Prominent MRA group parodies charity for profit.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I often think to myself how is it that MRAs expect any sympathy or cooperation from feminists or anybody when they do these kinds of things. Not amusing. In fact, it looks immature.

I'm not sure that they expect sympathy from feminists. It seems like they've mostly declared that feminists are the problem... which is part of why they come across more like people who are upset that women aren't forced to stay home barefoot and pregnant than they do like people who have legitimate grievances.

I've seen a few MRAs say as much, online. Even here in NS, that feminists and MRAs should work together on issues that affect them both. But how can they if then you get a group like this acting the way they are, mocking a feminist humanitarian cause?

[Susurruses]

This emasculation is largely caused by the social stigma of other men. Something we need to change.

It's also caused by the feminized title of the charity and by much of the legislation. If it's a charity for women, and a man calls it, then...

If the anti-DV act is the Violence against women act, then... if you get hit, you're a woman.

Feminism in this manner, just perpetuates the bullshit.

I very very very very highly doubt it's feminism that is at all responsible for some men being cowardly misogynistic wretches that think they're weak/awful/terrible/pathetic & (the worst of all, & why such men feel that way) "feminine" for being victims of assault and sexual violence.

Maybe those guys need to deal with such issues, because I don't exactly think that sort of misogynistic outlook is helpful to anyone. Much less their own seeking of helpful resources.

[Myrensis]

I very very very very highly doubt it's feminism that is at all responsible for some men being cowardly misogynistic wretches that think they're weak/awful/terrible/pathetic & (the worst of all, & why such men feel that way) "feminine" for being victims of assault and sexual violence.

Maybe those guys need to deal with such issues, because I don't exactly think that sort of misogynistic outlook is helpful to anyone. Much less their own seeking of helpful resources.

It's not, and you're correct. Many of the issues 'MRA's' purport to be concerned about are the result of the exact same cultural notions and biases that feminists oppose.

'Patriarchy' does not in fact mean that all men have everything easy and all women are oppressed forever. It means that men are generally valued more highly than women, and have more autonomy and freedom, but 'weak' men or men who otherwise fail to meet the bar for 'manliness' are subject to all manner of abuse and scorn and contempt for their 'failure'.

But of course actually addressing and attempting to dismantle those notions would require MRA's to examine themselves and their own ideas about masculinity and gender roles, so it's much easier to just isolate the bits they don't like and blame them all on the lying man-hating feminazi whores.

[Grenartia]

It's actually kind of sad, because sometimes the MRA groups have legitimate complaints, but then they pull shit like this.

Yeah. They really seem fond of shooting themselves in the foot.

I mean, they do have a handful of half-way legitimate points, but they always seem to be more concerned with bitching about feminists, and made up bullshit about how men are being majorly oppressed by it, and fostering misogyny within their ranks than doing anything positive on the few good points they make. So much so that one has to wonder if they actually give a shit about those points, and are only using them to try and discredit feminism in order to turn back the clock on gender equality.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's also caused by the feminized title of the charity and by much of the legislation. If it's a charity for women, and a man calls it, then...

If the anti-DV act is the Violence against women act, then... if you get hit, you're a woman.

Feminism in this manner, just perpetuates the bullshit.

I very very very very highly doubt it's feminism that is at all responsible for some men being cowardly misogynistic wretches that think they're weak/awful/terrible/pathetic & (the worst of all, & why such men feel that way) "feminine" for being victims of assault and sexual violence.

Maybe those guys need to deal with such issues, because I don't exactly think that sort of misogynistic outlook is helpful to anyone. Much less their own seeking of helpful resources.

Well ofcourse it can't be feminisms fault, it's a feminine ideology!
As such has absolutely no impact on reality, because it's female. Clearly any negative shit causes is really the mens fault.
Any impact it does have is from convincing the men to stop oppressing women, or getting women to feel awesome about themselves.
If the men keep oppressing them because of something feminism said it isn't the fault of the movement. No mistakes were made, the message is absolute perfect because divine revelation it comes from a women, who as we all know, are wonderful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E2%80%9CW ... %9D_effect
They aren't mostly pieces of shit like men are. Nope.
You think that feminism NEVER fucks up? Well, if not, isn't this a fuckup? The feminine naming of shit implying that being a victim is the female gender role? You don't think that maybe that signal boosts misogyny and violence?
No no, obviously not. Feminists are never responsible for bad shit, because women. Male feminists can be responsible for shit, but only by virtue of their maleness.

You seriously don't see how fucked your view is and how it's just another incarnation of patriarchy, do you.

Feminism, as a culture, now has institutional power on some level and effects culture. Take responsibility for it, including the fuckups, and fix them. Or why should anyone take you seriously?

Incidentally, calling people misogynist because it's been drummed into them that they suck shows a lack of empathy.
Similarly calling them cowards for failing to come forward. You'd never dare to say that about women.
Why don't more female rape victims come forward? Because they are weak awful terrible and pathetic etc.
You'd be horrified if someone said it.
But you just said it about male victims in general. Because you have internalized misandry.

[Ostroeuropa]

I very very very very highly doubt it's feminism that is at all responsible for some men being cowardly misogynistic wretches that think they're weak/awful/terrible/pathetic & (the worst of all, & why such men feel that way) "feminine" for being victims of assault and sexual violence.

Maybe those guys need to deal with such issues, because I don't exactly think that sort of misogynistic outlook is helpful to anyone. Much less their own seeking of helpful resources.

It's not, and you're correct. Many of the issues 'MRA's' purport to be concerned about are the result of the exact same cultural notions and biases that feminists oppose.

'Patriarchy' does not in fact mean that all men have everything easy and all women are oppressed forever. It means that men are generally valued more highly than women, and have more autonomy and freedom, but 'weak' men or men who otherwise fail to meet the bar for 'manliness' are subject to all manner of abuse and scorn and contempt for their 'failure'.

But of course actually addressing and attempting to dismantle those notions would require MRA's to examine themselves and their own ideas about masculinity and gender roles, so it's much easier to just isolate the bits they don't like and blame them all on the lying man-hating feminazi whores.

Which feminists oppose except within feminism. Hence the complaints. It's a case of More Egalitarian Than Thou.
Explain to me how the VAWA isn't a sexist title for a bill considering it covers both genders, but policeman is. Go ahead.
Feminists used to say (Correctly) that Policeman caused people to imply women can't be police officers, and discouraged them from aspiring to such a role, associating it instead with the male gender.
But roles such as Hitman and stuff? Still around.
When the only -man suffixes are pretty terrible, is it any wonder that people insecure about their gender and told to man up become violent?
And when there is such a huge emphasis, thanks to feminism, on women being victims of oppression to the point it's an implied gender role, don't you think that this maybe causes a "just the way things are" mentality, and shames male victims by implying they are less manly for being victims?

[Lordieth]

I often think to myself how is it that MRAs expect any sympathy or cooperation from feminists or anybody when they do these kinds of things. Not amusing. In fact, it looks immature.

I'm not sure that they expect sympathy from feminists. It seems like they've mostly declared that feminists are the problem... which is part of why they come across more like people who are upset that women aren't forced to stay home barefoot and pregnant than they do like people who have legitimate grievances.

So basically, you end up with extremists on both sides, claiming each side is the problem, and taking the focus entirely Away from the real problem. It's a joke. This is why I consider myself an equalist. Feminism and MRA have completely missed the point.

I agree that mens' rights and womens' rights should not be conflated, and are entirely deserving of focussed attention, however the Real feminists and mens' rights activists need to cast out and disown the extremists.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm not sure that they expect sympathy from feminists. It seems like they've mostly declared that feminists are the problem... which is part of why they come across more like people who are upset that women aren't forced to stay home barefoot and pregnant than they do like people who have legitimate grievances.

So basically, you end up with extremists on both sides, claiming each side is the problem, and taking the focus entirely way from the real problem. It's a joke. This is why I consider myself an equalist. Feminism and MRA have completely missed the point.

Would you agree with this?
viewtopic.php?p=22183990#p22183990

[Lordieth]

So basically, you end up with extremists on both sides, claiming each side is the problem, and taking the focus entirely way from the real problem. It's a joke. This is why I consider myself an equalist. Feminism and MRA have completely missed the point.

Would you agree with this?
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... #p22183990

I agree with it entirely and wholeheartedly, and I'm glad someone else shares my viewpoint.

[Ostroeuropa]

Would you agree with this?
viewtopic.php?p=22183990#p22183990

I agree with it entirely and wholeheartedly, and I'm glad someone else shares my viewpoint.

I go for gender abolitionist. Equalist is too vague imo. Some people go for anti-sexist, or gender egalitarian.
Abolitionism would be the step further (That I accept is contentious) that argues the entire notion of male and female needs to be scrapped as it's divisive and only causes problems.
People are people. They get up to roughly the same shit if you don't constantly badger them into acting particular ways.
By destroying gender roles, gender itself will unravel, and society will cease thinking in terms of male/female and this is a good thing. (Abolitionist view.)
By destroying gender roles, the genders will become equal, but people won't necessarily stop thinking in terms of male/female, nor should they have to. (Egalitarian view.)

I'm fine if the egalitarians are right. I just doubt they are. Glad to know we're in broad agreement though.

[Lordieth]

I agree with it entirely and wholeheartedly, and I'm glad someone else shares my viewpoint.

I go for gender abolitionist. Equalist is too vague imo. Some people go for anti-sexist, or gender egalitarian.
Abolitionism would be the step further (That I accept is contentious) that argues the entire notion of male and female needs to be scrapped as it's divisive and only causes problems.
People are people. They get up to roughly the same shit if you don't constantly badger them into acting particular ways.
By destroying gender roles, gender itself will unravel, and cease thinking in terms of male/female and this is a good thing. (Abolitionist view.)
By destroying gender roles, the genders will become equal, but people won't necessarily stop thinking in terms of male/female, nor should they have to. (Egalitarian view.)

I'm fine if the egalitarians are right. I just doubt they are. Glad to know we're in broad agreement though.

Well, on abolitionism we differ, although I think equalism would be a step towards gender abolitionism, and there's a sort of logic to it that I can see would be appealing. I don't think (at least at this time in our society) we can ignore the differences between the genders.

People far too often confuse 'equality' with 'treating everyone the same', and personally I don't think we should act as if there aren't differences. It's about fair treatment, understanding there are differences, and ensuring fair opportunity to be treated based on ones personal merit and individual ability, regardless of gender. In that sense, I do believe in a minor form of abolitionism.

Yes, I'm glad we broadly agree. The bickering and fighting between hard-line feminists and MRAs has to stop. It exacerbates the problem and makes it worse.

[Ifreann]

I'll be sure to let him know how hard you're working to protect his reputation when he puts me away.

I can't tell if you're trying to say I'm working hard to protect Elam's reputation, or if you're trying to say it looks like I'm throwing Elam under the bus.

The former. Oh sure, you'll agree that he's done wrong, but you clearly prefer that we not talk about his wrongdoing, rather about the charity he's trying to nab donations from, or about the journalists covering this story. I'm not seeing why you'd do that, if not to cover Elam's ass.

---

The charity seems fairly dubious.
Why violence against women exactly?

Sounds like help for homeless whites, considering.
But whether or not it should be forced to include males is a separate issue from undermining their activities.
The women deserve help just as much as the men do.

So start a separate thread. The worth of the charity Elam is trying to take donations away from is not the topic of this one.

---

And I thought TJ was the one who was going to whine "MEN SUFFER MOAR!" in this thread.

When a man says it, it's whining.
When a woman does, it's taken seriously.
That's your sexism showing. You dislike when men express any kind of weakness or admit to being victimized. It's "Whiny", or the notion that maybe men as a demographic need some help.
It attacks your masculinity, so you decide to make the rest of the males suffer for your own ego, by engaging in microaggressions when the topic comes up.
Keep being a stand up guy, you're clearly good at it.

It's a simple matter of statistical fact that men suffer more violence.

It's simply irrelevant is what it is. Unless you'd like to argue that there is nothing wrong with Elam's attempt to "impersonate" this charity because their cause is sexist or somehow unworthy.

---

Nice strawman there. The thread topic is Fraud, not Which Gender Suffers Moar?

Suffers more violence. I'm not claiming one gender suffers more in general. (Unlike feminists.)
The thread topic is AVFM group and it's fraud, and the OP has made their bias known so that is also on topic. All of that means that the interplay between the ideologies involved is on topic.

Dakini being a feminist does not mean that your usual "Feminists are just as bad as MRAs! Everyone's sexist and delusional except me!" shit is on topic.

---

The other side is not linkable here due to their habit of doxxing people they don't like and suggesting that their followers should harass these people. There are direct quotes from both the initial campaign and the campaign leader's response to the criticism of him when he decided to impersonate a charity to line his own pockets.


In some ways. It signifies that one supports a cause, just like all the colourful ribbons. One can support the cause without wearing the ribbon, but it's just an additional reminder.


It definitely implies that one did not believe that one was doing wrong in the first place. I'm pretty sure that they were fully aware that what they were doing was wrong when they did this.

Now, based on Elam's response, it looks like he maybe fucked up on his understanding of copyright and trademarks...

1. Source that said people doxx, come on this isn't hard.

Linking to A Voice For Men is against the rules here. If you'd like to talk about why, consider posting in Moderation.

---

Can we stop the threadjack in which one poster makes baseless statements and refuses to even back them up with links or numbers? It was a threadjack back when someone was actually trying to link studies and it's a threadjack now that someone is just going on a rant about how the matriarchy oppresses men and such.

I started by pointing out I dislike the ideology of the charity but nonetheless condemn the action taken against it and was challenged on why.
It's still on topic. It's not my fault if people keep asking me questions or saying silly shit for me to respond to.

He said, having spent two hours and 4 pages posting about anything other than the actual topic of the thread.

---

I started by pointing out I dislike the ideology of the charity but nonetheless condemn the action taken against it and was challenged on why.
It's still on topic. It's not my fault if people keep asking me questions or saying silly shit for me to respond to.

You could always just not respond......

Apparently not.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's simply irrelevant is what it is. Unless you'd like to argue that there is nothing wrong with Elam's attempt to "impersonate" this charity because their cause is sexist or somehow unworthy.

It's relevant. It's an explanation of why the MRA would seem to have a grievance with the charity.
That Elam decided to shit the bed and go too far is a result of that grievance.
Yes, their cause is sexist and unworthy. No, that doesn't mean you should commit crimes against them.

[Dyakovo]

First off, I'm not really a MRA anymore. Sure, I read the subreddit, but that's really it. I believe in some of the message, but I'm not really active about it.

Second, what's wrong with linking to AVFM? As far as I can tell, they don't support violence, so linking to it would be allowed.

Third, this seems like a joke.

Sure, because stealing money from charities is hilarious.

[Ifreann]

It's simply irrelevant is what it is. Unless you'd like to argue that there is nothing wrong with Elam's attempt to "impersonate" this charity because their cause is sexist or somehow unworthy.

It's relevant. It's an explanation of why the MRA would seem to have a grievance with the charity.

An explanation that has somehow not involved mentioning anything of the sort until now, 11 hours later. An explanation that could have been phrased as "Well fucking duh", because who at any point was confused as to why an MRA group would have a problem with a charity about stopping gendered violence against women?

Nah, I don't buy it. You saw another opportunity to bang your drum about how you have discovered the One True Way and everyone else is wrong(but mostly feminists) and you just couldn't resist. TJ I'd figure for wanting to cover his MRA homies, but you? You just love to hear the metaphorical sound of your own voice.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's relevant. It's an explanation of why the MRA would seem to have a grievance with the charity.

An explanation that has somehow not involved mentioning anything of the sort until now, 11 hours later. An explanation that could have been phrased as "Well fucking duh", because who at any point was confused as to why an MRA group would have a problem with a charity about stopping gendered violence against women?

Nah, I don't buy it. You saw another opportunity to bang your drum about how you have discovered the One True Way and everyone else is wrong(but mostly feminists) and you just couldn't resist. TJ I'd figure for wanting to cover his MRA homies, but you? You just love to hear the metaphorical sound of your own voice.

I thought it would be obvious. Do I have to walk people through precisely how posts relate to the OP, or can I trust them to figure it out for themselves?
And people do seem confused about it. They seem to draw the conclusion that it's because they hate women. That's simplistic and stupid. I provided the real explanation for the grievance.
Everyone else is pretty much wrong yeh (Sans a minority who agree with me). I know how that sounds, but i'm not going to pretend otherwise out of humility. If you're wrong, someone should tell you. Mostly the general public. Feminists and MRA's are at least half-right. I focus on the feminists because they are the group closest to my beliefs that hold actual institutional power for change.

And I love you too Ifreann.

[Cyrisnia]

It's actually kind of sad, because sometimes the MRA groups have legitimate complaints, but then they pull shit like this.

Yeah. They really seem fond of shooting themselves in the foot.

I mean, they do have a handful of half-way legitimate points, but they always seem to be more concerned with bitching about feminists, and made up bullshit about how men are being majorly oppressed by it, and fostering misogyny within their ranks than doing anything positive on the few good points they make. So much so that one has to wonder if they actually give a shit about those points, and are only using them to try and discredit feminism in order to turn back the clock on gender equality.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

snip

I'd like OP (or whoever made the rule) to source this:

It also appears that the comments on the topic at AVFM (note: linking to AVFM is against the rules on NS due to their encouragement of violence against women among other issues)

1. I think that this is a low blow and if WhiteRibbon is a registered name then surely AVFM or whoever is legally responsible will have to pay for it.
2. I'm not sure why MRM activists and AVFM in particular are so hated on (aside from the ass-move of charity fraud) . As far as I can tell all of AVFM's pieces support true gender equality, and I haven't seen any evidence to support the claim that they encourage violence or discrimination against women. Not that I read too much of their stuff, but, if anyone has and has found evidence of them encouraging violence against women, I invite them to bring it to the table. Whether or not there is a different, underlying reason, perhaps misogyny actually, behind what they support, that is manifested in this way because presenting actual misogyny would be unpopular or classed as discriminatory, I cannot say. It most probably is in a minority of the AVFM and its readers, but I don't know why people are acting as if they're all the same, when there is no evidence to support this.
3. That the Ecole Polytechnique, or, indeed, any mass shooting to date, has had anything to do with "oppressing women" or is representative of wider trends is simply misandric horseshit propaganda of the lowest grade, that could only be believed by braindead zombies. A man killing people dressed in unicorns is not representative of a larger trend, it is representative of his insanity.

[Ifreann]

snip

I'd like OP (or whoever made the rule) to source this:

It also appears that the comments on the topic at AVFM (note: linking to AVFM is against the rules on NS due to their encouragement of violence against women among other issues)

If you have a problem with the rules of this forum then you should express them in Moderation. Here is the thread where the rule against linking to AVFM was made.

[Dakini]

I'm not sure that they expect sympathy from feminists. It seems like they've mostly declared that feminists are the problem... which is part of why they come across more like people who are upset that women aren't forced to stay home barefoot and pregnant than they do like people who have legitimate grievances.

So basically, you end up with extremists on both sides, claiming each side is the problem, and taking the focus entirely Away from the real problem. It's a joke. This is why I consider myself an equalist. Feminism and MRA have completely missed the point.

Ah, is that the sound of false equivalence? Why yes, yes it is.

The main difference between the feminist movement and the MRM is that in the feminist movement, the extremist nutcases are the fringes. Occasionally, someone who used to be important in the feminist movement 40 years ago says something stupid, but more often than not, the crazies are people who have some blog with 5 followers or some shit. In the MRM, the extremists are the leaders of the movement. The guy who decided it was great to try and commit fraud? One of the leaders of the MRM who runs a popular website among MRAs and attempts to organize mainstream MRA websites. Just like another important figure in the MRM has publicly declared that since men enjoy raping their daughters, it's a positive experience and the only reason the daughters don't like it is because society says they shouldn't (link to the Penthouse interview transcript, but also trigger warning).

TL;DR The feminist movement has been ignoring and shunning extremists while the MRM is being lead by them. There's not a lot one can do to make someone else stop calling themselves a "feminist", even if their views are not in line with gender equality, but that doesn't mean we have to listen to them.

[Ostroeuropa]

So basically, you end up with extremists on both sides, claiming each side is the problem, and taking the focus entirely Away from the real problem. It's a joke. This is why I consider myself an equalist. Feminism and MRA have completely missed the point.

Ah, is that the sound of false equivalence? Why yes, yes it is.

The main difference between the feminist movement and the MRM is that in the feminist movement, the extremist nutcases are the fringes. Occasionally, someone who used to be important in the feminist movement 40 years ago says something stupid, but more often than not, the crazies are people who have some blog with 5 followers or some shit. In the MRM, the extremists are the leaders of the movement. The guy who decided it was great to try and commit fraud? One of the leaders of the MRM who runs a popular website among MRAs and attempts to organize mainstream MRA websites. Just like another important figure in the MRM has publicly declared that since men enjoy raping their daughters, it's a positive experience and the only reason the daughters don't like it is because society says they shouldn't (link to the Penthouse interview transcript, but also trigger warning).

TL;DR The feminist movement has been ignoring and shunning extremists while the MRM is being lead by them.

Where do you get off telling people who leads their movement?
Is Jezebel the leader of the feminist movement?
Looks to me like the MRM does what the feminists do. Shun or ignore the crazies. I think both should confront them.
Likewise, feminism was no better in it's early days in terms of crazy to reasonable ratio.

[Page]

Ah, is that the sound of false equivalence? Why yes, yes it is.

The main difference between the feminist movement and the MRM is that in the feminist movement, the extremist nutcases are the fringes. Occasionally, someone who used to be important in the feminist movement 40 years ago says something stupid, but more often than not, the crazies are people who have some blog with 5 followers or some shit. In the MRM, the extremists are the leaders of the movement. The guy who decided it was great to try and commit fraud? One of the leaders of the MRM who runs a popular website among MRAs and attempts to organize mainstream MRA websites. Just like another important figure in the MRM has publicly declared that since men enjoy raping their daughters, it's a positive experience and the only reason the daughters don't like it is because society says they shouldn't (link to the Penthouse interview transcript, but also trigger warning).

TL;DR The feminist movement has been ignoring and shunning extremists while the MRM is being lead by them.

Where do you get off telling people who leads their movement?
Is Jezebel the leader of the feminist movement?
Looks to me like the MRM does what the feminists do. Shun or ignore the crazies. I think both should confront them.
Likewise, feminism was no better in it's early days in terms of crazy to reasonable ratio.

There is no such thing as a moderate MRA because if someone wasn't an extremist they wouldn't affiliate themselves with the tag. It's like saying you're a moderate Islamist. You can't be, because if you were a moderate, you'd just call yourself a Muslim.

[Ostroeuropa]

Where do you get off telling people who leads their movement?
Is Jezebel the leader of the feminist movement?
Looks to me like the MRM does what the feminists do. Shun or ignore the crazies. I think both should confront them.
Likewise, feminism was no better in it's early days in terms of crazy to reasonable ratio.

There is no such thing as a moderate MRA because if someone wasn't an extremist they wouldn't affiliate themselves with the tag. It's like saying you're a moderate Islamist. You can't be, because if you were a moderate, you'd just call yourself a Muslim.

The same argument could be made for feminism. I've met moderate MRAs.
Go here, for instance:
http://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/se ... r=on&t=all

[Dakini]

Where do you get off telling people who leads their movement?
Is Jezebel the leader of the feminist movement?
Looks to me like the MRM does what the feminists do. Shun or ignore the crazies. I think both should confront them.
Likewise, feminism was no better in it's early days in terms of crazy to reasonable ratio.

There is no such thing as a moderate MRA because if someone wasn't an extremist they wouldn't affiliate themselves with the tag. It's like saying you're a moderate Islamist. You can't be, because if you were a moderate, you'd just call yourself a Muslim.

It's pretty revolting the way he compares early feminists (who were fighting for basic things like the right to vote) with the MRA.

...he should also know by now that I don't see his posts unless they're quoted (I told him when I was going to put him on ignore and reminded him on at least one other occasion when he was being especially persistent) so he probably shouldn't bother responding to me.

[Page]

There is no such thing as a moderate MRA because if someone wasn't an extremist they wouldn't affiliate themselves with the tag. It's like saying you're a moderate Islamist. You can't be, because if you were a moderate, you'd just call yourself a Muslim.

The same argument could be made for feminism. I've met moderate MRAs.
Go here, for instance:
http://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/se ... r=on&t=all

I'd try to relate this concept by talking about "white rights' activists" or "Christian rights' activists" (within countries where white Christians are the majority, not Zimbabwe or North Korea so don't pull that shit), but you'd probably think those are legitimate movements too.

Also I'm supposed to give those people legitimacy if they're being polite? Stormfront are polite.