Atheist Adam Lee’s smear campaign to silence my discussion of Christian sexual morality.

Adam Lee AKA the Daylight Atheist has asked his twitter followers to falsely report my blog to wordpress for abuse.  I’m writing this post to help anyone from wordpress understand the nature of the smear campaign against me, and to also ensure that I have the opportunity to defend myself against this smear campaign while I still have a platform to do so.

Adam Lee is a blogger on Patheos who focuses on attacking Christians whom he accuses of being liars.  However, Lee isn’t above lying himself when he gets the opportunity to silence a blogger like myself who dares to write about Christian sexual morality:

First, this isn’t an MRA blog.  I am not an MRA, I am a Christian and I write almost exclusively about a topic I have great passion for;  marriage.  However, MRAs do read my blog and are part of the conversation.

More importantly, the blog post which caused Adam Lee to organize a campaign to have me silenced wasn’t abuse, it was a discussion of sexual morality.  In my post One at a time, please I pointed out that since we have abandoned biblical sexual morality we have ended up with the incredibly low standard of serial monogamy, which when you boil it down simply means “one at a time”.  In that post I pointed to a columnist on the gossip site* The Frisky who wrote about having sex with multiple men after telling her husband she wanted a divorce but before the divorce was official.  To be clear, this is a woman gossiping about her sex life on a gossip site she writes for.  This wasn’t me exposing anything in her personal life that she hadn’t decided to share with everyone who will listen.  In the same post, I linked to the woman’s personal blog where she has a dedicated section of self portraits, as well as to her public Flickr page.  These links were in context with the point of my post which was that even a free spirit like the woman at the Frisky felt compelled to demonstrate that she was complying with our new (but meaningless) definition of sexual morality.

The gossip columnist was incensed, and reached out over Twitter to fellow atheist Adam Lee asking him to organize a campaign of atheists to (falsely) report this blog to wordpress for abuse:

falsely_report_abuse

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I want to reiterate that this is an entirely false charge.  All I am guilty of is discussing sexual morality from a Christian perspective.  This is something Adam Lee is on record as being against, so I’m not surprised that he would dislike my post as well as my site.  However, this cowardly attempt to silence someone who doesn’t share his anti Christian views of sexual morality is beneath contempt.  If Lee had any faith in his own beliefs and talent as a writer he wouldn’t feel the need to silence those he disagrees with.

I have faith in WordPress’ stated commitment to supporting free speech, including the speech of traditional Christians like myself, no matter how much my very existence offends atheists like Adam Lee.

*The Frisky’s main title is:

The Frisky | Celebrity Gossip, Relationship Advice, Beauty and Fashion Tips.

This entry was posted in Beta Orbiter, New Morality, Social Justice Warriors. Bookmark the permalink.

211 Responses to Atheist Adam Lee’s smear campaign to silence my discussion of Christian sexual morality.

  1. Pingback: Atheist Adam Lee’s smear campaign to silence my discussion of Christian sexual morality. | Manosphere.com

  2. gmg says:

    Anyone wanna take bets on how long Lee’s marriage will last?

  3. Lars Grobian says:

    So now linking to a click bait article by a woman is just as misogynistic as stifling her career by *not* linking to it?

    Ha ha, j/k — filth like these people want the right to silence anybody for any reason, or better yet no reason at all. They don’t even pretend to make sense. They’re just openly insane.

  4. Bluepillprofessor says:

    First they ignore you.

    Then they fight you.

    Then you win.

    Far as I am concerned these people can go to hell since it will only be a few years early anyway.

  5. Robin Munn says:

    Bluepillprofessor –

    The way I remember the quote was, “First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.” We’re past the laughing stage now, though.

  6. Logos says:

    Dalrock, I am sorry this is happening to you–slander/libel happens to nearly every believer sooner or later. Thank you for what you do. You have saved many lives and borne much fruit. I hope this backfires upon the false accusers.

    [D: Thank you. No worries. I’ll be fine. I just wanted to shine a light on what is being done in the dark.]

  7. Uncle Silas says:

    I’ve never been religious, and I haven’t been to mass in years. Ostensibly, I should find little of interest in Dalrock’s site. However, during the last two years of my failed marriage, I found Dalrock an oasis in a desert of misery. Through logical argument and statistical investigation, he explained, better than anyone I’ve read, the sexual and marriage markets. I now know why my marriage was dead from the moment I said “I do”; I now know why my ex-wife became so intoxicated during the wedding she passed out in the bathroom that night; and I now know why I was a beta schlub. More important, I now know women are not a beguiling mystery to tease the sanity of men. To purge oneself of that toxic fantasy is important if one ever wants to find happiness in this bizarre, post-modern world. I’m a better man since my divorce: happier, fitter, and far more economically secure. Will I ever consider dating or marriage again? Never. Dalrock has proven to me, at least, the futility of Marriage 2.0. However, knowledge is power, and knowing where one stands in the socio-sexual hierarchy brings its own reward–freedom.

    Unfortunately, I fear the attacks of the leftist totalitarians are only beginning. The world economies are imploding just as the effects of 50 years of unfettered hedonism bear their bitter fruits. The elites, therefore, will become more reactionary, violent, and vile to retain their ill-gotten privileges. The Misandry Bubble is supposed to burst in 2020. I’m not so sure. Perhaps we’ll all be in re-education camps by then.

  8. Tom C says:

    On his Daylight Atheism blog, Adam Lee has a Statement of Principles which includes this:

    “Among the fundamental rights guaranteed by such a constitution should include freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of conscience. As part of this, I oppose hate-speech laws, however well-intentioned, or any other law that restricts speech based on the content of the idea it expresses.”

    It is my understanding that he is referring here to governmental censorship and not private censorship but I think the overall idea is the same.

  9. Peter Blood says:

    Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain?

  10. Dalrock says:

    @Infowarrior1

    How can I help?

    Thank you. I would (always) appreciate prayers, but other than that my only goal was to bring this to light. My first instinct was to ignore this because the charge is laughable, but this is so cowardly that I decided to call it out. I don’t worry about wordpress taking the blog down, and as others have mentioned it wouldn’t be a problem to open up on another platform.

  11. Free speech for me, but not for thee.

  12. Snowy says:

    This stupid cow/slut/adulterer (Brink) wants to brag to all and sundry about her slutty adventures, and she expects no comeback, no calling out? Silly, silly, stupid little messed-up girl; though, sadly, she’s the norm.

  13. Dalrock says:

    Actually one more request. As I mentioned in the original thread, if you see anyone actually doing what Ms. Brink claimed (threatening her and/or her family) please point it out so I can be sure to delete it. I don’t think my regular readers would stoop to that, but it wouldn’t be out of the realm of possibility to have a false flag type of comment. For example, I’ve caught and marked as spam a number of comments from new commenters using handles related to the nutjob who killed those people in San Diego a while back.

  14. FoolishPride says:

    Yeah, you need to be careful. Return of Kings has been infested with Neo-Nazi trolls, and that’s in addition to the problems the site brings upon itself.

  15. Anonymous Degenerate says:

    Just thought I’d let you know that I’m an atheist living a highly untraditional lifestyle who reads your blog to get a different perspective on the world and I value your writing. Anyone familiar with your take on things knows that you’re full of conviction but hateful? Absolutely not. Not that being hateful is proper grounds for being censored, anyway.

    I would hope that my fellow atheists would recognize that we’re the ones most likely to get silenced in the end if we lose the capability to speak our minds online. It’s a really short hop from squelching ‘hate speech’ to punishing any criticism of any religion whatsoever.

    In the current rankings of hated minorities, people like Dalrock who actually believe the Bible means what it says might be more reviled than we are, but we are not at all far behind.

  16. tickletik says:

    What these people are doing is really disgusting. Dalrock, your blog is a light to men everywhere.

  17. Mercer says:

    I am not religious but I enjoy your blog because I think it has some of the best writing I have read on marriage, feminism and the current sexual culture.

    I doubt they are attacking you for your religion. They are attacking you because you criticize women who divorce for frivolous reasons. That is also why they label you a MRA. Brink is only attacking you because she is ashamed of her actions on some level otherwise she would ignore you.

  18. Sharrukin says:

    You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.
    Winston Churchill

    I certainly hope they don’t win this one clash, but I do know that eventually they will lose because what they want isn’t sustainable.

  19. Hope everything goes well for you and yours, Dalrock. I’ll be sure to say a prayer for you!

    I’d like to echo others here and say how greatly I’ve benefited from your site. While there are certainly some androsphere sites out there that write with great vitriol, you have always presented yourself clearly, often dispassionately, and, when not dispassionate, then often satirically. In all the time I’ve read this blog, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen you write a hateful word, or anything that might be honestly deemed “harassing”. As a woman, you gave me a “safe place” to enter the discussion about men, women, marriage, sex and relationships so that I could benefit from the knowledge developed by the ‘sphere without getting burned. Not only that, but you also served as an important channel for me into the Christosphere, so that I could learn even more about the truth of Christianity and the value of a biblical marriage. I have been greatly blessed by your blog.

    [D: Thank you for your prayers and the kind words.]

  20. Bill Price says:

    Don’t worry about it. Back in the old days of the 90s, internet warriors like Adam Lee used to threaten to destroy people’s computers with cyber attacks (naive new internet users were scared of that because they didn’t really understand how it worked), but it was all bluster. This is the same.

    Just disregard him publicly, but take a few notes for future reference in the event that Mr. Lee doesn’t leave well enough alone and crosses into tortious territory. In the meanwhile, archive your posts in case you want to self-host in the future so as to have a more flexible platform. This site is your intellectual property, after all, so some insurance measures are in order.

  21. dhanu says:

    Dalrock, I’d not trust the ethics and morals of WordPress (and most other platforms, for that matter) to follow what’s right when it comes to pandering to the expectations of a gynocentric culture. I’ve seen WordPress to kowtowing to the feminist pressure before, they’re easily shamed into doing whatever the feminists demand by accusations of misogyny etc.

    My suggestion would be to buy a nice domain name and write under that using any platform. That way, when that platform shows off its bigotry and threatens to eliminate your online presence, you can simply show it the middle finger and move on to another. Often the tools are available for converting the site format from one platform to another – they sure do exist for the most popular ones. And they do their job nicely with very low manual effort for mainly text-based sites such as this one. Also take periodical backups.

    [D: Thanks. I have the blog backed up.]

  22. amanhiswife says:

    I’ve been where you are at. You’ll be in my prayers. If there is anything else we can do, let us know.

  23. greenlander says:

    Dalrock, I have to second Bill’s recommendation to self-host. I’m surprised that you haven’t done it already.

  24. shell says:

    Dalrock:

    “the blog post which caused Adam Lee to organize a campaign to have me silenced wasn’t abuse, it was a discussion of sexual morality”

    “All I am guilty of is discussing sexual morality from a Christian perspective.”

    It is an ineffective attempt at whitewashing what’s obvious to anyone except you and your regulars, Dalrock.

    Does this, for example, not count as abusive behavior / content in your eyes?

    “Wimminz like her are so fucked in the head it is unbelievable.Having a drink with a skank like this too much work…let alone banging the pig….NO THANX!

    Or this:

    “I looked at her pics…..she is nothing special! Just another skank who thinks she has a “golden pussy”(that in actuality,is stretched to the max…and stinks). I wish this pig luck.She is soon to discover that she will be used and discarded….several hundred times! And as here looks fade…she will get more desperate and eventually settle for the wino that is begging for change on the street corner.My sentiments?….””Fuck you…you useless twat!…you are getting what you want…and deserve”

    Or this:

    “That woman is a slut. Straight up and always has been. She was most likely like that from high school. The fact that she was able to get married is a damn shame.”

    And that’s just the beginning. There is of course more, as your lynch mob (sorry, Boxer) unleashed its sexual frustrations and hatred on a strange, random woman whom YOU chose to highlight in your blog as an example of sluttiness just because you do not approve of her sexual behavior. (This is not the first time — you performed similar attempts at character assassination on other women, including Jenny Erickson.)

    You had a chance to rectify this by stepping in and asking your commenters to stop making vulgar and demeaning remarks about this woman, but you did not do so. This is because it was just the kind of reactions you wanted and expected. After all, the abuse that followed was a predictable and intended consequence of your very own words.

    Then when a well-meaning Christian commenter (FCW) pointed out your abusive and uncharitable behavior and asked you to refrain from continuing it, he or she was attacked and dismissed, even though it should have been a call to your conscience, late as it was.

    I am sorry to say that if you are indeed striving to exemplify Christian morality in your words and actions on your blog, you are not doing it right — and that’s putting it kindly. I hope you learn that there are consequences to what you say on your blog as there are IRL.

    Now have your regulars fire away in your and their own defense; it will not change what’s happened here (not the first time) and what’s apparent to all who look at this place without self-serving prejudice. I sincerely hope that you reflect on this situation in a genuinely Christian spirit and learn the right lessons from it.

  25. Boxer says:

    As an atheist, I was prodded to search out the intellectual “work” of Adam Lee. I find him thoroughly distasteful. He’s an outspoken racist and sexist (of the usual subtype common to male feminists), and has a whole host of other whacko viewpoints that normal people will likely find amusing.
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2014/06/the-richard-dawkins-facepalm-watch-vol-iii/

    He’s also the type of evangelical that gives real unbelievers a bad name. Like any ideological fanatic, he tries incessantly to silence his critics through intimidation, browbeating and other immature tactics, likely because he knows that many of his opinions are just as “faith based” as any religious nutter, and as such, they can not stand honest scrutiny or critical evaluation.

    The good news is that almost no one takes him seriously. In 12 hours of his desperate social media bleating, this prospective white knight (how patriarchal of you, Adam, to rush to defend a “poor helpless damsel”) has garnered a grand total of one supportive comment, from a poor clueless young girl in Chicago.

    His only other response was from me, asking for evidence that this blog had ever devoted any energy to “harassment” of anyone. Naturally, he has yet to pony up; because, as we all know, there is no evidence, and no harassment.

    He’s a real “critical thinker”, this guy!

    It is also interesting to note that I am only one of many atheists who is a regular reader of the Dalrock blog. Like the others, I don’t always agree with absolutely everything the author(s) publish here, but the content remains consistently insightful, relevant and useful. Dalrock is a valued source of hard statistical data and cutting-edge gender studies/sociology articles, on par with many established periodicals. It would be a mistake for WordPress to take the advice of a couple of lunatic-fringe pseudointellectuals whose only accomplishments include some poorly written, crass internet diatribes.

  26. embracing reality says:

    I don’t get it. If Brink or her white knight reject the premise or conclusions of Dalrock’s article what are they waiting for to refute them? If one disagrees for example with statements like;

    “No matter how free spirited the woman, she will still seek out the current definition of chastity in order to separate herself from those slutty women who don’t follow the rules.”

    “No matter how free spirited the woman, she will still seek out the current definition of chastity in order to separate herself from those slutty women who don’t follow the rules.”

    Where’s the refutation, counter opinion? Aren’t atheist supposed to be smart or something?

    Surely Brink can’t feel a sense of shame in her own behavior? She’s written about her exploits and bragged on the web for the world to see. “Abusive, hassling” simply because Dalrock has an opinion and link to her article? If she’s not second thinking her www proclamations of her sexual habits why does she respond at all? Where’s the “hell yeah, I’m promiscuous, grrrrlll power!”? Isn’t her very response to the article proof of “No matter how free spirited the woman, she will still seek out the current definition of chastity in order to separate herself from those slutty women who don’t follow the rules.”? If not what does she care? She says above “comments are toxic”. Seriously? Thats every blog, social networking, forum online! What really offends her? The critiques of her behavior or her physical appearance? Isn’t that the risk one takes posting personal business or pictures online, particularly naked pictures? Any comments threatening violence would have been removed in moderation. She’s the one proclaiming her sexual behavior and opinions are a reasonable response. And her naked pics?

    “They judged me and my naked body that I posted on the www.” Isn’t that what this is really about?

  27. I’m gonna give this time Dal, but I’ll reblog you and reach out to the ‘syndicate’ if this stupidity goes any further.

    In the meantime I presume you’ve already exported your XML and backed up?

  28. sigh says:

    I am an atheist and I would never forcefully silence anyone. Shitheads like Lee give us all a bad name.

    I’ll continue not praying for you, Dalrock. Please extend me the same courtesy.

    Carry on writing.

  29. Anonymous Reader says:

    I did not have a very high opinion of Patheos prior to this…

  30. The Rigorist says:

    Who?

    Nevermind. Carry on.

  31. ar10308 says:

    Adam Lee is just another sub-human degenerate Social Justice Warrior who thinks that anyone who disagrees with him need to be shut down. These sons of bitches are just like Hitler’s Brownshirts with less testicular fortitude to face you in person.

  32. mrteebs says:

    These people (Brink, Lee) are children. In their world, “You disagree with me and dare to verbalized it = You hate me.” Sounds a lot like me at, oh, 3 years of age.

  33. Bwahaha, “I think they’re scared of you”. That’s hilarious coming from the people who were so afraid of your criticism that they are literally trying to shut you down rather than engage honestly with you. “Prepared” and “scared” are not the same thing.

    Notice the “you can’t win” thing going on here. Dalrock says nothing? Well, then he’s “afraid to take us on head on”. Dalrock says something? Wow, we must have scared him!

  34. @shell:

    In other words, Dalrock criticized her (by quoting her directly and linking to her), and didn’t silence his comments section, whether or not he necessarily agreed with what they said. Thus, he character assassinated her. QED!

  35. But hey, no matter what I say, it doesn’t count, right? After all, I’m defending Dalrock. I’m one of his “regulars” who is “firing away in his defense”. Thus, I am biased, and can be ignored as one of “Them”. No need to listen to the bigots. What we say is automatically wrong.

  36. Boxer says:

    In other words, Dalrock criticized her (by quoting her directly and linking to her), and didn’t silence his comments section, whether or not he necessarily agreed with what they said. Thus, he character assassinated her. QED!

    As a “journalist” (amazing what that word encompasses, but that’s another essay), Rebecca V Brink tends to fall into the limited public figure category, as I understand things.

    The “limited” part is crucial to understanding the term in its social context. It would not be fitting for one of us to call her neighbours, and get private dirt on her to discuss; but it is certainly fair play to rebut an autobiographical article, that she freely published, in the hopes of some sort of gain on her part (money or “fame”).

    Criticism of content that is widely available is certainly fair play. If I put up an article on the internet about the ethical admissibility of extramarital sex (as she did), I’d fully expect people to express a variety of different opinions about the topic. The fact that this whiner, and her patriarchal white-knight, are all upset about the fact that someone dares disagree with them, is truly amazing.

    Maybe some North American journalist, attorney or other expert can fill us in on the details. This is just a layman’s understanding.

  37. By the way – Mrs. Brink’s blog is TERRIBLE. The articles posted on it are idiotic.

  38. Dalrock says:

    @TFH

    1) These people are so afraid that they can’t even muster up the courage to comment here, because they know they would be intellectually outclassed. So they claim that *we* are afraid. LOLOLOL!!!! Ms. Brink and Ms. Lee, show up at a place where we can argue head-to-head. I dare you. You are too cowardly to do that, I see🙂.

    Also keep in mind that both of them have public platforms of their own. If they want to point out where I’m wrong, they have every opportunity to do so. It isn’t that they fear having the conversation here, they fear having it anywhere. They don’t lack a voice, they lack something substantive to say.

    As Vox often says, this is what rabbit people do.

  39. Doorstop says:

    Keep up the good fight, Dalrock! Kudos for being the only blogger I’ve seen who pointed-out that scene in Bad Grandpa for its solipsism (I saw it back when it was in the theater and recognized the solipsism immediately, thanks to bloggers like you and Vox Day). More importantly, you called-out Fireproof. I saw that movie in the theater too, thought it was great at the time, bought a copy on DVD, and loaned it to my mother who’s an upright Christian woman that’s been happily married to the first man she ever dated (my father) for nearly 40 years now. Thanks to you I later “saw the light” about it being divorce porn, and mentioned it to her, but it wasn’t until I sent her some links to your criticism that she understood the perspective. My mother is the kind female tradcon who doesn’t even vote because she believes it’s her husband’s job, but it wasn’t without your insight that she and I both saw the deviousness about marriage that has pervaded mainstream Churchianity. Again, keep it up!

  40. MarcusD says:

    My suggestion would be to buy a nice domain name and write under that using any platform. That way, when that platform shows off its bigotry and threatens to eliminate your online presence, you can simply show it the middle finger and move on to another. Often the tools are available for converting the site format from one platform to another – they sure do exist for the most popular ones. And they do their job nicely with very low manual effort for mainly text-based sites such as this one. Also take periodical backups.

    The WordPress software can be downloaded, as well. The only that would change on the front end would be the domain name.

    To cover the costs, perhaps an ad or two? With as many hits as you’ve gotten over the years, you could easily cover the costs of your own domain (and make money over and above).

    Notice the “you can’t win” thing going on here. Dalrock says nothing? Well, then he’s “afraid to take us on head on”. Dalrock says something? Wow, we must have scared him!

    This is pretty much par for the course. They make wild claims about someone, that someone takes them (semi-)seriously, they laugh about it and gloat publicly about the whole affair.

    A few steps above such childish behavior would involve a reasoned article in response.

  41. AndrewV says:

    I have reported Adam Lee to Twitter. Case number: # 0388**** (last 4 digits hidden)
    also see: https://twitter.com/AndrewV691/status/489642435367038976

  42. Societal Decay says:

    For such a Strong Independent Woman, she was awfully quick about running to a Big Strong Man and begging him to rescue her…

  43. Mark says:

    @Dalrock

    Good Post!

    “”All I am guilty of is discussing sexual morality from a Christian perspective. “”…………Yes you are!…..And that rubs certain atheists the wrong way….Shalom

  44. Ms Brink,

    Adam is only doing this because he hopes that maybe you will have sex with him.

    Adam,

    She is NOT going to have sex with you. Ever. You are quiche eating beta male. She is using you to try and tear down people who make her feel bad because she is a terrible person speading terrible advice. Stop what you are doing. You’re never going to get laid.

  45. JDG says:

    On his Daylight Atheism blog, Adam Lee has a Statement of Principles which includes this:

    Translation: “Freedom for me but not for thee!”

  46. Libertardian says:

    “Social” sanction = “I want those evil corporations that I hate so much to punish this person who dares to disagree with me by denying him a platform to speak from and hopefully depriving him of his livelihood.”

  47. Exfernal says:

    Not all atheists are Social Justice Warriors. Not all atheists are male feminists. If some atheist defends the indefensible, it only makes him look dumb. It also makes me regret to be associated with the likes of Adam Lee.

    (an atheist for about two decades)

  48. Boxer says:

    Adam is only doing this because he hopes that maybe you will have sex with him.

    She knows that very well. It’s the reason she posts pornographic photos and trashy, sexualized articles on the internet.

    Adam, She is NOT going to have sex with you. Ever. You are quiche eating beta male.

    Having been to a couple of these conventions that AtheismPlus+ has been trying to ruin, there’s something a bit deeper going on. Not much deeper, but it bears discussing.

    Atheism is overrepresented with nerds. Before anyone shouts about my HATE and BIGOTRY here, I’ll self-identify as one of these. I’m tall and work out, but I’m also the typical nerdy atheist beneath the surface. I studied math and history in school, and like to memorize goofy science trivia and other nonsense. (Don’t laugh, it’s a hobby).

    Adam and his ilk in the Atheism+ squad have a number of reasons for white-knighting. They’ve bought into the lie that women want a “respectful” guy of course, which never seems to connect to the fact that they’re largely celibate and/or undersexed, despite towing this line. We already know that.

    These manginae also were largely raised with soft punks for fathers, or by single moms. Having a screechy feminist for a mother, and weak or no father, imprints upon boys early. They grow up feeling “safe” around harridans like these, and thus in adulthood they seek out an “empowered, loud and proud” woman, such as the bisexual divorcée Adam is currently sucking up to. His behavior in this regard makes me feel deep sympathy for what he went through as a child.

    As we can see, this is a form of cowardice; though to these pathetic losers, it is rationalized as “progressive enlightenment” or some such tripe. Cowardice becomes a virtue.

    There is a third artifact that is not universal, but common, and I believe it applies here.

    A look at Adam’s photograph suggests he was the kid that was constantly bullied, made the butt of jokes, and otherwise mistreated in school. Most kids don’t stand for this, but often kids with shrill, feminist mamas are so emasculated that they never fight back. A lifetime of being the schoolyard’s bottom-boy produces the type of pathological weakling we’re laughing at today. He instantly identifies with any form of perceived “injustice” because he (wrongly) identifies anyone with decent, normal, healthy values as the types of bullies that used to bloody his nose.

    Simply buying into the propaganda doesn’t completely explain the phenomenon. This whole “mangina” complex is constellated by this combination of factors, in my opinion.

    Thoughts?

  49. HawkandRock says:

    This is not about atheists or even about people who champion their own notion of sexual (im)morality. It is about people without the brains or the backbone or the dignity to own and defend their positions like adults.

    Their tactics boil down to lying and attempting to shut down all discussion because they know that their ideas cannot survive in a forum where they are subject to free, open and rigorous challenge.

    These people are not adults and they do not deserve to be taken at all seriously.

  50. Boxer says:

    This is not about atheists

    I disagree. The feminisation of atheism is a relevant topic here, for the same reasons Christians gather to discuss the feminisation of their religious movement. Atheism+ is the secular equivalent of “churchianity”, and Adam Lee is the atheist Glenn Stanton.

    It’s interesting to note that in all the atheist conferences I’ve ever attended (or even heard of) there was no disruption from Christians, Jews, Muslims, or members of any other religion. If anything, non-atheists went out of their way to be respectful and accommodating to people who attended. It is only people like Adam Lee who spend their time and energy disrupting and destroying secular gatherings. Now you guys get to see him and his ilk in action, and laugh along with the rest of us. Enjoy the show.

  51. Wobs says:

    “It is also interesting to note that I am only one of many atheists who is a regular reader of the Dalrock blog. Like the others, I don’t always agree with absolutely everything the author(s) publish here, but the content remains consistently insightful, relevant and useful. Dalrock is a valued source of hard statistical data and cutting-edge gender studies/sociology articles, on par with many established periodicals. It would be a mistake for WordPress to take the advice of a couple of lunatic-fringe pseudointellectuals whose only accomplishments include some poorly written, crass internet diatribes.”

    As a fellow athiest, I echo this sentiment.

    I like to read the views of those from different ends of the political and social spectrum (when they are well thought out), and this blog is a fine example of just such a source.

    Keep up the good work Dalrock.

  52. Opus says:

    I could not help noticing from Adam Lee’s Twitter that although he appears to be a Jew – albeit of the atheist variety – and although he is American – and thus not English – that did not prevent him from waxing holier-than-thou as to the stance of the The Church of England on the matter of ‘Women Bishops’. You would think, would you not, that for a non-English non-believer the arrangements of that Church would be of no importance to him much as the fact that the American separation of Church and State and the arrangements of your Congress and Senate would be no concern of mine. Atheists dictating to Churches as to their internal arrangements is somewhat surreal – and reveals not so much that he is a hypocrite as that he is a bully in search of power.

    What amuses me is that although Lee is not a believer in any deity, his Twitter reveals he believes in just about anything else provided it is of the Cultural Marxist variety. How priceless that a man who will assert a belief in Tolerance – something very much in evidence in blogs like this one – has a reflex action for oppression that even a Stalinist commissar would blanche at. Tosser (as we say around here).

  53. MigrantWorker says:

    Dalrock,

    I am another longtime reader coming out of the woodwork so to speak.

    By far the greatest benefit I received from your writing is a new set of narratives, which I can then use to evaluate my interactions with other people and life in general. And the situation which you have found yourself in reminds me of one such narrative, which you have in fact discussed in more detail in a post about a year ago: Rebuilding the Mound. The parallel of ants “(…) storming out, furiously stinging (…)” has never been so apt.

    MigrantWorker

  54. Vercingetorix says:

    For people who would ostensibly not care about the outdated morals of many of us here, women like Mrs. Brink sure are terrified of the discernment of a righteous man. Wonder why.

  55. Vercingetorix says:

    Also interesting to see trolls like shell come out with their interesting versions of Christianity. As a n00b here, do you all generally respond to these kind of Churchian half-arguments?

    I find the characterization of the analysis of Mrs. Erickson’s gleeful moral failings as “character assasination” to be especially evil. Condeming Chrisitians for identifying sin and the harm it causes must cause the devil much joy.

  56. Snowy says:

    Adamangina Lee: “hassling a woman writer”? He doesn’t even have a grasp on English vocabulary. The appropriate word, if it were true, would be “harassing”. Not only is he a tosser, he’s a wanker too.

  57. Spike says:

    It always amazes me that those who pride themselves in their permissiveness, their broad-mindedness, their patience and tolerance for others are tolerant about everyone ….except Christians.It tells you who and what they really are.
    “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.” John 15:18.
    Dalrock, is there a way in which we can demand you stay on here?

  58. HawkandRock says:

    http://www.flareandfade.com/i-dont-need-feminism-because/

    Like most zealots, she is just not that bright. There is no sport or honor or glory in vanquishing the simple-minded and cowardly.

    It’s best to just keep your distance while they circle the bowl.

  59. deti says:

    Adam Lee, Rebecca Brink, and shell:

    Let me bottom line this for you.

    One who writes a blog under her own real name is not immune from criticism.

    One who writes intimate details of one’s private life using that real name is not immune from criticism. (And yes, name-calling is criticism. It’s just a rather crude, explicit form of criticism.)

    You want a public life? Expect criticism. You want to take controversial positions? Expect to make enemies. You want to give the finger to those who want and respect marriage? Expect your opponents to give it right back to you.

    One who posts explicit semi nude photographs of oneself on said public blog, for anyone and everyone to see, should expect a bit of blowback.

    You want to post provocative photos of yourself online? Expect men to look at them, leer at them, and comment on them.

    As for Jenny Erikson: This is a woman who presents herself as a conservative Christian mommyblogger. She exploited herself, her (now) ex husband, and their two daughters, by posting details of their married and family life. She exploited the family she destroyed by posting photos of herself and her former family to paint an idyllic (and false) portrait of a blissful husband, wife and children. She then blew up that family for no good reason (marital unhaaaappiness is NOT a good reason for divorce), dragged her ex husband through the mud IN PUBLIC, talked of her post-dating experiences, and then sat back and sipped appletinis. She revealed herself as the very personification of every manosphere truism ever described. She then showed the temerity to wonder out loud and in public why her ex husband didn’t want to socialize with her.

    And you sit there befuddled as to why Jenny Erikson might be a subject of study, examination and critique?

  60. sonofdeathswriter says:

    I never understood people who talks about peace yet they hate people who doesn’t agree with them.

  61. “The Misandry Bubble is supposed to burst in 2020. I’m not so sure. Perhaps we’ll all be in re-education camps by then.”

    We probably won’t even make it that far. I’m anticipating Christ’s return for the Church in five years myself.

    Shell, just because Dalrock doesn’t have a knee-jerk reaction to aggressive posts on his blog the way Leftists like those in the topic of discussion doesn’t mean that he puts his personal stamp of approval on every post by default. He mentioned above how he’d like for us to flag anyone who makes threats or posts personal information.

    I was in a slightly similar situation recently. A female family friend told me that she planned to block my feed on Facebook because she was “sick of reading about all the things that [I] hate.” She cited an anti-Muslim post as the final straw, but I suspect that most of the other straws were my anti-Feminist ones. She also said that she didn’t wanna argue about it, which is usually Leftspeak for, “I’m right and you’re not, so don’t bother countering.” What are you gonna do?

    On a side note, I’ve visited Patheos quite a bit and have been impressed with some of the stories about peoples’ conflicts with faith and sexuality. Sounds like this Adam guy is a contributor that they could do without.

  62. jf12 says:

    @Lars re: “So now linking to a click bait article by a woman is just as misogynistic as stifling her career by *not* linking to it?”

    Ridicule trumps passive rejection. Women complain about passive rejection only after nothing else is complainable-about.

  63. Fiddlesticks says:

    Adam Lee apparently didn’t realize that “Hello M’Lady” was satire. He was probably like, “This is groovy! How do I sign up?”

  64. Grampy_bone says:

    It never ceases to amaze me how women demand protection from the consequences of their own actions, or the willingness of men to aid them in doing so.

    Dalrock, I am an atheist, and I always find your blog well reasoned, measured, and insightful. You’ve never done any thing which I find the least bit offensive.

  65. The left is getting a lot of mileage out of silencing dissent by howling “abuse” these days. It’s becoming a “thing”.

  66. Tilikum says:

    “male feminist is a third gender”

    thats a powerful observation and concept

  67. jf12 says:

    I applaud shell’s attempt to push *my* buttons, anyway, with her (I’m presuming) orderly presentation. The problem, of course, is that what she is presenting isn’t factual but instead based on feewings. She quotes the (iirc) Jewish pua Mark’s comments as representative; as if somehow the 1% is representative of the other 99%, because feewings. She may as well quote da GBFM.

    She then approves of TCW’s and others’ calls for nonjudgmentalism for the specific purpose of adjudging our calling-out of bad behavior as being bad behavior! She can’t pretend not to see the fallacy, and moreover she can’t pretend not to know the context of “Judge not”.

  68. jf12 says:

    How is it that so many nonChristians feel empowered to decide that their kumbaya version of Christianity should be the strawman idol that Christians must bow down to? When did that happen? Along with t he other social revolutionsof the 60s and 70s?

  69. Anonymous Reader says:

    The various drive-by postings demand that Dalrock and those who comment here just shut up about a woman who both brags and complains about her sexual affairs whilst in the process of divorce, i.e. her cheating. The drive-by posters don’t even attempt to defend her bad behavior, they just want to stop any criticism.

    Well, what does this mean? It means that no behavior by a woman is deserving of the slightest critique, let alone an outright challenge, rebuke, or denunciation. Therefore, these self-proclaimed defenders of women are arguing that women are above any criticism. They are not to be corrected. What do we call that which cannot be criticized? Well, “perfect” perhaps, or “holy”, as in some sort of minor pagan diety.

    Those readers who may have questioned comments over the years about putting women on pedestals, “pedestalization”, i.e. the notion that women are inherently better than men, now have a clear example. How amusing to see an atheist making an idol out of a fallible, imperfect, human being. It’s very ironic.

    Women are now little plastic goddesses, on cardboard plinths, that we are all to bow down before. Just ask the loud atheist Lee (irony alert), he’ll tell all about it.

  70. jf12 says:

    Why isn’t attempting to forcefully muffle religious speech considered illegal abuse, especially in a country which prides itself that its very first listed protected rights are freedom of religion and freedom of speech?

  71. deti says:

    as I think about this more, this entire kerfuffle, and the protestations of Shell, Kendra and FC Whitehead, are really just women’s objections to, reactions to and complaints about, the blunt and direct way men address each other and comment on the world around them to each other.

  72. the irony of an ‘atheist’ starting a witch hunt

  73. Anonymous Reader says:

    jf12
    How is it that so many nonChristians feel empowered to decide that their kumbaya version of Christianity should be the strawman idol that Christians must bow down to?

    Because that is the Church of Nice. The Church of Nice always looks the other way when women behave badly, because “weaker vessel” or some such.

    When did that happen? Along with t he other social revolutionsof the 60s and 70s?

    IMO the Church of Nice has been around for a long time, going back to the late 19th century[*], but it became mainstreamed when the leading-edge boomers (born 1945-47: Bill Clinton, etc.) became leaders in churches during the late 70’s and 80’s.

    [*]Reading more about the anti-alcohol movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries I’ve been struck by how feminized that movement was, and how much of the Church of Nice was contained within it.

  74. shell says:

    Deti et al:

    There is criticism and there is lynch mob abuse. There is a difference and it is clear to rational people on and off line everywhere.

    Like all lynch mobbers, you are so innocently unaware of your motives and their transparency to others. You just want to get rid of evil, is all, the righteous men of God that you are.

    This self-righteousness sounds familiar to everyone but the self-righteous, because it always justifies every atrocity, small and grand.

    But alright, since comparing you to a lynch mob hurts your feewings, let’s be gentler and call you Mean Boys (a la Mean Girls), as you so well exemplify the kind of cliques found in middle school or among idle housewives* of Anytown, USA. Your boys’ club, just like those others, is fueled by gossip (especially sexual), jealousy (especially sexual) and fantasies of revenge (yes, especially sexual). This whole thread about Ms. Brink is filled with nothing but. Silly stuff, really, but with a real potential to do real damage to another person.

    Yes, she talked about her intimate life and posted revealing pictures of herself online. No, it does not give you the right to abuse her any more than seeing a half-naked woman on the street would.

    You have the right to criticize her or anyone anywhere at any time. You don’t have the right to abuse (by vulgar name-calling, character assassination, spinning revenge fantasies, etc.) I hope you learn the difference. It is not that difficult.

    *With apologies to housewives.

  75. fightforlove says:

    “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.”

    When you shed light on a hoe like Brink and then some light on a bitter, Xtian-hating atheist like Adam Lee (seriously, I wanna give him a hug), you get the results. You all have a nice day!🙂

  76. Opus says:

    A linguistic analysis of Adam Lee’s Tweet is surely in order; he is a writer (Daylight Atheism is presently rushing up the Amazon.co.uk charts at 996,364) so one might hope for proper English. Is that what we will get? – of course not.

    Lee refers to this blog as a Sewer Pit. There is no such thing: there are however cess-pits and there are sewers. They are different.

    To describe a blog which supports marriage 1.0 (as we call it) as in some way akin to the disposal of human waste is surely a metaphor too far or perhaps that really is his view of an institution so popular that even Mrs Brink has tried it. The use of the neologism Sewer Pit is redundant as Lee would presumably regard all MRA blogs (of which incidentally this is not one) as of the same repulsiveness.

    To hassle is to pester or harass. To write an article and receive comments thereon concerning a publicly published magazine article, cannot be hassling of the writer – nor, Mrs Brink’s bizarre claim that her loved ones are being equally targeted. Who might these loved ones be one wonders seeing that all we know of her is that she is divorcing and seems to be childless. Her parents may read Frisky (in which case the damage is done) but one doubts they have ever heard of Dalrock.

    Lee refers to Brink as a ‘woman writer’. His use of the adjective woman suggests that the alleged hassling is somewhat more serious by reason of her sex – for surely otherwise her sex is immaterial. Does not this conflict with his assertion of the equality of the sexes – which seems to be the basis of most of his Tweets – or is it that all sexes are equal but those with an on-show Vagina are more equal than others – perhaps he will enlighten us. Nice to see his call for the on-line equivalent of book-burning’.

    Is there some Grammar Nazi to whom I may report his abuse of the English language and attack on freedom of speech – not that Dalrock himself gets away entirely unscathed – for he has invented the verb ‘to falsely report’. Verbs Jim, but not as we know them.

  77. Oscar says:

    Lying about and silencing opponents is pretty much the Left’s SOP these days.

    Wait… come to think of it, that’s always been their SOP!

  78. Oscar says:

    Anonymous Reader says:
    July 17, 2014 at 9:25 am

    “It means that no behavior by a woman is deserving of the slightest critique, let alone an outright challenge, rebuke, or denunciation. Therefore, these self-proclaimed defenders of women are arguing that women are above any criticism. They are not to be corrected.”

    Unless, of course, a woman attempts to Biblically correct another woman or other women. Then she becomes Satan incarnate. See, for example, the actual harassment and abuse piled onto Sunshine Mary.

  79. shell says:

    jf12:

    “what she is presenting isn’t factual but instead based on feewings. She quotes the (iirc) Jewish pua Mark’s comments as representative; as if somehow the 1% is representative of the other 99%, because feewings.”

    No. Feewings, hurt ones, are what makes you:

    1. deny clearly demonstrable facts (some 300 comments, the majority of which indulge in exorcising the commenters’ own feewings not even disguised as moral concerns, but crudely unloading their sexual fear and contempt on their object that happens to be another person);

    2. conflate criticism of behavior on this blog with attack on Christianity (!),

    3. speak contemptuously in response.

    It is not relevant that Mark is Jewish and some other commenter atheist, etc. It is relevant that their abusive remarks were encouraged and posted on the site (which prides itself on promoting Christian values).

    The fact that Dalrock moderates and presumably removes comments that are not politically correct for the site, but allows vulgar and abusive ones stand speaks for itself. If that’s Christian, so be it. But it is just plain wrong, according to basic human decency.

  80. greenlander says:

    Dalrock, I am an atheist, and I always find your blog well reasoned, measured, and insightful. You’ve never done any thing which I find the least bit offensive.

    Yeah, +1 this. I’m also an atheist and I feel the same way. I just can’t be a believer: I’m just not wired for it. Dalrock, for a believer you’re at least consistent and your worldview and version of Truth is at least self-consistent.

  81. Oscar says:

    Hey, did y’all know that…

    “Young women’s sexuality is so policed and constrained that they are often looking for excuses to be sexual — sometimes it’s drinking too much, sometimes it’s a silly contest. Anything for plausible slut-deniability. Of course, sometimes women eschew that — and they are punished even more fiercely.”

    See? There’s TOO MUCH restraint on women’s sexuality. Yeah. That’s the problem.

  82. jf12 says:

    @Oscar, “You know what is truly disturbing about the so-called Magaluf girl story?”

    That the excuses *work* so well.

  83. Oscar says:

    Holy crap. It actually gets worse!

    “‘She dropped her Godly protection for a moment’: Friend reveals Magaluf girl is from family of born-again Christians who have FORGIVEN her”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681472/She-dropped-Godly-protection-moment-Friend-reveals-Magaluf-girl-family-born-Christians-FORGIVEN-organiser-event-claims-doesnt-know-fuss-about.html#ixzz37k27JuPT
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

  84. Dalrock says:

    @HawkandRock

    http://www.flareandfade.com/i-dont-need-feminism-because/

    Like most zealots, she is just not that bright. There is no sport or honor or glory in vanquishing the simple-minded and cowardly.

    It’s best to just keep your distance while they circle the bowl.

    It took me a second to realize that all of the photos in that post are of her. Why do I need feminism? Because Look at meee!!! Look at meeee!!! Look at meeee!!!

    In her case the medium is certainly the message. At least she kept her pants on this time.

  85. Pingback: No One is Obliged to Validate You | Something Fishy

  86. jf12 says:

    re: forgiven. Shame on men for shaming her for doing something unashamedly at first. And here’s PROOF that men ought to be ashamed of shaming her: because it worked,and now she is ashamed of doing what she should have been ashamed of, so now we have to unshame her so she… um …

  87. greyghost says:

    If Brink was to come here and post nobody would shun her. She wouldn’t be on the pedestal Lee has for her. I think her friends and people that say they care about the woman have done her wrong. Shell is not her friend. And this Lee fella is just looking for her approval.

  88. Rational Atheist says:

    YOU WILL SHUT UP, OR WE WILL SHUT YOU UP

  89. Anonymous Reader says:

    greyghost, Special Snowflakes don’t like to be around men who refuse to recognize their extra-special specialness. Even virtual men who won’t kneel before their pedestal are unacceptable.

  90. S. Chan says:

    This is off-topic, except in that it relates to justice and feminists.

    In New Zealand, they are considering changing the way rape allegations are handled. Specifically, they are considering shifting “the burden of proof of consent from the alleged victim to the accused”. That would obviously conflict with the presumption of innocence, but there are serious plans to go ahead anyway. For more details, see this story in the New Zealand Herald:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11291109

  91. HawkandRock says:

    @Dalrock

    Note that in her “response” to the tumblr spot she is criticizing, she specifically says: “I won’t link to the actual tumblr because it’s a crock of bullshit based on a misunderstanding of feminism and an ignorance of data and history.”

    But of course you won’t, dear. That would mean that you trust your ‘followers’ to view competing ideas and then make determine for themselves which has more merit, and of course you know best, commissar. Kind of like how you disable comments on your blog because only the informed (like yourself) really have a right to comment: http://www.flareandfade.com/blog/2014/6/22/so-heres-a-thing-i-hate-comment-sections

    You even say: “If someone wanted to talk to me about the quality of my ideas, there are about a million ways to get a hold of me because it’s clear who I am. I’m willing to present my ideas publicly because I’m proud to publish the ideas that I do and use them to create a positive public reputation.” ….But when you do get a hold of me…just don’t ever disagree with anything I say or I will accuse you of threatening me and my family members,….

    I think you left that last part out right, toots? Hahahaha. Cultural Marxists are funny.

    Here is what the petulant child refused to link: http://womenagainstfeminism.tumblr.com/post/60758155694/allthingswittyandneko-i-dont-need-feminism

    You can make up your own minds which group has the more compelling argument.

  92. Crank says:

    @boxer

    “It is also interesting to note that I am only one of many atheists who is a regular reader of the Dalrock blog. Like the others, I don’t always agree with absolutely everything the author(s) publish here, but the content remains consistently insightful, relevant and useful. Dalrock is a valued source of hard statistical data and cutting-edge gender studies/sociology articles, on par with many established periodicals. It would be a mistake for WordPress to take the advice of a couple of lunatic-fringe pseudointellectuals whose only accomplishments include some poorly written, crass internet diatribes.”

    This describes me as well. I consider myself atheist, though I would never attend atheism conferences or whatever, nor would I feel compelled to create online sites to proselytise. I just don’t see what there would be to talk about all day regarding atheism (“Hey, it’s Tuesday, I still don’t believe in God! Discuss!”). I imagine most of what they get into has nothing to do with atheism and devolves into psuedo religion of its own sort. I once glanced at the Atheism Plus forums (I think that was it), and the discussions were absurd and totally unrelated to atheism. It was really just an orgy of victimhood.

    I don’t agree with everythinig Dalrock says, since I’m not a believer in the Bible, but his contributions to discussions on marriage and divorce are second to none. And, whether or not God exists, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that traditional morality existed for good reasons, unless somehow one thinks that rampant single motherhood among America’s lower classes (and creeping up to the middle class) is a good thing. As Novaseeker (I think) has pointed out, the cultural and economic elites of the West have reformed morality and custom in a way that works for them (which would include me), but is an unsustainable disaster for most people. But passionate leftists, especially female leftists, have such a difficult relationship with long term cause and effect that they will never see this.

  93. greyghost says:

    Based on the comments the atheist types have left It looks to me they are what ever term can be use to define anti-chuchian bullshit. The sincere word applied to reality has a place in all hearts and minds and souls. I like it.

  94. Jen says:

    Dalrock, I’m sorry (and frustrated) to read that this is happening to you. May nothing bad come of it, and I’ve said a prayer.

    Your blog has been immensely helpful to me, someone who has never, ever considered herself a feminist in any way, shape, or form. Your thoughtful and Biblically-based writing has not only informed me, but given me the tools to recognize and discern feminist thought in our culture and churches; it’s so prevalent that for someone born into a feminist culture (I’m under 40), sometimes help is needed in picking it out. What I’ve read here has help me slice away things in myself I was never comfortable with anyhow, and helped me understand and visualize what God’s design for marriage *actually* looks like—something I occasionally had trouble doing because one is unlikely to find it properly taught in most churches (though I must say our church and pastor are excellent—he is no fan of feminism, either, and has decimated their lies more than once). Your writing has also helped me articulate what is so terrible about this ideology to those not paying attention in an attempt to open their eyes, too.

    For all of these reasons I really appreciate what you do, and I suspect my husband does too. I’m regularly very grieved by what I read here about the state of things, but think that’s the correct response to a fallen, broken world. It encourages me to pray and to keep myself in line, and these are probably also correct reactions.

    And so far as Jenny Erikson, she assassinated her own character. Even the unsaved recognized that—the latter no doubt being part of the reason so many were so horrified by what she’d done.

  95. deti says:

    I think Rational Atheist just threatened either Dalrock or his commenters.

  96. shell,

    You’re missing the point, again: All Dalrock did was criticize her while quoting her and linking to her. As far as his comments section though, I know for a fact that he would ban any threats if he knew of them. Otherwise, Dalrock does not censor people. That you think this is a bad thing speaks volumes about you.

  97. Boxer says:

    I think Rational Atheist just threatened either Dalrock or his commenters.

    This is becoming really funny. Link?

  98. Crank says:

    @deti
    I think his comment was sarcasm that was mocking the mentality of Lee and his ilk.

  99. Jen says:

    You know—What people don’t understand is you’re trying to help, not harm, because you’re pointing at an iceberg. The problem is no one likes being told, “You’re doing it wrong.”

    Anyhow. You’re in my prayers.

  100. Dalrock says:

    @Deti

    I think Rational Atheist just threatened either Dalrock or his commenters.

    I read that differently, taking it as a criticism of Daylight Atheist’s attempt to silence this blog. But perhaps it was meant as you interpret it.

  101. Dalrock says:

    Thank you everyone for the kind words and the prayers.

  102. Gunner Q says:

    jf12 @ 9:25 am:
    “How is it that so many nonChristians feel empowered to decide that their kumbaya version of Christianity should be the strawman idol that Christians must bow down to? When did that happen?”

    It sometimes happens with men who grow up in the church, get burned somehow and quit in frustration. Bad Christian doctrine is easy to mock and the most venomous atheists are the ones who used to be devout. For them, it’s personal.

    One sympathizes. The line between me and them isn’t much thicker than the difference between Christianity and Churchianity.

    @Dalrock. Stand tall. They hated Christ, they hated Vox Day and now they hate you. Good company. I can’t describe what a relief it is to watch Godly men suffer. Not schadenfreude but it’s hard to explain. It proves there is a reality beyond the material world? It proves you’re a real-deal Christian and therefore trustworthy? Maybe someone else can say it better.

  103. Dalrock,

    Hang in there man. I also said some prayers for you. Yes, they don’t know that all you are trying to do is help.

  104. greyghost says:

    Dalrock
    I used to joke with you about being a cultural leader. I told you so. It is not about you it was about how you effect the lives of others around you. The informer and teacher is always the best leadership in my experience. It makes each person strong from with in themselves. That is how it is done.

  105. Oscar says:

    jf12 says:
    July 17, 2014 at 11:07 am

    “re: forgiven. Shame on men for shaming her for doing something unashamedly at first. And here’s PROOF that men ought to be ashamed of shaming her: because it worked,and now she is ashamed of doing what she should have been ashamed of, so now we have to unshame her so she… um …”

    There’s more to it than that. Obviously, Little Ms Magaluf expected that whatever happened in Majorca would stay in Majorca. It never occurred to her that (one of) her extracurricular activities might follow her home. That’s why she’s so distraught.

    She probably created a “good girl” facade back home. Now everyone knows her true character. She probably wants to marry someday. Were it not for the leaked video, she probably would’ve found some poor sucker… uh… wait… she’s the sucker. She probably would’ve found some poor schmuck to marry her ignorant of her true character. Now that her true character is on worldwide public display, she can’t con anybody into marrying her. Whoever marries her now, does so knowing full well what she really is, and what she really thinks she’s worth ($5/24 = $0.21).

    In that sense, Ms Brink is actually more honorable (less dishonorable?) than Little Ms Magaluf. At least Ms Brink voluntarily made her lack of character public and absolutely clear for everyone to see. Little Ms Magaluf attempted to keep it secret. She failed miserably, of course, but she still attempted to keep the con going.

    There are two purposes to slut shaming. The first is to prevent women from becoming sluts. The second is to make it clear to honorable men which women they should avoid.

    I’m not sure which of the two purposes feminists hate most.

  106. DeNihilist says:

    Deti – “as I think about this more, this entire kerfuffle, and the protestations of Shell, Kendra and FC Whitehead, are really just women’s objections to, reactions to and complaints about, the blunt and direct way men address each other and comment on the world around them to each other.”

    Yup.

  107. Opus says:

    @TFH

    (brilliant comments yesterday, by the way)

    It is said that a parody of a comment by a Militant Atheist is indistinguishable from the real thing.

  108. Emma the Emo says:

    “There is criticism and there is lynch mob abuse. There is a difference and it is clear to rational people on and off line everywhere.”

    Yeah, I think we can all tell when someone is merely criticizing us, and when a lynch mob is “criticizing” us (the latter is often done by the likes of Manboobz and BluePill subreddit). One is often intelligent even if we don’t agree with it, while the other is unintelligent, petty and personal. But what does it matter? It’s the internet. Anyone can gossip about anyone else. Both intelligent and unintelligent criticism will be offered, especially if you write about hot controversial topics. Unless people are actually threatening you, their criticism or gossip aren’t abuse. You can stop looking at them, or write a counter-article.

  109. I hear atheist nerd girls are sexy…until you get into an elevator alone with one at 2am when they’re on their way back to their hotel room after 4 shots of tequila.

  110. Art Deco says:

    As for Jenny Erikson: This is a woman who presents herself as a conservative Christian mommyblogger. She exploited herself, her (now) ex husband, and their two daughters, by posting details of their married and family life. She exploited the family she destroyed by posting photos of herself and her former family to paint an idyllic (and false) portrait of a blissful husband, wife and children. She then blew up that family for no good reason (marital unhaaaappiness is NOT a good reason for divorce), dragged her ex husband through the mud IN PUBLIC, talked of her post-dating experiences, and then sat back and sipped appletinis. She revealed herself as the very personification of every manosphere truism ever described. She then showed the temerity to wonder out loud and in public why her ex husband didn’t want to socialize with her. And you sit there befuddled as to why Jenny Erikson might be a subject of study, examination and critique?

    You don’t get it. Women have options. Men have obligations.

  111. jf12 says:

    @shell, re: “clearly demonstrable facts”.

    Yes, please. I.e.please provide clear facts. “the majority of which indulge in exorcising the commenters’ own feewings not even disguised as moral concerns, but crudely unloading their sexual fear and contempt on their object that happens to be another person”
    Starts listing those 151comments please. In any order, but at least 151 of them. I can wait. Go on.

  112. jf12 says:

    @Oscar, “There are two purposes to slut shaming. The first is to prevent women from becoming sluts. The second is to make it clear to honorable men which women they should avoid.”

    Yes, but there is a third: free advertisement for the men with whom she slutted. My current theory involves wacky ideas such as people being manipulated by sexually-transmitted parasites, but it turns out that men who are reputedly partakers of sex with sluts are more desired sexually by women, and this particular pre-selection preference effect is much stronger among non-sluts.

  113. jf12 says:

    It’s notable that the fundamental criticism from liberals is that there isn’t enough censorship.

  114. Dalrock says:

    Someone linked to an article a while back and I can’t seem to find it. It was a woman talking about every woman waking up some mornings with a feeling that they need to end their relationship. It says something to the effect of these feelings sometimes just staying for a short while (for tea I believe), and other times they stay. Does that ring a bell with anyone?

  115. Don's Johnson says:

    Notice shell’s framing: all dissent is abuse. By Dalrock not removing posts that offend his/her delicate sensibilities, Dalrock is endorsing things that make him/her feel bad. By this logic, every time I see a holocaust denier or race supremacist comment on a site, I can assume they endorse said comment, since it wasn’t taken down. I think I read a jezebel comment a few weeks ago that said all men should be castrated. Therefore, jerzebel endorses castration. Hey, this is fun!
    Shell must be new around these parts. Appeals to authority and shaming don’t work on this crowd.

  116. Wolf says:

    @Dalrock
    I am a long-time read and, now, a first-time commenter.
    I greatly value your work and this website because I have learned a great deal of theory and statistics that explain very well all that I empirically observe in the world around me: the changing culture of dating, increased divorce rates, unfair treatment of men in divorce proceedings etc.
    This charge that is now being leveled against you is completely without merit. Nonetheless, I hope that you have backed up your blog and are ready to move it to a safer location should developing circumstances warrant it. I am not a techie person, but I do realize that there are costs associated with such a move. Therefore, I, and I am sure many other, too, would be more than willing to donate money (through PayPal, mailing cash to a PO Box in your area, or whatever is convenient) to cover the cost of moving and maintaining this blog at some safe location.
    Once again, thank you for your insightful work.
    Be well.

    [D: Thank you. I have the blog backed up, but I don’t think there will be an issue.]

  117. Pirran says:

    @Dalrock
    “Someone linked to an article a while back and I can’t seem to find it. It was a woman talking about every woman waking up some mornings with a feeling that they need to end their relationship. It says something to the effect of these feelings sometimes just staying for a short while (for tea I believe), and other times they stay. Does that ring a bell with anyone?”

    This one, I think.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2014/07/catherine_lacey_s_nobody_is_ever_missing_reviewed.html

  118. The Other Jim says:

    More evidence that the Left is not about debate, rather destroying their opponents. The ideology of Left can not accept an opposing view because it brings with it the possibility that their(the Leftists) view might be false. It’s an all or nothing ideology. The final goal isn’t Truth, it’s about being right at the expense of Truth.

    I think this is why Leftists tend to be far more brutal and murderous towards their opponents than other groups. Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, et al. even Stalin vs. Trotsky. It’s not enough to defeat your opponents, you have to destroy them else there will always be the possibility they are right and you are wrong. For Feminists, who are Leftist ideologues, it’s not enough to criticize men, they have to utterly humiliate, if not destroy them-their lives, reputations, words, deeds, etc., because if their opponent exists on some level-not just being alive, even if their ideas exist-there is always the chance of that set of ideas proving the ideas of the Leftist false. Mere existence of opposing ideas presents(in the view of the Leftist, of which Feminism is a part of) an existential threat and must be destroyed. Even to the extent of erasing them from history like Stalin and the Soviets did.

    I suspect this is why Leftists love censorship in all of its forms-shouting down people speaking, ensuring they are never seen, heard, or read in media, flagging posts and blogs they don’t like, crying Racism/Homophobia/Misogyny/Islamophobia/whatever, Jon Stewart’s ridicule, etc. The Left can’t lose the debate if they don’t allow it to happen in the first place.

    Dalrock, God bless you for bringing your eyes to see the way things really are and your voice to speak the Truth.

  119. Random Angeleno says:

    Well it can be seen that atheists are about as divided as Christians.
    Some people can’t tolerate dissent at all, let alone in the form of locker room talk.
    Looking for TFH’s Streisand effect in 3, 2, 1 …
    Thanks, Dalrock.

  120. Just Saying says:

    Adam Lee is an idiot. He is attacking you since he is also an atheist.

  121. Dalrock says:

    That was it Pirran. Thanks!

    Edit: And now I found where it was referenced by Isa.

  122. pabarge says:

    Report both of them as abusive to Twitter.

  123. pabarge says:

    By the way, you need to learn to post twitter links instead of .PNG and .JPG images. That way people can directly interact with Twitter.

  124. Buck says:

    Just another one of those “open minded” liberals I hear so much about…you know, the kind that simply cannot abide a view contrary to their own!

  125. BradA says:

    Good to see you stand up Dalrock.

    I would note to the general atheist discussion that I fit the traditional profile (raised by a single mother, quite intelligent, minimal success with woman growing up due to my nerdy nature) but I have too much intelligence to be an atheist.

    Just a general comment on a side discussion. I hate this idiotic rabbit culture the OP highlights.

  126. Dalrock says:

    Lee tweeted a link to a post by his wife on her blog. Ironically she tries to “own” me describing him as a rabbit person, and even better the post is part II to another post where she writes:

    What one person sees as an insult, another may find innocuous or even take as a point of pride.

    Cracked has published a post “5 Uncomfortable Truths Behind the Men’s Rights Movement” and the dudes at /r/TheRedPill are really mad.

    I’d wager this guy is a skinny little girly man just desperate for some cash. Probably gets pegged by his angry period-raging feminist girlfriend.

    And when we take out the modifiers and the name calling, and we look at what /u/bleekdawn is trying to say…there’s not much of an insult now is there? Like I said on /r/TheBluePill, he is now a little richer from the publication of this article and he will be getting laid tonight? Sounds like a win on both counts. What am I missing?

    As Vox wrote about rabbit people the other day:

    The power of the Gamma Delusion is such that the gamma will attempt to redefine any criticism, however objectively accurate, into a self-styled triumph for himself. We’ve seen John Scalzi attempt to do this with “rabbit”, with “insect”, and even with the term “gamma male” itself. Now, however, he has gone so far as to attempt to redefine “girly” and “lesser”:

  127. Oscar says:

    jf12 says:
    July 17, 2014 at 2:04 pm

    “Yes, but there is a third: free advertisement for the men with whom she slutted.”

    Good point.

    “My current theory involves wacky ideas such as people being manipulated by sexually-transmitted parasites”

    Wasn’t there a movie about that?

    jf12 says:
    July 17, 2014 at 2:06 pm

    “It’s notable that the fundamental criticism from liberals is that there isn’t enough censorship.”

    And yet they continue to refer to themselves as “Liberals”.

  128. jf12 says:

    re: rabbitting. So, that’s what he likes?

  129. Pingback: Der Kommissar’s Online | nightskyradio

  130. shinzaemon says:

    This is a very important blog and a much needed place in this day and time. Praying for you and yours. Keep up the great work!

  131. Opus says:

    How priceless therefore that this woman Elizabeth (Cherry Pi) Lee can therefore write in her blog on 18th May 2014 after quoting part of your 1st Amendment and (unlike her taking one phrase of what I had written and then using it entirely out of its context) I have as you can see quoted a paragraph in its entirety.

    ” I am a firm supporter of the right to free speech and free expression. These rights are essential to other rights political advocacy, religious freedom, artistic expression, academic freedom and the right to advocate for social change. I am so thankful to live in the United States and have this right and hold it dear [note her odd change from these rights to this right]. Maybe someone should tell her that her husband seems to differ from her on the right to freedom of speech and religious freedom, as well as the right to advocate for social change – or did I miss the part about those rights only applying to Marxist Feminist Liberals? As I said earlier – Tosser.

  132. YEAH!

    Adam’s wife Elizabeth posted MY comments on THIS blog about her husband on HER blog! My comment on one blog went viral to another. I feel so…. flattered. 🙂

  133. embracing reality says:

    @ TFH, well said,

    “since Adam Lee approves of Mizz Brink slutting it up with 8 men while still legally married (not one, not two, but EIGHT), Adam’s wife should take note that he is ok with this, so that she can take a page from Mizz Brink’s book and proceed to do this without delay.”

    That’s cool with you Adam? Right chump?

  134. Luke says:

    Dalrock, I figure odds are 90% you’ve already seen this, but just in case you haven’t, perhaps this would be useful to you:

    http://www.returnofkings.com/17249/how-to-defeat-new-york-city-media-liberals

    How To Defeat New York City Media Liberals
    By Roosh

    I’ve stumbled upon the formula that liberals based primarily in New York City use to attack those that go against their narrative. I want to discuss their methods and suggest a possible counterattack.

    [D: Limiting the (copyrighted) text, but leaving the link. I doubt Roosh would mind overly but please limit copy/paste to a very short snippet with a link.]

  135. I just posted on Elizabeth’s blog thanking her for quoting ME. It is currently there. Don’t know how long before she removes it.

  136. Don's Johnson says:

    There are no pictures on her blog. I’m going to venture a guess that the old maxim, “feminism is for ugly women” holds true.
    I also find it interesting that she sticks up for pegging in that post. I guess we know who wears the strap-on in that relationship.

  137. Opus says:

    There are a photo or two of her on her Twitter and I would say, not to put too fine a point on it, that Mrs Lee has probably eaten a few too many cherry pies.

  138. DeNihilist says:

    Hey Dal,

    just thought that I would let you know, that you can now rest from your fight against divorce. Turns out that there is nothing wrong, no shame, no one gets hurt, kids do great, and everyone just walks through it.

    Ahh, enjoy your retirement buddy!

    http://entertainment.ca.msn.com/celebs/laura-dern-i-have-no-shame-about-divorce-1

  139. fringed says:

    Dalrock,

    Time to go to the mattresses.

  140. The Rigorist says:

    Let’s see if this nit wit has achieved his goal:

    How many people here never heard of Adam Leah before this?

    This is show business. It only matters that we spell his name right.

    I have demonstrated the solution.

  141. gswann says:

    Host your own, sir. Even if you keep this wp.com site, be prepared to bug-out at an instant’s notice to a wp.org installation on a host you pay for and who wants your money.

    I’m much more of an atheist than anyone I know of. I don’t think your religion is an impediment to the good work you’re doing, and I’ve read you for two years. I despise intolerance in any guise, but atheist intolerance is absurd.

  142. DeNihilist says:

    Of course, what we see happening, with this attempt at censorship, is that the Manosphere, and other sites that are considered so, are starting to emerge into the cultural consciousness. When the cry for stifle starts, you know that you are making headway.

    Found this link on the Captains site, very true and timely. We are the counterculture now. What fun!

    http://antidem.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/turn-on-tune-in-drop-out/

  143. Opus says:

    @TFH

    You took the words from my mouth – all is becoming clear – though I would have awarded Mrs Lee a 4 (nice smile too) and Mrs Brink – firm hard body I’d say – a 6 – unlike you I don’t have California Girls to gauge this against as I live in the land of the land-whale. Cherchez la femme.

  144. Boxer says:

    I hear atheist nerd girls are sexy…

    Not in my experience. The sorts of atheists who go to the meetings tend toward androgyny, and the women tend toward either obesity or gawky hipsterism. They’re fun to talk to, provided you treat them like the asexual creatures they are. I feel more sorry for Twatson’s “attacker” (assuming he actually exists, which is doubtful).

    True anecdote, which he’d never admit: A couple of years ago in a large, east coast city, James “The Amazing” Randi pulled my friend aside and whispered the observation “they don’t look like women, do they?” I didn’t hear this but saw the sidebar, and they both started laughing, so I had to ask later.

  145. HawkandRock says:

    @TFH,

    “where she could have consolidated all her signs into “’I need Feminism because this is what I look like”’

    You caught me in mid drink when I read that. Damn you.

    Hahahaha. Good stuff!

  146. mmaier2112 says:

    Dang… she’s SO famous this page is the #5 result on my DuckDuckGo search.

    What a vapid whore.

  147. Boxer says:

    I only join in this merriment because Miss Cherry Pi has, of her own volition, entered the discussion:

    I would have awarded Mrs Lee a 4 (nice smile too)

    I know that Brother Opus is always the gentleman, as generous as he is kind; but, this is not a four.
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2010/06/thoughts-on-the-occasion-of-my-marriage/

    It was a hard 2 on its wedding day: utterly untouchable. I wouldn’t lean my bicycle against it.

    I don’t know what it looks like today, and don’t want to.

  148. srsly says:

    Boxer:
    “As a “journalist” (amazing what that word encompasses, but that’s another essay), Rebecca V Brink tends to fall into the limited public figure category, as I understand things.

    The “limited” part is crucial to understanding the term in its social context. It would not be fitting for one of us to call her neighbours, and get private dirt on her to discuss; but it is certainly fair play to rebut an autobiographical article, that she freely published, in the hopes of some sort of gain on her part (money or “fame”).”

    As far as what’s fair, that’s a matter of opinion, but if you were attempting to describe the legal protection of free speech in this country, I have great news for you. The United States has, by far, the broadest protection of speech of any country in the history of the world, well exceeding what you describe.

    Prior to New York Times v. Sullivan, to make a case of defamation (libel or slander) a plaintiff needed to show that the defendant had told someone else something about the plaintiff which would be injurious to plaintiffs reputation. The defendant could avoid liability by proving that the statement was true, and as long as the information was obtained legally, the defendant would not be open to liability for invasion of privacy. Truthful information, lawfully obtained, may be published anywhere by anyone without liability, criminal or civil, even if there was no First Amendment to the Constitution.

    WordPress can do what it wants, but any part of government that tries to level any consequence against anyone for anything Dalrock said in that post is committing a civil rights violation, and the individuals involved would, themselves, be subject to criminal and civil sanction.

    This public figure stuff comes from Times v. Sullivan and the cases which have followed it, and it gives those in the public eye a more difficult road to recover for damage to their reputations. Brink is a public figure, but that doesn’t even matter. If she brought a claim, Dalrock could argue she was a public figure, and then she would have to prove that he said something he actually knew was false or was reckless as to whether it was false. But there’s no reason to even go there. Dalrock’s blog contains NO statements of fact about Brink that aren’t quoted directly from Brink. The lawyer who took her case could find himself facing serious sanctions.

    But it’s even better than that. In these United States, you can say almost anything about almost anybody especially if it’s so ridiculous that nobody would believe it. I could, for example, tell everyone that Brink and I along with three guys from a local MRA group participated in an “ungreased, five way, DVDA session” last night, and since nobody would believe it and it’s obviously a joke, it isn’t actionable. Although it did actually happen. It was the only time in my life I’ve been upset about the extreme curvature of my penis, as I was left entirely out of the “A” side of the equation, but what was more disappointing was that Ms. Brink refused to remove her sunshine bear costume.

    Oh, and I would love for her or her friends to come and find me and sue me for that. (might wanna go read Hustler v. Falwell first) She may be a whore, but she’d be the one paying me four hundred dollars an hour to fuck with her by the end.

  149. Dalrock says:

    @TFH

    1) None of those photos in the wedding article show her face.

    The first two don’t, but the last one does.

  150. Isa says:

    @Shell
    There is a difference between criticisms of actions and criticisms of a person (i.e. saying a person is acting slutty vs. XYZ is a slut). Dalrock is quite careful in that way, the commentators? Not so much. People are quite crazy on the Internet as well and use far more forceful language as the ability for people to censure them is far smaller.

    Also, people need to really figure out the difference between threats and “threats”. If you can’t go get a permanent restraining order easily from the police, let it go.

  151. So, normal girl with current culture’s femme-centric tools tries to get approval/winning from some guy in Texas who academically posed questions about her sexploits that she purposefully posted to a world-wide medium?

    I mean… can’t we just tell her to be a strong independent woman and move on?

    (And for the record, does Rollo really have a “syndicate”?)

  152. srsly says:

    And why is anyone responding to shell? You shouldn’t respond to people who haven’t made a substantive point.
    This is how you deal with those people:
    Shell, go away. The grown ups are having a conversation, and we’re going to be using naughty words that you aren’t old enough to hear yet.

  153. Boxer says:

    Dear TFH/Dalrock/et.al:

    Cherry Pi is actually the perfect example of the middle-of-the-bell-curve* types of girls/women/androgynes who used to go to the feminist/skeptic cons. A lot of them have good senses of humor, and you can pal around with them, but they are not evocative of any sort of erotic impulse. You can muster up a sort of protective endearment of someone weaker than you, but they aren’t people you would want to date or marry. A weekend in the company of such women resembles a weekend with disabled old veterans, down at the American Legion.

    None of those photos in the wedding article show her face. He isn’t very proud of her. I mean, any man who marries any remotely attractive woman will post wedding pictures that show her off.

    When I see the wedding photos, I see what Roissy would call an omega pairing: Two people so unattractive that they have mutually decided to settle for each other. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this in theory, but the dynamics of being reminded of your own lack of worth in the marketplace are such, that both parties often turn out to be warped, cruel characters. That would be apparent with these two, given their hobby of living online, trying their damnedest to spread some of their own misery around to all of us “normals”. Pure ressentiment.

    There was a great article about this process over at Heartiste, but it was years ago, and I can’t find it.

    Boxer

    *Yes, there are a few moderately hot/sexy women at these things. I’m painting in broad generalities here, and I’m also a self-hating NERD BIGOT ATHEIST UNCLE TOM, as has already been admitted.

  154. Boxer says:

    Who will stoop so low as to go to bat for a 4,5 like Mizz Brink?

    It’s probably an artifact of my Mormon conditioning, but Brink is a 0 on my scale.

    Cherry Pi is untouchable for pride’s sake, but Brink is revolting. She’s scrawnyfat in that “middle aged heroin-junkie” sorta way, and the garish tats mean one of two things: crazy, or prostitute.

    Boxer

  155. Opus says:

    Strange and rather Solipsistic to write an article ‘Thoughts on the occasion of MY marriage’, and the photo first up is of the happy couple but only his face is visible as hers is obscured by a veil! In the last photo – when enlarged – they look the same! so I am sure it is working out just fine for them – but frankly when multi-adulteress and free love afficianado Mrs Brink calls and Mr Lee promptly does her bidding – no questions asked – on the ‘Jump-how high’ model one has to wonder.

    Mrs Lee however – for my money, is also a bit off; she waxes lyrical in the paragraph I quoted – like all young brides – about the wonders of the 1st and how excellence thereby of living in America but her husband does not gain a mention – merely the abstraction of freedom to say what you want. Does Mr Lee have her back the way he has Mrs Brink’s I wonder? Perhaps no one told Journalist Mrs Brink about the 1st Amendment and thus her natural instinct instead of to comment at Dalrock and scold these evil and prurient Christians who had the temerity to notice that (in Emperor’s clothes style) she was naked, is to call up the local White Knight to protect her from those evil people who have had the nerve to look at what she put out on-line and say what they think about her including marking her in Roissy style out of ten.

    Free speech is not much use if your outlet to say what you will has been removed which seems to be Mrs Brink and Mr Lee ‘s interpretation of the spirit of the 1st. A rather nice way to show belief in the 1st – 1st for me but not for thee. One must surely add this little storm in a tea cup to such Atheist disasters as Elevator-gate – which concerned another newly-minted divorcee keen to reveal her body and then complain about being noticed even as she persuaded two tenured Professors of Biology to fight over her and where the definition of attempted Rape was defined down to an offer of sharing a coffee – and the expulsion by Atheism Plus [the Plus of course being Feminism] of Matt Dillahunty (a sort of Bishop of Atheism as well as being an Anton Le Vey impersonator) for heresy as well as other matters but always with a male in the firing line.

    Once upon a time an atheist was someone who did not have a belief in a god or gods usually as a result of philosophical reflection and despite childhood belief; in 2014 Atheism is an industry – a political movement – intent on purging heresy (in compliance with Marxist ideology) and enforcing doctrinal submission even from those who are not adherents of its doubts.

    It is a strange world where one can say that as between the Atheists and, say, The Roman Catholics, the Catholics look like a fount of sanity and much the more decent.

  156. Hank Flanders says:

    Critiquing someone’s published and self-described life choices is “hassling a woman writer?” Can these people even hear themselves? If you put something out there for others to read, it’s free game to be criticized, and who would really want it any other way? Also, why is there even the mention about this writer being a “woman?” Don’t they want equality? Equality includes equal criticism.

  157. Mark says:

    @Dalrock

    I apologize that my comments made such a stir on your blog.I did not mean any disrespect to your blog and it’s posters.I will tone them down.Thanks.

  158. Mark says:

    @opus

    “”I could not help noticing from Adam Lee’s Twitter that although he appears to be a Jew – albeit of the atheist variety””

    Thank you.Very Interesting!

    @jf12

    “”She quotes the (iirc) Jewish pua Mark’s comments as representative””

    PUA?……….L*

  159. Boxer says:

    Dear TFH:

    You’re black?

    I’m about as white as you can get (most Mormons are). The Fem-Atheist kooks have some ridiculous name they call us, derivative of “Uncle Tom”, which I don’t remember offhand.

  160. sigh says:

    > The feminisation of atheism is a relevant topic here, for the same reasons Christians gather to discuss the feminisation of their religious movement. Atheism+ is the secular equivalent of “churchianity”, and Adam Lee is the atheist Glenn Stanton.

    As a fellow atheist, I quite agree, Boxer. Feminism and Leftism are doing everything that they can in an attempt to subvert even logic in order to support their own altruistic ideological perception of the world that we live in. We do indeed live in dark, dangerous times. Most of today’s so-called atheists have never even heard of Bertrand Russell, much less have studied his work. I would like to think that they are harmless, but most “atheists” nowadays are merely armchair atheists.

    Carl Sagan wrote some very pertinent words about the world we were entering into in the mid-90s:

    “I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time — when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness…”

    Frankly, I’ve anticipated all of this. I think Dr. Sagan did as well.

  161. Boxer says:

    And I’d like to thank Fematheist netkook extraordinaire, the man who makes marriage gay, Adam Lee, for quoting me extensively in his just published hit piece.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2014/07/i-think-the-mras-are-mad-at-me-again/

    Happy to help you this week, spanky. You keep writing, and we’ll keep laughing.

  162. Boxer says:

    Dear Sigh:

    Most of today’s so-called atheists have never even heard of Bertrand Russell, much less have studied his work.

    I know Russell for his contributions to Mathematics and Logic but am rusty on his philosophical/social criticism stuff.

    (For those who don’t know, Russell, along with a guy named Whitehead, set about to prove things such as “why does 2 plus 2 equal 4” and “why does a triangle have three sides”. He ended up contributing a lot to set theory.)

    One guy who is also under-appreciated by the contemporary atheism crowd is “The Great Agnostic”, Colonel Robert Ingersoll.

    https://archive.org/details/MN40110ucmf_3

    I think he wrote much more compelling stuff than Richard Dawkins. Check him out if you get the time.

    As for Mr. Lee, I wouldn’t give him so much credit. A man who gay-marries a human/horse hybrid, and lives chiefly on the internet, isn’t someone who is going to have much impact, for better or worse, on the world at large.

    Best, Boxer

  163. sigh says:

    Surprisingly, my largely religious family was very receptive of Ingersoll’s Thanksgiving Sermon:

    http://infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/thanksgiving_sermon.html

    I think Mr. Lee would do well to read it.

  164. Pirran says:

    @Boxer

    Fem-Atheist.

    Faytheist?

  165. Dalrock says:

    @Boxer

    And I’d like to thank Fematheist netkook extraordinaire, the man who makes marriage gay, Adam Lee, for quoting me extensively in his just published hit piece.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2014/07/i-think-the-mras-are-mad-at-me-again/

    Happy to help you this week, spanky. You keep writing, and we’ll keep laughing.

    On making marriage gay, his wife writing a post arguing that accusing a man of taking it up the bum from his wife is actually a compliment because it means he is getting sex is hard to get past. I’m sure he would spin this kind of statement from his wife as something to be proud of, but it is really just stomach turning. This homoerotic feminist fetish for emasculating men shows a deep, disturbing, and twisted hatred for healthy masculinity and sexuality.

    I also see that he chose to argue against a straw man instead of my actual argument. Making stuff up is easier than logic, but it is also transparent:

    Dalrock sneered that women like Brink should be ashamed of themselves for sleeping with multiple men, even in serial monogamous relationships, and suggested that they carry signs proclaiming how many men they’ve had sex with (“very few women would be willing to march with an honest number”).

    For all of his complaints about the comments of my readers, I note that Lee asked in the post:

    Now that you’ve seen who these people are and what they’re like, is there any reason at all we should want them to be part of our big tent?

    Commenter Azkyroth quoted this and responded:

    Well, perhaps in the literal sense, if we were to tan and stitch together that “thick skin” they’re always going on about….😛

    Perhaps this is Azkyroth trying to “own” the term Nazi with a reference to human lampshades (or tents), or perhaps he really does entertain such gruesome fantasies about those who merely disagree with him. Either way, I won’t organize a campaign to have Mr. Lee’s writing banned from Patheos as “abuse”, but I will note that not only is this one of only 25 comments on Lee’s post, but the oldest comment and one which Lee himself replied to without objection. I point this out not to put the commenter’s words in Lee’s mouth, but to note how hypocritical he is in focusing on my commeters instead of my actual writings. This is another cheap trick of someone who lacks the ability to make a real case, and intelligent people will generally see through it.

    One thing I did realize after reading this post however is that I did in fact incorrectly link to Ms. Brink’s meetup page instead of her list of articles at The Frisky. I’ve corrected that error and made a note at the bottom of the “One at a time” post.

  166. Opus says:

    Russell (grandson of Reform Act P.M. and godson of John Stuart Mill) – who looked like a Thunderbirds puppet, banned from Columbia University for impiety towards the gods and for corrupting youth (now that is Social Sanctions for you) as well as observing a teapot in orbit around Saturn!

    Boxer has read Principia Mathematica – wow! – all mathematics [2+2=4] is tautology?

  167. Boxer says:

    Dear Opus & Dalrock

    Boxer has read Principia Mathematica – wow! – all mathematics [2+2=4] is tautology?

    Hell, I’ve never *read* the principia.

    Math undergrads have to study parts of it, for a 300 level proofwriting course. (It’d surprise me if law students didn’t have to study a bit of it too). There’s a much easier work by these two called *An Introduction to Mathematics* which I have read (as opposed to studied, haltingly, and with a heavy grudge).

    Gödel proved they’d never get done with this project, but the attempt remains one of the foremost intellectual exercises of the 20th century. I’m ashamed to note that this is basically how I know Russell. I have heard him quoted in the atheist circles, but don’t know much of the material.

    On making marriage gay, his wife writing a post arguing that accusing a man of taking it up the bum from his wife is actually a compliment because it means he is getting sex is hard to get past.

    Glad you caught the essence of my little quip.

    What motivates these people’s resentment agains all of us *normals* is, I hope, becoming clear to the rest of the readers. The weak hate the strong. The defective hate the fit. The lazy hate the productive. These are the material conditions of the chafing human strata, as it always has been.

    Boxer

  168. Opus says:

    TFH is quite mistaken; Mr Lee says he is quite happily married and monogamous; he has also I see, as with his wife – so perhaps he merely copied her – quoted me, entirely out of context – cherry-pi picked to be precise. I was pointing out that he was expressing concern about the internal arrangements of the Church of England which for someone who was neither English nor a Christian struck me as poking his nose into matters which were for him of no legitimate concern. I was thus amused to read the following paragraph from his latest effort:

    “I wouldn’t presume to tell the Christian community to do about the Misogynists in their midst but to the Atheist community I ask: Now that you have seen these people and what they are like is there any reason at all as to why we should want them to be part of our big tent”.

    What a strange idea that Dalrock (and his readers) would want to seek admittance to the Church of Militant Atheism, but note the accusation of Heresy and the punishment that Lee has attempted to mete out on his own for thought crimes against adultery. Those commenters here who have outed themselves on this thread as Atheist will obviously have to take the Atheist equivalent of SackCloth and Ashes should they seek any form of contact with the faithful.

    So there you have it: Atheism is longer a lack of a belief in a god or gods but is now (as so many Christians always asserted) a religion and clearly a religion with doctrine and doctrine that seems to me to be indistinguishable from Cultural Marxism and with appropriate sanctions for lapsing even if you are not a member of the said Atheist Church.

    In the spirit of ecumenicalism I likewise will not attempt to tell The Bishops of Atheism what to do about the Misandrists in their midst.

  169. I’m sitting and considering Shell and some of the legitimate points that were made, about crude language and personal attacks. Then I consider how much this type hates ALL male opinion, male space, male discussion, and male criticism. What is readily apparent is that they are not so much concerned with Christian propriety as with using as a club to silence men. There are all types of commenters here, not just Christians. Should they be silenced to maintain the Christian standards of non-Christian moralizers? And that’s what Shell really amounts to. The equation and appropriation of Christ’s teachings with feminism/progressivism (that is a form of Churchianity).

  170. Crank says:

    @opus
    “Those commenters here who have outed themselves on this thread as Atheist will obviously have to take the Atheist equivalent of SackCloth and Ashes should they seek any form of contact with the faithful.”

    There has been no “outing” here, since neither Boxer nor the rest of us non-believers have ever pretended to the contrary. Nor would I consider other atheists to be some sort of “co-religionists” whose acceptance I would feel compelled to seek based on any political or moral position. Theirs is not some sort of church of atheism, as if there could be such a thing. It’s the church of modern progressivism flying an atheist banner so as to allow them to pretend that the rest of their positions are somehow non-religious, even though most modern progressivism actually requires accepting many things as a matter of psuedo-religious “faith” despite all evidence to the contrary.

  171. pavetack says:

    Does anyone else appreciate the irony of a person who decries the hypocrisy of organized religion taking aim at a person who has thoroughly discussed the perils of Churchianity? Can any say with a straight face that this isn’t a case of a white knight overlooking his (alleged) principles?

  172. Opus says:

    @TFH

    I have no reason either to believe or disbelieve what Mr Lee says about his marriage. I am amazed of course that a social warrior like Mr Lee should have entered into a form of Patriarchal Oppression in the first place, or perhaps it is one of those modern equalist marriages where the woman wears the strap-on. Who knows – in fact come to think of it that would probably be the better arrangement, but it is not for me to know or pontificate as to how they live their mutually reqarding John Stuart Mill approved (TM) lives. I am surprised that Mrs Lee is not Black or Asian, for whenever I come across a social warrior who marries a woman of the same race (I am guessing that Mrs Lee is also Jewish) I detect hypocricy – given that race is just a social construct and black women have certainly been oppressed by slave owning Anglos. I think that whenever true believers in equality fail to marry outside their religion and outside their race or age bracket they reveal that they do not really believe the rhetoric they would force on everyone else. Mr Lee and his bride look happy in the wedding photo (well in the third one when blown-up) and are still together, and we at Dalrock are not exactly fans of frivolous divorce (or indeed frivolous marriage).

    The rapid response to a cry for help from lapsed-Catholic Mrs Brink certainly revealed that behind the equality rhetoric Mr Lee is happy to step-up to the plate and take one for team-woman but perhaps that had more to do with his hatred of Misogynists (such as yourself) than any love for Mrs Brink – who of course he may not even know either socially or in the Biblical sense anymore than I know you socially – hard as that is to believe.

    If he really believed all that nonsense he spouts he should give up all his possessions and go and live amongst the natives in a 3rd world country (somewhere hot and unstable like Zimbabwe) where he could indulge in post-colonial bliss and anti-English hate by sharing in the suffering which evil capitalists have inflicted upon…. (I will leave Boxer to fill in the rest as he knows that speech better than me).

  173. Boxer says:

    where he could indulge in post-colonial bliss and anti-English hate by sharing in the suffering which evil capitalists have inflicted upon…. (I will leave Boxer to fill in the rest as he knows that speech better than me)….

    Marx and Engels had a lot to say about Lee, Brink, et.al., and they said it well…

    “the dangerous class, the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of old society…”

    http://tinyurl.com/o2b2eps

    Best, Boxer

  174. Mark says:

    @shell

    “”It is not relevant that Mark is Jewish and some other commenter atheist””

    Oh Yes it is!…….I would much rather converse with ‘Christian Men’ on an intelligent level,concerning very relevant and important topics…..Than I would hanging around ‘Atheistic Jews’.

  175. Dalrock says:

    @GIL

    I’m sitting and considering Shell and some of the legitimate points that were made, about crude language and personal attacks.

    Given that in the Lee household accusing a man of being a skinny little girly man who probably takes it up the bum from his angry period-raging feminist wife is a compliment (because it means he is getting laid), I can’t imagine anything written about the Lees or Ms. Brink being anything but a compliment in their world. With this in mind, they are of course guilty of being extremely ungracious in failing to thank my commenters for all of the compliments sent their way.

  176. @Dalrock,

    Yeah, I wasn’t poking at the commentary here. I was taking the long way round to calling Shell a facetious, hypocritical sophist. If men aren’t pleasing to feminists they aren’t “Christian” (*yawn). It’s really tired argumentation but it’s all they’ve got. Now that they’ve largely driven male thought from brick and mortar Churches and drinking establishments they are hounding us into the last spaces left, even our bedrooms. The fact that you have a blog and that men are being men here is far beyond the pale.

  177. Tam the Bam says:

    Just lazily scrolled down to stick this in, dunno if it’s been mentioned, but the noxious Adam Lee is reviled by the AtheistAtheists (as distinct from the SJW cult followers, who are essentially brain-compromised hipsters and would believe or rather not believe in almost, well, anything). Why am I not astounded?
    One of them has even grassed him up to Twitter, as they were irked by his cowardly attack on your blog.
    Well I think they did. Kinda hard to work out what they’re going on about exactly.

    Yep, that’s right, landlord. The very atheists themselves are rallying to your side. ‘Tis the End Times is surely upon us now …

  178. Tam the Bam says:

    … and when I say they don’t like him, oooohhboy do they not (Roy Rogers warning: gets a bit graphic)
    http://greylining.com/2013/01/13/adam-lee-the-toadys-toady/

  179. Boxer says:

    Dear Tam:

    Thanks for posting the article at greylining. I had forgotten a lot of those shenanigans, and they’re illustrative of the calibre of people that this blog is currently dealing with.

    Adam Lee, his horsey wife, and his patriarchal conquest Rebecca Brink: Laughable and pathetic, every one.

    Boxer

  180. Anonymous Reader says:

    I was going to drag my lazy carcass over to Patheticos and point out that just for a start, Brink is a liar and a cheat, while Lee is clearly a liar, and ask some rhetorical questions along the lines of “Is lying a social good? What about cheating?” and so forth. But thanks to Tam’s link, I can see that would just be a waste of time, on the order of wrestling with a pig.

    Alas, now I’ll have to go and do something useful with my time instead.

  181. Dalrock says:

    @GIL

    Yeah, I wasn’t poking at the commentary here. I was taking the long way round to calling Shell a facetious, hypocritical sophist.

    I understood. Likewise, I was poking at Shell.

    Boxer,

    In the comments section of my now infamous One at a time post, you stated your suspicion that Ms. Brink is a tranny. I see now that just like Lee’s wife has “owned” feminist men being pegged by their wives, and like Lee has “owned” being a quiche eating beta male, Ms. Brink has since written a post at The Frisky declaring that it isn’t an insult when people tell her she looks like a tranny. The only thing which would make this funnier is if I had made it all up. This is I believe the Gamma hat trick.

  182. Snowy says:

    familyinnocence on July 17, 2014 at 9:29 am:

    “the irony of an ‘atheist’ starting a witch hunt”

    HILARIOUS!

  183. Dalrock,

    In the comments section of my now infamous One at a time post, you stated your suspicion that Ms. Brink is a tranny. I see now that just like Lee’s wife has “owned” feminist men being pegged by their wives, and like Lee has “owned” being a quiche eating beta male

    Have you been following this little “chat” I have been having with Elizabeth on your behalf? I think my last post might have in her a logic trap own blog.

    http://www.politicalflavors.com/2014/07/17/contradictions-made-by-people-insulting-my-husband-aka-misogynist-troll-insult-fails-part-2/

    That quiche bit really frosted them for some reason. Elizabeth, well, she thinks you are just a bully.

  184. Ownership, the shock value. I wonder if it is also fun to have an incurable STD, skydive without a parachute and eat you own liver with organically grown onions.

    A) Nothing they do is shocking. (They don’t know how low my expectations are: sub-sub-sub basement sewer low)
    B) Twisting themselves into pretzel knots to shock us at first blush with ANY morality whatsoever is their life mission.
    C) Sucks to be them or their victims (lets hope and pray their STD’s and other poor life choices render them sterile).

    It’s almost like they HAVE to respond this way, like some kind of universal law of iniquity. It’s going to get worse before it gets better.

    For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
    (2Th 2:7-10)

  185. Michael says:

    Dalrock & Co,

    It’s IMPERATIVE this blog and it’s discussions be saved for future generations and research.

    The Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled MRA as hate speech.

    Censorship related issues on hosted exchanges are predominately reviewed by young employees. These employees are in most cases, fresh out of the far left liberal police state now known as modern day University’s. Free speech, academic freedom of ideas, and political dissent, for all intents and purposes DO NOT EXIST in a University environment anymore. These young employees have sole discretion to review and remove your blog. There is greater than a 50% chance the employee reviewing your Dalrock will be a female, male sympathizer, or any other person who does not agree with it on ideological or emotional grounds.

    This blog belongs on your own independent website. Your blog is not your property. It’s the property of WordPress. In he same way the Soviet’s, Nazi’s and other truth repressive regimes throughout history have burned books: these ideologues will delete your blog and a lifetime of literary genius will be destroyed. They have zero moral compunction in doing so.

    As the saying goes: those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. When Christians of the future search for history on where things went wrong in the early 21st century, they won’t find your blog. That’s EXACTLY what self appointees like Adam Lee’s want. These people are extremely dangerous as they seek to control others freedom of thought and speech.

    The Adam Lee’s of society want to decide, based on their own human standards, what is wrong, what is right, and what other people are allowed to think, say, and do. From a historical perspective the ideologies of the Adam Lee’s of this world have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people throughout the history of human civilization in leaders attempts (see: Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong, Pol Pot – to the best of my knowledge all atheists by the way,).

    The history books prove what the end result is: Mountains of skulls. I hope Adam Lee’s is reading this and taking the bigger picture into consideration. I can already hear the ad hominem attack’s.
    That being said I am not interested in discussing Atheism with the Adam Lee’s of this world, who go out of their way to oppress free speech. One only need compare Atheist governments in the 20th century as a model for this.

    Therefore it’s imperative you transfer this blog to your own website. Perhaps you could start with a screen capture. This information is simply too valuable to all people, Christians and Non-Christians alike, to be destroyed by the Adam Lee’s of this world.

    Thank you.

  186. Boxer says:

    Dear Dalrock:

    Boxer, In the comments section of my now infamous One at a time post, you stated your suspicion that Ms. Brink is a tranny.

    I should apologize to all the passably attractive trannies in the world (I’m sure there are some) for comparing them to Ms. Brink. I find her physical appearance hideous, with the garish tats and the aging flesh.

    Ms. Brink has since written a post at The Frisky declaring that it isn’t an insult when people tell her she looks like a tranny. The only thing which would make this funnier is if I had made it all up. This is I believe the Gamma hat trick.

    Ms. Brink should be aware that I wasn’t intending to insult, it’s the simple truth. She’s not attractive.

    Makes me long for days gone by, when people (men and women alike) didn’t pretend to be appealing into middle age, and had the decorum to dress themselves properly. Ah well, what can you do?🙂

    Best, Boxer

  187. Boxer, what we have in Brink is a post-wall denial. Over the “brink” and treading air unsuccessfully like a transgender Wile E. Coyote, and she thinks she’s going to stick the landing on the carousel

  188. Snowy says:

    Crank on July 18, 2014 at 1:24 pm

    “@opus

    Theirs [the atheists] is not some sort of church of atheism, as if there could be such a thing. It’s the church of modern progressivism flying an atheist banner so as to allow them to pretend that the rest of their positions are somehow non-religious, even though most modern progressivism actually requires accepting many things as a matter of psuedo-religious “faith” despite all evidence to the contrary.”

    I tend to favour Crank’s analysis of the situation. It’s probably not (yet) appropriate to refer to a Church of Atheism. They’re probably not (yet) organised enough, nor agreed upon their doctrine. All I know about atheism, as referenced in the Holy Bible, is that they choose to say “No God;” meaning that they reject God (they say “No” to God), not that they don’t recognise/acknowledge the existence of God. Therefore, the Nazi connection noted above comes as no surprise, since the next step from rejecting God is hating Him.

  189. gdgm+ says:

    IBB @ July 18, 2014 at 5:11 pm
    Good responses to ‘Elizabeth’ on her blog. I haven’t commented there, though.

    Also, here’s a good commentary on this Dalrock / Brink issue on another blog that has a pingback to Dalrock’s: No One is Obliged to Validate You

    There is a certain class of narcissistic person who will insist upon disclosing their personal information to the general public, but then become extremely upset if any part of the general public fails to validate them by (a) showering praise upon them, or (b) shutting up.

  190. Gunner Q says:

    Michael: “As the saying goes: those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. When Christians of the future search for history on where things went wrong in the early 21st century, they won’t find your blog. That’s EXACTLY what self appointees like Adam Lee’s want.”

    Relax, it won’t come to that. The Communists of Asia couldn’t lie hard enough to hide the truth of their evil. Today it’s even harder. And I think you give this guy too much credit. If he had the mindset and skill to run a decades-long disinformation campaign then he’d be a politician, not some joe on Twitter.

    Boxer: “Makes me long for days gone by, when people (men and women alike) didn’t pretend to be appealing into middle age, and had the decorum to dress themselves properly. Ah well, what can you do?”

    Funny story (since it’s Friday). There was a nude beach not too far from the college I attended. One acquaintance of mine decided to spend the day there with his camera and wouldn’t listen to my Christian objections. When I saw him again a couple days later he was a little pale. Seems he’d expected to spend the day checking out hot coeds and maybe getting lucky… but what he found at the nude beach were some middle-aged Europeans who were on vacation and far too “comfortable” with their saggy bodies. Guess they needed some California sun. Ugh.

  191. Dalrock says:

    @Michael

    Dalrock & Co,

    It’s IMPERATIVE this blog and it’s discussions be saved for future generations and research.

    Thanks. I have the blog backed up both with the standard wordpress xml export as well as a linux script using wget to create a tarball copy of the entire site (including images). Should wordpress decide to shutter this blog it wouldn’t take much for me to reopen on another platform, and either way the content won’t be lost.

    Censorship related issues on hosted exchanges are predominately reviewed by young employees. These employees are in most cases, fresh out of the far left liberal police state now known as modern day University’s. Free speech, academic freedom of ideas, and political dissent, for all intents and purposes DO NOT EXIST in a University environment anymore. These young employees have sole discretion to review and remove your blog. There is greater than a 50% chance the employee reviewing your Dalrock will be a female, male sympathizer, or any other person who does not agree with it on ideological or emotional grounds.

    I might be mistaken but I believe Roissy still blogs on wordpress.com. I think I’m fairly safe here, and I suspect having a moderate following makes it harder for some low level schlub to shutter the blog out of childish emotion/spite. However, either way as I mentioned above I’m backed up so having the blog shut down wouldn’t put me out of business. I should also note that the support folks at WordPress have been extremely helpful and courteous to me.

    I wrote this post not out of fear, but because what they were doing was cowardly and needed to be called out. Also, it struck me that it would be much easier for wordpress to shutter the blog if I didn’t bother to point out how absurd and malicious the campaign to shut me down was. This was a clear case of anti Christian bigotry by an atheist who created his blog to “push back against undeserved privileging of religion”. As others have noted above, in my experience most atheists aren’t hostile to Christians and Christianity the way Lee and his clan are. This is a group which openly despises Christianity, going out of their way to blaspheme Christ, etc.

  192. Opus says:

    @IBB

    Well done for your comments at Mrs Lee’s Blog. Did she appreciate your explanations and patience? – I doubt it. I must say her addressing you as she does as ‘Dude’ struck me as highly discourteous – or perhaps I do not quite grasp the nature of the term. I observe that she says that if her husband served divorce papers on her she would not be concerned as to whether he had sexual intercourse elsewhere. That, I think, says more than she perhaps meant to reveal.

    As I mentioned above Mrs Brink is entirely vague as to what state if any her Divorce proceedings have reached and thus to give her husband no less than eight co-respondent’s to aim for were he minded and assuming that adultery is a ground for divorce (with the possibility of any of those men ending up being cited and being forced to pay for the costs of the divorce – but perhaps it is not like that anywhere in America) looks at the very least utterly selfish. Mrs Brink (who does not look like a tranny to my eyes) may still be living with her husband so any prudent or cautious man would be well advised to stay as far away as is possible. The Lees and Mrs Brink seem to be operating outside any normal form of morality. Mrs Lee’s views as to the trivial nature of marriage conflict with the expensive nature of her own nuptials. She seems to be out of her depths – unless, but I don’t think so, she is playing Lady Macbeth to Lee’s Macbeth.

    What ever happened to your Senate Unamerican Affairs committee?

  193. Oscar says:

    Dalrock says:
    July 18, 2014 at 5:01 pm

    “In the comments section of my now infamous One at a time post, you [Boxer] stated your suspicion that Ms. Brink is a tranny. I see now that just like Lee’s wife has “owned” feminist men being pegged by their wives, and like Lee has “owned” being a quiche eating beta male, Ms. Brink has since written a post at The Frisky declaring that it isn’t an insult when people tell her she looks like a tranny.”

    Dalrock lives – rent free – in Brinks’ and the Lees’ heads.

  194. JDG says:

    Wow IBB you didn’t pull any punches over there.

    We are not super mad at you. And there are only two people who were easily “provoked” (Rebecca, by trying to get wordpress to dump Dalrock and your husband, who white-knightingly jumped to twitter to defend the honor of an adulterous slut.) Those are the only people who were provoked.

    Telling it like it is.

    Elizabeth over at poli-flavors insists that Dalrock is a spiteful bully who enjoys piling on and hurting people. The biggest indictment seems to be linking to nudey pics of an adulteress that had already posted the pics on the WWW. Never mind that she astronomically humiliated her husband and wrote about it on the internet.

    Apparently anytime a woman serves her man a fresh set of divorce papers she can slut it and still not be an adulteress because “If one spouse serves the other with divorce papers, it’s not cheating to go out with someone else before the papers are final.“.

    I have an idea. How about we all just agree that anyone can just slut it up with anyone else at the drop of a hat. Then no one can call it cheating. After all, if we are the arbitrators of own morality, then we decide what is right and what is wrong. We are almost there anyhow, why not just kick up a notch and get it over with.

    It’s funny though, for all the harping about bullying over there, the post and comment section at poli-flavors didn’t have any nice things to say about the commenters on this site, Christians, or manospherians in general. In fact there are some pretty not so nice things said, and that’s okay. But why do you (I know you’re reading this) complain about the very same thing you yourself do?

    Quote of the day from Shockna:

    I’ve never understood why anyone would ever enter a lifelong commitment like that assuming that they’ll never change and a currently good relationship will always remain so. It sounds to me like the height of madness to legally enshrine such contracts without making them “at-will”

    She might as well have said: “I’ve never understood why anyone would want to avoid a complete societal meltdown where mankind transitions from cities with skyscrapers to villages with mud huts.”

    Then there is this from Elizabeth after cementing her support of cuckolding X 8 via serving divorce papers: Morality comes from how you treat others, not your marital status.

    That is classic feminist mentality and could only have made my point better coming from the Brinks woman herself.

    Well she did say one thing I can agree with:

    Think about the company you keep, dude.

    Yep! A feminist is a feminist is a feminist.

  195. JDG says:

    I really should have said: That is classic feminist mentality and could only have made Dalrock’s point better coming from the Brinks woman herself. in the above post, as it was his post that inspired my comment and I was merely expanding on his point.

  196. Thanks folks for those kind words. I just went back there and gave them some more red pills. Lets see if they eat them.

  197. Craig says:

    I am an atheist/agnostic and I support the Dalrock blog. It is very insightful and is an excellent blog on issues affecting society. I may not agree with 100% of it but I agree with probably 95% and I would be greatly disappointed if WordPress choose to censor this blog over these false allegations. Censorship like what Adam Lee advocates is disgusting and completely unacceptable. Anyone that tries to censor competeting without even looking at them is digusting. Anyone wanna guess he is bottom feeding beta white knight trying to defend the women that come crying to him when they need something done. Another demonstration of female nature using proxy males to accomplish their abuse on their behalf. Thirsty men are all too eager to please their female slave masters.

  198. IBB, got to hand it to you. You have utterly twisted their own logic against them. Their hatred for you is palpable now. And that is something to behold. The best thing about it, is that you have no said one word in anger, yet that are calling you all sorts of names.

    Your post over there about your relationship with your wife is one I could only agree with completely. That is marriage and it’s a shame how it has been destroyed.

  199. Notice how Elizabeth couldn’t distance herself enough to see something through her own husband’s eyes.

    Think about how awful you would feel if your husband did to you what Rebecca has done (and is doing) to her ex?

    IBB’s question to Elizabeth clearly denotes that IBB meant that her husband would hand her the Divorce Papers and then go off and sleep with other women. However, Elizabeth only sees it from the perspective of her breaking her vows, which is entirely fine to her of course..

    If I gave Adam divorce papers, I wouldn’t care if he had sex with someone else. That’s what divorce is.

  200. Opus says:

    @Feminist Hater

    Well spotted. Mrs Lee cannot imagine her Husband going with another woman but she can fanta-size herself going with another man – she has her bags mentally packed just in case (it is only the haters at Dalrock who see her as Blobzilla). For Mrs Lee, Divorce is a natural (and probably an inevitable) consequence of Marriage, and Marriage lasts only as long as she feels married ‘that is what marriage is’ as she might have said. One might ask rhetorically why she bothered to marry in the first place but to ask that question is to reveal her motivation, for clearly, marriage means far more to her than just how she might feel towards Adam Lee at any particular moment. She is, you see, ‘a woman who has been asked’ – a woman with an MRS degree.

    Progressives like Mrs Lee have reduced the morality of human life to merely one concept – consent – a consent that may be withdrawn at will. Promiscuity (unless like Mrs Brink you are daft enough to make it public knowledge) can be hidden, STDs can be eradicated, and regrettable pregnancies terminated. Marriage, in her eyes, is a Lease for a blissful one thousand years – terminable on one days notice.

    We are far away from Mrs Brink and her puzzlement at her inability to get a man who wants to risk the enmity of Mr Brink.

  201. fh,

    IBB, got to hand it to you. You have utterly twisted their own logic against them. Their hatred for you is palpable now. And that is something to behold. The best thing about it, is that you have no said one word in anger, yet that are calling you all sorts of names.

    Thanks. I am hesitant to go back over there and continue feeding them much needed red pills, as all I really wanted them to do is stop their silly childish crusade against Dalrock. I don’t know if I have succeeded or not but I can tell by Willard’s comment that at least one of them is expressing a very negative emotion towards me…

    ….fear.

    I think my words (as gentle and as civil as I could make them) have them a little scared, scared enough that one of them thinks it might be a good idea to BAN my gentle, civil, red pill words. I guess I should feel flattered that my words have that kind of power over people.

  202. It’s way more than that IBB. Their issue isn’t even Dalrock. It’s that there are people out there in the world who are critical of their behaviour. It’s their very lack of ethics that they wish to hide. They want a world where everyone accepts their vulgar behaviour, or at least a world where their behaviour is thought of as “cool” or “edgy” rather than just “trashy” and “low”.

    They don’t even really fear Dalrock, they fear the ability of us to carry on a conversation without their approval. Not one of them, not a single one, fears for their safety from us. They hate, to the bottom of their being, that we have been judgmental of their disgusting behaviour and have used it as a warning to other men and women of what not to do and be.

  203. Mark says:

    @IBB

    Just reading your posts over at cupcake’s blog……..ATTABOY!……..

    “”Rebecca probably can’t understand why Dalrock made a point of HER point.””

    Exactly!

  204. Darkheart says:

    My Disqus account was banned by The Frisky for calling this little trick a booty call. How many brownie points do I get? I mean, I’ve suffered for the cause, after all.😉

  205. Shlomo Shunn says:

    Just so everyone knows how “tolerant” the PC crowd is:

    Wide-load boy-beater on beach
    http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/06/11/video-ct-woman-charged-after-beating-teen-flying-drone-beach

    Big Red, crazed Canadian cow

    Black Feminist anti-free-speech professorette
    http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/03/13/exclusive-pro-life-teen-defiant-after-alleged-attack-feminist-professor

    Big white bovine on street acting insane
    http://www.infowars.com/video-crazed-abortion-advocate-attacks-peaceful-pro-lifers/

  206. Getting banned from The Frisky counts as suffering? Only if you are REALLY damaged.

  207. Pingback: Repackaging feminism as Christian wisdom. | Dalrock

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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