I would like to talk about the Trust-O-Meter™.

     The Trust-O-Meter™ gives a pretty good indication of how much I am going to trust something.  There are good things, which tend to inspire trust.  And there are bad things which tend to reduce or eliminate trust.

     One of the great things that you can do that will inspire trust is to provide links.  If I can verify what you say for myself, I am more likely to trust you on other matters.  (Some caution is necessary.  If I think a link is suspicious, it won’t help.  Worse, if you make claims about A, B, and C that I know to exist but don’t know the claims as true and X, Y, and Z that I have never heard of and only provide links for the X, Y, and Z claims, it will actually move you down.)  Another good thing is to correctly report something I already know but which you don’t know I already know.  Also good is to admit when you are wrong.

     One bad thing that you can do is only to link to yourself or your supporters.  If you tell me that some prominent person said X, I want a link to his website saying X or a video of him saying X.  Now, I realize that sometimes there is a game of “hide the evidence.”  But you and your supporters linking to each other to make the claim just doesn’t help anything.  Moderating comments is a big red flag.  While there are occasionally reasons to moderate comments, the purpose is usually better served by removing derailing or disruptive comments after the fact.  If you are screening comments before anyone can see them, there is a good chance you are throwing away the inconvenient ones.  Getting caught in a lie is a great way to hurt your credibility.  That goes double if you lie about the very people you are trying to convince.

     Then there are things which ensure that you will have no credibility whatsoever.  Calling dissenters “X deniers” is a fine example.  Presuppositional Baloney operates on this.  You can also create an echo chamber.  When there are a lot of comments, but no dissent, something is wrong.  However, it is sometimes good to test this by leaving a dissenting comment and seeing what happens to it.  Incidentally, creating “straw dissenters” whose purpose is to be obviously absurd is not of any help.  If you play a game of “hide the evidence” your credibility is gone.  If you used to have a website but you took it down because you couldn’t handle criticism (especially links proving you said something inconvenient) then everyone that knows you did that will never trust you.


There was a blog demanding that “a voice for men” take its site down.

     Emphasis on “was.”  The blog owner took the whole blog down.  I find this somewhat amusing because he was boasting about how he wasn’t afraid of men’s rights activists.  He tucked tail and ran, fast.  

     Now, there is another possibility.  Google may have shut him down.  He did have a banner that said “stop men’s rights.”  That could be construed as hate speech.  I still think he took it down himself because people were agreeing that men should have rights.

On the fundie christian front

     Dan seems to have given up on his blog.  He hasn’t posted anything for a month and a half.  Even at that, on a blog he created “to debunk atheists,” he was reduced to such blatant lies as saying “you already believe.”  As near as I can tell, no one was buying his merchandise or donating to his bank account.  So, it looks like he is gone.  But, who knows, he may be back;

     Norman is back after an extended absence.  I think he was grounded from using the computer.  And he is saying that UFOs are really demons  Naturally, he only cites dubious christian sources.

     I think it’s cute the way he keeps trying to convince his readers that he is an adult.  He talks about using a typewriter to write letters.  (His grandfather must have told him about typewriters.)  In actual practice, letters were written with pen and paper.  A typewriter is useful for copying and cleaning up something that is already written down.  But when composing a letter, it simply breaks your train of thought.

     I think he is trying to give the impression that when he was in school, computers were not yet available.  But they were.  They were available when I was in school.  They were prohibitively expensive.  But the schools had them.  It’s where I first developed an interest in what computers can do.

     Now, here’s something of some interest about that time.  The instructors stressed that a lowercase ‘l’ could not be used as a substitute for the number ‘1’ on the computer.  It would cause confused results or errors.  I expect Norman will not be able to figure out why they stressed that point.

A response I made surrounding the Meg Lanker-Simons issue

     The link is here.

First, the comment I responded to.  (You will be able to see it at the link.)

She won’t be going to court on May 13 because she filed a written ‘not guilty’ plea, that means that the arraignment, set for May 13 will be vacated and her case will be set for a scheduling conference, maybe a month out.
The courts in Laramie don’t hold trials the first day someone comes to court, there’s a whole process. If the case proceeds to a trial it probably wouldn’t be until late Summer/ Fall.
Until then, she’s presumed innocent of the charge of interference and I think we’d all do well to remember that.

Next, my response.  You won’t see that.  After a week the moderators still haven’t approved it.

Let me ask you one question. When a man is accused of rape, and his name, photograph, and the charges are plastered all over the news for months, how well do you remember that accusations are not convictions and that he is presumed innocent?

I think she manufactured a fictitious threat. But then, I think that is a standard operating procedure within feminism. It plays quite well. People “come to the rescue.” But the rate at which feminists claim to be threatened or harassed strains credibility.

That said, she is presumed innocent under the law. But I am not on her jury. And I am not bound by the constraint. I can presume that she is guilty. Fortunately for her, my belief in her guilt will not ruin her life.

     She created fake threats that could well have landed some poor sap in jail for the rest of his life.  And she did it to convince people that there was a “rape culture.”  I am convinced that she is guilty because, if there was any way to portray her as the victim with the evidence found, the local officials would have done just that.

     So what can we take from this.  First off, “rape culture” is not real.  If it were, no one would need to fabricate threats.  Also, the only concern I have seen from feminists about this is that it might hurt their cause.  Not a passing thought is given to the fact that these sorts of things ruin men’s lives.  I have yet to see one feminist denounce this because it could have resulted in an innocent man going to jail.



     It appears that a feminist named Meg Lanker-Simons sent herself a threatening message so that she could play the victim card.  This is in Wyoming.  The only thing I find surprising about this is that she got caught.  Feminism is all about playing the victim card.  But women are just not victimized to that great a degree.  They are not considered “acceptable targets.”  Men are.

A feminist who denounced MRAs for the London Irish Centre cancelling its booking.

     A link is here.

     For the record, she does state that she is “no longer comfortable” associating with the group that was trying to meet there.  And as I write this, it has only been 3 days since her original post.  I think that this has to do more with her plausible deniability going out the window than anything else.

     I would like also to talk about the comment made by Jo:


     Absolutely disgusted that Nesbitt’s ridiculous, illogical, and bigoted comments about the exclusion of trans* women were allowed to pass unremarked. Equating MRAs with trans* activists is a truly disgusting tactic. Shame on the interviewer for skipping over this point, and for allowing Nesbitt to conflate the vile actions of MRAs with the principled and intersectional criticisms of trans* people and allies.


     As far as I can determine, there have been no vile actions on the part of MRAs.  I will note that this may be a practical consideration more than anything else.  Feminism is still very much a darling of the media.  If MRAs were actually to do anything inappropriate, the media would be all over it like stink on a skunk.

     But feminism is a supremacy group.  Feminists see males as innately inferior and not fully human.  They are not going to let anyone escape this judgement through a little operation.  To them, trans-women are men because you cannot escape being sub-human. Logically, advocates for the rights of trans-women are advocates for men’s rights.  So, to them, it’s all the same; they’re all MRAs.  They don’t care how the people identify themselves.