BlogWarBot versus the Anti-Feminist

15Aug07

Chris Clarke has a great new toy on his website – BlogWarBot. It’s been amusing the regulars over at Creek Running North, and there have been some great exchanges.

I had a lot of fun playing with it, but none more than when I cut and pasted in some words from an anti-feminist who has been hanging around tigtog’s Feminism 101 site lately. Hard to tell which is which, isn’t it?

Two versions below – the first with the phrases in order, and the second where I tried to give it some meaning (more of a mash-up).

BlogWarBot vs the Anti-Feminist 1

BlogWarBot: I’m BlogWarBot. Didn’t we ban you?
Guest: It is not your blog that is “101,” it is your own mind. You do not have the mental firepwer to go toe to toe with me, sweetheart.
BlogWarBot: What the hell does that stuff matter? We have to enact campaign finance reform!

Guest: I’m a attorney working in commercial litigation and a small business owner whose toes are firmly planted on the clutch and gas pedals of my ‘07 Porsche.
BlogWarBot: What, Malkin didn’t cover this on Hot Air?
Guest: I was sent here by others who couldn’t answer my challenges – so have I really trolled at all?
BlogWarBot: What business is it of yours?
Guest: Look, football season and baseball playoffs are around the corner, so I will probably find much better things to do with my time than argue with people whose ideology could be reduced to the pleas of Fredo: “I’m smaaaat! I can do things!.”
BlogWarBot: You’re trolling me, aren’t you?
Guest: Hmmm . . . thanks for putting words in my mouth, ma’am. They are tasty. Like pie.
BlogWarBot: While I’m thinking of it: Are you registered to vote?
Guest: How facile it must be to simply make your opponent’s worst case, to accuse him of all manner of horrid thoughts and beliefs, and then to argue against his caricature.
BlogWarBot: What are you, some kind of provocateur?
Guest: But once again you’ve evaded my challenge, which was to reference the source for “rights” claims to parity, or at least to reference some common ethical principle supporting the claim that such parity is at the very least desirable, much less one that compels my acquiescence. We usually don’t get far from “I want a pony. ‘Cause.”
BlogWarBot: You’re projecting. And in denial. And ugly.
Guest: You really need to be able to articulate these things in order to graft your cause onto the tree of “rights” properly understood in Western legal and moral traditions.
BlogWarBot: What other reasons might there be?
Guest: Military conscription is, for example, the state demanding use of a man’s body up to and including ordering him to certain death, as in the invasion of Omaha beach or Guadalcanal.
BlogWarBot: This is a woman-only space. Go away.
Guest: I am looking for an ethical system which requires that the government/men/patriarchy acknowledge and respect that you are something more than one of millions of animated meat puppets deserving of “rights” inuring by virtue of something which transcends your material existence and the government’s power to coerce – which is loosely what “rights” are – but which at the same time supports your claim that a full-term, viable baby is excess tissue to be removed and destroyed at will or whim.
BlogWarBot: You keep using that word something more than one of millions of animated meat puppets deserving of “rights” inuring by virtue of something which transcends BlogWarBot’s material existence and the government’s power to coerce – which is loosely what “rights” am – but which at the same time supports BlogWarBot’s claim that a full-term, viable baby is excess tissue to be removed and destroyed at will or whim. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Guest: Once again, you demand a degree of autonomy that is a fiction – it neither exists for men nor women, and would subsist in using the coercive power of government to force others to do by compulsion that which a woman and a man would otherwise divide between themselves on a voluntary basis.
BlogWarBot: That’s the problem with people like you. You’re never constructive about anything.
Guest: Do you really not expect me to believe that the feminist utopia is not one of womb to tomb government envelopment?
BlogWarBot: What the hell does that matter? We have to spread the truth about 9/11!
Guest: I never claimed to be on the fence, but I am certainly arguing in good faith. The difficulty that you have in accounting for the fundamental underpinnings of your belief is a very real one – and one that you cannot wish away by calling me a misogynist asshole.
BlogWarBot: Do you recognize the privilege involved in your calling yourself certainly arguing in good faith. The difficulty that BlogWarBot have in accounting for the fundamental underpinnings of BlogWarBot’s belief is a very real one – and one that BlogWarBot cannot wish away by calling you a misogynist asshole?
Guest: A smarter interlocutor might give the matter some thought and hone her argument, much less reflect upon it and reconsider her worldview, but not you.
BlogWarBot: Yeah, well, Hitler said ‘NO’ too.
Guest: I do not expect to lessen your religious zeal, but the numbers – yes the numbers – they do not lie.
BlogWarBot: Dig into the trust fund, pal. Maybe you can pay someone to expect to lessen BlogWarBot’s religious zeal, but the numbers – yes the numbers – they do not lie.
Guest: You are now a fringe element – a shadow in the lives of so many younger women – and you know this.
BlogWarBot: That’s the problem with people like you. You’re never constructive about anything.
Guest: Oh, you sneaky minx!
BlogWarBot: You’re projecting. And in denial. And ugly.
Guest: So yes, the state does DEMAND use of men’s bodies – in a manner much more common to lead to maiming and death. I don’t complain (former Marine). If the government gave you a dollar every time you wanted an abortion that was prohibited, would this satisfy you?
BlogWarBot: You seem awfully positive. Did you read Rand as a child?
Guest: A man does not have the social “autonomy” to quit his career to become a stay-at-home dad at will.
BlogWarBot: Crap. Did Goldstein link us again?
Guest: Patriarchy or not, career women are not stumbling over one another to snatch up all the aimless but handsome men making minimum wage.
BlogWarBot: Lemme guess. You’re a Libertarian.
Guest: The American regime of Divorce Laws comes to mind as well
BlogWarBot: Would you move? Someone with something interesting to say may want to use the machine.

BlogWarBot vs the Anti-Feminist 2

BlogWarBot: Hi, I’m BlogWarBot. Are you on my side or THAT side?
Guest: You are now a fringe element – a shadow in the lives of so many younger women – and you know this.
BlogWarBot: I know you’re now a fringe element – a shadow in the lives of so many younger women – and BlogWarBot know this, but what am I?
Guest: It is not your blog that is “101,” it is your own mind. You do not have the mental firepwer to go toe to toe with me, sweetheart.
BlogWarBot: Hey! Sexism hurts men too!.
Guest: Do you really not expect me to believe that the feminist utopia is not one of womb to tomb government envelopment?
BlogWarBot: Hey! Sexism hurts men too!.
Guest: A smarter interlocutor might give the matter some thought and hone her argument, much less reflect upon it and reconsider her worldview, but not you.
BlogWarBot: That’s the problem with people like you. You’re never constructive about anything.
Guest: I never claimed to be on the fence, but I am certainly arguing in good faith.
BlogWarBot: Do you recognize the privilege involved in your calling yourself certainly arguing in good faith?
Guest: You really need to be able to articulate these things in order to graft your cause onto the tree of “rights” properly understood in Western legal and moral traditions.
BlogWarBot: Correlation is not causation, fartface.
Guest: But once again you’ve evaded my challenge, which was to reference the source for “rights” claims to parity, or at least to reference some common ethical principle supporting the claim that such parity is at the very least desirable, much less one that compels my acquiescence. We usually don’t get far from “I want a pony. ‘Cause.”
BlogWarBot: Stop placing your oppressive expectations on me!
Guest: The difficulty that you have in accounting for the fundamental underpinnings of your belief is a very real one – and one that you cannot wish away by calling me a misogynist asshole.
BlogWarBot: And it IS my belief is a very real one – and one that BlogWarBot cannot wish away by calling you a misogynist asshole, so keep your hands and eyes and laws off it, pig.
Guest: How facile it must be to simply make your opponent’s worst case, to accuse him of all manner of horrid thoughts and beliefs, and then to argue against his caricature.
BlogWarBot: What, Malkin didn’t cover this on Hot Air?
Guest: I do not expect to lessen your religious zeal, but the numbers – yes the numbers – they do not lie.
BlogWarBot: I’m sure you’ve oppressed a woman into expect to lessen BlogWarBot’s religious zeal, but the numbers – yes the numbers – they do not lieing for you.
Guest: Oh, you sneaky minx!
BlogWarBot: In your dreams, jerk.
Guest: If the government gave you a dollar every time you wanted an abortion that was prohibited, would this satisfy you?
BlogWarBot: Stop placing your oppressive expectations on me!
Guest: A man does not have the social “autonomy” to quit his career to become a stay-at-home dad at will.
BlogWarBot: What the hell are you doing here?
Guest: I am looking for an ethical system which requires that the government/men/patriarchy acknowledge and respect that you are something more than one of millions of animated meat puppets deserving of “rights” inuring by virtue of something which transcends your material existence and the government’s power to coerce – which is loosely what “rights” are – but which at the same time supports your claim that a full-term, viable baby is excess tissue to be removed and destroyed at will or whim.
BlogWarBot: And I suppose you know all about being something more than one of millions of animated meat puppets deserving of “rights” inuring by virtue of something which transcends BlogWarBot’s material existence and the government’s power to coerce – which is loosely what “rights” am – but which at the same time supports BlogWarBot’s claim that a full-term, viable baby is excess tissue to be removed and destroyed at will or whim.
Guest: I’m a attorney working in commercial litigation and a small business owner whose toes are firmly planted on the clutch and gas pedals of my ‘07 Porsche.
BlogWarBot: What are you, some kind of provocateur?
Guest: I was sent here by others who couldn’t answer my challenges – so have I really trolled at all?
BlogWarBot: Maybe you should ask yourself that.
Guest: Military conscription is, for example, the state demanding use of a man’s body up to and including ordering him to certain death, as in the invasion of Omaha beach or Guadalcanal.
BlogWarBot: Are you a Men’s Rights Activist?
Guest: yes, the state does DEMAND use of men’s bodies – in a manner much more common to lead to maiming and death.
BlogWarBot: You seem awfully positive. Did you read Rand as a child?
Guest: I don’t complain (former Marine).
BlogWarBot: Typical. An expression of privileged ignorance.
Guest: Patriarchy or not, career women are not stumbling over one another to snatch up all the aimless but handsome men making minimum wage.
BlogWarBot: Your keyboard says ‘no,’ but your eyes say ‘I’m a big ol’ troll.’
Guest: Look, football season and baseball playoffs are around the corner, so I will probably find much better things to do with my time than argue with people whose ideology could be reduced to the pleas of Fredo: “I’m smaaaat! I can do things!.”
BlogWarBot: What are you, some kind of provocateur?
Guest: The American regime of Divorce Laws comes to mind as well.
BlogWarBot: Robin Morgan used that in a poem once. But you knew that, you damn plagiarist.
Guest: Once again, you demand a degree of autonomy that is a fiction – it neither exists for men nor women, and would subsist in using the coercive power of government to force others to do by compulsion that which a woman and a man would otherwise divide between themselves on a voluntary basis.
BlogWarBot: Yeah, well, Hitler said ‘NO’ too.

P.S. If you find BlogWarBot as amusing as I did, why not give Chris some cash towards hosting it? Details on the BlogWarBot page.



3 Responses to “BlogWarBot versus the Anti-Feminist”

  1. 1 tigtog

    Oh, thank you so much for this! Really puts it all into perspective, heh.

  2. Really glad you enjoyed it!

  3. 3 Magniloquence

    Ha! That’s awesome. I got about two lines into that troll’s stuff before I rolled my eyes and stopped reading, but I remember him. Glad to see the BlogWarBot put to good use. ;)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: