RSS

About / Rules

Patriactionary = Portmanteau of ‘patriarchal’ and ‘reactionary’.

Who we are

Christian men who reject modernity, feminism, and churchian weak-sauce.

Rules

Our blog, our rules.

Commenting at Patriactionary is a privilege, not a right.

You will not be allowed to comment here if:

  1. You use obvious shaming tactics
  2. You’re an obvious troll – whether a shrieking fembot, a flaming liberal, an axe-grinding, chip-on-your-shoulder anti-Christian / anti-religious atheist, or a bloodthirsty, foaming-at-the-mouth, rabid, warmongering neo-con, or any other kind of annoying troll with no business being here.  We welcome genuine debate, but not condescending, sneering comments or shrieking hate-filled remarks.
  3. You are a female pretending to be a male
  4. You annoy Will
  5. You bore Matthew
  6. You aggravate Ulysses / Dr. Eric Stratton
  7. You somehow manage to exasperate ElectricAngel enough, who is extraordinarily patient
  8. You sound fat

Things that annoy Will

  • Seminariettes
  • “But the Greek says / the Hebrew says…” (i.e. arguments that the common, orthodox interpretation of what Scripture says are wrong, due to mistranslations / misunderstandings in preparing translations, twisting the original meaning, which ostensibly would have permitted certain heresies / immoral behaviour)
  • Irrational female-style argumentation tactics, e.g. “You’re wrong, because that’s not true of people I know / where I live…”
  • Spergy bitches ranting incoherently / inconsistently, without a discernable point to their rants.
  • Real personal insults and rudeness towards us bloghosts (as distinguished from good-natured, manly ribbing); condescending attitudes and excessive snarkiness towards us
  • “Guilt-by-association” objections to links: address the substance of what is being discussed, not the website hosting, or character traits of the person that are not relevant to the subject at hand. Esp. no whining, “But he’s / she’s / they’re raaaaaaaaaaaaaacccccccccciiiiiiiiiiiiiisssssssssssssttttttttttttt!”, and the like.
  • Telling us how we ought or ought not to run our site.
  • Poor spelling, punctuation, and the like.
  • Commenting for the first time on really, really old posts while (a) having nothing to say that hasn’t already been said by others, and/or (b) vehemently disagreeing in an insulting, attacking manner, troll-like – on a long-dead post. Do you really think you’re gonna get your comment approved? No, idiot.
  • Wanting to comment at our blog when you either (a) don’t allow any comments at your own blog (that’s your privilege, but don’t expect to be part of any conversation, other than through back-and-forth blog posts, at most) or (b) don’t allow dissenting comments, which is even less fair play: that means you want your voice heard at our blog, but won’t necessarily allow ours? You don’t get to comment here.
  • Misunderstanding / misrepresenting a position, and viewing it in the worst possible way.
  • Other things; the above list is by no means exhaustive. If you wish to comment, don’t annoy me.

Things that bore Matthew

  • Digression cascades
  • Females describing their persons without providing photographic evidence
  • Gossip

Things that aggravate Ulysses / Dr. Eric Stratton

  • Confusing realism and misogyny, in either direction. We are men, not Little Rascals
  • Forgetting you know only what you do not know
  • Being unaware that they are called skinny jeans for a reason

Things that exasperate ElectricAngel

  • Leading the little lambs to slaughter, like Milton’s Satan jealously looking on the Garden of Eden
  • Making poor arguments for a position he holds dear
  • Lazy Englishmen who use the myth of the Black Spaniard to whip up fear in the populace so as to keep their ill-gotten wealth during the “Reformation.” Say “Spanish Inquisition” to him and he will descend upon you with all the unimpeachable logic and rapier wit of St. Edmund Campion
  • People who use “where” when they mean “were,” and people who use “loose” when they mean lose.

N.B. If you tick us off sufficiently, your comments (assuming you’ve been allowed to comment here in the first place, your first comments not having been of such a kind that we’d banned you in the first place) will be replaced by ‘Baa!’ if you’re a man, and ‘Moo!’ if you’re a woman (these are the Baahammer and Moohammer, respectively), or even worse fates might befall you – other Hammers, you won’t want to be hit by.  Either follow our rules, or risk being banned, or having your comments creatively altered.  Thank you in advance.

 

43 responses to “About / Rules

  1. Svar

    November 2, 2011 at 1:25 pm

    That’s “Aboot” for all ye Canadians.

     
  2. Will S.

    November 3, 2011 at 12:16 am

    And ‘Abowt’ for you Americans.

     
  3. CL

    November 3, 2011 at 7:31 pm

    Best. Rules. Ever.

     
  4. Will S.

    November 3, 2011 at 7:36 pm

    Our thanks! Glad you like ‘em.

     
  5. I am not Spartacus

    November 4, 2011 at 10:44 am

    Dear Patriactionary. I just discovered you added me to your Blog Roll. I am honored. Thank you and Bless you; and, I have to add, your rules are prolly the best rules I have ever read anywhere

     
  6. Svar

    November 4, 2011 at 2:43 pm

    @ I am not Spartacus

    I added you. I saw your comments over at Chronicles, clicked on your name, and was impressed with what I read. I am not technically a Roman Catholic, but I do plan on converting and therefore I am very sympathetic to Roman Catholics.

     
  7. Steffen

    November 8, 2011 at 6:10 pm

    I find the use of the “Moohammer” interesting.

     
  8. Will S.

    November 8, 2011 at 6:48 pm

    We aim to please. :)

    Moo for the cows, baa for the rams.

     
  9. Matthew

    November 8, 2011 at 8:16 pm

    Guess who gets “Ssluuuuurrrrp” the first time he shows up.

     
  10. Will S.

    November 8, 2011 at 8:17 pm

    I don’t know; who?

     
  11. Matthew

    November 8, 2011 at 8:23 pm

    Imagine a little yap-yap dog, licking his balls.

     
  12. Will S.

    November 8, 2011 at 8:55 pm

    If it be one individual I’m thinking it might be that you’re talking about, I don’t think he ever will show; I think he knows better.

     
  13. Matthew

    November 9, 2011 at 12:44 pm

    There’s no incentive for him to show here.

     
  14. Will S.

    November 9, 2011 at 2:07 pm

    No pity parties for him, indeed.

     
  15. Svar

    November 9, 2011 at 3:02 pm

    One of the best things about this site is that useless piece of shit won’t ever show. Tired of his whining, his bitching, and his trademark obtuseness.

     
  16. trent13

    November 16, 2011 at 10:57 am

    I found your blog through a circuitous route from Bonald’s blog, but was happy to find I’m on your blog roll. I’ll be adding you to my own; just wanted to say thanks and I wish there was some sort of a reference list for blogs like these because I’m always looking for them and I have a hard time finding them unless it’s by some labyrinthine route.

     
  17. Will S.

    November 16, 2011 at 1:34 pm

    Hey trent13, welcome. I remember you from a convo @ the Counter-Feminist’s, a year or so ago. Cheers.

    One good resource, is Hawaiian Libertarian’s blogroll; it’s impressive; he’s probably got most if not all of the manosphere covered…

    As for tradosphere lists, I think ours is fairly extensive… ;)

     
  18. Thomas

    February 21, 2012 at 11:49 pm

    Interesting human biodiversity reading list:

    http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/

     
  19. Will S.

    February 22, 2012 at 10:02 am

    Thanks Thomas! Will take a look.

    Though I’m not sure how we feel, collectively, about HBD; I can buy some of it, but not being an evolutionist, my beliefs will differ as to cause (i.e. I will credit God for human differences rather than natural selection).

     
  20. Svar

    February 22, 2012 at 12:14 pm

    Will, that’s just HBD Christian who likes to push his HBD lists on every site he comes across. I personally am open to HBD. Anyone can see that the races and ethnicities have discernible differences.

     
  21. Svar

    February 22, 2012 at 12:17 pm

    I do not believe in 6-day Creationism but I do believe in Intelligent Design and in microevolution. That being said, whenever the dip into HBD ventures too far into material reductionism, I reject it.

     
  22. Will S.

    February 22, 2012 at 12:29 pm

    I’m open to it, too, Svar, to a point. I don’t believe it’s the end all be all, though.

    Microevolution is a fact, observed many times over. We make use of it when we breed animals and plants, of course.

    Intelligent Design really strikes me as another term for creationism, minus the six days aspect. I believe in it, too, along with the six days of creation, roughly six millennia ago.

     
  23. Will S.

    February 22, 2012 at 12:30 pm

    “whenever the dip into HBD ventures too far into material reductionism, I reject it.”

    Ditto.

     
  24. Svar

    February 22, 2012 at 2:05 pm

    “I’m open to it, too, Svar, to a point. I don’t believe it’s the end all be all, though.”

    Exactly. But there are always those trolls that like to push it even when it’s irrelevant to the topic at hand. That’s what I was referring to.

    “Microevolution is a fact, observed many times over. We make use of it when we breed animals and plants, of course.”

    Yes, and it(and the Tower of Babel) also explains the diversity of the human race. There are 6 main races(Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, Australoid, and Amerindian) and numerous subraces and ethnicities within each.

    “Intelligent Design really strikes me as another term for creationism, minus the six days aspect. I believe in it, too, along with the six days of creation, roughly six millennia ago.”

    That’s exactly what it is.

     
  25. dannyfrom504

    March 28, 2012 at 5:13 pm

    thanks for the link love

    stay up.

     
  26. Will S.

    March 28, 2012 at 5:34 pm

    Hey Danny, you’re welcome. I love muffaletta and po’ boy sandwiches, and red beans and rice, so I just had to link your recipes. :)

    Cheers.

     
  27. canecaldo

    April 12, 2012 at 8:20 pm

    7man also doesn’t like when you show up to put up instead of shut up. He deletes the comment.

    Matthew: False

     
  28. Svar

    April 12, 2012 at 8:22 pm

    Interesting. What was the comment, Cane?

     
  29. canecaldo

    April 12, 2012 at 8:30 pm

    I emailed it to you.

     
  30. Matthew

    April 13, 2012 at 12:42 am

    canecaldo: I have liked your contributions to our comments. With this, though, you crowed too soon. Have some Christian charity, eh?

     
  31. Svar

    April 13, 2012 at 11:09 am

    The comment was deleted until Cane happened to make this little comment here. I find that interesting, don’t you Matthew?

     
  32. CL

    April 13, 2012 at 11:41 am

    I deleted the comment. After 7man and I conferred, we decided to let it stand or fall on its own merit. It was my error; 7man corrected it.

     
  33. canecaldo

    April 13, 2012 at 11:42 am

    Svar is correct–they deleted it first, and then reinstated it hours later. Also, my summary responses were banned. Two, to be precise. One to each of them. I have yet to be given a chance to be charitable.

    By the way, ‘mean-spirited’ is another way of saying “being angry at your brother without just cause”.

    I really don’t care if I’m banned forever. After my spat and subsequent leaving from TC (they didn’t ban or delete me, to their credit) I noticed that the quality of comments improved. It’s more important to win the battle than win the argument.

     
  34. Matthew

    April 13, 2012 at 11:59 am

    Issuing a challenge, then deleting the comments of people who respond is a fairly serious error.

     
  35. 7man

    April 13, 2012 at 12:03 pm

    No canecaldo, you are incorrect. “We” did not do this. You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

    Before we had discussed it, CL moved it to trash (not deleted). Once I became aware of that, I immediately restored into moderation status and addressed it. I corrected CL’s error. A man needs a bit of time to correct his woman. People are impatient and rush to judgment.

    And your subsequent comments were whiny and lacked meaningful citation, after you boasted, ”I can’t count the times they’ve written things that transgressed”. Do your homework rather than complaining, and back up your assertion with fact rather than emotions.

     
  36. Svar

    April 13, 2012 at 12:22 pm

    For those of you who STILL don’t get what happening here, let us consult Brett Stevens:

    http://www.amerika.org/social-reality/victim-identity/

    “And of course, these stutterers are like leftists, everywhere: they make a career out of evoking sympathy in others. Poor things. Innocent victims. Needy and helpless. There, there… When really, a millimeter beneath the surface appearance, lurks a vicious, ravening monster that knows no mercy, no love, no forgiveness, no quarter, and absolutely no capacity for fun.”

    It’s interesting how I have to go to a Nietzschean nihilist conservative to be able to pinpoint the situation. Because, apparently when a Christian does it, he’s being “judgemental” and “uncharitable” and “driving people away from the Church”.

    From now on, let’s not call a spade a spade coz that’s what Jesus wouldn’t want us to do; it’s not like He’s ever called people out; hell no, He’s here to give you hugs and cuddles. Gays have equal rights to marry, a cohabiting couple is equal to a married one, abortion is fine, as is masturbation, fornication, and sodomy.

    From now on, the only sin is hurting the feelings of adulterers, sodomites, baby-killers, fornicators, and self-abusers. Because that’s what Jesus would want, m’kay.

     
  37. Svar

    April 13, 2012 at 12:27 pm

    “No canecaldo, you are incorrect. “We” did not do this. You are making a mountain out of a molehill.”

    There was no way for any of us to know that, so the logical assumption would be that you just couldn’t take the heat.

    Thanks for clarifying though.

    Btw, I find it interesting that you said that you would let the situation cool via email and then you turn around and make an attention-whoring post about the situation. Is that how you let situations cool?

     
  38. 7man

    April 13, 2012 at 1:56 pm

    Well Svar, it did cool. Then when I posted again, the conflagration resumed and necessitated confrontation.

     
  39. Svar

    April 13, 2012 at 2:35 pm

    I was talking about the recent situation not the entire history.

    We can resolve this, but you’re going to have to atleast try not to profit from these spats.

     
  40. canecaldo

    April 13, 2012 at 4:35 pm

    I believe my last words on this matter are posted (in moderation) at CL.

     
  41. Will S.

    December 15, 2013 at 1:12 am

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 300 other followers