How unprofessional can they get? I'm all for free speech, but that crosses a line. A large line.

I'm just waiting for the parade of comments from people who claim not to see anything wrong or threatening in what was said. Kind of like an annual migration.

Personally, I can't imagine what would have to be going on in someone's head to make that seem okay. It's unprofessional, it's sick, and it's just plain disturbing. And then trying to imply that she's too ugly? The whole thing is just ridiculous, and incredibly offensive.

god I hate the "i'd rape you but your too ugly" line.. thats one I've heard before. It's usually when a guy is making unwanted sexual advances while i'm out on the town. fuck, its so twisted...

Holy crap. That's disgusting.

I read about this yesterday on a liberal/progressive political blog. The comments were what you'd expect "That's sick and disgusting", "He should be fired" etc, but there were at least two comments that were "What? I thought it was funny" or "I don't see what the big deal is."

Never ceases to amaze me that people (esp. supposed "liberal" or "progressive" people) think that rape threats are ok or even "funny."

Keith Olbermann named the NYP editor his "Worst Person in the World" for the threat a couple of days ago on his show. And he was really clear that it was because the guy had threatened rape , not just for being an ass.

Kimmy - I'll be the first. Sex, or something sexual at least, is implied, but a lack of consent is not. I took it to mean that their masculinity is so powerful she would inevidably consent to whatever they had in mind.

Asshole comment: Definitely.

Rape threat: Maybe, maybe not.

Noname, you're just wrong. So fucking wrong it hurts.

New York (Criminal) Post is the worst newspaper in the nation.

I announced that Vern Simon of Evans, GA was the asshole of the week. Maybe I should have saved space for the New York Post.

I second that notion, Jessica.

Noname, you say "I took it to mean that their masculinity is so powerful she would inevidably consent to whatever they had in mind."

That's exactly it. Their masculinity--read: physical strength, aggression (in this case)--would be strong enough to make her do what they want. In such a situation when a person is outnumbered, threatened, and scared, it would impossible to give true consent.

This is digusting, and really, what woman hasn't been subjected to something like this on the internet? I love to play online poker, but I had to shut off all of the chat functions because men would hit on me (yes, at poker tables, because my name is female-sounding, and it says I'm 24, so apparently, I'm game). When I would ignore them or tell them politely that I am there to play poker or that I'm married, more than once, I'd get something to the tune of: "Don't flatter yourself, bitch" at the very mildest and sometimes, I'd get threatened with varying levels of sexual assault. As a survivor, it is very, very unnerving for me to get rape threats, even if they're anonymous and typed in a poker room. And extrapolate that by almost every chatroom, forum, and discussion board online. I love feministing because I know I can voice my opinion and get respect, even when people disagree, but almost everywhere else, I just lurk.

The primary meaning of "emasculated" is "lacking male genitalia". Personally, I read it as a threat to show her their genitals, not as a threat to rape her, but maybe I'm just underreacting.

Keith, I'm 99% sure that if some strange dudes dragged me to a private spot and whipped out their equipment all at once, they'd be threatening gang rape by doing so. Do you disagree? Because I think the next line of "we don't like a woman with a mustache" indicates that they're at least considering forcing sex on her shortly afterward.

So yeah, I think you're underreacting.

I always thought "emasculating" primarily meant that one was being deprived of their masculinity as a whole--as in helpless, ineffective, etc., in addition to a symbolic or literal castration.

I think in this context the word is used to imply a symbolic castration. That is, by calling the writers of Page Six emasculated, perhaps Grigoriadis meant to imply that they were no longer potent?

Blah... I didn't mean to post that so soon.

Ahem. What I meant to add is: Clearly there is a sexual connotation to Page Six's reply, given that they are threatening to form a group and force Grigoriadis to understand that they are, indeed, manly men.

I hate the "I'd rape you but you're too ugly argument" too. Is it just me or are they mixing up gang rape and consensual sex? Because when you say it like, we won't rape you because you're ugly, it implies that maybe they feel like it would be some sort of honor to be raped, but because you're too ugly, you don't get to be. They're a bunch of megalomaniacs who think even being raped by them would be an honor except that, uh-oh, you're too ugly. Only "pretty" girls get to be raped by us. Maybe that whole interpretation is just my imagination, but that has always been my perception.

Jezebel has a link to a Radar post about the whole thing and they believe they know who wrote the rape threat:

http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/10/cross-page-and-get-raped.php
(sorry, don't know how to do text links)

What's interesting is that the guy they believe did it won't return their calls, and his publicist finally called them back with the words, "get a life".

Wow.

sent to the email address for "Administration", aaquilina@nypost.com:
I am hoping this email gets to whomever oversees the jobs of the Page Six staff. I refer to the recent article refuting some comments of Vanessa Grigoriadis, especially the last section which reads, "Grigoriadis ignores that fact that half the Page Six staff is female. The male half might take her someplace private and disprove her theory, but we don't like a woman with a mustache."

I fail to see how anyone, especially female, can read that as other than a threat. Specifically, it reads as a rape threat. I am disgusted by this being allowed in print, and frankly, I would hope Ms. Grigoriadis retains legal counsel regarding it. There is no comment that she made that would have an acceptable response of such a threat. In fact, NO comment deserves a response that basically equals, "We'd rape you to shut you up, but you're ugly."

Nauseating to read.

Sincerely,
(signed)

Jezebel has a link to a Radar post about the whole thing and they believe they know who wrote the rape threat:

http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/10/cross-page-and-get-raped.php
(sorry, don't know how to do text links)

What's interesting is that the guy they believe did it won't return their calls, and the New York Post editor called them back with the words, "get a life".

(sorry if it double posted, tried to make the correction before)
Wow.

"Get a life"?

Uuuughghghgh! I'm so effing pissed that that's about the most articulate I can be right now. Fuckers. I can't believe that I wrote Page Six and the editorial staff such respectful freaking letters. Makes me wish I had just sent a postcard with the words "SUCK IT." Not that that would help, but still...

Jezebel: "Is that a sexual threat?"

Me: "Is that a rhetorical question?"

Is sex implied? Not necessarily, unless masculinity is to be understood only as sex.

If sex had been implied, was there any indication of non-consent? Not necessarily, unless we assume women are unable to consent to group sex.

What a bloody arrogant and outrageous thing to think might be acceptable...is acceptable, it seems. And the petty childishness of "you're too ugly for me to bother" is really outstanding. Way to go, guys.
I too thought that rather than a specific scenario of gang-rape being floated here, the taunt was more along the lines of what KeithIrwin said, that they meant to 'go somewhere' and pull out their impressive parts to show just how emasculated they weren't! Even in that, the threat is undeniable and pathetic. But it's disturbing that once again on this website, respectful dissent is met with something like this, which is from either another poster or the editor of the site:
"Noname, you're just wrong. So fucking wrong it hurts."

(All comments with hate speech, personal attacks, or offensive language will be deleted).

What a bloody arrogant and outrageous thing to think might be acceptable...IS acceptable, it seems. And the petty childishness of "you're too ugly for me to bother" is really outstanding. Way to go, guys.
I too thought that rather than a specific scenario of gang-rape being floated here, the taunt was more along the lines of what KeithIrwin said, that they meant to 'go somewhere' and pull out their impressive parts to show just how emasculated they weren't! Even in that, the threat is undeniable and pathetic.
But it's disturbing that once again on this website, respectful dissent is met with something like this, which appears to be from the editor of the site:
"Noname, you're just wrong. So fucking wrong it hurts."

(All comments with hate speech, personal attacks, or offensive language will be deleted) ??

What a bloody arrogant and outrageous thing to think might be acceptable...IS acceptable, it seems. And the petty childishness of "you're too ugly for me to bother" is really outstanding. Way to go, guys.
I too thought that rather than a specific scenario of gang-rape being floated here, the taunt was more along the lines of what KeithIrwin said, that they meant to 'go somewhere' and pull out their impressive parts to show just how emasculated they weren't! Even in that, the threat is undeniable and pathetic.
But it's disturbing that once again on this website, respectful dissent is met with something like this, which appears to be from the editor of the site:
"Noname, you're just wrong. So fucking wrong it hurts."

(All comments with hate speech, personal attacks, or offensive language will be deleted) ??

Apologies for the triple post. Gremlins I guess.

Noname, give me a break. They said they'd *take* her somewhere. Not that they'd ask if she wanted to see their collective genitalia as proof. It wasn't a polite invitation to group sex, so a woman's ability to consent is irrelevant. It was phrased in a threatening way. In any case, let's assume you're right. They still said she wasn't worth the trouble because she's ugly. Still unprofessional, and still using the you-look-like-a-man as the ultimate insult. This is sexist at best, and we all know that this is far from "at best."

But kmp, don't you get it? They're going to "take" her somewhere in a taxi so she doesn't have to worry about catching the train and...and...prove their manhood by...lifting heavy objects, thus demonstrating the superior upper body strength most men have! It's obvious! Except, they won't, because she's too ugly for them to want to lift heavy objects in her presence! I can see how we hysterical feminists might misinterpret the comment, but there isn't a hint of sexual violence about it! I'm sure it's just coincidence that the language they uses could be interpreted to suggest that they would coerce her into going somewhere against her will ("take" instead of "invite her to go somewhere private").

Sometimes I think porn has really done a number on people's common sense: it is simply not credible that a woman would "consent" to spontaneous group sex with a bunch of men whom she's just insulted.

Even if they were insinuating that they just wanted to prove their masculinity by forcibly exposing themselves to her, I still consider that SEXUAL ASSAULT, personally.

Wow, first off it's pretty obvious she was using figurative language. I doubt she meant that that their dicks had literally fallen off.
Second, it speaks a lot about a man's character when he thinks that the manliest thing he can do is rape some one; and not, you know, act like a fucking adult.

Why do people always have to prove my low expectations of them right? It's so depressing.

A little off topic, but if you want to piss yourself off, go read Vern Simmon's article that Jovan1984 mentioned. Reading through the comments completly ruined my lunch. I guess I'm a glutton for punishment. :)

If sex had been implied, was there any indication of non-consent?

She just insulted them. The writer is now attempting to get back at her for the insult. "Let's go have some respectful, consentual sex" is not exactly an insult. THAT is where non-consent is implied. CONTEXT.

God. You sure spend a lot of energy being a professional devil's advocate on this site.

“Noname, give me a break. They said they'd *take* her somewhere. Not that they'd ask if she wanted to see their collective genitalia as proof. It wasn't a polite invitation to group sex, so a woman's ability to consent is irrelevant. It was phrased in a threatening way.� – kissmypineapple

I’ll try to remember that the word “take� indicates a threat next time I “take� someone to the movies.

“In any case, let's assume you're right. They still said she wasn't worth the trouble because she's ugly. Still unprofessional, and still using the you-look-like-a-man as the ultimate insult. This is sexist at best…� – kissmypineapple

Absolutely.

“God. You sure spend a lot of energy being a professional devil's advocate on this site.� – SarahMC

I just don’t like condemning people based on assumptions.

When we use "take" as in "taking someone to the movies," it's because we're paying for that person. What on earth are they paying for this case?

Again, look at context. When a group of men with hostile intent "take" a woman somewhere private...you really have to bend over backwards to think that's like paying for a movie ticket.

Essentially, "take" implies that the person being taken couldn't or wouldn't be going somewhere without the actions of the person who's taking him or her. So if I take a small child to the zoo, it's because the kid can't get to the zoo him- or herself. If my mother takes me to the movies, it means that she's paying for my ticket, and thus making it possible for me to go.

A group of strange men whom I've just insulted, however--where and how would they be "taking" me that wouldn't be violent? Are they clubbing together and paying for my plane ticket to Bermuda?

EG - Actually, when you take someone to the movies, it implies that you are in charge of the transportation (i.e. you are driving, or you are picking them up and escorting them, ect.), not that you are paying for the movie.

Another example: I've taken people to the airport without buying their tickets.

Another example: If someone arrives at my place for a party, I might take them upstairs to meet my friends (as opposed to leaving them downstairs with the coats).

I should correct myself as far as the movie example. It can indicate who is paying for the movie, but it could also mean who is transporting who instead.

Well, thanks for derailing the discussion, belittling the point being made and/or excusing veiled rape threats, and playing a pointless one-man semantics game all at the same time.

Clearly, taking a date to the movies, and taking a stranger who dares criticize you to a secluded place to show her your penis, implies EXACTLY the same use of the word "take." Thanks so much for enlightening us all.

This discussion is absurd. Or more appropriately, that this IS a discussion is absurd.

Yes you can "take" people places and have it be a pleasant experience. However, that is dependent on them wanting to go there. If you took someone to the airport that did not wish to go there, you're technically kidnapping them. If you took someone upstairs that did not want to go upstairs, that would probably be assault.

Not many people will want to go to some place private, say a dark alley, with a group of hostile men so that said hostile men can prove their virility. It's clearly a rape threat. You can argue what ifs and various interpretations all day. The most logical interpretation of that threat is still sexual violence. If I say I'm going to go "take" a shower, you COULD willingly interpret that as I am going to go pick my shower up and change it's location, but on a practical level it's a ludicrous to claim that is my intent.

I have now read the original statement to five men and asked them what is being said. Four volunteered that it was a rape threat, and one assumed that it was merely a harassing threat of exposure. All agreed that it was a situation in which the woman's consent or lack of it would not be considered.

I then read noname's opinion to them. All disagreed.

Not a scientific survey, but I figure since noname obviously doesn't respect the point of view of women I would try to bring a few more authoritative male voices in here to set his/her mind at ease. Good enough?

Kimmy - I'll be the first. Sex, or something sexual at least, is implied, but a lack of consent is not. I took it to mean that their masculinity is so powerful she would inevidably consent to whatever they had in mind.

Asshole comment: Definitely.

Rape threat: Maybe, maybe not.

BZZZZZ. Wrong answer. The language is clearly sexual and aggressive and while there's no overt violence, there's a clear implication, particularly when you consider the mustache comment is the flip side of the "she was asking for it" defense.

Noname, I think you should read this essay by Pandagon's Chris Clarke. It was sparked by a different incident, but the core message still very much applies.

She said they lacked balls.

They said, here are our balls.

Both sides used gendered, sexual attacks on the other side.

Both sides are assholes.

The woman started with the gendered, sexual insults.

ShifterCat, I loved that essay! J Pierpont Flathead, go take a look.

sgzax - My opinion is that this may be a rape threat and it may not be a rape threat. Your friends by aggregate seem to agree.

DrkEyedCjn - kissmypineapple brought up the use of the word "take", not me. EG continued the conversation. This was no "pointless one-man semantics game" (unless you mean one man and various women). I fail to see how a discussion of if this was a rape threat derails a thread about how this is a rape threat.

noname, you are missing the point. The point is, in all the various situations you mention, "take" puts one party in charge of the transportation or experience, and one part is made passive. When there is consent, this is not problem--I can't drive, so it's very nice when somebody takes me to the airport.

However, there is no reasonable way to interpret anything here as indicating the woman's consent. Which is, after all, what makes it rape.

Flathead, the woman used a gendered insult that I'm not fond of. The men responded with a sexual threat. The two things aren't equivalent.

All right, noname, I'll bite. I still maintain that you are "belittling the point being made and/or excusing veiled rape threats" by maintaining that, correct me if I'm wrong, no one can threaten rape without using the word "rape" in the threat.

All you've responded to me so far is "But they started it!" Fine. If this were kindergarten, you wouldn't get a time-out. But you've still taken the argument to an absurd conclusion, which excuses the statement in question.

The effect of your argument, from what I can tell, is that it is acceptable to sexually threaten a woman as long as the threat is carefully phrased, in order to allow apologists (like you) to deliberately misconstrue the threat and look the other way.

My opinion is that this may be a rape threat and it may not be a rape threat.

It doesn’t matter if it may or may not be a rape threat. Intended or not, it very obviously came across to people as a sexual assault/rape threat (who cares whether the implication was a rape threat or sexual assault treat, both are deplorable) against Grigoriadis and that is NOT ACCEPTABLE. By defending Page Six, you are saying that it is OK to threaten someone like that (because, you know, they didn’t “intend� it that way at the time).

My opinion is that the Page Six editor have some accountability here and at the very fucking least issue a public and sincere apology.

What the hell is wrong with you people that think this kind of thing is ok?!? “We live in a culture of rape� is just keeps repeating in my head.

I am not excusing a rape threat. I am simply bringing to your attention the possibility that it isn't a rape threat. I'm not sure why this possibility seems to bug you all so much.

Noname, it's because that in order to do so, you make linguistic arguments that don't hold up and ignore the context of the comment. There isn't actually reasonable doubt here. They're not offering to pay for her plane ticket, or drive her to the airport, and given that this is a hostile exchange, there's no indication of consent.

Noname, my first thought was that it might not be a rape threat too, but on careful examination I realize it has to be.

It could be a threat to simply show off, privately, that yes, they do have balls. But then, why would her physical attractiveness enter into it? "We don't like women with mustaches" wouldn't apply if all they were doing was offering to visually demonstrate the presence of balls.

"We are so manly that if we take her to a private place she will be overwhelmed with lust for us and consent to have sex with all of us"-- given that in real life, women basically never consent to have sex under these circumstances and this is a male fantasy that props up rape behavior, this is simply a prettier, wishful-thinking variant of a rape threat.

So no. It's a threat to rape, or it's a reference to a male fantasy that is used in the service of committing rape, and there pretty much isn't anything else it could be. Men might not interpret the fantasy of "she's so overwhelmed by our manliness, she consents to have sex with all of us even though she hates us" as a rape threat, but women know that that particular fantasy of men has been used as an excuse for why gang rape was "consensual" about several thousand times more often than it's ever actually been true, and so women will (correctly) interpret the invocation of that fantasy as a rape threat.

Imagine that it was a man who made the original gendered insult and the "male half of Page 6" had responded by offering "we'd take him somewhere private and disprove his theory, but we don't like hairy chests on guys." Would there be any question that it was a rape threat then?

lol, this thread is hilarious.

It reminds me of the time this guy at 711 made fun of me. It totally made me want to him behind the shed* and wipe that smile right off his face**.

* By "take him behind the shed" I explicitly mean "arrange a limo for him to drive him there in style"

** By "wipe that smile right off his face" I mean "providing to him dainty face sanitizing clothes"

Once, when I had moved to a new neighborhood, I was walking around and some guys who were like thirty years older than me started catcalling me. I ignored them, and one of them snarled, "I'll follow you!" as I walked away. I guess noname would think they were offering to follow me to make sure I didn't drop anything, or that they would follow me to make sure I got home safely, but since I sometimes do this brilliant thing called looking at the context of a situation, I understood what that guy said to be a threat. (Now in this case the perpetrator didn't give me enough clues to know if he would follow me to rape me or mutilate me or kill me or what, but at any rate I knew damn well that it wasn't anything I wanted to find out.)

The problem with not seeing something like this as a rape threat (or, as I'm guessing is the case with noname, knowing it is but for some reason wanting to convince women to doubt what we know to be true, to convince us that we're stupid and all our experiences mean nothing) is that if we allow our reality to be dictated by people like noname, nothing would ever be a rape threat save, "I'm going to rape you." What this does is allows people to say and do a whole lot of despicable things and then claim, "but that's not what I meant!" when every facet of the situation says otherwise; using language this way and falling into the trap of people who deliberately don't use the word "rape" when threatening rape allows people like the Post writers to evade responsibility, to say that it was "misinterpreted" when just about everybody knows damn well that it wasn't. I mean, fuck, the English language is full of metaphors and if we all went around pretending not to understand each other every time somebody failed to speak literally, communication would grind to a halt.

And noname, since you're so convinced that there are other ways to interpret this comment, please share them with us. If a man fights with a woman who's just questioned his masculinity and says he'd take her someplace private to prove his masculinity except that she's too ugly, what do you think is actually being said? Really, because you're quick to discredit us yet you haven't offered any plausible alternative theories.

Oh, and here's the video where Keith Olbermann names Page 6 editor Richard Johnson the Worst Person in the World.

I think Alara's deconstruction was pretty brilliant -spot-on.

The woman started with the gendered, sexual insults.

Therefore, rape is cool!

�It could be a threat to simply show off, privately, that yes, they do have balls. But then, why would her physical attractiveness enter into it? "We don't like women with mustaches" wouldn't apply if all they were doing was offering to visually demonstrate the presence of balls.� – AlaraJRogers

That argument could work against the rape threat interpretation as well, seeing as rape is supposedly about power, not sex.

If they are saying that they will show her how manly they are through their sexual prowess with consensual sex, then her perceived beauty would be a factor. As far as simply showing their balls, I must admit I am not in the habit of showing mine to women I am not attracted to.

“"We are so manly that if we take her to a private place she will be overwhelmed with lust for us and consent to have sex with all of us"-- given that in real life, women basically never consent to have sex under these circumstances and this is a male fantasy that props up rape behavior, this is simply a prettier, wishful-thinking variant of a rape threat.� – AlaraJRogers

Many women aren’t attracted to masculinity? Women basically never consent to group sex? I think you are mistaken if you think this never happens. I also think that if this sort of wishful thinking, connected as it is in your example to the apparent disire for consensual sex, could not constitute a rape threat.

“I ignored them, and one of them snarled, "I'll follow you!" as I walked away. I guess noname would think they were offering to follow me to make sure I didn't drop anything, or that they would follow me to make sure I got home safely, but since I sometimes do this brilliant thing called looking at the context of a situation, I understood what that guy said to be a threat.� - ponies and rainbows

Sure, but a threat of what? I should note, here, that I never portrayed the Post comments as anything other than highly inappropriate. My various possible interpretations were: rape threat, sexual assault threat, and sexual harassment; so the “make sure I got home safely� sarcasm (insinuating that I am excusing the Post completely?) is way off base.

“And noname, since you're so convinced that there are other ways to interpret this comment, please share them with us.� ponies and rainbows

I already have.

“The problem with not seeing something like this as a rape threat (or, as I'm guessing is the case with noname, knowing it is but for some reason wanting to convince women to doubt what we know to be true, to convince us that we're stupid and all our experiences mean nothing) is that if we allow our reality to be dictated by people like noname, nothing would ever be a rape threat save, "I'm going to rape you."� - ponies and rainbows

I didn’t say this wasn’t a rape threat. I said it might not be. I didn’t call anyone stupid, either, or belittle their experiences. Finally, I am not dictating reality. Reality is. I simply shared with you my alternative interpretation of that reality (in which sex and non-consent are necessary components of rape).

I will agree with you all on one thing: this is a silly conversation at this point, especially since I think the Post comments were highly inappropriate and I have no problem with criticism levied their way. I just wish that criticism was properly considered. I will admit that this desire for accuracy on my part has crossed the line to basic nitpicking in some recent threads and will do my best to avoid the obsessive over analysis to which I am sometimes prone in the future. While I think my arguments have been sound, I apologize for pursuing them past the point at which they are useful.

That argument could work against the rape threat interpretation as well, seeing as rape is supposedly about power, not sex.

Right, but that's something very few non-feminists know. It's a pretty widespread (but false) assumption that only pretty women are raped.

An acquaintance in college once accused me of being full of myself for carrying a rape whistle on my keychain. "So, you think you're rape-worthy?" he asked. Idiots everywhere mistakenly believe rape is some sort of compliment to attractive women.

Wow. SarahMC, I hope you gave that guy a piece of your mind. Reminds me of the guy in college who asked me if, as a woman, I'd prefer to be slapped on my face or my ass, in all seriousness. Unfortunately, I was too surprised to say anything...

This comment of SarahMC's to noname bears repeating, so I thought I'd take the liberty of doing so.

"God. You sure spend a lot of energy being a professional devil's advocate on this site."

Amen to that! A sure sign of a woefully impoverished life. And to clarify, it wasn't a silly conversation until you derailed it with your incessant "maybe / maybe not"s. *That* was the silly part. TTFN!

Charity - My life is pretty nice. As I am sure you all would be quick to agree, I am privileged.

Noname, I think the point you're making is valid but irrelevant. Is it possible that it wasn't a rape threat? Yes. Is that likely? No.
It's also dangerous. Is it possible that every woman who speaks about being raped is lying about the particulars, or about consent, or about the incident in general? Yes. Is that likely? No. Arguing for such unlikely scenarios helps perpetuate turning exceptions into the rule, and helps foster a culture where women have to defend themselves and prove themselves twice as much because an exceptional viewpoint has become the common one.

"Noname, I think the point you're making is valid but irrelevant. Is it possible that it wasn't a rape threat? Yes. Is that likely? No." - RMislander

I agree, and apologize again.

I will concede to you that I find myself playing Devil's Advocate pretty often; I tell myself that the debate leads to a deeper understanding on both sides, which is ultimately beneficial, but I think a big part is that I just enjoy debate and learning from argumentation.

I will concede to you that I find myself playing Devil's Advocate pretty often; I tell myself that the debate leads to a deeper understanding on both sides, which is ultimately beneficial, but I think a big part is that I just enjoy debate and learning from argumentation.

BREAKING NEWS: I have just named the New York Post Asshole of the Month. Threatening rape on a woman just because she said something that was misandrist is a felony criminal offense.