New Angela Nagle Article about 4chan

This article came out a while ago, Nagle had a good interview about it on Chapo (episode 86): soundcloud.com/chapo-trap-house/episode-86-fash-the-patriarchy-feat-angela-nagle-22617

So women whine while men act? What else is new?
also,
Tumblristas shouldn't attack betas, but if one beta shoots someone, they all do? But poverty is still responsible Black crime, yo! Isis doesn't represent all Muslims, yo!

...

That interview is about a different article called paleocons for porn .

Transgender suicides are due to the depression caused by their mental illness.

Even if we raid their twitch/Utube/whatever and gorepost/tell them to kill themselves?
That's still incitement in the UK if I'm not mistaken. Difficult to prove, but still prosecutable given sufficient evidence. Raids are illegal even in the US. That's why raids form on Holla Forums now. That's why 8ch matters, now.
Illegal activity is illegal activity, or else it shouldn't be illegal.

oh yeah you're right, I think I checked out her twitter right after I listened to the Chapo podcast and saw a link to the Baffler article (it's from the March 2016 issue so it's been out at least a month). The topics covered on the show and in the article are pretty much the same though.

Since when?

Online harassment can be fixed by walking away from the computer/turning off your phone. Trannies are delusional, and their mental illness causes them to overreach.

Take for instance all the talk about how trannies have it worse and push themselves into discussions of women's healthcare/rights to let the world know "not all women have vaginas." They're a cancer on society.

But they're not killing anyone, so no one cares.

The article is basically "betas aren't REAL men, but they're real dangerous," even though she almost says otherwise. Snips and snails and puppy dog tails. The only revelation was the all too late recognition that yes, their female peers are going too far in alienating them. But still, we aren't going to call that bullying, fat non-acceptance or anything else, because men still don't have feelings, except when they're hurt by other, higher ranking, conservative men.

It's almost as if even when they try real hard, straight (presumably, well at least not butch) women can't help but to politic at every opportunity, bashing lowly betas for not being alpha enough, and feted alphas for not being beta enough. This, while claiming to they want for men only what men want for themselves and are not simply experiencing mom-privilege.

But still, good article. Every time I read one of these, I feel more secure in my belief that all women are not worth the time of day. Oh, how they abrogate my desire to even consider women equal, much less respectworthy.

It's technically criminal harassment. Conspiring to harass is illegal.

Goddamn you've got some issues.

And specifically what are they? You replied, surely you have something constructive to say? I've been completely open with therapist in greater detail than in the above. Yes, warnings about generalizations and all, but they still agree that I'm not unjustified or even abnormal in the feelings of alienation and anxiety having grown up in the environ I was forced to inhabited. I did not consent to my own birth.

Plus, my mother told me I was a mistake and she didn't abort me only because she doesn't approve of it for herself (women and sovereignty, everybody) even though she continued to give money to PP every year of her life even as she struggled to raise me and my litter-mates with my father who she totally doesn't blame for every problem we have.

Tell the truth now, bitches prolly better off without me. Stop telling me to reproduce, fuckos!

Really activates my almonds.

I, too am a half-caste pseudo-nigger (it's okay, I'm legally black, remember that PC nazis!) that masquerades in a white world, accepted fully by neither. I, too am a half-autist and must fail socially even while succeeding academically (spectrum, lol). Fitting in nowhere, even as people say group identity doesn't matter in this, a highly stratified country is a riot! A random mass shooting, even?

you're equating "angry beta incels who learn all their ideology from Holla Forums can be dangerous" with "betas in general are dangerous"? There's nothing there that indicates the second idea, as a proud beta myself I didn't see anything in there that was targeting me or my brethren

If you say so…

She makes no clear distinction. I'm am not an angry incel. I've given up, and have no regrets. I'd mess with men if I could stomach it. Still, group responsibility ("one side…is producing") was explicit. This is idpol 101.

Really? I mean, I know that sentiment was there, but the old guard feminists complained about just the opposite. Specifically, they got BTFO about young female feminists supporting Bernie over the "real" women's voice!

Article needs more nuance.

"one side of this new Internet gender rivalry" clearly refers to the opposition she refers in the same paragraph between the "Tumblr feminist" group and the "beta/hacker anti-feminist"–not betas in general. And read in the context of the rest of the article it's clear she isn't just talking about anyone who might have the general characteristics of a "beta male" but to a specific internet subculture, which she even calls "beta subculture" at times (and at other times the 'beta rebellion' or 'beta insurgents'), and she describes them in ways that are very specifically about a particular subculture and not beta maleness in general, for example:

and

and

and

How is that the opposite? No reason an old guard feminist couldn't both be mad at the brocialists for not voting for her preferred Democratic candidate, and also be mad at young women for siding with the brocialists…for example Gloria Steinem said young women just sided with Bernie because "when you’re young, you’re thinking, where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie…"

Doesn't refute my point. Quite the opposite, you're making my case for me about her lack of clarity in delineation. In particular her emphasis on "hatred" as opposed to mere resentment is excellent. Hatred conventionally implies willingness to harm and not just strong animosity. Fantasies do not an intent to harm make.

You clearly read into "side of this new Internet gender rivalry" what you wanted to. What made you think I was a feminist? What's wrong with using "Christfag" on *chans? Being an anti-feminist beta hacker does not a mass-murderer make.

This is nothing but the trope that while women "never" make good on their own expressed fantasies, thus Solanas did nothing wrong, but men are a danger if they are just a little not-on-your-side. Thus any man who expresses the slightest resentment is automatically suspect.

Is every Islamic man potentially ISIS? Yes, but that's not OK to say.

Of course you can, I don't believe I said otherwise. Gloria Steinem's infamous woman hateric quote was what I had in mind when I composed the post

I wanted to emphasize that the article noted the slander of the candidates themselves from tumblrista-tier feminists without also noting that that much of Bernie's support came from the same or a not very different demographic of self-described young feminists active on the internet. It seems a stretch that the tumblristas themselves would brand him a brocialist while trying to get him elected. Maybe those were all closet consies?

I never said you were. Again, if you actually read things in context rather than autistically inferring the meaning of phrases from the dictionary definition of each individual word, it's obvious that you shouldn't read the "beta/hacker anti-feminist" side to mean "anyone who might be described as a beta/hacker and has objections of any kind to feminism", but rather to the specific online subculture that she spent the entire rest of the article describing.

She doesn't say there is anything wrong with it, it's just part of her explanation of the difference between this subculture and the image feminists might have of the type of "hegemonic masculinity" that sometimes leads men to kill women out of wounded pride–it's part of a section of the article where she's arguing that other feminists are wrong to try to force-fit the woman-hatred seen in this new subculture to more traditional forms of right-wing oppression of women (note for example her earlier comment 'In fact, a great deal about the beta-male rebellion runs counter to theories of masculinity advanced by scholars like R. W. Connell and Michael Kimmel.') That's why she prefaces the paragraph quoting the guy about "christfags" with the comment "The beta insurgents likewise heap scorn on the conservative cultural mores of the small-town and blue-collar populace".

She doesn't say it does, and she doesn't even say that being a member of the subculture she describes makes one a mass-murderer, just that it's the side of the rivalry she describes that is "producing killers". Most white supremacists don't kill anyone either, but that doesn't mean it's not an ideology we should be aware of because of the danger it presents to the rest of us.

misogyny, or woman hateric got word filtered, lol

Doesn't mean I mustn't, or that I am literally wrong to interpret within a justifiable range. There are no sides, after all, only players.
As an actual autist, I should take offense to your slur against me, but I don't.

This is a potentially invective article, and deserves the clearest language possible, lest we want to go back to nerd bashing after almost a dozen years of it being passé. You know, like what happened in Japan after the Akihabara knife-truck incident.

Look, I found your reply even though your post lacked the conventional post referencing mechanism. Did you not mean to reply to me? To whom else could such an itemized description have referred to? Yes, there's a difference between the group and the individual. But in times of war, simply wearing the flag can make you a bigger target. We live in a world eternally at war.

Which article was that? Google doesn't turn up anything.

Am not saying Americanocentrism… BUT AMERICANOCENTRISM!

This faggotry of "the world is the US" and "only burgers use chans" is why we can't have materialistic analyses today.

Also

I wonder who the existance and promotion of someone that is nothing and just has opinions, serves… It's like… they would have no scapegoat if it wasn't for them…

It's like.. Noone would say "rapefugees are coming!" if it wasn't for fanatic muslims and over coverage. It's like you want to have your ideology intact, yet be able to critique it!

Well, sorry, you cannot!

The roots of the problem are purely socioeconomics, purely crisis of capitalism and the "but feminists don't kill people" argument is BS, cause
A) School shootings and crazy people killing existed before chans. And the problem was always overpromotion of violence, suppression of sexuality and capitalism.
B) Feminists wanted Hillary elected and, even if they don't kill anyone in the US, well… I tend to think there would be far more Clinton victims than there were in Serbia. You know… Those accidental missile strikes on trains and hospitals…

So, saying "yes, but they just spew BS" is the exact same argument for both sides and am pretty sure before Mussolini came to power everyone was saying "nah, they're just spewing BS".

… We need Rinoceros to be remade. Preferably in Anime.

PS.

NO.

PS 2
Forgot my flag.

That's rite! Milo whispered in my ear like a Samurai ghost while playing muh violent arch-Patriarchal CP vidya… He told me to kill them college students. Why no ficki-ficki first? I'm going to kill myself at the end of the rampage anyway!

Is pepe just a cartoon?

Wherever I go, I must Žižek!

youtu.be/k-0VMnFmnL0?t=155

Is the term "fiki fiki" actually universal?

Hmmmm…

"r9k is producing mass shooters" is retarded sensationalist misrepresentation somewhere below even 'you should be afriad of muslims because turrirsts'
at least in the second case there are actually sects of the religion that produce enough dangerous cases for them to start being a real problem some places.
this is better than usual for liberals but its still fucking liberals.

Article is a prelude to a moral panic, nothing more. Into the memory hole it goes.

Zero Hedge.

Well then.

>>>Holla Forums12439705

You are wrong in the sense that there is a common understanding that phrases people use should be understood in context rather than isolation, and that nearly any reasonably literate person who understood this principle would deduce that that the "beta/hacker anti-feminist" reference in her last paragraph was a shorthand for the group she had spent the entire piece talking about, rather than a sudden reference to a much broader group which the group she had been describing earlier would just be a small subset of.

Quite likely I'm a bit on the spectrum too (scored a 30 on the diagnostic test given at wired.com/2001/12/aqtest/ ), but if you've spent any time on Holla Forums or 4chan you know "autistic" is used as a jokey reference to a certain style of post you often see on these boards…I recently saw a good comment about this in the Chapo reddit group at reddit.com/r/ChapoTrapHouse/comments/66j1zx/what_people_miss_when_they_use_autistic_as_an/ where someone said 'IMHO the culture lacks a non-medical way of referring to a common online Style. Felix dances around the larger theme a lot with his whole set of Gamer lifestyle, MGOTW, anhedonism references - it all seems to refer as much to a mode of self-presenting as transgressively "antisocial", and virtuously logical as a result, as it does to unverifiable clinical status. It doesn't help that a lot of these characters actually claim to be "on the spectrum" in lieu of diagnosis (or attempts at treatment for any other issues that may actually contribute to poor social integration.)'

Whatever nerd-bashing happened after that incident it didn't involve any nerds getting killed AFAIK, but Nagle's post points to several incidents of women getting killed by men who emerged out of the woman-bashing online subculture she was talking about. Imagine the situation were reversed, there was an online culture of angry feminists that devoted a lot of time to especially nasty verbal nerd-bashing, and some people from this subculture had gone on to actually murder some nerds…if someone wrote an article about it and at one point used the slightly imprecise language of "anti-nerd feminists" would you make a big deal about scolding the writer because it could potentially be interpreted to mean feminists who have problems with some aspects of nerd culture but weren't part of this especially obnoxious online subculture?

Yeah, I forgot.

Obviously I meant to reply to you, since I quoted your own words in greentext. Is that a rhetorical question, and if so, what point are you getting at?

Insults are in the mind of the observer. Incidentally I've been diagnosed by a similar brief exam with 80 questions, but administered by professionals. They think I'm legit autist because muh heredity. I have a fully autistic uncle, and another who was most likely an aspie, as well. Plus all sorts of engineers, lawyers and scientists with PhDs on that same side of my family, the black side (lol, black autists representing). The white side of my family is mostly hippie trash. I'm prolly just a schizoid who makes the cut because of learned autism from overexposure to sci-tech fields (calc by 7th grade).

Zizek had a good one on ease with insults being proof of familiarity. Can't force it, but he's right. Someone you really respect and trust must try very hard to insult you. Weasel words won't do it.

They did bump up the execution of another Hikikomori/Otaku murderer, he had fused wrists and kept a girl hostage for years. And yes, it further damaged the reputation of Hikikomori/Otaku men in Japan. How about that, generalization about race, wrong. Women, wrong. Men? Ayyyy. Women won't publicly defend such men unless they pay homage to feminism, first. One murderer happened to post to 4chan, suddenly the entire subculture of millions is suspect. That's fair! Where's the proof he was even radicalized there?

(Crickets)

Women enlisting men to do their dirty work for them is nothing new. Chivalry is the societal codification of this, and conservative women fully cooperate in perpetuating it. Ever see that South Asian game show clip where a female host slaps a male contestant, he slaps back, and 37 or so of his male peers rush to pummel him far beyond proportionality, with smiles on their faces.

Feminists would have you believe women are forced to go along at every step of the way. Somehow, every man has the power to turn society on a dime, it seems. And a woman who rewards her husband for illegally beating her sister's own violent husband didn't do nuffin. But I digress. Women are not absolved of accountability due to disproportionate presence in positions of entitled power.

Women who ignore bullying of boys in grade school, as happened to me, teach boys that authority doesn't care about you, that women can't help you, ever, and to go it alone and through punches whenever you feel threatened. Of course, you want to impress mom, so you'll do anything to get her attention, including beating dad to a pulp. Being an autist, I saw through the game. I don't fight for women and I never will. I don't have the authority to use violence now, do I?

Implicit references barely hide their targets. Mathematically speaking, they hide nothing at all. They are an example of what computer scientist call lazy evaluation. They play the accountability game like a fiddle, obeying the letter of the law or rather the social code in this case, but not its intent.

A Sikh walks in to a department store, you tell him to get out because he's wearing a hat. It's not discriminatory on religious grounds, except that it is. Or, my own black mother goes into a car dealership. They don't do business with niggers, so they ignore her until she leaves. But they didn't do nuffin, literally!

Awesome.

Doesn't look like a beta to me. Too attractive. A real beta would never have failed to an hero.

Is an attack on the cops a moderating force against toxic masculinity (the police), toxic masculinity itself or both?

What was it Sun Tzu said about turning one's enemies against one another?

Several out of millions of unique visitors? Wow, that's a lot. Certainly far more than the total rate of such attacks committed by those among the population as a whole, weighted by relative representation among 4chonners. Certainly, this is not yet another iteration in attacking television, gaming, or Marilyn Manson as the cause of all the evil men do and didn't do before the forms existed.

But that didn't happen, did it? And at one time, yes, I would have complained. Not any longer.

Other people who take issue with her prose can speak for themselves. I don't see many feminists defending 4chan. No notable feminists, much less female ones, come to mind. At least, they won't use the label themselves.

Friedman herself said feminists are not responsible for fighting for exclusively male issues, so why are we responsible for fighting for them now, hmmmm!? If Nagle wants to finger 4chan griefing for attacks against women based upon anecdotal feminists, I can do the same thing.

Many feminists , Steinem included, argue that any woman who enjoys education muh privileges and civil rights protections at work is a de-facto feminist. Thus, any crime committed by women -and yes, crime among women has been on the incline in the US at least, especially among late-30s women -may well have been inspired by any radical feminist literature encountered by them.

Solanas, Dworkin, even certain Wonder Woman among the Amazons comics, all display a certain female chauvinism that excuse violent aggression against men under certain conditions. Solanas herself attacked Andy Warhol.

But they're not mainstream? Neither were those assholes Nagle mentioned. That's the problem with reasoning about large groups. It is totally possible that certain hypothetical combinations of traits common within the group are representative of no significant micro-culture or perhaps even no one at all within the larger subculture as embodied by the demographic of study.

How many blue collar millionaires are there in the US Democratic party? Some, but not that many. Far fewer than would be suggested by an unbiased multiplication of the respective probabilities of being either a millionaire democrat or a blue collar democrat, as sourced from sampling data.

At any rate, vid related. The film scene, not the actor.

She's irish

it's been filtered for years now you fucking newfag simpleton

Uh oh, we got a tough guy here!

Watch out, nurse ratchet will tell your mother on you!

Why aren't people focusing on the actually interesting part of 4chan, which is how discourse is transformed under anonymity and the internet?

Take trolling for instance. Trolling is literally turning the process of debate on its head. There's no good conclusion, there's no point to the debate, the troll literally just wants to make you mad for the longest amount of time possible. That says a lot, and it's something that, given that most trolls on 4chan are in their 20's and 30's now, is probably going to spill into real life

Her assertion that halfchan's reaction to 'Chad' somehow stems from elitism is fucking ridculous. These people don't think of themselves as winners while Chad degenerates into some low-paid wagecuck. They see themselves as failures while Chad gets his dad to get him a job at Goldman Sachs.

The overlords will never risk their status as society's necessary evil. If they admit things don't immediately deteriorate in the absence of their "guardianship", they'll be permanently out of a job they never deserved. Instead they'll up the ante about "toxic mansplaining" all the while considering themselves competent to steer the ship just because they won the shouting match.

keep the pone out from your Idpol!!