Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, July 7, 2009
Crime The Design of a Crime
Posted by Charles Mudede on Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:34 PM
Those who are looking for a reason to explain why she, Sahel Kazemi...
...killed McNair (and then herself)? All you need to do is read this description of the place/space McNair used for fucking her:
The Nashville love nest where NFL star Steve McNair was murdered was a Spartan rented condo where the only personal touches were liquor bottles and men's sneakers...There's no love in this place. Its emptiness reveals another emptiness. This other emptiness is the site of exploitation. The more this story develops, the more we see what she (young, working class, Iranian) was to the rich and famous American: nothing more than a space to empty himself. This is not a love nest; it's a cum bucket. From its beginning to its end, the whole business looks ugly....The paper described the condo - which sits six miles from the palatial home McNair, 36, shared with his wife and four kids - as devoid of homey touches.
About a dozen liquor bottles sat on a kitchen counter. On the counter, a piece of paper folded like an envelope held a $20 bill and bore the words "Never broke."
A pile of men's white sneakers sat on the kitchen floor, the paper said.
For a clearer picture of this of this ugly situation, compare the McNair/Kazemi place to the Jerry/Emma place in Harold Pinter's Betrayal.
3
Jesus Tapdancing Christ.
Who put this misogynistic SOB on the crime beat for the stranger? Between this and your disgusting coverage of the Knox case, you've some how cornered the market on tragic young women. Living or dead, no woman needs to be called a cum bucket by someone struggling to justify a philosophy degree.
Who put this misogynistic SOB on the crime beat for the stranger? Between this and your disgusting coverage of the Knox case, you've some how cornered the market on tragic young women. Living or dead, no woman needs to be called a cum bucket by someone struggling to justify a philosophy degree.
5
Why does Charles have a fetish for femme-fatales?
Why do people pay him money for his mental diarrhea?
Why does he detach himself from the rest of humanity and elevate himself to a position of judgement?
Is he autistic? Does he aspire to autism? Does he wish the world would think he was a robot?
It is all a mystery to me.
Why do people pay him money for his mental diarrhea?
Why does he detach himself from the rest of humanity and elevate himself to a position of judgement?
Is he autistic? Does he aspire to autism? Does he wish the world would think he was a robot?
It is all a mystery to me.
6
Who was renting the apartment? An earlier story says it was shared by McNair and another football player. Was anybody living there full-time? If not, it seems pretty obvious that there wouldn't be many homey touches, particularly if one of the men was married and had a big house just a few miles away.
7
4: No rereading makes your "writing" any better.
What kind of dirt do you have on Tim Keck that keeps you paid by the Stranger?
You are a caricature of the black male. You humiliate the stereotype.
I pity you.
What kind of dirt do you have on Tim Keck that keeps you paid by the Stranger?
You are a caricature of the black male. You humiliate the stereotype.
I pity you.
8
I think, and I can't believe I'm going to say this, that you've over-simplified the situation. You've turned it into a one note tragedy, when it is truly a symphony of destruction (WOOO MEGADETH *cough*).
His apartment sounds like a lot of college guys I know. He probably was pulled into the NFL straight after college, and never learned the Martha Stewart touch. It seems entirely baseless to judge that he (a rich American, mind you) used this woman as a "cum bucket." That's disgusting unncessary and just as likely way off the mark as it is right. To say it as fact, truth, or diatribe is disrespectful to all these people you are attempting to spare denegration.
To believe you have a clear view of the situation from several paragraphs describing one of this man's apartments is.....well I'll let you figure that out.
His apartment sounds like a lot of college guys I know. He probably was pulled into the NFL straight after college, and never learned the Martha Stewart touch. It seems entirely baseless to judge that he (a rich American, mind you) used this woman as a "cum bucket." That's disgusting unncessary and just as likely way off the mark as it is right. To say it as fact, truth, or diatribe is disrespectful to all these people you are attempting to spare denegration.
To believe you have a clear view of the situation from several paragraphs describing one of this man's apartments is.....well I'll let you figure that out.
9
@2,7 Mudede is amazing. You're knee-jerk pseudo feminist indignation reaction belies the fact you do not understand the post at all. That is pitiable in reality, especially in light of the racism present in 7's comment.
10
@4 - No, no. I got it the first time.
It was an interesting that you called the APARTMENT a cum bucket, which is generally reserved as a misogynistic insult for women who are perceived to be promiscuous. But just the sentence before you compare HER to the apartment.
Time to brush up on deductive arguments.
It was an interesting that you called the APARTMENT a cum bucket, which is generally reserved as a misogynistic insult for women who are perceived to be promiscuous. But just the sentence before you compare HER to the apartment.
Time to brush up on deductive arguments.
11
Why so much hate among the commenters? I found it an interesting post. The message I took from it is not at all misogynistic, rather it evoked an all around tragic image for me, and @10, not only women can be cum buckets!
12
It's sad that Charles thinks so little of this woman that he assumes she doesn't know how to buy furniture. Or hang up a poster. Or do anything else, apparently, besides be a cum bucket in a spartan apartment.
13
This is my second comment today in support of Mr. Mudede. Charles, you're on FIRE today. So on point right now.
14
@9 Knee-Jerk? Its the same shit from Charles, all the time. He is the strangers most predictable writer.
And my comment about "big-titted crazy women" is "pseudo feminist indignation"? C'mon man. Think before you write.
And my comment about "big-titted crazy women" is "pseudo feminist indignation"? C'mon man. Think before you write.
15
Aw, Chuck, now you've gone and offended all the cum-buckets on Slog. What are we going to do with you?
16
It was a stabbin cabin, nothing more. She knew he was married, he got her a car, gave her money, she was his mistress and nothing more. He may have told her she meant more but she was the idiot who believed it. McNair was a tough SOB and I'm sure painkillers were involved. She killed him, he's not the bad guy.
17
Please stop writing about this. You show absolutely no respect for a man who was not just a great athlete, but did a lot for his community as well. Other news sites realize the tragedy in losing someone like that, but you see more preoccupied in tearing him down in his death and flaunting his girlfriend out in front of us, making assumptions about who she is and what they were to each other. It's not cutting edge, it's not "the truth." It's just disgusting and pathetic.
18
@11 - I stand corrected. Cum-bucketry is an equal opportunity insult, although I think the the more vitriolic form is pointed at women more than men.
19
Charles, your bombastic posts are amazing becasuse they really are shallow.
You came to conclusions without anything more than your opinion. Anyone can do that.
You came to conclusions without anything more than your opinion. Anyone can do that.
20
Let's see.
In your first sentence you have an appositive with no second comma instead using ellipses, a picture, and another set of ellipses. No second comma and wrong use of ellipses. Ok.
The second sentence of your second set of garble writing starts with the word "Its." What are you referring to here? The place or the love? That sentence is just awkward. Its emptiness reveals another exploited emptiness. or Its emptiness reveals another, exploited emptiness. Why the "and?" I can't figure it out.
Next sentence. "the rich American" is a nice way of showing your disdain for the rich. It's too bad he wasn't white though. That would've been delicious.
In your first sentence you have an appositive with no second comma instead using ellipses, a picture, and another set of ellipses. No second comma and wrong use of ellipses. Ok.
The second sentence of your second set of garble writing starts with the word "Its." What are you referring to here? The place or the love? That sentence is just awkward. Its emptiness reveals another exploited emptiness. or Its emptiness reveals another, exploited emptiness. Why the "and?" I can't figure it out.
Next sentence. "the rich American" is a nice way of showing your disdain for the rich. It's too bad he wasn't white though. That would've been delicious.
21
Slog commenter fail bigtime. The article is right on; the athlete (who had plenty of "Martha Stewart touches" at his REAL house a short distance away,where his wife and kids were ensconced, was using this apartment as a place to fuck gullible young waitresses. Presumably his buddy was too. I wonder if there were two beds there, or one; there were no other furnishings necessary, because nothing else went on in the place besides waitress-fucking. Though apparently Ms. Kazemi thought maybe otherwise; that he was "getting a divorce". Stop me if you've heard this one before.
Mudede is right: he was using her, and by extension this pad, as a "cum bucket" -- apt phrase. She thought they were lovers. Huh. I think his summation of the power relationship here was pretty accurate.
Mudede is right: he was using her, and by extension this pad, as a "cum bucket" -- apt phrase. She thought they were lovers. Huh. I think his summation of the power relationship here was pretty accurate.
22
Charles is saying McNair used Kazemi.
He's saying it was McNair who saw her as a "cum bucket." Christ, you people need to learn how to read.
This other emptiness is the site of exploitation.
He's saying it was McNair who saw her as a "cum bucket." Christ, you people need to learn how to read.
24
This is a mystery?
Older, established man, going through mid life crisis uses young, insecure, female.
Wow... That's never happened before.
Older, established man, going through mid life crisis uses young, insecure, female.
Wow... That's never happened before.
25
Fnarf and keshmeshi have it. If you are offended by this post, what you're really upset about is McNair's exploitation of a young, naive woman.
26
This thread is hilarious:
Mudede: This apartment shows how little he thought of her, almost as though he didn't recognize her as a human being.
Indignant morons: How dare you say she isn't a human being!!!1!
I don't even agree with Charles on this point, but the clueless illiterate outrage directed at him is far more offensive than what he said.
Mudede: This apartment shows how little he thought of her, almost as though he didn't recognize her as a human being.
Indignant morons: How dare you say she isn't a human being!!!1!
I don't even agree with Charles on this point, but the clueless illiterate outrage directed at him is far more offensive than what he said.
27
Fnarf is dead on.
No sympathy for either of the homewrecking little skank nor the joke of a husband and father.
Good riddance to both.
No sympathy for either of the homewrecking little skank nor the joke of a husband and father.
Good riddance to both.
28
This is a sad story. The furnishing of the apartments does suggest a very bleak situation, it does lend one to think that this was not a home, but a hotel room that one can rent for an hourly rate.
My condolences to their family and friends.
My condolences to their family and friends.
29
How is calling one girl a cumbucket "misogynistic" anyway? So you call one guy a name "pathetic, alone man" or "caricature" perhaps, and now you hate men? Check.
31
Agree with 21 & 22.
I think this may be my favorite Charle's post ever. Poignant in its subject matter - what's so terrible about an obsession with the classic tragedy of beautiful woman committing heinous crimes? - and elegantly written. He keenly reconstructs the crime from the true context. Someone claimed he does the situation no justice, merely creates a fantasy from a few small details; I think it's the opposite: what the man or woman said or did at any particular moment is devoid of meaning, it is the apartment itself that offers the cold hard fact of the situation.
I think this may be my favorite Charle's post ever. Poignant in its subject matter - what's so terrible about an obsession with the classic tragedy of beautiful woman committing heinous crimes? - and elegantly written. He keenly reconstructs the crime from the true context. Someone claimed he does the situation no justice, merely creates a fantasy from a few small details; I think it's the opposite: what the man or woman said or did at any particular moment is devoid of meaning, it is the apartment itself that offers the cold hard fact of the situation.
32
@26 nails it. Dang. Some of the comments on this make me ashamed to call myself a feminist, lest I be lumped in with the ridiculous knee-jerking lot of you.
35
@22 - Unless Charles has knowledge that he's not sharing with us, he has no idea what McNair's intentions toward this woman were, aside from what he can infer from the state of the aparent. Moreover, to jump from an empty apartment to calling the woman a "cum-bucket" betrays his general disdain for this woman.
@25 - No, I'm not thrilled by her apparent treatment by McNair, but I think it unnecessarily compounds the situation to call her a cumbucket after the fact.
@25 - No, I'm not thrilled by her apparent treatment by McNair, but I think it unnecessarily compounds the situation to call her a cumbucket after the fact.
36
@35,
Maybe Charles is misreading the situation, but my point still stands. Charles is criticizing McNair here, not Kazemi. Read that quote again: "This other emptiness is the site of exploitation." He's identifying with Kazemi.
Maybe Charles is misreading the situation, but my point still stands. Charles is criticizing McNair here, not Kazemi. Read that quote again: "This other emptiness is the site of exploitation." He's identifying with Kazemi.
39
Holy fuck, I don't even dislike Charles. This is not a good post. It is not because he denegrated the woman, it's because he jumps to numerous, nasty conclusions based on spurious evidence.
Stop kissing his ass because the mob is all anti-Charles today. It really, REALLY does not make you cool, articulate, understanding, or a better person than everyone one else on this message board. I understand that most of the time Charles' critics are assholes, and I agree completely. Even in this thread there are way too many people trying to be hurtful but....THAT DOES NOT MAKE THIS A GOOD ARTICLE.
Stop kissing his ass because the mob is all anti-Charles today. It really, REALLY does not make you cool, articulate, understanding, or a better person than everyone one else on this message board. I understand that most of the time Charles' critics are assholes, and I agree completely. Even in this thread there are way too many people trying to be hurtful but....THAT DOES NOT MAKE THIS A GOOD ARTICLE.
40
She was not naive. In fact she clearly wanted to steal him away from his wife. When she realised that wasn't going to happen she killed him. They deserved each other. He did not deserve to die.
41
This is actually typical of the emptiness of "Non-monogamous" relationships.
The empty apartment is a metaphor for the soulessness of relationship "variety".
The empty apartment is a metaphor for the soulessness of relationship "variety".
42
Keyboard Gat, you've shown a remarkable ability to completely misunderstand virtually everything you read.
Dare I say... I pity you?
Dare I say... I pity you?
44
@36 - And my point is still that Charles was the one who interjected the word "cumbucket."
I have no doubts that Charles was trying to empathize with the victim, but he always seems to do this by opining on the sluttiness of the victim. See his coverage of the Knox case. In general, I don't disagree with your understanding of what Charles was trying to do.
Imagine this was a case where the victim was a child instead of an adult and Charles said that the victim was being used like a cumbucket. Seems a little out of line doesn't, it?
This is a backhanded way of blaming the victim, and I don't even know if Charles knows that he's doing it.
I have no doubts that Charles was trying to empathize with the victim, but he always seems to do this by opining on the sluttiness of the victim. See his coverage of the Knox case. In general, I don't disagree with your understanding of what Charles was trying to do.
Imagine this was a case where the victim was a child instead of an adult and Charles said that the victim was being used like a cumbucket. Seems a little out of line doesn't, it?
This is a backhanded way of blaming the victim, and I don't even know if Charles knows that he's doing it.
45
I'm about as diehard a feminist as you can find, but it doesn't appear that this woman had any reason to kill McNair. There's no evidence that she was being emotionally or physically abused. She was just having an affair with a married man, which comes with lies and disappointment for the non-married participant. I also don't see any evidence that this was anything but a situation of mutual exploitation.
Mr Mudede, you do feminism no favors when you imply that a woman's unhappiness with an affair makes her a victim.
Mr Mudede, you do feminism no favors when you imply that a woman's unhappiness with an affair makes her a victim.
46
42: do you think that you have a "GOTCHA!" comment in linking to my OTHER critiques of how lazy and incoherent the writings that you referenced are?
I beg you to please try again if this was your goal.
I beg you to please try again if this was your goal.
47
Well done, Charles. You've more than redeemed yourself for the "One-minute Marxist" post from this morning. Bravo!
48
#46, hmmm, funny, everyone else seemed to understand.
Where's your blog anyway? I'm sure it's full of gems.
Where's your blog anyway? I'm sure it's full of gems.
49
@46: It's clear that you are beyond hope, and that w7ngman was attempting to demonstrate that to others (done!) rather than to you. Ironically, your response can now be added to his list of your unfortunate forays into public discourse. Cheerio.
50
48: Nice try. Like I didn't "understand" what was he was trying to convey despite and among blatant and humiliating gramatical errors.
blah
blah
52
W7ngman, I think Keyboard Gat's problem, as evidenced by her other posts, as well as the problem of MOST Slog commenters, and indeed Americans, is that they are so fundamentally judgemental in their reactions to just about anything. The only point of any story is WHO IS TO BLAME HERE? It's been a key American trait for 400 years, but it's really out of hand lately.
Is the woman a victim or a perpetrator? Is she a cumbucket, or a woman wronged? Those are the only choices people like Gat see, and there no options for "neither", "both", or "that's not what I was talking about".
Charles's analysis wasn't about blame; it was about how physical space reflects economic space, and how sexual power reflects economic power. Notice that he called the ROOM a cumbucket, not the girl; and even some of his critics (though not Gat) are bright enough to see that there is a difference between saying McNair was using her as a cumbucket and saying she WAS a cumbucket. Not everything is about identity politics.
If you can't see the nature of their relationship as one of wealth vs. poverty, celebrity vs. immigrant, power vs. youth, and football masculinity (one of the key archetypes of masculinity in America, the FOOTBALL STAR, the Virile Black Football Star to boot) vs. naive girl; and if you can't see how the bleakness of the undecorated apartment reflects the bleakness of the economic and power transaction that was going on between these two people, even though the medium of exchange was something that naive people call "love", you're simply not reading the post.
Gat is DEFINITELY not reading his post.
Is the woman a victim or a perpetrator? Is she a cumbucket, or a woman wronged? Those are the only choices people like Gat see, and there no options for "neither", "both", or "that's not what I was talking about".
Charles's analysis wasn't about blame; it was about how physical space reflects economic space, and how sexual power reflects economic power. Notice that he called the ROOM a cumbucket, not the girl; and even some of his critics (though not Gat) are bright enough to see that there is a difference between saying McNair was using her as a cumbucket and saying she WAS a cumbucket. Not everything is about identity politics.
If you can't see the nature of their relationship as one of wealth vs. poverty, celebrity vs. immigrant, power vs. youth, and football masculinity (one of the key archetypes of masculinity in America, the FOOTBALL STAR, the Virile Black Football Star to boot) vs. naive girl; and if you can't see how the bleakness of the undecorated apartment reflects the bleakness of the economic and power transaction that was going on between these two people, even though the medium of exchange was something that naive people call "love", you're simply not reading the post.
Gat is DEFINITELY not reading his post.
53
This was a great post. There is nothing misogynistic about it.
And yes, sometimes Charles objectifies women, but why does he get singled out so viciously for it when it's so commonplace? Because he's black? Because he's intelligent? I don't get it. For the most part, I find his fascination with women endearing.
And message to @1, 2, 3, &5: Make no mistake, Charles Mudede IS intelligent. He is miles above you, you sad, sorry people.
And yes, sometimes Charles objectifies women, but why does he get singled out so viciously for it when it's so commonplace? Because he's black? Because he's intelligent? I don't get it. For the most part, I find his fascination with women endearing.
And message to @1, 2, 3, &5: Make no mistake, Charles Mudede IS intelligent. He is miles above you, you sad, sorry people.
54
Yeah Fnarf, I'm the big bad grammar monster but I'm not reading posts.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
56
@53 Once again, I never said he was unintelligent. I said he was obsessed with nutty women, a fact you also conveyed in your post. So what exactly is the fucking problem here Irena?
57
No.53 I too have been questioning the level of anger directed at Mudede most of the time. It's bizarre. Mr. Mudede is a poet.
58
You know, Keyboard Gat, in the remarkably short time you've been around here, it's become painfully obvious to all of us that you're a remarkably angry young lady. I can't think of a single post where you had anything good to say about anybody or any thing. Somebody must have fucked you over pretty well in your life, and for that you have my sympathy and pity. But you know, you really might want to try lightening up a bit.
59
Spot on Irena @53:
And I'd add, it's obvious that the Charles haters/detractors are kneejerk reactionaries with a thinly veiled agenda and poor reading comprehension skills. Nuance and thinking are not their thing.
And I'd add, it's obvious that the Charles haters/detractors are kneejerk reactionaries with a thinly veiled agenda and poor reading comprehension skills. Nuance and thinking are not their thing.
60
Fifty-two-eighty:
Do you have any arguments that you want to confront me on or go head to head with? Or do you just want to make blanket statements to dissolve yourself from this topic?
You know, you're the one who shows his face in every thread of every post for several years. Who should lighten up?
Who?
Do you have any arguments that you want to confront me on or go head to head with? Or do you just want to make blanket statements to dissolve yourself from this topic?
You know, you're the one who shows his face in every thread of every post for several years. Who should lighten up?
Who?
61
Stop using recent tragedies as platforms for your muddy philosophy. You got the ego without the actual intelligence to back up your "Psuedosophy".
Whenever people call you out on your more absurd ideals ("Boys shouldn't cry" "Imaginary Friends are for Egotists"), you will cry out 'oh no, YOU read it wrong'. Ever thought that perhaps you are an insensitive blowhard?
Whenever people call you out on your more absurd ideals ("Boys shouldn't cry" "Imaginary Friends are for Egotists"), you will cry out 'oh no, YOU read it wrong'. Ever thought that perhaps you are an insensitive blowhard?
63
she liked fucking.
he liked fucking.
she knew it was like that and nothing more she got jealous she couldn't handle it.
Everything you add to this is guesswork or reflects prudery, sexism and inability to look at her and say "you god damn murderer."
he liked fucking.
she knew it was like that and nothing more she got jealous she couldn't handle it.
Everything you add to this is guesswork or reflects prudery, sexism and inability to look at her and say "you god damn murderer."
65
Gat, since when are you the "big bad grammar monster"? I haven't seen you post anything interesting on the topic of grammar, or anything else. And your reading comprehension is indeed laughably poor. But you're not here to read; you're here to dispense, well, whatever you've been dispensing, which doesn't have anything to do with the posts you're dispensing it on.
Cute pic, though. But the obnoxious and prejudicial attitude's out of control.
Cute pic, though. But the obnoxious and prejudicial attitude's out of control.
66
Rotten666, I hereby cross you off my list. Take your bile somewhere else.
Keyboard Gat, you need to enroll in a good community college and stay there for a couple of years.
Keyboard Gat, you need to enroll in a good community college and stay there for a couple of years.
67
To characterize my ironic criticism of disastrous writing as not being able to understand it really pathetic.
The "cute pic" you're referring to isn't me, and you probably have no idea who it is, you old potbellied man.
The "cute pic" you're referring to isn't me, and you probably have no idea who it is, you old potbellied man.
70
For what it's worth, #50, there are no grammatical errors in this article or any of the three articles whose comments of yours I had linked to (see what I did there?).
71
@67,
I'm certain Fnarf knows who that is. Or didn't you notice how much he knows about pop music?
I'm certain Fnarf knows who that is. Or didn't you notice how much he knows about pop music?
72
Professional (and otherwise) athletes who are rich and famous (or just popular) seem to have an endless supply of pussy thrown at them. After awhile they act like it's their due. It seems this woman thought this was a great love affair. It was just sex for trinkets. She was just the latest in probably a string of easy pussy this rich, semi-famous athlete got. Some people handle disappointment in love better than others. Some people know the score going in. This girl was deluded and turned violent when her delusions came crashing down.
I think Charles is right. She was a cum-dump, a convenience to this guy. She was a willing victim of wishful thinking.
I think Charles is right. She was a cum-dump, a convenience to this guy. She was a willing victim of wishful thinking.
73
@44,
She was hardly purely a victim. Charles calls it an "ugly situation" and on that point he's right.
@40,
Who the hell's saying he deserved to die?
She was hardly purely a victim. Charles calls it an "ugly situation" and on that point he's right.
@40,
Who the hell's saying he deserved to die?
74
70: really?
Whose reading comprehension skills are up for debate when you can overlook something like this:
That's from link #3 that you provided and said that "no grammatical errors in this article or any of the three articles whose comments of yours I had linked to"
You are wrong. You probably can't admit that, but you just ARE. Just like Charles is wrong.
Whose reading comprehension skills are up for debate when you can overlook something like this:
worldwide conspiracy on the parts [OF]tens of thousands of scientists to take action on this environmental threat...
That's from link #3 that you provided and said that "no grammatical errors in this article or any of the three articles whose comments of yours I had linked to"
You are wrong. You probably can't admit that, but you just ARE. Just like Charles is wrong.
75
The reason Charles' posts are frighteningly creepy is because ALL his posts that are woman-related are about sex or scandal or "slutiness." On top of that, many of his other posts that have nothing to do with women at all somehow manage to involve women, or sex. Note his post of the memory-boosting effects of caffeine, from today. SOMEHOW there are people KISSING in that photo.
And then the various philosophical mumbo jumbo ramblings about say, water, that manage to include a sex-saturated photo of some woman in a wet tshirt. I remember one about wine - somehow had boobs in it. Shit like that.
Any one post reviewed without this context can be explained away or excused. But to more than just a few of us, considering Mudede's whole body of Slog work GIVES US THE FREAKING CREEPS.
And then the various philosophical mumbo jumbo ramblings about say, water, that manage to include a sex-saturated photo of some woman in a wet tshirt. I remember one about wine - somehow had boobs in it. Shit like that.
Any one post reviewed without this context can be explained away or excused. But to more than just a few of us, considering Mudede's whole body of Slog work GIVES US THE FREAKING CREEPS.
76
Oh, that's that broad from No Doubt, isn't it? I didn't recognize her. Not my cup of tea. I thought it went well with your aggravating personality. Hmm, I guess it does, at that.
Your criticism is not "ironic", and the writing you're after isn't disastrous. Maybe your problem is that you don't know what the words you use mean.
Listen, sugar, you can prance around here all shouty if you like, but YOU'RE the one who hasn't made any proper arguments here, not your critics.
@70, if you are willing to allow spelling errors as grammatical errors, there is one here: in Keyboard Gat's comment @50, "gramatical". Har!
Your criticism is not "ironic", and the writing you're after isn't disastrous. Maybe your problem is that you don't know what the words you use mean.
Listen, sugar, you can prance around here all shouty if you like, but YOU'RE the one who hasn't made any proper arguments here, not your critics.
@70, if you are willing to allow spelling errors as grammatical errors, there is one here: in Keyboard Gat's comment @50, "gramatical". Har!
78
@74, copyeditors, especially volunteer ones, are to be seen and not heard from.
In other words, nobody gives a shit.
In other words, nobody gives a shit.
79
Fnarf: saying something like "Listen, sugar" to me ends all debate right there as you being a condescending misogynist.
How sad.
How sad.
81
@75: "But to more than just a few of us, considering Mudede's whole body of Slog work GIVES US THE FREAKING CREEPS".
OMG THE FREAKING CREEPS!!!
Does his body of slog work also give you the vapors and an occasion to clutch your pearls whilst you faint onto your well appointed couch?
me too, gee-willikers
'cause the internet and world was a safe and non-creepy place before Mudede.
OMG THE FREAKING CREEPS!!!
Does his body of slog work also give you the vapors and an occasion to clutch your pearls whilst you faint onto your well appointed couch?
me too, gee-willikers
'cause the internet and world was a safe and non-creepy place before Mudede.
82
Charles:
This is a very thought provoking (and reaction provoking) post. But then, I like all of your posts even when I disagree vehemently with you. Please keep writing them.
This is a very thought provoking (and reaction provoking) post. But then, I like all of your posts even when I disagree vehemently with you. Please keep writing them.
83
@79: Go read your post #7 again and explain where the fuck you get off accusing anyone else of bigotry.
Seriously, you are a half-wit with an anger problem and a ridiculous fucking sense of entitlement. You are a discredit to our species.
Seriously, you are a half-wit with an anger problem and a ridiculous fucking sense of entitlement. You are a discredit to our species.
84
Hey Lee:
Entitlement? Tell me where.
Anger? Tell me where.
Bigotry? I'll tell you where: each and every one of Charles' posts.
Entitlement? Tell me where.
Anger? Tell me where.
Bigotry? I'll tell you where: each and every one of Charles' posts.
85
@79, that's how I talked to my nieces when they were seven, eight years old, which is what you remind me of a little. Only angrier, of course. So: guilty as charged on "condescending". You've earned it.
86
Fnarf, if the you want to subjugate women in the same way that you subjugate your SEVEN AND EIGHT YEAR OLD nieces/nephews, how can I even begin to change your mind?
87
Kazemi had her own apartment that McNair regularly visited such that neighbors thought he had moved in. I suspect they rarely used this "cum bucket" space for sex - it probably was a place for one-night stands or, more likely this time, a place where McNair could get away - she knew he would end up there after their (presumed) fight. Still, Charles is right that the whole thing is sad...
88
# 79 I don't think Fnarf is being misognyistic: he blamed all Americans in stating " that they are so fundamentally judgemental in their reactions to just about anything." And you do seem just a tad judgemental in your assessment of Charles .....
89
#74, let's ignore for a minute that...
a) the post was corrected, quite possibly because you whined nonsensically *clap*
b) it's a simple missing word (grammatical error, frankly, would imply that he intended to omit the word)
c) almost anyone with a reading level above 3rd grade would subconsciously fill in the missing preposition after "conspiracy on the parts" (seriously, what other word would go there?)
...then yeah, I'm wrong. You got me good!
a) the post was corrected, quite possibly because you whined nonsensically *clap*
b) it's a simple missing word (grammatical error, frankly, would imply that he intended to omit the word)
c) almost anyone with a reading level above 3rd grade would subconsciously fill in the missing preposition after "conspiracy on the parts" (seriously, what other word would go there?)
...then yeah, I'm wrong. You got me good!
90
LOL @ w7ngman backtracking and negotiating what he thought was such a solid insult.
Joke's on you, fool.
Joke's on you, fool.
91
Wow..um...don't fuck with this Keyboard Gat troll thing
Especially if you are on record with easily defeated arguments
Especially if you are on record with easily defeated arguments
93
Mudede's observations are stunning, and spot on.
He did not call Sahel Kazemi a cum bucket, but even if he had said that he thought she was treated as one, in my eyes that would reflect badly upon Steve McNair, and not upon the woman, and definitely not upon Mudede. But he didn't say that.
If anything, I think that it is Dan Savage's frequent assertion that men, more so than women, are not "wired" to be monogomous that has the potential to compound the gender-related power differential of a situation like this. It puts the burdon on primary female partners of men to get used to their partner sleeping around because they aren't "wired" not to, and upon the women who are the side action to not want any more than they're getting, because men aren't going to commit to being monogomous to them either. So, under Savage's dictum, men should get to openly have their needs met at home and wherever else they want, but what do monogomy-minded women get?
He did not call Sahel Kazemi a cum bucket, but even if he had said that he thought she was treated as one, in my eyes that would reflect badly upon Steve McNair, and not upon the woman, and definitely not upon Mudede. But he didn't say that.
If anything, I think that it is Dan Savage's frequent assertion that men, more so than women, are not "wired" to be monogomous that has the potential to compound the gender-related power differential of a situation like this. It puts the burdon on primary female partners of men to get used to their partner sleeping around because they aren't "wired" not to, and upon the women who are the side action to not want any more than they're getting, because men aren't going to commit to being monogomous to them either. So, under Savage's dictum, men should get to openly have their needs met at home and wherever else they want, but what do monogomy-minded women get?
94
I wish there was a setting option on The Stranger's website that would hide all the articles and slog posts by Charles.
95
W7ngman:
The link you provided asserts that there were no errors. I linked this comment back to you, with the same link that you provided in comment #70.
Cognitive dissidence and its negotiation is a very scary thing.
Scoreboard time:
I won, you lost, NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!
The link you provided asserts that there were no errors. I linked this comment back to you, with the same link that you provided in comment #70.
Cognitive dissidence and its negotiation is a very scary thing.
Scoreboard time:
I won, you lost, NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!
96
Gatty Gat Gat. You are awfully, awfully cute, I'll give you that. Subjugate, that's a good one. Did you stamp your foot while you typed that? DIDJOO? DIDJOO? I'll bet you DID, you little minx.
Dearie, there's nothing remotely "woman" about you; you are in every way a child, through and through. And there is much to be condescending about. I suggest you dial back the shotgun hostility a bit, find a sense of humor, and get yourself educated about some things. You'll enjoy life more, and understand it better, if you do.
Dearie, there's nothing remotely "woman" about you; you are in every way a child, through and through. And there is much to be condescending about. I suggest you dial back the shotgun hostility a bit, find a sense of humor, and get yourself educated about some things. You'll enjoy life more, and understand it better, if you do.
97
I don't see anything misogynistic about this post, but it's maddeningly pretentious, and frankly is about as fatuous as anything I've read on Slog for a while. If you want an explanation for this tragedy writes Charles, "all you need do" is look at the apartment. All you need?
So Charles, you managed to reduce the sum of experiences, traumas, battles and foibles that manifested themselves into this one horrific moment into an outrageously glib observation about the furnishings of the apartment? Well done Professor...
So Charles, you managed to reduce the sum of experiences, traumas, battles and foibles that manifested themselves into this one horrific moment into an outrageously glib observation about the furnishings of the apartment? Well done Professor...
98
@95, "cognitive dissidence"? That is ADORABLE!
I think you mean cognitive dissonance. I have no earthly idea what you mean by "negotiation" there, though.
I think you mean cognitive dissonance. I have no earthly idea what you mean by "negotiation" there, though.
99
Fnarf: how am I supposed to address that? I can't even begin to overcome your domination of my/all opininon.
I am so sorry Fnarf. You are the alpha. I bow to you. We should all bow to you. You are in control. You are he who tells us what to and what not.
Please please forgive me, Fnarf
(vomit)
I am so sorry Fnarf. You are the alpha. I bow to you. We should all bow to you. You are in control. You are he who tells us what to and what not.
Please please forgive me, Fnarf
(vomit)
101
Cognitive dissidence is hitting Preview Comment before spell-checking.
Cognitive dissidence is allowing yourself to believe that you can somehow change people's minds.
I was wrong. About my claims, about my angles, about my spelling errors.
Men like Fnarf win in making us subjugated...even in trying to use that word.
Cognitive dissidence is allowing yourself to believe that you can somehow change people's minds.
I was wrong. About my claims, about my angles, about my spelling errors.
Men like Fnarf win in making us subjugated...even in trying to use that word.
102
@98: You know, cognitive dissidence: rebelling against cognition.
And, Gat, the "entitlement" remark was directed at exactly this belief that Fnarf's condescending remark (and it was that) was somehow amiss, as though you were entitled to everyone's respect without doing the tiniest bit to earn it. That is the sense of entitlement which, it appears, distorts your entire field of vision to such an extent that you are unable to assess the meanings of words. You see your venomous accusations and slander as some kind of righteous anger, and the backlash as an assault on precisely this great esteem to which you believe you are entitled.
Reality: it's just a bunch of venomous accusations and slanderous insults wrapped inside of a particularly ugly entitlement complex. You have not earned my respect, ma'am, only my notice as being someone capable of particularly ugly assaults on your fellow humans.
And, Gat, the "entitlement" remark was directed at exactly this belief that Fnarf's condescending remark (and it was that) was somehow amiss, as though you were entitled to everyone's respect without doing the tiniest bit to earn it. That is the sense of entitlement which, it appears, distorts your entire field of vision to such an extent that you are unable to assess the meanings of words. You see your venomous accusations and slander as some kind of righteous anger, and the backlash as an assault on precisely this great esteem to which you believe you are entitled.
Reality: it's just a bunch of venomous accusations and slanderous insults wrapped inside of a particularly ugly entitlement complex. You have not earned my respect, ma'am, only my notice as being someone capable of particularly ugly assaults on your fellow humans.
105
(vomit)
So I guess that means a little canoodle is out of the question?
Listen, sister, I have no interest in subjugating you or anyone else. I just wish you'd bring a little something to the table here. The only argument you have is, well, I dunno, I'm still waiting. All you have is a desire to get into fights, which is, OK, I'm going to be perfectly honest here; it's cute. Not serious.
And spell-check isn't going to stop "cognitive dissidence", so that's another thing you don't understand.
106
Keyboard Gat:
50: "Nice try. Like I didn't "understand" what was he was trying to convey despite and among blatant and humiliating gramatical errors."
60: "You know, you're the one who shows his face in every thread of every post for several years."
74: "That's from link #3 that you provided and said that "no grammatical errors in this article or any of the three articles whose comments of yours I had linked to
79: "Fnarf: saying something like "Listen, sugar" to me ends all debate right there as you being a condescending misogynist."
86: "Fnarf, if the you want to subjugate women..."
95: "I won, you lost, NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!" *note comma splice
(ahem -- w7ngman wins)
50: "Nice try. Like I didn't "understand" what was he was trying to convey despite and among blatant and humiliating gramatical errors."
60: "You know, you're the one who shows his face in every thread of every post for several years."
74: "That's from link #3 that you provided and said that "no grammatical errors in this article or any of the three articles whose comments of yours I had linked to
79: "Fnarf: saying something like "Listen, sugar" to me ends all debate right there as you being a condescending misogynist."
86: "Fnarf, if the you want to subjugate women..."
95: "I won, you lost, NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!" *note comma splice
(ahem -- w7ngman wins)
108
Dissing cognition, that's not cool! The cognitive dissidence is getting out of hand on this thread.
110
@42 [w7ngman] And about half of the comments below 42:
Keyboard Gat is a troll. Ignore her and she'll... well she probably won't go away, but you'll at least have ignored her.
Stranger Web Team: Please give us an option to ignore certain users along with unregistered users.
Keyboard Gat is a troll. Ignore her and she'll... well she probably won't go away, but you'll at least have ignored her.
Stranger Web Team: Please give us an option to ignore certain users along with unregistered users.
112
# 101 Keyboard Gat: You "can somehow change people's minds." Or at least, you will convince me to change my mind if you present a logical argument. I know I sound like Spock but ::shouting:: " nigger" only convinces me you have anger issues. I intend the following advice kindly - although I understand you may not accept it . If you are suffering the effects of unresolved trauma, please find a counsellor.
113
this is painful. the post was painfully pretentious (although not totally off base), and the comments just eye-gouging. people arguing back and forth about grammar and their personal hatred of one writer for 100+ posts... championship!
and to Keyboard Gat:
it's clear you have some righteous indignation about women's treatment in the world and that's cool and all, but IS WHERE YOU'VE DECIDED TO MAKE YOUR MARK IN THE WORLD? this blog? really? REALLY?
and to Keyboard Gat:
it's clear you have some righteous indignation about women's treatment in the world and that's cool and all, but IS WHERE YOU'VE DECIDED TO MAKE YOUR MARK IN THE WORLD? this blog? really? REALLY?
116
@7: "You are a caricature of the black male. You humiliate the stereotype."
Huh? Charles is nowhere near the African American stereotype. The black stereotype would beat Charles up the minute he mentioned Kierkegaard. Me thinks you are showing a bit of your own racism here.
Charles is just a strange cat, with a strange perspective that most of us don't really relate to.
And of course he's obsessed with women - he's a middle-aged man. We all are, at least those of us who still have some kick. You can be all angry about us, or just accept us as the horny bastards we are, whatevs.
Huh? Charles is nowhere near the African American stereotype. The black stereotype would beat Charles up the minute he mentioned Kierkegaard. Me thinks you are showing a bit of your own racism here.
Charles is just a strange cat, with a strange perspective that most of us don't really relate to.
And of course he's obsessed with women - he's a middle-aged man. We all are, at least those of us who still have some kick. You can be all angry about us, or just accept us as the horny bastards we are, whatevs.
118
Keyboard Gat vs. Keyboard Gat: A restrospective
Now: "To characterize my ironic criticism of disastrous writing as not being able to understand it really pathetic."
Then: "What are you even trying to SAY here?"
Now: "To characterize my ironic criticism of disastrous writing as not being able to understand it really pathetic."
Then: "What are you even trying to SAY here?"
119
#95, "The link you provided asserts that there were no errors."
Are we nitpicking now? I said there ARE no GRAMMATICAL errors, which there aren't, because it was fixed. Arguably, there never even WERE by #89.b, but really, I'll give you #89.a since it was wrong when you wrote the comment. Let's leave #89.c as an exercise for the reader.
Are we nitpicking now? I said there ARE no GRAMMATICAL errors, which there aren't, because it was fixed. Arguably, there never even WERE by #89.b, but really, I'll give you #89.a since it was wrong when you wrote the comment. Let's leave #89.c as an exercise for the reader.
120
Sign me up as someone who perfectly understands Mudede's point and still thinks it's shallow, stupid and obvious. I'm not offended by it. It's really just part for the course. Violent crimes only matter if hot girls were involved. The post is about as interesting at the pus discharge from a zit on my ass.
122
I misspelled monogamy like three times. People can flame me if they want to.
I like Mudede's posts because they incite analysis as to why the eff he says the things he does.
I still think about the one where he talked about having sex with pregnant ladies and how they'd lost the "flower" of their bodies and such.
I like Mudede's posts because they incite analysis as to why the eff he says the things he does.
I still think about the one where he talked about having sex with pregnant ladies and how they'd lost the "flower" of their bodies and such.
123
Oh, now I feel bad. I always feel bad when I participate in a ganging-up-on, no matter how richly deserved. Keyboard Gat isn't a troll, and she isn't a criminal either; she's just a bit overearnest. Earnestness is a good quality in the young.
Gat, I hope you've learned here just how easy it is to make a crowd turn on you. I know you think I'm a big old fat misogynist bastard; but while I am old and fat I'm not a misogynist, and I don't even dislike you. I think you have some very promising qualities as a commenter and a writer, though they are undeveloped, and they are overshadowed by your righteous anger. Righteous anger, however necessary it feels, is never the right way to take on a situation like this one.
Yes, you invited it, by being so eager to attack Charles that you skipped right past the whole point of his post, and on to the points YOU were determined to make, apropos or not. That's a pretty common mistake to make, for a young person, and I've made it myself a hundred times (including times when I was not so young). We all do.
Listening is half of every conversation, and I encourage you to listen more and shout less. You know, you're not half bad in your way; you're struggling to make your syntax match the sharpness of your ideas, but you've got potential. I'd like to see it. Who knows, next time I might even argue on your side. "Disastrous" is a lovely word, even if it doesn't apply here.
But, you know, 5280's right; dial it back a notch or two. You'll catch more flies with honey than you ever will with vinegar (though if you ever find something good to do with all these goddamn flies, let me know).
OK? Truce? I won't call you sugar anymore, I promise. You can keep calling me fat and old if you want. But make an effort to TALK to people, OK?
More...
Gat, I hope you've learned here just how easy it is to make a crowd turn on you. I know you think I'm a big old fat misogynist bastard; but while I am old and fat I'm not a misogynist, and I don't even dislike you. I think you have some very promising qualities as a commenter and a writer, though they are undeveloped, and they are overshadowed by your righteous anger. Righteous anger, however necessary it feels, is never the right way to take on a situation like this one.
Yes, you invited it, by being so eager to attack Charles that you skipped right past the whole point of his post, and on to the points YOU were determined to make, apropos or not. That's a pretty common mistake to make, for a young person, and I've made it myself a hundred times (including times when I was not so young). We all do.
Listening is half of every conversation, and I encourage you to listen more and shout less. You know, you're not half bad in your way; you're struggling to make your syntax match the sharpness of your ideas, but you've got potential. I'd like to see it. Who knows, next time I might even argue on your side. "Disastrous" is a lovely word, even if it doesn't apply here.
But, you know, 5280's right; dial it back a notch or two. You'll catch more flies with honey than you ever will with vinegar (though if you ever find something good to do with all these goddamn flies, let me know).
OK? Truce? I won't call you sugar anymore, I promise. You can keep calling me fat and old if you want. But make an effort to TALK to people, OK?
125
Holy SHIT, Charles! You got the #1 spot on most commented!
This sure as hell beats all, don't it? Eat it, Dan!
But let's be clear - all those comments were just the regulars metaphorically whipping out their dicks to see who had the biggest. And someone ran away crying. Bravo, all.
Honestly, people. Y'all act like Charles Mudede is fucking literature to be interpreted like some Greek fucking tragedy. Like his essays have prophetic powers or something.
This was not a piece of brilliance coded in metaphor.
This was a piece of petty shit, wrapped in intentionally controversial language.
Gimmickry. It worked better than the usual literary name-dropping.
But hey... he got most commented on the Slog, so there you are.
This sure as hell beats all, don't it? Eat it, Dan!
But let's be clear - all those comments were just the regulars metaphorically whipping out their dicks to see who had the biggest. And someone ran away crying. Bravo, all.
Honestly, people. Y'all act like Charles Mudede is fucking literature to be interpreted like some Greek fucking tragedy. Like his essays have prophetic powers or something.
This was not a piece of brilliance coded in metaphor.
This was a piece of petty shit, wrapped in intentionally controversial language.
Gimmickry. It worked better than the usual literary name-dropping.
But hey... he got most commented on the Slog, so there you are.
128
Man, I can't believe this is getting so many comments. Then again, half of them are Gat vs. Fnarf, a match I'd rather see in person.
Anyway, Chaz's philosophical gobbledeegook aside, what's interesting about this case is NOT the class but rather the fact that the girl used a gun to commit this crime. I'm not sure how many female murderers use guns, but I know it's pretty low; but I do know that female suicides by gunshot are extremely rare. The only one I ever heard of was KUOW radio host Cynthia Doyon a few years ago.
Anyway, Chaz's philosophical gobbledeegook aside, what's interesting about this case is NOT the class but rather the fact that the girl used a gun to commit this crime. I'm not sure how many female murderers use guns, but I know it's pretty low; but I do know that female suicides by gunshot are extremely rare. The only one I ever heard of was KUOW radio host Cynthia Doyon a few years ago.
129
Come to think of it, I should address Charles and his fans here with this thought - This post fails to get its point across because he picked a loaded term - cum bucket - that became the focus of his post. Good writing avoids such unnecessary phrases that are so out of tone with the rest of the theme.
130
Thanks for the talk, Dad @123
You can explain all you want to save face in front of all of your commenter friends, but it is clear that you are misogynist -- both from the tone you use with me, and your sudden realization of that dripping misogynist tone that you have tried to correct (good job)
Fnarf: you use words like calling a woman a "broad", calling me "sugar", sexualizing me in saying "you little minx"
Yeah, I'm a troll (and a racist). What I caught was how nasty you are. Yuck.
You can explain all you want to save face in front of all of your commenter friends, but it is clear that you are misogynist -- both from the tone you use with me, and your sudden realization of that dripping misogynist tone that you have tried to correct (good job)
Fnarf: you use words like calling a woman a "broad", calling me "sugar", sexualizing me in saying "you little minx"
Yeah, I'm a troll (and a racist). What I caught was how nasty you are. Yuck.
131
Funny that even when Charles writes a Slog post that is interesting and accurate, people still find a way to drive the comments on his posts up past 100. Keyboard Gat, by commenting in excess on this post you just furthered the notion that Charles can get a lot of page clicks. And that is the business Slog is in, which means they will want Charles to post more. They are not in the business of perfect grammar, spelling, etc. Sorry, but this is a blog, not a printed paper. Many posts are off the cuff (just like most comments) and so there will be errors. Lots of errors. This is not the blog to go to for perfect writing, Gat. Maybe your intel was false on that matter?
But in regard to Charles, well said sir. Well said.
But in regard to Charles, well said sir. Well said.
132
The grammar thing was introduced by w7ngman @29, not me. I then attempted to defend this accusation (horribly.)
But you are indeed correct that fanning the flame of comments only (and twistedly) enhances his ego and his sell-ability.
Worry not, Charles is a lifer at the Stranger. While virtually every other mind has moved on, Charles stays stuck...even while being passed over for editor every time. It's him, Savage, and Keck (the latter being owners!!)
But you are indeed correct that fanning the flame of comments only (and twistedly) enhances his ego and his sell-ability.
Worry not, Charles is a lifer at the Stranger. While virtually every other mind has moved on, Charles stays stuck...even while being passed over for editor every time. It's him, Savage, and Keck (the latter being owners!!)
134
"Broad" is a term of respect and appreciation, and real broads know that. You'll never be a broad, though; you'll always be "her". My tone towards you was never misogynist; it was tailored to hit the most sensitive part of you, and from your reaction it's pretty clear I scored a direct hit. But then, it's a pretty, ahem, broad target. Your effort @104, though; yikes. Subtlety escapes you completely, coming or going, doesn't it?
Your ignorance is pretty far-reaching. You appear to be unaware that this is only a side gig for Charles. And we can add "editor" to the list of words you don't know the meaning of. As W7ngman pointed out originally, you have completely misunderstood every Slog post you have ever commented on, including this one.
Grammar as a subject was, in fact, introduced by YOU.
Your ignorance is pretty far-reaching. You appear to be unaware that this is only a side gig for Charles. And we can add "editor" to the list of words you don't know the meaning of. As W7ngman pointed out originally, you have completely misunderstood every Slog post you have ever commented on, including this one.
Grammar as a subject was, in fact, introduced by YOU.
136
Errr...Fnarf? How is your "tailored hit [to] the most sensitive part [her] justifiable AT ALL?
You are a troll as much as she is for making a "tailored hit" on the most sensitive parts of Charles, calling him the N word?
I will never see or read you the same, man
You are a troll as much as she is for making a "tailored hit" on the most sensitive parts of Charles, calling him the N word?
I will never see or read you the same, man
137
(door slams)
@135, aw. And I thought if I was nice to you maybe you'd fuck me.
@136, trolling is a lovely art form when practiced correctly. She, or whatever it is, was begging for it. Her childish rants are a plea for all the sugars and babes and sweeties and babycakes and darlin's we can muster. I suggest you all try it. She is awfully cute, you have to admit. I'll bet she slammed that door HARD.
@135, aw. And I thought if I was nice to you maybe you'd fuck me.
@136, trolling is a lovely art form when practiced correctly. She, or whatever it is, was begging for it. Her childish rants are a plea for all the sugars and babes and sweeties and babycakes and darlin's we can muster. I suggest you all try it. She is awfully cute, you have to admit. I'll bet she slammed that door HARD.
139
@137 My god, you're insufferable.
"trolling is a lovely art form when practiced correctly"
You're such a fucking smug douchebag, Fnarf.
Really making a goddamn difference in the world, there.
"trolling is a lovely art form when practiced correctly"
You're such a fucking smug douchebag, Fnarf.
Really making a goddamn difference in the world, there.
141
"@135, aw. And I thought if I was nice to you maybe you'd fuck me."
Aww, Fnarf, what kind of a cumbucket do you think she is? You're not nearly rich enough.
Aww, Fnarf, what kind of a cumbucket do you think she is? You're not nearly rich enough.
142
I'm not a woman, w7ngman. I used an icon of a woman I think is cool (Gwen Stefani with a mouthful of braces) You guys projected and attacked me in the only way that you could: at my apparent ~weakness~
My weakness as (what you thought to be) my femininity
I'm a guy, I never claimed to be a girl, and it made it all the more appearant how misoginistic Fnarf is.
If anything, this was a lesson in what it feels like for a girl.
My weakness as (what you thought to be) my femininity
I'm a guy, I never claimed to be a girl, and it made it all the more appearant how misoginistic Fnarf is.
If anything, this was a lesson in what it feels like for a girl.
144
Good try, Keyboard Gat. You were being childish, obnoxious, and racist, and got exactly what you deserved. And stop confusing the most innocuous expressions of sexism ("sugar") with misogyny (another word you clearly don't understand), especially when you throw around comments like @104. What you really need is a lesson in what it feels like for a black man.
145
The piece just reflects the genuine ugliness and bare-bones convenience of the whole relationship. Outside of the murder/suicide, this is a common thing we see in pro sports -- which rewards grown men for acting like orally-fixated man-children -- Hollywood, and Washington. It's a shorthand power play for an influential man to fall back on the Virgin/Whore dichotomy: have the model wife and set of kids in one sphere, and the tawdry mistress or series of dispensable tricks in another. The fact that this man's two markedly opposite zones in his double life were practically within shouting distance of one another speaks to the arrogance and casual disregard "important" men often display toward the women in their lives, one existing to make him look respectable, the other sidelined to bolster his ego.
146
@142, I did not perceive your weakness to be your femininity. I perceived your weakness to be your hairtrigger sensitivity to perceived slights to your femininity, or SOMEBODY'S femininity at any rate. See how that works?
I can call you "sugar" not because I think women are "sugars" or even because I think YOU are a "sugar"; but simply because I know that seeing that word directed at you will set your hair on fire. It has nothing to do with sexism; it has EVERYTHING to do with your argumentative fault.
Substitute "cunt" for sugar: same fuckin' thing.
You are not interested in seeing what people are actually saying to you, or responding to that; you are only interested in rattling off your prerecorded flame messages.
Your weakness is your utter predictability. That's why "sugar" works so well on you. You have no way of knowing this, but every thought process that's running through your head was being played out thirty years ago. That is very tiresome for us, if not for you. Break out a little, why don't you?
If you are in fact not female, it doesn't matter, since the object -- insulting and belittling you, in an attempt to jog you awake, or if not, drive you away -- was achieved. It doesn't matter if you are female; it only matters if you respond to female-directed code words. If you are in fact a dood, there's a serviceable set of code words for them, too. I don't think they're necessary here.
Does that sound harsh? Too fuckin' bad. You've asked for it, over and over. You've contributed nothing to this or any other conversation. I think you probably could if you set your mind to it; see @123. But you're apparently not interested. You're too blind. Shame, really.
I can call you "sugar" not because I think women are "sugars" or even because I think YOU are a "sugar"; but simply because I know that seeing that word directed at you will set your hair on fire. It has nothing to do with sexism; it has EVERYTHING to do with your argumentative fault.
Substitute "cunt" for sugar: same fuckin' thing.
You are not interested in seeing what people are actually saying to you, or responding to that; you are only interested in rattling off your prerecorded flame messages.
Your weakness is your utter predictability. That's why "sugar" works so well on you. You have no way of knowing this, but every thought process that's running through your head was being played out thirty years ago. That is very tiresome for us, if not for you. Break out a little, why don't you?
If you are in fact not female, it doesn't matter, since the object -- insulting and belittling you, in an attempt to jog you awake, or if not, drive you away -- was achieved. It doesn't matter if you are female; it only matters if you respond to female-directed code words. If you are in fact a dood, there's a serviceable set of code words for them, too. I don't think they're necessary here.
Does that sound harsh? Too fuckin' bad. You've asked for it, over and over. You've contributed nothing to this or any other conversation. I think you probably could if you set your mind to it; see @123. But you're apparently not interested. You're too blind. Shame, really.
147
"You guys projected and attacked me in the only way that you could: at my apparent ~weakness~"
Unless your apparent weakness is missing the finer points of an argument, well.... I did nothing of the sort. Frankly, given the unnecessarily assholish comments @1 and @7 and pretty much anywhere else you've left your mark here, you got off easy from me.
Unless your apparent weakness is missing the finer points of an argument, well.... I did nothing of the sort. Frankly, given the unnecessarily assholish comments @1 and @7 and pretty much anywhere else you've left your mark here, you got off easy from me.
149
I thought with the whole registration thing, SLOG might get a better class of troll. I see I was wrong.
Good post, Mr. Mudede.
Good post, Mr. Mudede.
151
Why so much hate here? Usually I really enjoy SLOG commentators. SLOG writers are often a bit pretentious and overly-hip, but I (mostly) enjoy their work. They are intelligent.
Usually the readers seem like interesting people, but I have no desire to be part of this community. Even those who jumped on the bandwagon to criticize the most obnoxious of the trolls drew it out way too long and made it too personal.
This is the last SLOG post for which I intend to ever read the comments.
Usually the readers seem like interesting people, but I have no desire to be part of this community. Even those who jumped on the bandwagon to criticize the most obnoxious of the trolls drew it out way too long and made it too personal.
This is the last SLOG post for which I intend to ever read the comments.
152
Funny how all these commenters never bat an eye when its a white gay man posting pictures of half naked men on Slog, but when a black hetero male posts pictures of half naked women he's a sex crazed misogynist. That's race in America for you.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (152) RSS