As Promised, Yelling At Hashtags

« January 2016 »
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
1
2
3
5
9
10
12
16
17
19
23
24
25
26
29
30
31

Memo to Men's Rights Garbage People: ARGUING WITH HASHTAGS IS EXTRA DUMB.

Two-plus weeks ago, I ended Men's Rights Monday with a promise to discuss a dude yelling at a hashtag, and I intend to keep that promise. And not just because it'll keep me from diving into the Men's Rights cesspool looking for another useful turd for a whole 'nother week.

The thing about hashtags is, they're ephemeral. If any men's rights people are reading this, let me explain. Ephemeral is like you in the sack. Something that doesn't last long. Give a hashtag a little while to tire itself out, and it'll be gone, leaving a mildly disappointed Twitter behind. And even the hashtags that stick around for a while had no real effect. We had #KONY2012, but thankfully, we re-elected Obama instead. They never did bring back those girls. And #yesallmen did not bring enlightenment to the testostorone swamp.

So when I see a headline like "How The Viral Hashtag #WasteHisTime2016 Will Spectacularly Backfire On Women", the first thing I notice are the unrealistic modifiers. Unrealistic modifiers show up when bad writers need to bolster their point by using adjectives and adverbs to falsify reality. So a hashtag that I've never heard of, that sparked next to no conversation anywhere outside of Twitter but inside Google News, is "viral". And it won't just backfire, it'll backfire "spectacularly", which I guess in this case would mean "in a way someone might notice".

From what I could tell, given the incredibly tiny amount of information, some women got caught up thinking up ways to waste men's time by fucking with them when it comes to dating and relationships. By which I don't mean actually fucking with them, but lying to them and leading them on and, thus, wasting their time. Possibly in retaliation for how men waste women's time, partly just because they thought it was funny.

Harmless and ephemeral and coming from women, ergo a perfect target for the Men's Rights outrage of "Marcus Aurelius", who treats every single idea posted under this hashtag as if it were a literal planned action by the women posting it, because he's dumb.

First way it'll backfire? Well, you see, you can't waste a player's time, because he's way too busy banging lots of other hot chicks to be concerned with your lady games. No, really. Actual argument. You can't hurt players, they have PUSSY SHIELDS.

The second way it will backfire, is, I shit you not, a restatement of the first argument, because apparently, at Return Of Kings, they get not-paid by the word. So this paragraph earned Marcus Aurilius three more Cheetos from the communal pile.

The third argument is basically "what if you're mean to someone who's not a player?" Not Marcus Aurelus, of course. His careful and deliberate use of "they" in this section to describe non-players convinces me that he is drowning in lady vulvas. But all those other men. Those weak, conditioned men that Men's Rights activists are trying to free from their shackles of treating women like people. You might hurt one of those just based on the odds.

Argument Four earned him three more Cheetos by restating Argument 3. I could not make this shit up.

Having carefully established and re-established this pair of hilariously weaksauce points, Aurelius concludes with the doozy of all doozies - that men, finding their time wasted by proponents of a one-evening hashtag, will discover the Men's Rights movement, join it in droves, and then won't those ladies be sorry they pretended to have agency and power in their relationships? SPECTACULAR BACKFIRE! Which is also what happens to you when you eat too many communal Cheetos.

Syndicate content