2M5t8J56

“I understand that when the white men see their guns disappear into thin air before their very eyes—a fate that most certainly awaits them, due to the actual existence of an actual gun vaporizer over which I have complete actual control—they may feel distress or sadness. This is why my evil matriarchal regime will be collecting white men’s tears during the vaporization process, for research purposes and also to sweeten the beverage of my people: a strong tea brewed of oppression and misandry. It is, of course, naturally very bitter.” – Andrea Grimes in I Made a Joke About Guns and a Man Threatened to Assault Me [at rhrealitycheck.org]

119 Responses to Quote of the Day: Naturally Very Bitter Edition

  1. When she is old(er) and more bitter she will say she wants to up little bombs in Playboy magazine.
    (Yeah, I saw that movie)

    • It’s even funnier when you realize “male tears” is an old euphemism for semen. I guess it would be bitter.

  2. Am I the only person who feels dumber after reading that. There wasn’t an ounce of truth or humor in that statement making it neither a witty joke nor a threatening statement. Just sounds like someone got baked and pretended to be a philosopher.

  3. OK. These are not threats. One suggested using her pads to apply makeup. Another suggested she commit suicide by gun. Apparently they were all written by flunkies and 4chaners. It is no different than what we get from them, every single day. If we were this sensitive, there would be some serious twitter based browbeating about how #whitegunsmatter.

    • Proverbs 21:19 comes to mind:
      “It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.”

  4. The outrageous response to this silly woman does us no favors. I looked at the comments Ms. Grimes received and the vitriol is completely out of hand. She’s a fool, but there’s absolutely no reason for death threats.

    We need to do whatever we can to reign in the crazies in our ranks, because you’d better believe they make the rest of us look bad. As People of the Gun, much of what we’re fighting here is a public relations battle, and this kind of thing hurts our side and helps theirs.

    Reasoned debate wins over blind rage every single time.

    • No, we need to be not crazy, but I have no obligation to reign anyone in… The continuance of your assumption brings legitimacy to the idea that when a crazy does something, I share some responsibility that allows the antis to limit my freedoms.

      • Of course you have no inherent obligation to reign them in — this is a free country, after all. But if you’re looking to further our cause instead of just idly standing by, you _do_ have that obligation.

        When a crazy does something and everyone else on our side watches and does nothing about it, we are responsible to some degree.

        • Everyone on “our” side doesn’t just watch. There are plenty like yourself ready to feel guilty for the actions of others that think “we” need to come up with a solution. Like there is always a solution to every problem. I own the same type of object as this guy. I do not know him. I can’t demand he live his life a certain way. I can in no way control him. What you propose is both ridiculous and not possible.

        • Look, I doubt there’s a solution to the crazies (that’s the way social media works), but we can start by not saying things like “A SJW feminazi perceives everything as a “threat” quite frankly, letting her comments go unmocked and unchallenged would be giving this racist misandrist far more ammunition.” That looks like watching the crazies to me.

          We can instead condemn the stupid, hateful comments and make it clear that they have no connection to the real POTG. It’s better than saying “she deserved it so f**k her.”

        • Exactly what should we do about it? And who is us?

          Just because someone posts vitriol on this lady’s blog doesn’t make them POTG, my friend, or one of “us”.

          I personally think we should let people like Andrea wallow in their self victimization. People will figure out their stupid shite eventually (or not). Either way, they are best ignored like a child having a temper tantrum.

        • Gruny wins. I have been engaging vile Feminists like this for a year now on Twitter.

          They sink low enough regularly to deserve all the rape & death threats that come their way.

          Meanwhile I take no responsibility or accountability for the fact that they are levied.

    • Um… No. If she can’t take the heat, she can sit down and shut up. Nothing posted there was a death threat. A feminazi getting butthurt because she got called out on being a pitiful excuse for a human being makes me chuckle, not concerned.

      • “Nothing posted there was a death threat.”
        Really? In your mind “I will shoot your smelly ass dead”, “Youre [sic] a treasonous twat bag who needs to be eliminated soon”, ‘try to take my gun so I can shove it down your fat ass throat” and “I hope you are raped repeatedly…die real soon” are not death threats?

        • No, they are not. Warning of the use of dealy force in response to a crime against person or property is not, legaly, a death threat.

    • Pretty much the only salient point anyone in the comments has made so far and you’re immediately shouted down by the poo flingers, who feel their right to be assholes trumps the kind of dignified united front we should be presenting as a matter of reasoned policy.

        • Yep. That’s why the Declaration of Independence and Common Sense are full of comments about bodily secretions. Ted Cruz’s amicus brief for Heller consists mainly of expressions of hope that Justice Ginsberg will be repeatedly raped.

          Look, I’ll never outgrow bathroom humor, but even I know there’s a time and place for it.

      • Really? “We need to do whatever we can to reign in the crazies in our ranks…” I doubt any move necessarily radical enough that would involve doing whatever is necessary is going to gain much support. Won’t have mine.

        Other people can shout down other people that (claim to) own guns when they are being threatening. You want something more than that? There was also very little in the way of poo slinging directed at this specific comment. It is called disagreement.

      • How do we know that pro gun folks made those nasty comments? Is it beyond the realm of possibility that this article and others like it are just false flag operations by the other side to make us look bad?

        I,a POTG, have no reason to even know of this girls existence. And prior to this post had never heard of her or read any of her stuff and will not do so going forward.

        Had not read JR’s comment when I posted this. My bad.

      • “Pretty much the only salient point anyone in the comments has made so far and you’re immediately shouted down by the poo flingers, who feel their right to be assholes trumps the kind of dignified united front we should be presenting as a matter of reasoned policy.”

        I recognize this style of debate. Let’s count the buzz words that subliminally seek to end debate/discussion on the premise of supposed correctness.

        “only salient point”

        It’s salient if it agrees with me, not salient otherwise. Got it.

        “shouted down”

        Anyone who posts a rebuttal that disagrees with mine is shouting me down. Got it.

        Who shouted Cicero down?

        “poo flingers”

        Anyone who disagrees with me is a poo flinger. Right. This is a subtle way of saying, “Any point I don’t agree with is poo.”

        That’s pretty weak, actually. And, like I said, I recognize this style of communication. I don’t respect it much when the Progressives do it, and I don’t respect it when POTG do it.

        “their right to be assholes”

        Anyone who disagrees with me is an asshole. Got it. I’m seeing the pattern here.

        “dignified united front”

        Code words for “I am the standard of dignified and you should unite with me.”

        “reasoned policy”

        What I say is reasoned, so you should agree with me. Right. Got it.

        Again…proggie style of debate: illogical and seeks to gain consensus by insult.

        Cicero posted some things people disagreed with. No one “shouted him down” and no one was an asshole to him. Your comment is an abomination of a logic fail.

    • Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the vitriolic comments to her were made by real, honest to goodness POTG and you MIGHT have a point.

      In the meantime, I give it even odds that those comments were made by false-flag astroturfers done to make us look bad.

      • Or just trolls. If I blew a gasket every time someone threatened to kill me I’d have time for nothing else.

    • It wasn’t a joke when she said it. It was just a trolling comment she made to further endear herself to her smug liberal asshat fans. She was called on it. Now it was just a joke. People are losing careers over saying stupid shit on twitter. She should consider herself lucky all she gets is reciprocal ignorant comments.

    • Cicero,

      Sure, it is in our best interest if we can somehow win the hearts and minds of the populace to advance our fundamental right to keep and bear arms. That said, keep in mind that we cannot win the hearts and minds of people who view us as nothing more than subhumans to be dominated, controlled, exploited, used, and abused at their pleasure. For these people, your comment that, “Reasoned debate wins over blind rage every single time.” is utterly and totally untrue.

      What is an effective response to such people? There is no effective response because they hate us for being inferior or unworthy of life in their minds. Rather, we should respond to win the hearts and minds of people who observe our exchange who are fence-sitters or ambivalent about our rights. And a simple assertion is all that is needed: we are human beings and all human life is inherently sacred — we have sought to harm no one and only seek to be able to defend our lives. Anyone who would condemn that is vile, plain and simple.

      • Sun Tzu said it best: Know your enemy. I’ve spoken to friends of mine who are pro-gun control, and I’ve found that they _will_ listen to reasoned arguments. And we’re talking about hardcore New York liberals here.

        Of course, debate won’t work with people whose entire sense of self comes from an anti-gun stance — someone like Shannon or Bloomberg — but the majority of antis that I’ve come across are reasonable people who simply don’t like the fact that 30,000 people (or whatever the exact number is) die from guns each year. When you explain to them that those numbers are usually gangbangers shooting each other with illegal firearms and make all the other arguments we’ve seen on TTAG, it does make them think.

        But no-one benefits from an statement involving urine and menstrual blood. All it does is give the other side ammunition — “Isn’t it clear how violent the pro-gun side is!? They clearly can’t be trusted with military-grade weapons!” and so on.

        • Here, here to treating all human beings w dignity & giving them adequate opportunity to mull the other side’s position & consider its validity.

          Having said that there is no Feminist on the planet who will consider anyone else’s viewpoint much less consider it valid. Therefore they deserve exactly zero respect and to be summarily stripped of their dignity with every ounce of debate skill you can muster.

          Yes, from my statement you can also logically conclude that Feminists are not human beings. Accurate assessment.

  5. I actually believe that she actually has an actual voice that is somewhere between an actual baritone dripping with self-loathing due the lack of an actual father or that she actually ends each sentence with an actual inflection as through she were actually asking an actual question.

  6. This whole thing makes me want to bash my head against a wall. Andrea Grimes posted what was obviously intended to be a joke (whether the joke was actually funny or not is irrelevant) prompting Patrick Howley to attempt to drive traffic to his website by publishing a disingenuous and overwrought response demonstrating that either he is so stupid he couldn’t figure out Grimes was telling a joke rather than making a serious proposal or he thinks so little of his readers that he assumes they are. Then, making matters ever worse, more than a few of Howley’s readers decide to play right into the hands of the antis by responding to obvious comedy piece with rape and death threats.

    Had Howley et al simply ignored Grimes’ (or better yet responded in kind with a piece of well crafted satire mocking the irrational fears of anti-gun extremists) the end result would likely have been Grimes preaching to anti-2A choir and being ignored by everyone else instead I would bet money that Moms With Too Much Free time on their hands, Everytown for Cashing Checks from Michael Bloomberg, etc and their friends in the media will be take great pleasure in trumpeting the ignorant comments of a few people as ‘evidence’ that all (white, male) gun owners are violent, mentally unstable, bigots who can’t be trusted with firearms

    • Exactly. This is a fail, though a small one, for our side.

      It’s stupid to unnecessarily repel women from our side. An intelligent person can put that idiot in her place without stooping to talk of tampons, piss and menstrual blood.
      Our side is the calm, mature, intelligent side, for the most part, and certainly their crazies outnumber ours.

        • That’s why I said it’s a SMALL fail. Who even reads that online rag she works for.

          Still no need to do an own-goal, if those creepy comments are actually from gun rights supporters. I’m in this to win, over the long term. Anyone who thinks posting creeper comments that draw attention to a heretofore obscure website is a winning strategy is high.

    • You really think any of those violent, stupid comments came from the pro 2A crowd? Really?

      She may have written the original piece as satire, but it doesn’t matter one bit. The whole thing smells like trolls. Most likely her and/or her real word liberal friends are faking troll comments so that she can keep her 15 minutes of fame going. Next year at this time if you asked “Remember that pink haired girl who made those white guy tears anti-gun comments?”, the only answer you will get is “no”.

      • Exactly so.

        The modern “social media” crowd is expert at ‘driving traffic’ and creating ‘trends.’ This sort of trolling is part of the game plan.

      • Should be fairly easy to check those Facebook accounts, unless they are good fakes.

        I use a fake FB account for commenting anonymously on sites that require FB, but it’s obviously fake; I’m not trying to astroturf or sockpuppet.

      • I absolutely do believe some of those nasty comments came from people who think of themselves as pro-2A.

        Every time someone on “our side” does something idiotic, there’s always someone who offers up the explanation that they’re really an anti-2A troll, or a Bloomberg puppet, or whatever. I wish that were true, but can you honestly tell me you haven’t met a few real douchebags at a range or a gun store (once in a while, even working behind the counter) who wouldn’t be capable of saying some real nasty stuff, especially from behind the anonymity of the internet? Some of it may be trolling, but can we just admit that our side of this issue is not free of crazy assholes?

        • “I absolutely do believe some of those nasty comments came from people who think of themselves as pro-2A. “

          My point in asking the question is “How can you tell?”

          How do we know if they are pro-2A jerk spouting nonsense or anti-2A troll spouting nonsense?

          While I don’t think it is fair to assume that latter, nor is it fair to assume the former without additional information. The age of the Internet has brought the necessity to lower expectations of authenticity.

  7. I read all of the comments she received and not one articulated a threat of assault. Who knew that anti-gunners could be so intellectually dishonest?

    • It’s not uncommon for SJWs to fabricate threats against themselves (Google “Meg Lanker, University of Wyomong). FLAME DELETED

  8. Her work reads like a bad fan-fiction set in some feminist 1984 universe. The term “delusions of grandeur” comes to mind.

    She is pretty good at capitalizing on predictable internet responses, her victim training must have been extensive. Those comments, though, aren’t threats of assault, so she’s even exaggerating there.

    • I just read the comments on the story’s site and I have to say Fred, you put silly little fiona64 in her rightful place-good job buddy.

      She’s (and hopefully some of the other white male hating, anti-gun feminazis over there) gonna learn today to be quiet while the adults are talking and hopefully her folly in simply repeating something she as heard someone else say by adding it to her silly little tool box for her anti-gun hate speech but not doing any verification or research on what she says.

      fiona64: “Just curious: of which well-regulated militia are YOU a member?”

  9. The comments she received, regardless of whether or not they were actual threats, were perceived by her as so. I just wish the ignorant among us would STFU. You don’t win a fight by supplying your enemy with ammunition.

    • A SJW feminazi precieves everything as a “threat” quite frankly, letting her comments go unmocked and unchallenged would be giving this racist misandrist far more ammunition.

      • One can mock and challenge her easily without making references to rape and tampons and smearing her face with piss and menstrual blood. At least an intelligent person can. Look at how someone like Mark Steyn or the like works. But then he’s smart. Dumb people write posts about crusty menstrual blood.

    • “I just wish the ignorant among us would STFU. You don’t win a fight by supplying your enemy with ammunition.”

      You are making a very shaky assumption, there…that the comments came from “our side” at all.

      The enemy very commonly supplies itself with ammunition by pretending to be ‘our side’ in issues like this.

      “Astroturfers Unite!”

  10. Ya know, at some point, unless some of you really DO have dreams of dying in a war of rebellion against your own government, we need to be able to have an intellectual discourse with people so we can win them to our side. Too many people on our side would rather, in the figurative sense, stand there open carrying their AK on one arm while flipping off the civilian disarmament proponents with the other. It’s your right to do it [most places, thankfully], but it only hurts the cause. Just because you CAN do something doesn’t necessarily mean you SHOULD do it. Name-calling by either side does nothing but make the name-caller and his or her cronies feel better. Do I really think I could change her mind, even though I’m paid to argue for a living? Not in a single conversation, no, but I DO think I might stand the chance of converting a couple of undecideds standing on the sidelines in the course of the discussion, as Robert frequently points out. “Come and take them” is supposed to be the last resort. Some of ya’ll sound like you don’t want to try keeping the votes on our side first. I’m strongly pro-life, but I wouldn’t start a discussion with this lady by calling her a “baby killer,” even if to my way of thinking, it’s an accurate statement. It accomplishes nothing.

    Several points about this situation. First, it’s amazing that she passes for a “senior political” writer. Her youth and pink hair doesn’t help her side politically any more than the responses did ours. Second, once the white supremacist loons get involved, they appear to speak for all of us to the other side, and that ain’t good. Third, when any of us comes in contact with someone like her, you know what our response should be? Invite her to the range with you and your family. No; I’m not kidding. It’s a chance to show her that even though we have a few loons on our side, just like the feminists do, we’re decent, honest, law-abiding people, by and large, and I’ve had several leftists express almost shock when invited to come to some conservative charitable effort or other. Too many of them see us as mean. Intentionally causing “butthurt” to the other side does nothing for ours, except make us feel better and help create more activists on theirs.

    My wife likes the saying that there are three great boxes in American history: the soap box; the ballot box; and the cartridge box. We need to remember that the third one is, always has been, and always should be, the very last resort to oppose tyranny, when anything and everything else has been tried, but to no avail.

    • Amen. Couldn’t agree more. When this kind of thing happens it’s a lost opportunity; instead of possibly making the people “on the fence” think about the legitimacy of our side, we disgust them and drive them away.

      I’ll bet money that if you went to someone on the street who knew nothing about firearms and showed them these comments, they’d be appalled.

      • I agree that nutty answers are a bad thing, but let’s not forget that *NO* answers are a bad idea, too. These idiots don’t need to be able to assume no one disagrees.

      • If you think you can have a “rational” discussion with racist and misandrist feminazi SJWs, you’re high.

        • Some people that happen to also own guns are never going to get your very important point. This person and the people that read her are never going to have any kind of gun discussion that does not involve further infringements of the 2A or what they call compromise. The only gains we have achieved since the 2A was chipped away have been through great effort and the people in her camp have been against them every time.

          The absolute best case in any discussion with someone like this about compromise when it comes to the 2A is that nothing happens. What is the point of that?

  11. Yay. So some self-absorbed, irrelevant, nobody, blogger-chick posted something racist, sexist and stupid – and got some meanie responses back. Wow. Stop the presses.

  12. Her article was racist. Imagine Bill OReilly tweeting that black peoples guns should be vaporized. Considering the threats that already cascade into the inbox of the black msnbc anchor who admitted ferguson was a lie, it would be a scheiststorm. And the media would consider “come and try to take it, honkey, and I’ll shove it up your fat @ss” the new catch phrase for social justice.

    • Bloomberg did as much as say that, but his media allies ignored it. It’s ok for progressives to be racist and sexist.

  13. She exhibits blatant misandry, hates guns and wants to take them away by violating people’s rights, deliberately provokes guys into sending her some heated comments, and when some take the bait, she then screams bloody murder and cannot understand why she’s getting the negative feedback and not chocolates, roses and scented thank you notes instead.

    Something must have happened to Andrea when she was younger, and that’s unfortunate. But that doesn’t mean all (white) men must be punished now for it. I don’t care whether it’s guns or something else you don’t like at the moment, you don’t get to limit my rights on a whim because you feel like you know better. The New Jersey government already does that to me.

      • But wait, there’s more! Her hypocrisy knows no limits. She praises misandry, but decries misogyny. She’s willing to put her feminazi ideology and general dislike (hatred?) of men on hold, just long enough to find some “good dudes” who will be her white knights and take care of the misogynist a-holes for her. Presumably, those will be the same dudes that she’ll commission to disarm everyone else, as she’s clearly asking men to carry out her feminist agenda, because…she doesn’t need men to help her. Wait…what? Yeah, she doesn’t make any sense. But punish all men anyway, right Andrea?

        As others have stated, she was called on her BS and now claims it was all a joke, and we (men) are just too stupid to get it.

  14. The ironic thing is she probably made fake twitter accounts of gun owners and then made fake posts to quote in her article. These psychotic third wave feminists have been known to completely fabricate the threats they claim to receive.

    • She’s been outed for doing that before. I’d dig up the links, but I am busy farming archaeology in WoW.

  15. Way too many people utterly fail to recognize that when you publish something online and open the comments you’re stepping into the 21st century equivalent of the Mos Eisley Cantina. At a bare minimum every Youtube video I’ve seen involving women firing guns is rife with the same old lame brain comments degrading women for not being in the kitchen etc. It’s such a tired charade that virtually no one takes it seriously anymore and has just learned to expect it with the 20 year decline in online civility. So somebody posted threats anonymously in a comment box? Welcome to the internet. Nobody starts worrying about those until their computer is hacked or strange letters/people show up at their real place of residence.

    • That’s a good point. Most Youtube comment sections are so universally stupid I don’t bother to look at them. I should do the same for more sites.

  16. Ah yes, another common lefty tactic: get called out on some odious comment, and then claim that it was “just a joke”.

    Thus ends our perusal of the inane ramblings of this twit – or so I can hope?

    • An example of that, Sheryl Crow:

      ” Wrapping up a nationwide global warming tour, singer-songwriter Sheryl Crow posted a quirky “solution” online about a new way to save the environment.

      She wrote: “I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting.”

      She told the joke to get people’s attention, and it worked. Talk show hosts had a field day with Crow’s comments.”

      *******************************************************************************************

      Only problem was, it took her nearly a week (during very loud negative publicity) to claim it was a joke.

      http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/GlobalWarming/story?id=3071833

  17. This story is just proof that as a society and a civilization the majority of people are vile and hateful when they are not held accountable. These people, who are on both sides of the 2A I must add, talk and act tough sitting behind their keyboard or smartphone but they would never dare say something like that to another person’s face. There are just as many death threats against people who are pro-2A as there were in her article.

    • True, especially when commenting anonymously. What’s amazing to me is that some comment under their real names, unless those are fake Facebook accounts. People have been fired when comments like that got back to their employers.

  18. I am going to let loose with my “actual” social media account vaporizer and collect the tears of online sages like Ms Grimes when she realizes that she can’t spread her vitriol so easily anymore. If Ms. Grimes can fantasize about vaporizing my 2A rights then it is only fair for me to reciprocate with her 1A rights.

    Twitter, Facebook, and whatever social media that is cool right now has given a voice to idiots, wackos, malcontents, racists, and others that otherwise shouldn’t be able to find an audience beyond a street corner in whatever crappy city they call home.

  19. ….I just…..nope. I don’t care enough to bother reading the, ahem, article, or the horrible terrible death threats within. Sorry. unique rebel lady, I just don’t give a f**k what you think about anything. I also don’t care if people say mean things to you on the internet. You’re really not my problem, and no, I’m not underestimating her clout, or failing to win hearts and minds, or any of that other bullshit that supposedly happens when I refuse to give some moron blogger her 5 mins of fame.
    Only mistake here is the re-posting and commenting of this kinda shit. If it doesn’t get reposted, it goes down the rabbit hole with the other 30 anti-gun blog posts that posted this weekend, and they leave this world no poorer.

  20. Think of how desperate you would have to be pull this kind of stuff. At what point, as gun rights activists, would we be so defeated as to consider publishing internet trolling (which is a well known, even time honored tradition dating back decades) and portraying it as serious? It’s not like she was having a reasonable debate with one of us, and we resorted to insults and threats because we couldn’t win. It’s like she trolled us with a racist meme, and instead of dignifying it with a response, we watched as other trolls trolled her back.

  21. And Ms. Grimes, I, too, have a dream where my magical gun agglutinator immediately creates a gun in your hand whenever a man appears before you with the intent of kidnapping, raping, beating, assaulting or killing you. That way, you don’t have to wait for one of your man friends to come to your rescue. Or wait until those man friends convince other men that they should not embrace the apocryphal “misogynist culture” that would make them want to kidnap, rape, etc. And I, too, would love to see a day when violence against women (and men) is gone from the earth. Until then, I will continue to teach my daughters how to use guns safely and effectively to protect themselves. I would encourage you to do the same.

  22. Well, this has been productive. The trolls everywhere have crawled out from under their bridges. How has any of this furthered 2A support? Hey, at least you got to say “SJW feminazi” a lot! That was fun!

  23. What a charming individual. I’m guessing she’s available for dates and social engagements on short notice.

  24. With comments like that and that hair speaks for itself. Im going to a dog fight soon and maybe she could come with me? I do have a dog leash! Gals and guys watch your six.

  25. I think this quote from Billy Madison is appropriate,
    “What you’ve just said… is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul…”

  26. She’s just mad cause SHE wanted to go to Africa…….. but she hates guns and she did not have 14oz of ink. Please somebody marry her so she can stay home barefoot and pregnant!

  27. Is Andrea Grimes related to Rick? Because she does act like one of the zombies from “The Walking Dead.” You know, stumbling around looking for some white meat to bite.

    • Walking Dead zombies are equal opportunity flesh-eaters.

      You have White walkers, Black walkers, Hispanic walkers, etc…

      Has TTAG done a ‘Guns of the Walking Dead’ yet?

  28. It never happened.

    These things never do.

    They are always imaginary exchanges to allow leftists to write something sensational.

    It’s fiction.

    And who cares who this nobody is, anyway?

    John

  29. She took the coward’s way out, as expected.

    It’s like that one dick on the school bus who would call people names and talk crap, then when called to account would wilt and say “Just joking with ya man.” “Ha, ha we’re cool right?” “Right?”

    She tries to bully people with her vagina, in a manner of speaking, and when confronted runs behind Dad’s leg and cries “But I’m just a girl you meanies!”

    Whatever. Hope she enjoys cats. No way in hell any sane man would put up with her particular brand of BS for long. Yes I know. She don’t need a man. Until the day she does.

    🙂

  30. Oh boy, the same Andrea Grimes who was caught astroturfing comments on social media? The same Andrea Grimes who made up threats to get more click bait and sensationalize her stories? The same Andrea Grimes who made a big deal about Twitter and Facebook before, until it was found the negative comments were new accounts whose sole content was to post “patriarchal” garbage on her social media accounts?

  31. Why would anyone bother with this delusional bimbo?
    She’s not even smart enough to get both sides of her head dyed.

  32. “But giving me a phone number doesn’t stop men who hate women from threatening to rape and murder me.

    I don’t need men to individually and personally step up to protect me. I need them to collect their fellow dudes and actively work, every day, to end widespread cultural misogyny and to improve the lives of non-cisgender-dude people the world over.”

    Interesting, we make the same argument about the police and 911, and choose to actively protect ourselves, property, friends, and family. She instead makes demands that men change men, but offers nothing in exchange. Ok, lets strike a deal, she want us “cis-gender guys” to fight misogyny, I want her (however she defines herself) to fight misandry, deal?

    • “Ok, lets strike a deal, she want us “cis-gender guys” to fight misogyny, I want her (however she defines herself) to fight misandry, deal?”

      Agreed – you even know how to speak in her “language”. Of course, she would make some argument about cis-hetero-patriarchy…

  33. Unnatural hair color.

    Every single time.

    It’s like how dangerous insects and amphibians are often bright, fluorescent colors. It’s a warning sign that says, “I’m crazy and will probably attempt to kill you.”

  34. Well, that was dumb on both sides. While i’m sure it was a bitter anti-gun fantasy masquerading as humor as it so often tries to, a bunch of people just got successfully trolled. Good job in giving her more attention than she deserved.

  35. “the beverage of my people: a strong tea brewed of oppression and misandry. ”

    Funny how often hidden truths emerge from attempts at humor, especially failed ones.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *