1. A blogger named Jewamongyou, who recently became one of my newest trolls has taken it upon himself to respond to some of my postings in brief. Among his many objections were my "feeble attempt at debunking HBD" -- also know as scientific racism -- which, while certainly feeble to someone with a clear bias who supports White Nationalism, was hardly feeble since it was scientific. Unlike some notorious persons I could name.
Indeed, while I'd never heard of him before this incident, I was curious as to who he was. And when I discovered that he's a Jewish racist, the wince of collective group shame felt like a cross between another Adam Sandler movie, and Yentl.

But I digress, while Jewamongyou's argument seemed to revolve around HBD, he did throw in -- for good measure -- some criticism about a recent post of mine regarding my hypothetical future son.

I quote, "But I would not worry about raising him to be a black man.  I suppose this is one of the points where Evets and I differ.  I place a lot of emphasis on my Jewish heritage and its future.  He places a lot of emphasis on black heritage and its future.  I don’t understand why he sees black heritage as more important than his own Jewish heritage.   After all, for every Jew, there are millions of blacks."

Now, while I'm going to give Jewamongyou the benefit of the doubt by assuming he actually can read, and is not merely illiterate (which I'd say is a fair assumption, since he did manage to spell my name right, an increasingly difficult thing for many bloggers it seems judging by the variations of Zak, Zej, etc.) as well as assuming that he actually did read my post I can only presume one thing: Jewamongyou doesn't like my standards for being Jewish. Apparently they're not racist enough.

Why do I say this? Because if you read the beginning of the post in question to you'll see that I state, quite clearly, "I want you [my hypothetical future son] to be raised Jewish, with a Bris, Bar'Mitzvah, and regular visits to synagogue."

Okay, seriously! Is this NOT an endorsement of, support of, and belief in the importance of my hypothetical future son's Jewish heritage?? I think it's obvious that I want my hypothetical future son to go through all the rites and rituals expected of a young Jewish boy, coupled with a proper religious & cultural Jewish education.

I mean, what else does he want from me? Should I staple some curly locks to the side of his fucking head and wrap tefilin around his tuckus? Would that be good enough for you? Or do I need to make him take a mikveh every day before eating his daily breakfast of bagels covered in lox and speak only in Yiddish while we listen to klezmer during Shabbat? Would that be Jewish enough for you? Or are you just afraid of him turning out like this...?

On a more serious note, the problem with Jewamongyou's criticism is that he selectively reads my post, missing completely the many important points I make which address his objections, followed by the transference of prior conversations he's had and fears or concerns he feels in himself that have absolutely nothing to do with anything I wrote, and everything to do with what Jewamongyou projects onto others.

I am speaking specifically of when he writes, "A blogger named Zek Evets, or one of his followers, posted a link to a race-denialist version of my treatise “Reflections of a ‘Racist’ Father” as a comment to my last post." I'm sorry to say, but until his comments showed up in my spam filter, I had no idea about any of this. I've never read any of the posts he's referring to, except my own of course, nor am I a race-denialist, since I do believe race exists, and that racism is the strongest proof of it. (You can tell from my letter, since I mention my hypothetical future son's race explicitly as a major theme. What bothers Jewamongyou is, I think, that I don't see race the way he and his ilk do, which is from a racist pseudo-intellectual perspective; whereas I see it from an anthropological and scientific one.)

Furthermore, his rhetorical questions were strangely pulled out of his ass. Like, that I assume that only Black people experience daily racism -- wrong, since I often blog about anti-Semitism as well as other forms of racism -- or that not many Black women marry Jewish men -- when it's apparent that quite a few do if you look at my post about Blewish celebrities -- or his suspicion that a mixed-race child wouldn't carry on his Jewish heritage in a meaningful way... to which I must ask, how does he know this a priori? How many Black Jewish men does he know to make this kind of observation if, as he attests, there supposedly aren't that many Jewish guys marrying Black women to make babies with...

And more importantly how is Jewamongyou contributing to his Jewish heritage in any meaningful way? Through ignorant prejudice? Scientific racism? White Nationalism? As I recall, White Nationalists, like David Duke, hate Jews just about as much as they hate People of Color. And as I recall, Moses didn't say nothing about the Promised Land being filled with anti-Semitic goyim.

The fallacies of his post become ever more evident as you begun further deconstruction. In response to his claim that I don't consider my hypothetical future son's Jewish heritage to be more important than his Black heritage I would say that if you read carefully nowhere in my post do I state that. Like, at all. And, in fact quite the opposite, I am quite comfortable in raising him to be Jewish, as I stated above.

But whether or not there are more Blacks than Jews has no bearing on that reality, especially since the "millions" of Blacks that Jewamongyou is referring to have different cultures, religions, geographic locations, and generally don't care much either way about Jewish people, not even Ethiopian Jews. Seriously, there is no monolith of Black heritage threatening to extinguish Judaism. Raising my hypothetical future son is not a zero-sum game. (But thanks for playing paranoid racist guy!)

And the fact is, I already know how to be Jewish. I was born Jewish, raised Jewish, and continue to define myself as a Jew, live as a Jew. But I have no idea how to be a Black man in America. And neither does Jewamongyou. So maybe he should consider these rather significant details about identity and read more carefully. Because getting all butthurt when others don't live up to his imaginary standards attempt raise their hypothetical future children as best they may only makes him look like a bitter old schmuck with a menorah up his ass.

Next we have...

2. Black Women's Empowerment (BWE) blogger, Faith, responded to a post of mine on the topic of casual sex, one-night stands, and male sexuality. The whole sad story may be found here.

While my post in the above link covers the essentials, it is important to reiterate that I wrote that people should have sex when they want to (people meaning consenting adults) as well as making the relatively benign observation that many men (indeed, possibly a significant number of men) desire sex as a means of emotional closeness and vice versa -- that is, when a guy likes a girl he wants to have sex with her because he wants to be closer to her.

However this was misinterpreted as: pushing for casual sex, endorsement of sex against a women's consent, dismissal of conservative values, attempts to fool women into giving up their "power" (because, as we all know women are only as good as the pussy that they sit on, right?) and finally that writing about any of the topics in my post is a form of hipster misogyny. (Oh, the irony!)

Obviously, Faith not only selectively read my post, she -- along with a cadre of others -- misquoted me, extrapolated random scenarios from my post, or just plain outright got pissed off and started ranting about how all the men they know are evil, soulless beings bent on dominating women by fucking and dumping them.

Obviously someone hasn't gotten any good dick lately...

Now, call me picky, but their comments sound a lot like misandry to me... not to mention bitter and jaded. Also everything they claimed I was saying wasn't actually in my post. Not a single spurious accusation was true, nor did any of my comments so much as suggest this, which was confirmed by other commenters in the discussion.

That these women, Faith first & foremost among them, could so devolve into bitter, ranting, frothing-at-the-mouth misandric ignorance is a testament to their inability to separate my conversation about sex with their own negative experiences. They then transferred these experiences onto my post, and projected their own fears, paranoia, ignorance, and prejudice onto my words, even though multiple comments, debates, and clarifications revealed that nothing of what Faith, and the vocal minority of haters said was at all true.

But so it goes. Such is the life of a wannabe humble blogger like myself who drops knowledge bombs at will, ignorance be damned.

Finally we have...

3. Blogger Chuck D Ross (the D stands for douchebag), often compares me to a squirrel a la the voice of Pottsylvanian Boris Badenov -- making me Rocket J. Squirrel -- while fetishizing the minority of Black criminals and complaining about how he's a poor, oppressed, red-haired White dude just trying to get by. (Cue: world's smallest violin playing a sad sad song just for him.)

His post, linked above misreads a relatively simple comment and turns it on its head into something hilariously dramatic. Allow me to supply the quotes.

Me: "Thanks for the heads-up. But Roissy’s outing is kinda old news, isn’t it? I’d be more interested in hearing if anyone’s thought of bringing a lawsuit against for advocating for domestic violence. Still, the happenstance IS hilarious — and coincidental! Chuck just so happens to be a dedicated fanboy of El Raton, and is probably still in denial regarding his favorite demagogue."

Chuck: "Zek is only of interest to me because he represents the future trajectory of our social system and our legal system.  At some point, our society will punish speech in which no direct harm will be done.  The punishment will move further from end results more towards initial thoughts and statements.  Inevitably, if such strong limitations are placed on speech – whether it be crude or whatevevr – this will have buffer effects on the things we actually do say.  If you run the risk of getting sued or arrested for saying or doing something that is perceived as “advocating” a criminal act, then you will surely shy away from talking about, writing about, or behaving in ways that could even be interpreted as lying in the direction of this perceived advocation.  I wonder if he believes that HBDers should be put in jail or sued."

Now, take note that the blog title is "Squirrel thinks our favorite game blogger should be sued." I find this humorous, and depressing. Because as pitiable of a figure as Chuck cuts in cyberspace, I cannot find it in me to relent pointing out that what I actually said was that I'd be more interested in hearing if anyone had sued Roissy. (Who does, by the way, advocate for domestic violence by advising young men, particularly upset, unstable, and emotionally damaged young men to physically dominate the girls they pursue, often through slapping, grabbing, and throwing. But I digress, Roissy has many more faults than can comfortably fit in this post.)

Let me reiterate that I said I'd be interested in hearing. Not, "I think someone should sue Roissy", or "Roissy needs to have his angry misogynistic pants sued off!" Nope. Nothing of the sort. I never said sue him, censor him, or even call him a meanie! (Although I may have implied that last one.) I just wondered if someone had actually sued the guy for inciting illegal behavior, which is a criminal offense in this country, and England, where hate-speech is illegal in a mild form of actual censorship -- not the lame stuff these bozos complain about, like being fired from your job when coworkers find out you spread racist messages online, or when people make fun of you for believing in certain forms of prejudice.

And since Chuck seems so comfortable twisting my statement to mean I think people who say horriblly ignorant things should be sued, it's not surprising he extrapolates this scenario until I'm advocating for people to be jailed for believing in HBD -- also known as race-realism racism.

Fact is, I don't. But thanks for making that assumption.

However I do believe there are consequences for free speech. You have every right to say it, to believe it, to tell others about it. But that doesn't mean people have to continue employing you, doing business with you, liking you, listening to you, or even noticing you. The kind of punishment Chuck bitches and moans about is the equivalent to having to go through a metal-detector at the airport. Yeah your personal space was violated, but you submitted to it readily in order to provide a safer environment, and, of course, to enjoy the privilege of taking a flight instead of walking.

But see there is no law preventing you from saying anything in this country. (Unless you yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. That is still, of course, illegal.)  And the slippery slope that Chuck's ready to slide down just doesn't exist. It's not like today they're censoring nipples, and tomorrow editorial content!

So unless someone's putting you in handcuffs for writing bad things about the government, or a police officer is shooting grenades at you while you're holding some sign at a protest, or The Establishment is making it impossible for you to continue blogging anonymously over the internet about how much you don't like Black people, then you're not actually a victim of censorship.

Sorry, but you just aren't.

And to say so is monumentally ignorant, and insensitive to a great many people in other parts of the world who are being put in jail and tortured just for trying to make a phone-call to the Associated Press about their country's latest dictator who's infringing upon their basic human rights.

See, I think accepting the consequences of free speech is part of the freedom. For instance, I carefully monitor my Facebook in order to allow myself the luxury of writing what I want, while maintaining a professional outlook to potential employers. And this is how it goes with everyone, from teachers to politicians, from the McDonald's cashier to your local barber. To complain it about all of a sudden, like you're being singled out and it's not fair is patently childish, and naively ignorant. To which I say, grow up and realize Life Isn't Fair. Boo fucking hoo.

But that's how Chuck rolls, apparently. With a chip on his shoulder, and a bag of prejudice on his back, he not only misses the point, but he does so with spectacular regularity. He took a selective reading of my post, misquoted me, misrepresented my post and comments, then transferred baggage from conversations he goes looking for with radical Feminists and finally projected all of his racist sexist anxiety onto me in perfect imitation of the very activists he so loves to hate. It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.

Anyways, the above examples should serve to edumacate ya'll in the niceties of internet debate, as it is practiced in the part of the blogosphere that I am currently mired in, from toe to tip.
But I hope to provide you with something much more better in the near future. Until then, keep carpet-bombing ignorance with knowledge, and let the haters try to salvage their bigotry from beneath the rubble.


21 footnotes:

Chuck said...

you said you wondered if anyone had thought of suing Roissy for his comments on domestic violence. seems like you think it would be a good idea for someone to do that. there's really no other way to read your sentence.

and if you think that roissy is advocating domestic violence by writing here and there that some women respect a man or get "the tingles" for a man who smacks them (when the same said woman agrees that she was being bitchy or deserved being put in place) and that he could rightfully be sued for such material, then you are basically saying that you think roissy should be sued for writing his opinion.

my point isn't that i'm so scared of our speech rights being taken away - my fear is that if people *like you* were in charge then that would be the case.

Zek J Evets said...


seems like you think it would be a good idea for someone to do that... then you are basically saying that you think roissy should be sued for writing his opinion.

See, this is you. Putting words in my mouth. Nowhere did I say, or advocate any such thing. Please point to me where I did. Until then, you're really just as blinded as the same radicals you regularly blog about. Which would explain the reading impairment.

Anyhoo, people like me actually ARE in charge of the world. Y'know, normal everyday people who somehow manage to avoid going to all the trouble and inconvenience of actually caring that what you say is so serious a threat that it needs to be banned at the governmental level as if you're the character V.

No, we're quite content to write nasty blog posts filled with sarcasm ; )

Anyhoo, enjoy living in fear of me, haha!

Anonymous said...

Well, since I obviously cannot know what's in your mind, Zek, I'll concede your two points: That you do care as much (or more) about your Jewish heritage as black heritage, and that you did not base your Jewish father/black mother essay on mine.

So you're good at picking out the easy targets and ignoring the rest. I wonder if you even posted my comment to your original article - or is everybody who disagrees with you a "troll"?

Zek J Evets said...


Haha, nice way to concede that you didn't carefully read my post! Is my being blunt too subtle for you? Honestly though I'm glad you realized that neither of those two points were at all in my post, and came solely from within your own imagination. Thank you =)

And yes, they were easy targets. Why? Because they were extremely stupid, as I explained in my post, and as you have conceded -- albeit in a roundabout manner.

That said, no I didn't publish your original comment. I deleted it, and put a response in the post as to WHY it was deleted. I'm guessing you didn't bother to read anything after your drive-by comment?

Now see kiddo, people disagree with me all the time, and I'm whatever about it. However, someone who disagrees with me gets labeled a troll when they've never read my blog, never commented before, do not seek to engage in actual conversation, and generally post combative or offensive things, even if it's on their own blog.

Nonetheless, if you want a rebuttal to any of your HBD mess, by all means go read some of the posts on my blog regarding the subject. There are a myraid of them, so please enjoy! =)


Herneith said...

Zek, you should compose a 'gearbox hall of fame'! You already have enough candidates!

Zek J Evets said...


Haha, nah. I think actually it's about time I started blogging about stuff OTHER than all the haters who keep coming 'round here. Maybe I'll turn this into an anti-racist poetry blog? ;)

Chuck said...

all the haters who come around here? i came here the last couple of times only because you wrote a post mentioning me and *1* person clicked through on to my blog. don't act like we're zombies knocking down the door trying to eat you.

Franklin said...

Oh boy...

Just when I thought "It can't get any worse than Chuck and RR!" the next post I see is by the "fact hating" degenerate, Jewamongyou.

Zek J Evets said...


Haha, you only come when you hear your name, eh? Perhaps you're a zombie puppy! ; )

But actually I've gotten quite a few comments from people who apparently comment on your blog, and the others I mentioned. Unfortunately they were rather ranting, so I had to moderate them.

But even leaving aside the commenters, the number of posts written regarding me from all corners of the hateresque blogosphere seems to indicate a level of mindless zombie-like desire, if not outright Resident Evil-like undead rage.

Or maybe ya'll just can't get enough of upsetting yourselves about my bloggings =P

Brotha Wolf said...

Is it me or are these so-called race realists so self-absorbed?

foosrock! said...

Zek, I found your blog at Alee's very informative and actually agree with you on many points. I agree too that us women tend to have "kneejerk" responses re sexuality, ESPECIALLY, coming from the mouths of men, but in my opinion, that's inexperience combined with insecurity.

Good blog.

foosrock! said...

@ brothawolf: I do believe they're self absorbed. It's the small penis syndrome, methinks. I took the time(yuckily) to peruse some of the links Zets provided and came up brain fried, thus empty!.

Zek J Evets said...


Haha, thanks! I understand having a kneejerk reaction, because well get 'em, but my problem is when you let that emotional response control you and your behavior. It's just childish, no matter the gender.

And yes, I wouldn't be surprised if these race-realists exhibit Napoleon/Small-Penis complexes, haha!

Eurasian Sensation said...

Coupla things...

I'm always fascinated by guys like Jewamongyou. Lawrence Auster is another one. Jews who really really want the White Pride cool kids to accept them ("Hey look guys, I'm white too!"), even though the White Pride cool kids have always made their feelings on Jews pretty damn clear. The Asian HBD guys are similar to this as well.

Obviously someone hasn't gotten any good dick lately...

While that statement is quite possibly true, I don't know if it's a good idea to say so. Comments like that to radical feminists are like a red rag to a bull; it's the sort of comment you tend to hear from macho douchebags as a way of dismissing legitimate feminist complaint.

Zek J Evets said...


1. Indeed, one could make similar arguments regarding Steve Hsu, and this because they want to jump on the bandwagon of the racial hierarchy since it benefits them in a small way, even while they're still actively being discriminated against! It's a form of internalized oppression that I doubt even Frantz Fanon could've figured out.

2. I know, which is why I said it. I am fully okay with antagonizing someone who has expressed unapologetic bigotry, and a willful commitment to making her point, the ethics or costs be damned. Such a person is one for whom the ends justify the means, and such people are as bad as those they protest against.

So while it does kinda echo similar statements made my macho d-bag dudes... that's kinda what I was going for. And also it's true =P

Anonymous said...

I think it's sort of funny how Faith (a feminist?) reacted against your post. I mean, doesn't she know that casual sex and hooking up are largely the result of feminism? Sexual Revolution anyone?

Here is a good quote I came across:"It’s ridiculous how people still view women who engage in short term sexual relationships as ‘victims’ and the men as victimizers. Birth control, education, and careers have changed the landscape."

Heh, I bet a couple of months ago people were like,"WTF is up with Serpentus?!"

Another good quote:"Sex isn’t a trick since there are two willing participants. While there may be societal pressure to say yes or no in either direction for the women, but in a situation where the sex is consentual, if a woman picks a guy like Roissy over quiet shy beta male, then there really isn’t a trick there. It just means that Roissy is more attractive, and there really isn’t much that we can do to change or fix that."

Yet another good quote:"Women like to be seduced, they like sex and they like a man who will give them both in an exciting way. They are grown ass people who know exactly what they are getting into having flings."

Women yelled, screamed, bitched, and beat their heads against the wall until blood came out of their ears because of the so-called sexual "double-standard" that men could get away with sleeping around while a woman couldn't. Here's a knowledge bomb (I know how much you like knowledge bombs): There was no double-standard; there were TWO standards, one for women and one for men. A woman’s chastity, faithfulness, and other feminine attributes, in exchange for a man’s time, commitment, and resources, was the tradeoff both partners made when the married. Marriage is a contract that exchanges these goods.

Here’s how ridiculous it would sound oppositely: “Me, as a young 18-year-old man, will give you my virginity and faithfulness. You as the wife will have to protect me, take care of me, and provide for me. Deal?” I don’t think so. The standard for women is done away with, but men are still expected to make money and provide. That is why so many men were embarassed during the Great Depression--the men were not holding on to their end of the bargain.

Why are men still expected to be the bread-winners and be the providers? I call that a true double standard.

I had someone write a guest post on my blog about the issue:

Women have the privilege of no one questioning their womanhood. Oftentimes, you will hear someone tell a boy to "man up" or "grow a pair" or "grow a pair of balls" and, of course, my favorite: "You're not man enough to handle me." It's like men have to go through some sort of rite of passage. What if I told a woman to "grow a pair of breasts" or "why don't you grow a vagina" or, my favorite reversed: "You're not woman enough to handle me." (Ha. I should be a comedian.)

Feminism has gone too far. Sure, women had to go through shit back in the day, but I don't particularly see how women are still being oppressed in America. (Maybe it's because I'm a guy.) Women have equal rights to men in the legal system, can go to school, start businesses, etc. I honestly don't know what heck feminists are screaming about.

Whew, that was a long.

Zek J Evets said...


Per usual you start off kinda okay, but then veer to the right into some random sphere of thought...

If marriage is a contract, then surely women should have every right to negotiate, right? Yet it seems they rarely did, and only now is that changing. I feel that marriage as an institution has a lot wrong with it, but fact of the matter is that strict gender roles like you're talking about simply don't exist in contemporary mainstream American society, certainly not in minority communities -- definitely not in Jewish ones -- and certainly not among most Western nations. You cannot apply the past retroactively to the present without realizing that the entire context has changed over the past few decades.

And, again, that is why your broad strokes of cultural commentary do not hold up with reality. Though I appreciate the investment and time you put into thinking about the world, particularly because of something I wrote =)

Anonymous said...

"If marriage is a contract, then surely women should have every right to negotiate, right?"

Absolutely positively. Nowhere did I write that they couldn't or shouldn't. I believe in freedom.

"Strict gender roles like you're talking about simply don't exist in contemporary mainstream American society."
Yup. This ain't your grandpa's generation. Time's are a'changing faster than a rooster can say "cock-a-doodle-doo."

"You cannot apply the past retroactively to the present without realizing that the entire context has changed over the past few decades."

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't trying to apply anything to anybody (except sunscreen to a beautiful woman who offered). The nature of marriage has definetely changed--for the worse.

Zek J Evets said...


Okay, so we agree that 1) marriage is a contract, 2) women have the right to negotiate, 3) strict gender roles don't exist anymore, 4) that you cannot apply the past retroactively to the present.

So, then my question(s) is(are):

Why are you so upset that the nature of marriage has changed? And is this because this change has seen a loss of male power and dominance alongside an equivalent rise in female power and/or dominance? What specifically is upsetting, AKA "worse" about marriage compared to earlier generations or other cultures? It seems while marriage is often abused to the detriment of many people -- both men and women -- this is hardly something new, nor are the current methods of disenfranchisement something to use as a justification for denigrating all of contemporary marriage in America. I mean, would you prefer a rule of thumb? Would you prefer that a husband could legally rape his wife, because if they're married it isn't rape? Would you prefer that the power differential in marriage went back to male dominance, as opposed to both sides fighting for dominance? While I cannot say "yes marriage today is super awesome!", I cannot also say that marriage at any other point in time or space is somehow "better" than another. It depends on the individuals, the context, the situation, the happenstance, and all that jazz. Besides, women being able to abuse a system or institution is nothing new, or particularly shocking -- we men have been doing it for hundreds of years ; )

P.S. The sunscreen thing was A LITTLE over-the-top, haha.

Anonymous said...

"Why are you so upset that the nature of marriage has changed?"

Hmm? Me? Upset? I'm not upset. I'm just making an objective observation.

"And is this because this change has seen a loss of male power and dominance alongside an equivalent rise in female power and/or dominance?"

Huh? What are you talking about?

"What specifically is upsetting, AKA "worse" about marriage compared to earlier generations or other cultures?"

Broken homes. Broken families. Fatherless households. Increasing poverty. Single motherhood. Lack of togetherness. Bascially, all the shit that holds a society together.

"Would you prefer that a husband could legally rape his wife, because if they're married it isn't rape?"

WTF? Don't put words in my mouth. I never wrote that. I'm against all kinds of violent crimes.

"Besides, women being able to abuse a system or institution is nothing new."

Yes, it's called being pretty and using it to get what you want. Nothing new.

"It depends on the individuals, the context, the situation, the happenstance, and all that jazz."
...and jizz.

Zek J Evets said...

The nature of marriage has definetely changed--for the worse... I'm just making an objective observation.

These two statements clearly contradict the other. So either it's gotten worse, and that's your opinion, or... you just made a contradiction. But that said, you're really not upset that it's gotten worse? That doesn't seem to mesh well with the emotive posts you publish on your blog, or the impassioned comments you've made here now and in other posts...

Or are you "objective observations" regularly this apocalyptic: Broken homes. Broken families. Fatherless households. Increasing poverty. Single motherhood. Lack of togetherness. Bascially, all the shit that holds a society together.

Notice however, that none of these is solely caused by any problems with marriage... So, again, you're talking about a reality that is more complex than your statements suggest, which lead me to conclude that you're talking about a world which simply doesn't exist. Except in theory.

WTF? Don't put words in my mouth. I never wrote that. I'm against all kinds of violent crimes.

But you did say that marriage has changed -- definitely for the worse -- which implies that it was "better" "earlier". However, my comments demonstrate that it is patently obvious that it wasn't. Unless you disagree that the legal ability for husbands to rape their wives wasn't all that bad? (I'm assuming not from the outrage you expressed in your comment.)

Again dude, you demonstrate a firm grasp that shit is fucked up, but seem to fumble on the how's and why's. And while I'm loath to cop it up to your lack of age/experience, it's hard NOT to when you end your comments like this: ...and jizz.

Just doesn't impress me, or anyone =/