Forum:Why I don't write very much for Illogicopedia anymore

<<< Back to Logical Sector • <<< Back to Forum

Over the past couple years, the real news has gotten to the point where I can honestly no longer tell what's real and what's satire. Every time I think of something really and truly absurd, something so far away from rationality that it'd be pretty entertaining to write about, I immediately find it already featured on This Week In Stupid.

In short, radical feminists keep stealing all of my best ideas for Illogicopedia articles. There is nothing so stupid and illogical that they won't do it, and probably within the next few months.

As a result, I feel that there is much less need for an Illogicopedia in the world than there used to be. What do you think? --Nerd42 (talk) 17:18, 20 Ditzimber 2015 (UTC)

This very much echoes another forum. Operator XY - (Conversal :: Editations - 7,284 and counting!) 21:44, 20 Ditzimber 2015 (UTC)

I think radical misogynists are a much bigger, older problem. Not saying I think that of you, u:Nerd42. Just saying men have a long way to go before they can make noise about what women are up to. There's always a few loons not worth paying attention to(kaizum me) 01:27, 24 Ditzimber 2015 (UTC)

See... my satire overcomes logic. There's simply nothing on the interwebs that mirrors the terrifying mechanisms in my noggin. The reason I dont write for illogi too much these days? SKOOL. Gotta keep up my 3.913 GPA. But guess who's back for break? Prepare your rectums, ladies and gents.--|Fonchezzz| Quacking| 01:03, 26 Ditzimber 2015 (UTC)

"I think radical misogynists are a much bigger, older problem."

There was some nonsense about women written back 60+ years ago. But the actual misogynists today (MGTOW and other radical fringe subgroups within the MRAs) aren't actually all that nonsensical in what they're saying. Angry and prejudiced, certainly, and wrong perhaps, but not nonsensical.

"men have a long way to go before they can make noise about what women are up to."

First of all, no they don't, and second, I said feminists, not women. "Women" are female humans, while "feminists" are followers of a political ideology. There are male feminists and female anti-feminists. --Nerd42 (talk) 19:06, 26 Ditzimber 2015 (UTC)

I tend to be a feminist, but not as radical as some. I also dislike watching videos constantly, unlike some. So there is still a place for content where WORDS can actually be READ, and not ADS forced upon me by the likes of Youtube. Besides, once in awhile, I like to get away from persuasive propaganda, and almost nothing is as far away from persuasive as this site.

But about my feminism. Keep in mind that when a woman gets angry, she is referred to as a b****. When a man gets angry, he is referred to as an angry man. Double standard anyone? When a woman tries to be authoritative, she is referred to as "bossy". When a man tries to be authoritative, he is referred to as "in charge". Again, double standard. When a woman runs for president, the size of her boobs and thighs are commented on. When a man runs for president, the size of his ears and style of his hair are commented on. Very different things, folks. True, there are some double standards that don't favor men but favor women, but I think those should be changed too. But the fathers' rights movement should not be pitted against the feminist movement. simsilikesims (talk) 22:27, 26 Ditzimber 2015 (UTC)

I don't actually understand the term "radical feminist". A woman who wants to have responsibility and complete control of her life? Never mind feminist, that just sounds like something any reasonable person would want. What else could there be that scares some people? Creating a society where the men are slaves? Scary, but never heard a feminist suggest it. Is it that a woman wants something against civil or religious laws or customs? So what? I can hold two opposing ideas in my head, like disliking the idea of having gay sex myself, yet not giving the slightest shit how others think about it. I love my gay relatives the same as always, and their coming out had no effect on that. I have even less business telling a woman how to live. Some of us think we know how things ought to be, and believe we ought to tell others how to live. Pluralism and individuality, good and bad, is what advances our species. Meh... my piddling thoughts. (kaizum me) 04:13, 28 Ditzimber 2015 (UTC)

"when a woman gets angry, she is referred to as a b****. When a man gets angry..."

When a man gets angry, he is referred to as abusive.

"What else could there be that scares some people?"

I don't know, how about insane things they say/do.

Face it: you don't know what's going on because you haven't been paying attention and you need to catch up. --Nerd42 (talk) 13:05, 28 Ditzimber 2015 (UTC)

Clicked the first two links, so far. First one, satire, anger, stupidity. Second one, anger, pain, crazy ideas. Third one? My poor old Macbook froze at about 20 seconds from the end, but what I saw was a horrific tale of rape. How is any of this dangerous? No, I think I know what's going on enough to be rational. I fear you, sir, are obsessed and tilting at windmills. Even if you are right, that there is something to fear from a feminist agenda, it pales in comparison to every day issues most of us have to contend with. Face it; the normal white American male knows nothing of the rest of the world because he doesn't have to. (kaizum me) 23:46, 28 Ditzimber 2015 (UTC)

What exactly was "#KillAllMen" a satire of? It might be a joke, but I don't think it's a satire. Unless it's a self-satire. But if you go look at the comments attached to that ... many of them clearly aren't self-satire. They're just vitriolic fantasizing. Either that, or we just can't tell anymore. We really, really, honestly can't tell. Feminists have gotten so crazy that jokes and actual statements can't be told apart.

Those crazy quotes really are the kind of stuff prominent feminists say. Whatever the merits of whatever abstract philosophical idea of an egalitarian "feminism" you might have in your head, it is not what actually sets the tone and direction for the feminist movement as an actual group of people today. The prominent feminists seem to be radical crazy ones, like Jessica Valenti, Amanda Marcotte, Lena Dunham, Emily Letts and (since last year) Anita Sarkeesian. They say and do absolutely crazy stuff on a daily basis. Calligula's horse Incitatus made more sense as consul than letting any of those loonies influence policy in any way.

On the "I was raped" video, I would strongly suggest you watch it again because it doesn't sound like you've comprehended what you were seeing/hearing, or at least didn't see enough of it to get the point. And don't take that as an insult, it's not. If your computer crashed or whatever then I get it. I'm just saying to please give it another shot when you get a chance.

The woman in that video is not lying. And she's also not a rape victim. She's crazy. --Nerd42 (talk) 04:30, 29 Ditzimber 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and about, "the normal white American male knows nothing of the rest of the world because he doesn't have to." -- I know you are, but what am I? --Nerd42 (talk) 04:34, 29 Ditzimber 2015 (UTC)

Is it only people who make feminist T shirts who are oppressed? Your point is lost here. Sweatshops are run by all sorts of greedy fucks. This article highlights feminists, so you like it. I include myself as an ignorant white American male, btw. I live in a neighborhood of American blacks, Africans, Hispanics and Asians of all stripes, as well as whites. About half of them are women. In general, they have to be better than me, work harder, to get the same things I get because I'm white. This is both true and obvious to the unbiased observer. (kaizum me) 11:40, 29 Ditzimber 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, don't want to put any more time looking at these links. You cannot make your point with me because I think most loons including these "radicals" are harmless. The dangerous people are already in power. I still feel you are obsessed over a little bit of nothing. There's all kinds of crazies with all kinds of agendas, some more armed and dangerous than others. On what do you base your ideas? So far, all I get is, "see, they're crazy"? So what? I save my outrage for things like the Sandy Hook shootings. (kaizum me) 11:28, 29 Ditzimber 2015 (UTC)

And you ought not have titled this topic as you did. It's clearly not about why you don't write here, it's about your political orientations. Were you trying to get argument going, because there's plenty of other places to showcase your ideas? I don't know that here is one of them. (kaizum me) 11:28, 29 Ditzimber 2015 (UTC) (kaizum me) 11:28, 29 Ditzimber 2015 (UTC)

This is crazy. Operator XY - (Conversal :: Editations - 7,284 and counting!) 00:35, 6 Jeremy 2016 (UTC)

Well, with cnidarians, we don't have this here "gender" problem.... We just change according to who's around. PiddlerOfTrousers- - -I've ruined Illogicopedia 795 times! 22:32, 6 Jeremy 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, crazy. And this discussion is civil. I'd say downright diplomatic in this day and age, where ill-considered, if considered, crap exudes from it's source, a human brain. The fact that it occurred in our hallowed halls is a bit odd, I grant you that XY.

As for gender problems, I agree you cnidarians have it easier than we "higher" life forms. However, problems can generate solutions, which advances our species. I leave it for others to argue whether that's a good or a bad thing. (kaizum me) 04:50, 7 Jeremy 2016 (UTC)

I just don't think that a "nonsensical encyclopedia" makes for a very good soapbox. I realize that it is probably unrealistic to expect every single article to be non-biased, but I do feel like it is something that the site should strive for. And I want to make it clear that I am not trying to name names here or point fingers, nor am I suggesting that I am blameless either. —Marzipan (talk) 21:25, 7 Jeremy 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a terrible place for speeches. (kaizum me) 22:07, 7 Jeremy 2016 (UTC)

Well... Operator XY - (Conversal :: Editations - 7,284 and counting!) 21:51, 7 Jeremy 2016 (UTC)

Her last name sounds way too foreign for her to ever be elected president. The only reason Obama got elected was because we thought he was Irish. —Marzipan (talk) 03:03, 13 Jeremy 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a joke. Operator XY - (Conversal :: Editations - 7,284 and counting!) 07:09, 13 Jeremy 2016 (UTC)

Does Gruntled swim in Egypt?

Cause he's in de Nile! --Nerd42 (talk) 06:04, 8 Jeremy 2016 (UTC)

It's Friday, not Punday. Operator XY - (Conversal :: Editations - 7,284 and counting!) 08:04, 8 Jeremy 2016 (UTC)

Vestments of pituitary confidence wrest power from the bogey man. As the bogey man can, so he can Can Can. While in the can (and not the pan), Pan can also Can Can, although it's a tight fit. Fortunately, Pan can file his horns to fit, for having a good fit while having a fit in a can can result in other than neutral gear consequences. When the bait acts of it's own accord, it can span a can of flan, affording the bogey man an opportunity to exist. If in the mind of the beholder a bogey man can influence all things pituitary, so much more so the so-ness of it. Therefore, churches are tax exempt. (kaizum me) 13:57, 13 Jeremy 2016 (UTC)