David Futrelle

David Futrelle (occasionally referred to as "FATrelle" or "Fatrolle") previously known as dimFlash is an overweight, former MRA, would-be child molester who spent the better part of the 90s indulging in his secret (but very transparent) love of hardcore S&M and CP by writing article after article defending rape, paedophilia, child pornography and movies about eating shit while being anally raped (that he watched with his sister), while attacking feminists and rape survivors young and old.

After pissing away what might have amounted to a career in journalism one day (probably not though), David is now a fat, middle aged man who owns way too many cats and runs a comically bad anti-MRA/MGTOW hate blog called "We Hunted The Mammoth" (formally "Manboobz" but now he wants people to know he's fat and hairy) where he uses single source reporting, screencaps from anonymous image-boards and misquotes to write ED worthy articles (if they were only funny and not written entirely out of butthurt) to instil in his community of borderline rapists and mentally deranged feminist readers a moral panic about men's rights activists and whip them into a frenzy so that they can contact the MRAs, random nobodies and other feminists who dared criticize him and threaten to murder their children.

Early years

Dyslexia

During most of the 90s Futrelle was a freelance "journalist" (he never actually reported on any news and just wrote bad op-eds), and somehow, this fat dyslexic waste of air got a job published in a number of websites desperate for content. His entire journalistic "career" can be summed in up this review he gave a book.

	“	If you put a million monkeys without diapers in a room filled with word processors, surely it wouldn't belong [sic] before they produced a book better than this one.	„
	—http://www.smallpieces.com/index.php, David Weinberger

10 years of pedo apologism

Between 1990 and the early 00s, David amassed an "impressive" catalogue of articles with topics ranging from saying children should be forced to marry their rapists instead of sending the rapists to jail, to complaining about people talking about child abuse and even going so far as to write this following article on how most child abuse cases are fake and how you should not believe children if they told about an incident. This experience would later prove helpful when defending child molester Sarah Butts.

Use scrollbar to see the full text

First, lurid accusations of bizarre child sexual abuse, of children forced to eat fried rats and cockroaches by their sadistic parents. Then the equally dramatic recantations of the children themselves, who now insist the abuse did not occur.

It was not surprising that the case against Barbara and Gerald Hill fell apart--after all, many similar cases involving accusations of bizarre abuse have crumbled in recent years. But the case is significant in what it reveals about the mind-set of today's child abuse "experts"--and about those in the media who cover the cases such experts claim to unearth....reporters covering the Hill case treated the bizarre claims of abuse uncritically; indeed, they were far more bewildered by the recantations than by the original charges. The media coverage of the case--particularly the coverage of the Chicago Tribune--shows that many of the assumptions that led to the original abuse hysteria linger on in the minds of many in the media....

By now, one would think, reporters would look upon charges of extreme abuse with an almost instinctive skepticism. But no... There was barely a hint of skepticism in the article.

The next day, though, the case took a strange turn indeed when three of the four children, whose words were the only evidence in the case against their parents, recanted their story to Tribune reporters. They alleged that these words had been put in their mouths by others--perhaps family members, perhaps investigators intent on finding sexual abuse where there was none. Amid questions of investigative incompetence and prosecutorial misconduct the suspects eventually were released on signature bonds, and prosecutors admitted that they might have to drop charges altogether...

Many SRA (Satanic Ritual Abuse) proponents claim that up to 50,000 children are ritually murdered by cults every year--i.e., twice the number of people murdered in the more conventional manner, by criminals, relatives, enraged postal workers, and famous sports figures...

Yet despite a decade of research, no one has ever been able to uncover any physical evidence to prove these elaborate allegations. Nothing. A 1994 survey, conducted by the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect and costing taxpayers some $750,000 over five years, examined over 12,000 accusations of ritual abuse and found no evidence to back up any of them...

The ritual abuse scare grew out of a strange confluence of fundamentalist Christianity and a kind of feminism allergic to sexuality in almost all forms...

The case seems likely, now, to simply fade away. But it serves as a sobering reminder of what can happen when investigators, prosecutors, child abuse experts, and reporters are all too ready to "believe the children" when abuses are alleged--and unwilling to listen when children tell them what they don't want to hear.

David Futrelle

Defending Actual Torture Porn

In an old article he co-wrote along with his sister, (now a Gawker Media employee and vaccine-denialist) this hypocritical fuck actually feverishly defended a film that has been banned in certain places and is based on a book by the Marquise De Sade that shows characters played by underage boys literally being forced to eat shit while being anally raped. Sure it's all fake but it's still fucked up.

According to David, this movie is "not exactly family entertainment" but he defends it as a "classic" to this day. Speculation for his reasons for loving it so much vary between it promoting the child abuse he oh-so-loves and it being the movie he lost his virginity to as he was reviewing it with his sister.

Ironically, not long ago, he attacked people he viewed as anti-feminists by calling them paedophiles for posting a picture of a fully clothed 17 year old girl on r/jailbait.

David arguing for Child prostitution

The wall of David's house is literally covered with pictures of cats.

Because your friendly neighbourhood Ediots are lazy, the evidence for David's lust for children and thoughts on child sex slavery that were previously mentioned have been lifted directly from Janet Bloomfield so we don't have to waste time typing.

	“	Throughout the article, Futrelle specifies that he is talking about women, and that Victorian purity campaigns target prostitutes specifically. But when it comes to overzealousness, he identifies not only girls rather than women, but young girls. Let’s assume that a woman for Futrelle is a female who has reached the age of modern consent – somewhere around 17-18 years of age. Girls would be what? 12 – 16? Just how young are these young girls whose sexual behaviors must not be coercively controlled? And note he did not say sexual feelings – this is not about a budding awareness of sexuality – but he very specifically says behaviors.	„
	—quality article, Janet Bloomfield

It is worth noting that Futrelle later got this person banned from twitter... defensive much?

David The MRA

How About a Bookstore for Men and Adults?

	“	The one bookstore we do have, Women & Children First ["Breaking the Chains," June 4], is a decent place to turn if you want to stock up on Andrea Dworkin or pick up the latest issue of Bust, but pretty much useless if your tastes range beyond the limits of the store owners' admittedly specialized sensibilities. By campaigning against Borders, Women & Children First's owners are effectively declaring themselves antichoice, which strikes me (a lapsed feminist) as a teensy bit of an irony.	„
	—David Futrelle

Ironically, and to the surprise of fucking no one, much like a homophobic republican turning out to be gay, David was once one of those same MRA he now so passionately hates. You might have suspected this if you paid attention to his thoughts on rape previously mentioned in this article, but rest assured that was not an isolated incident.

Throughout the 90's, besides using his articles to promote child abuse, he used to write about how abuse victims are guilty of their own abuse and attack the writings of some of the most prominent and most crazy feminists out there, ones he would not dare criticize today.

A picture of Futrelle from back in his MRA days

"Gloria Steinem Is Psychobabble"

In yet another TL;DR article, titled Reading: The Feminine Mistake, this time from the year 1992, Fatrelle goes on how to explain how Gloria Steinem's Revolution From Within, is one of the worst things ever.

	“	Gloria Steinem's new book, Revolution From Within, was not merely bad but irredeemably bad	„
	—David Futrelle

Use scrollbar to see the full text

Unfortunately, Steinem's problems transcend her new-age literary eccentricity; her feminism, liver spots and all, has lost its way. Revolution From Within is a sprawling and surprisingly ambitious work, part autobiography, part self-help manual, part feminist manifesto....

The confusions in Revolution From Within go well beyond the central contradiction between feminist personal politics and Steinem's brand of self-help. She never clearly defines self-esteem, and it becomes a catchall for everything from individual self-doubt to vague all-encompassing notions such as national will. Even when she stays close to the personal, her concept of self-esteem is muddled...

The advice Steinem offers barely rises above the level of the most vapid self-help manuals, and her specific suggestions come in the form of cliches....

The book's forays into international politics are no less troubling--Steinem reduces history to the banalities of pop psychology....

Beyond this kind of historical naivete, Steinem offers vague suggestions to promote better worldwide living through self-esteem. Most of them sound like little more than politically correct versions of Robert Fulghum's kindergarten wisdom...

Steinem is no more successful at telling her own story than at explaining social theory...

Struggling through Steinem's clumsy psychobabble, I couldn't help but be reminded of another attempt to offer America a painless psychic salvation through individual self-redemption...

David Futrelle

Pro Porn And Against Andrea Dworkin

Not satisfied with attacking the #2 craziest old feminist, David went for the big boss. Before the internet, if you wanted to see tits, you had buy something called magazines, that had pictures of naked women. In a 1992 article Fatrelle utterly slams Dworkin and her opinions of these boobie books, which were probably the only source of joy in his life (if only the girls in them could be a bit younger, eh David?).

Use scrollbar to see the full text

The antipornography advocates are quick to exploit the equivocation of their opponents, defining porn in the broadest possible terms. Going beyond the extreme rhetoric of the early antipornography movement--"Pornography is the theory, rape is the practice"--Andrea Dworkin and MacKinnon have declared that pornography is itself rape. This is the central assertion (I hesitate to say argument) of Only Words. "Protecting pornography means protecting sexual abuse as speech," MacKinnon writes, "at the same time that both pornography and its expression have deprived women of speech, especially speech against sexual abuse."

She simply ignores the question of consent, implying that all pornographic sex (and perhaps most heterosexual intercourse) is somehow forced upon always unwilling, always female victims for the benefit of sadistic, always male victimizers. There are, of course, a few empirical problems with this dramatic assertion: a great deal of porn is designed for gay men and involves no women at all, women (straight and lesbian) consume plenty of porn, and some porn is explicitly egalitarian, produced by and for women. But there's a philosophical problem as well: MacKinnon looks upon female sexual desire with uncomprehending condescension, claiming that all expressions of consent in sex are so defiled by sexual inequality that they don't count as consent.

The assumptions underlying such a view--partially obscured by MacKinnon's deft, sweeping rhetoric--are startling. She rails, for example, at any depiction of "a penis ramming into a vagina." Unless one equates all heterosexual intercourse with rape, it's hard to imagine what's inherently awful about that. Her distrust of any expression of sexuality is almost palpable: "Once you are used for sex, you are sexualized," she writes. "You lose your human status." At least the Meese Commission on pornography was more open (and perhaps more honest) about its assumptions and its censorious ideology. According to the commission, any and all explicit depictions of sex are beyond the pale, even representations of sex that is "intervaginal and between two married adults who find mutual pleasure in it and for the sole purpose of procreation."

MacKinnon also obscures free-speech arguments by avoiding the difficult question of definition that has always been at the heart of the legal wrangles over pornography and censorship. She never clearly sets the boundaries between what is and what isn't porn, and she refers to everything as almost equally degrading, though she focuses mainly on the most graphic and most violent subsets of the genre. The legal definition of pornography she has promoted--"graphically sexually explicit materials that subordinate women through pictures or words"--is designed to run the gamut of the industry, "from Playboy, in which women are objectified and presented dehumanized as sexual objects or things for use; through the torture of women and the sexualization of racism and the fetishization of women's body parts; to snuff films, in which actual murder is the ultimate sexual act, the reduction to the thing form of a human being and the silence of women literal and complete." But what about, say, the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition? (It objectifies women.) What about the fashion photos in Vogue? (They objectify as well.) What about the lingerie section of the Sears catalog? One suspects that for MacKinnon everything is as nasty as she wants it to be.

But if she won't quite say what pornography is, she is willing to say what it is not: speech. She argues that while porn may contain ideas (the idea, for example, that women are designed to serve men sexually), it doesn't serve as a vehicle for the expression of ideas in any conventional sense. She then explains away this contradiction in a curiously circular fashion: she simply restates her premise in different words, arguing that porn "works . . . not as a thought or through its ideas as such, at least not in the ways thoughts and ideas are recognized as speech."

In short, porn is merely a stimulant for male erections, and erections are little more than stimulants for the abuse of women. It's not that men think with their dicks; it's that the possession of an erect penis makes thought irrelevant. MacKinnon quotes with obvious satisfaction an old Yiddish saying: "A stiff prick turns the mind to shit." The penis, she explains, "is not an organ of thought. . . . Having sex is antithetical to thinking." And since porn is nothing more than a primitive stimulus for primitive, vicious behavior, the First Amendment is irrelevant and the question of censorship merely a distraction. "An erection is neither a thought nor a feeling, but a behavior," she states, though she doesn't bother to elucidate the distinction she's drawing. "Pornography consumers are not consuming an idea any more than eating a loaf of bread is consuming the ideas on its wrapper or the ideas in its recipe."

In this view, the effect of pornography is easy enough to predict. Since all pornographic images--even soft-core Playboy centerfolds--not only reflect but are a kind of two-dimensional rape, the images of porn inevitably and inexorably lead men to commit rape in the real world. "Sooner or later, in one way or another, the consumers want to live out the fantasy in three dimensions," MacKinnon writes. "Sooner or later, in one way or another, they do." It's a remarkable display of rhetorical bravura--the phrases "sooner or later" and "in one way or another" qualify her statement to such a degree that it's nearly impossible to disprove. Yet the effect of the passage is to imply that all consumers of porn are compelled to rape--and that all who oppose her view are in a sense accessories to the crime.

MacKinnon is as sloppy with her evidence as she is with her assumptions. She claims a small stack of "scientific" surveys backs up her startling conclusions, but doesn't discuss the evidence she says is embedded in these reports or the methodologies of the research. We must take her word for it that science has concluded decisively that pornography "change[s] attitudes and impel[s] behavior in ways that are unique in their extent and devastating in their consequences." Curiously, she then goes on to argue that "there is no evidence that pornography does no harm; not even courts equivocate over its carnage anymore."

The courts may not "equivocate," but researchers certainly do: studies of the effects of pornography are far less decisive than MacKinnon claims. At worst the studies simply "prove" what the researchers thought all along; at best they're inconclusive. MacKinnon and her supporters can cite studies "proving" that porn inspires rape and abuse; their opponents can find studies that "prove" the opposite.

Arcand cites some studies that show that, far from being slaves to porn-induced madness, "violent rapists and pedophiles are not very fond of pornography" and find it embarrassing or upsetting rather than arousing. According to Leonore Tiefer, a psychologist who works with the National Coalition Against Censorship, women face more dangers from censorship than they do from pornography. "Pornography is about fantasy," she argued at a recent anticensorship conference. "Suppressing pornography will harm women struggling to develop their own sexualities, because history teaches us that any crackdown on sexuality always falls the hardest on the experimental and on women." However, this assertion is as unprovable as MacKinnon's.

As Gore Vidal has suggested, the only thing pornography is known to cause directly is "the solitary act of masturbation." And even this, he suggests, is not guaranteed: since people have different tastes, the same images may excite one person and bore another. To Vidal, this is all that can reasonably be said about the subject. "The worst that can be said of pornography is that it leads not to 'antisocial' sexual acts but to the reading of more pornography," he writes. "As for corruption, the only immediate victim is English prose."

David Futrelle

Why David was an MRA: A Year Of Despair As A Woman He Was Not Even In A Relationship With Dumps Him

How fucking hard can you get friendzoned, and then friendzoned so hard you are no longer even friends, because she finds you to be a fat ugly pervert? Not as hard as Fatrelle, no matter how hard you tried, that's how.

Yeah, just like getting a feminist girlfriend often turns faggots into feminist faggots, losing her sometimes turns them into MRAs.

A bit too knowledgeable on how to find porn on Newsgroups

	“	Smut--particularly of such a specialized nature--does not simply pop up on computer screens unannounced. First, you have to have the necessary software, and know how to use it. You have to realize that somewhere on the vast conglomeration of Usenet newsgroups there are pictures that can be downloaded. You have to wade through a list of up to 10,000 or so groups to find the right one. You have to be able to tell which posts in the group are pictures and which are not. You have to know how to download and decode the pictures you want, and how to view them. Even for those who know precisely what they want and how to get it, it's likely to take a lot longer than five minutes. The Net--and particularly the network of newsgroups known as Usenet--is unregulated, and largely unregulatable. As opponents of the Exon bill and similar legislation have made clear, there is software available that can keep children from accessing most online smut. And some online services already provide "parental filters" for concerned customers. Like most things involving computers, the filters are hardly foolproof. But, short of draconian regulations of speech, mass arrests, and the virtual dismantling or disabling of much the vast worldwide network, there is almost nothing that can be done to ensure that the Net remain always and forever free of improper images and words. Free speech may not always be pretty, but the alternative is much less pretty indeed.	„
	—https://web.archive.org/web/20050212171444/http://www.well.com/user/futrelle/gerch.html, David Futrelle

What sick shit were you search for, David?

Predrawn.com

Before Fatrelle dabbled in pseudo-intellectual ramblings about how much he hates everything that has a penis, he tried his luck at making funny comics, that were simply just e-cards where he removed the color and inserted hilarious text instead (basically "Married to the Sea" but even less funny). These range from being mundane to sexist to being just baffling, all carrying the same seal of shit that one could expect from Fatrolle.

Modern Day

Defending A Homophobe

Because this white guilt ridden troglodyte needs to get rid of all his Liberal Butthurt Syndrome by stroking his ego over younger people at least 3 times a day, he never has time to do any research. So when he saw a tweet one day from Richard Dawkins that was linking to a video made by SyeTenAtheist on Sargon of Akkad's YouTube channel, and that this video was making fun of not only feminists but Muslims as well, David leaped into action and had already written a blog about how the video was totally unfair or something before he even finished watching it.

The video that made David's panties sour

Yes, while this white knight probably accurately recognized Big Red in this video, he actually thought the other cartoon was based on all Mudslimes because I guess they all look alike to him. In actuality, the person in question being depicted was "Dawah Man", another infamous youtube sensation with some interesting views on homosexuality.

	“	It’s not something you were born with, the same way a person who’s sick, we’re all born healthy but then you get an illness so you take the treatment to get rid of not only the symptoms, but the disease...Homosexuality, sodomy, is an act that in the sharia… comes under the category of ‘obscene, filthy, shameless’ acts.	„
	—Homophobe defended by Futrelle

Unwilling to admit his mistake, Futrelle still defends this "person".

Apologist For Amy Schumer

Who would sleep with this sober?

Last Thursday Amy Schumer gave a speech during the Gloria Awards and Gala, a circle-jerk for women to celebrate other women because they also have vaginas. Here she told the story of a man who was too drunk to go down on her. Since you'd have to be completely fucking smashed to even consider touching that she-hulk, let alone eat her out like she eats cake, Amy did what any college sexual predator would do and raped him. The guy was so fucking drunk that she was able to take advantage of him by shoving her ham sandwich in his face while he was nearly passed out instead of just saying no like any responsible person would.

Futrelle responded to this by mounting an incompetent defence commonly used by rapists in saying that even though the guy was drunk, he obviously wanted it. I guess affirmative, verbal consent doesn't matter is you're a feminist or raping a man. Or maybe it's just that David believes that men being raped isn't really rape.

Fatrelle attacks feminist film maker

Fatrelle is as opposed to being challenged on his bigoted worldview as he is to exercise and a healthy diet, so when feminist Cassie Jaye wanted to do an objective documentary (You know, actual journalism, instead of just writing a LiveJournal about how much you hate men) David went ape-shit.

It all started when award winning, pro-gay, pro-feminist director Cassie Jay decided to make a movie about MRAs. However, when her usual sponsors wouldn't front her the money unless she promises to make it a hit piece, Jaye was forced to go to KickStarter. Here is where David comes in. During her research, David was suggested to her as an interviewee to counterpoint the MRAs, but when he realized this isn't going to be the propaganda film he wanted, David decided to "convince" her with dossier of out-of-context posts from r/TheRedPill, which he assured her are far superior as insight into the MRA community than her 2+ years of research and over 100 hours worth of recorded interviews. When this failed, David followed up with a vaguely threatening email (this would not be the first person he implicitly threatened), trying to change her mind.

How can you say no to this face?

But the plot thickened as, just as it seemed that the project would not get funded, Milo Yiannopoulos stepped in to write an article about it, causing the project to get more than twice the intended in mere days, with the help of angry MRAs, funding it just to spite the feminists. Unhappy with this project being funded and with the help of the GamerGate faggot he hates most, and wielding the lowest standard for evidence known to man, Futrelle launched a personal attack against Jaye, accusing her of being a shill for the MRAs (they have no actual control over her or her film once she already has their money) and accusing her of faking her awards because he confused it with a separate film festivals and then attempted to paint his own ignorance as a deliberate attempt to mislead him (not the first time this has happened).

All-in-all, his actions were only successful in causing more drama that only helped her get Jaye's funding, while simultaneously making this feminist hate other feminists, thereby making sure that what might have been a fair and balanced movie will now skew in favor of the MRA's he is trying to destroy.

Bravo.

We Hunted the Mammoth

The Site

I think this speaks for itself

Mistakenly believing that his piss poor excuse for a journalism career would lend credibility to his shitty site, Futrelle did quite the opposite and chained himself to what amounts to a single topic blog as he destroyed every trace of his credibility by running it for the past six years.

The site itself is a collection of poorly worded hit-pieces, akin to TheRalphRetort with only the authors being one another's (equally retarded) mirror image, that deals with forcefully trying to turn non-events in the ManOSphere into 4 paragraph articles twice a day to squeeze out some measly ad revenue so Futrelle can continue to feed himself and his cats without having to go outside. The content consists of mostly taking single, out of context screencaps of stupid shit men's rights activists say on what is the reddit version of /pol/ and r9k combined, and using them as sweeping indictments of entire groups who don't actually use those sites and people who are not even related to the picture in question but David is still mad at because his countless attack articles have yet to harm them. WHTM logic seems to be:

Guy on Return of Kings said a rape case was fake > Therefore he thinks all rape accusations are fake > He's a rapist > All MRAs are rapists > That dude who runs A Voice For Men who I really hate is a rapist

When he can't find something crazy enough or, since there is no way you won't find a crazy enough post to laugh at on r/theredpill if you are willing to invest more than a minute of your time, when he is just too lazy to look, Futrelle seizes literally the first post he sees and makes leaps of logic so epic it is as if he's superman and reading comprehension is a tall building. At time of writing, the most recent article on WHTM is one where someone complaining that merely thinking a woman is attractive is akin to sexual harassment, is taken to mean by David as "Why won't women just let me rape them?". The second article asserts in the first paragraph that the wage gap is real and cites a 2012 "news" article the sources of which are:

A bunch of dead links
A study that concludes it has no proof the gender earnings gap can be attributed to sexism in its first paragraph

David gets into a battle of wits with Milo Yiannopoulos, but has seemingly come unarmed

3. AND A FUCKING JEZEBEL ARTICLE!

Gosh, it's almost as if David linked the first article he found on google that agreed with his opinion and took everything it said as gospel truth without checking any of the sources. The third article on the front page right now is an attack on his new arch nemesis Sargon of Akkad, saying him responding to a random EDL protester saying he likes his videos by claiming he doesn't know if they are really the hate group SJWs paint them as is a lie, then trying to prove they are by adding a video of them protesting and a video of an 18 year old EDL member that he found on our EDL article trying to explain his views, with the subtle implication being he must be a dumb racist because he has a silly poor people accent (classist much, David?). He then goes off on a tangent about how Sargon exposed him in a previous video as lying about social justice departments in schools not being real (Sargon never mentioned him, this is just David's own guilt shining through) by saying he didn't know they were real (funny, a moment ago not knowing something was the same as lying). The article ends with him accusing Sargon of hating trannys because he quoted a paediatrician that one propaganda site with a news-ish sounding name quoted another propaganda site with a science-ish sounding name in saying he's not a real paediatrician.

To be extra clear, unlike David, there was no need for us to quote mine him. These are literally the three most recent articles he wrote. These sum up WHTM pretty adequately: out of context quote mining of random fanatics to prove accusations of guilt by association and guilt by association with the guilty by association of people David has a personal vendetta against, supported by disreputable sources, disreputable sources quoting other disreputable sources, no sources at all and outright lies, all in the service of creating a moral panic to incite his readers to attack those he dislikes, followed by double standard special pleading when he or feminists in general do what he accuses MRAs of doing to him or others.

As for the tone of the articles, that usually depends on how things are going in relation to what he's talking about and goes as such:

Stupid anti-feminist initiative that is obviously doomed to fail is initiated: David smugly (but rightly) mocks it.

Stupid anti-feminist initiative that is obviously doomed to fail fails: David does a celebratory victory ~~lap~~ fap, excited over something that amounts to taking candy from a baby with downs syndrome.

Stupid anti-feminist initiative seems to be gaining traction: David nervously attempts to convince his readers, but mostly himself, that there is no chance of it succeeding.

A blow is struck against feminism: David desperately attempts to convince his readers, but (again) mostly himself, that this is either meaningless or will soon be overturned.

Massive blow is struck against feminism: All false pretenses of aloofness are dropped, as Futrelle devolves into angry rants and pre-K level insult hurling.

E-begging (using Elliot Rodger and a plane crash)

This isn't ironic. This is how Manboobz begs his readers for money because they really are that stupid.

But what would a faux-outrage blog be without a transparent attempt to profit? As David doesn't have anything even resembling a real job, he is reduced to some of the most pathetic internet panhandling seen online, constantly pleading with his readership for more handouts so that he doesn't have to go out and look for work. In fact, after Elliot Rodger did the right thing, Fatrelle didn't even fucking wait until the bodies were cold before using the tragedy to beg for money. And when a plane was hijacked and crashed, killing 150 people and two babies, David did it again, blaming the plane crash on MRAs.

The Community

Since Futrelle is hated by everyone from the far-right MRA's he obsesses over to anyone that doesn't occupy the outermost left of the political spectrum on one side for being a crazy, dishonest hypocrite, and besieged by those same SJWs he aims to please on the other for being a white guy that doesn't want to suck a dick or chop off his own dick, this leaves his options for a reading audience confined to a small group of obsessive sycophants who have haled up in his comment section and turned it into something akin to a circlejerk in a mental asylum.

Sexual deviants with rape fetishes

David believes you have his stapler

The first prominent group you will find on David's comment section are people who want to rape women, not because they're misogynists, but because they're feminists.

While the WHTM code of conduct says Futrelle will ban any "crazy" people who voice violent, anti feminist views on his site, he lets it slide when members of his own fanbase expose the fact that they are sadistic genocide advocating rad-fems who fantasize about crucifying women and other sick shit. A notable instance of his insane fanbase is when back in 2011 some guy calling himself AgentOrange infiltrated a secret RadFem forum and took screencaps of the things they talk about which he then published. The caps contained posts of them talking about killing, torturing and genocideing the entire male population. When this was made public, who but David Futrelle jumped to their defence, claiming all of these pictures were taken out of context. David was quick to recognize this tactic since it accounts for 90% of the content on his blog, but failed to mention that the context was fully visible, as someone soon demonstrated just to prove Futrelle is lying.

This time, David's pathetic obfuscation can be attributed to more than just his tribalistic instinct to refuse admitting feminists can do wrong. No, this time it was personal. as it turns out, high profile figures on the exposed site not only read and comment on David's blog, but even run their own creepy MRA stalking sites where they regularly quote Futrelle.

This relationship is mutually beneficial because, just as David defends crazy feminazis, the feminazis defend him right back by doxing and threatening to murder his opposition. Which leads us to our next section...

Stalking sociopaths

That's a good question.

David is no stranger to threats of violence (making, not receiving). From his implicit threats against Jaye, to his blogs' hysterical tone that seems to try to convince his readers that the MRA's are going to kill them if they don't get them first.

It's no wonder that with his constant "I'm not saying we should kill MGTOW, but it sure would be nice if they were dead" articles, and with a readership consisting of feminists and perverts who both share violent fantasies, it was only a matter of time before his readers started getting the hint and taking matters into their own hands.

Escalating from their usual anonymous threats of violence, David's readers doxed one of his female critics as he flaccidly condemned their actions, trying to hide his glee. As previously hinted, one of the doxers was none other than one of those same genocidal radfems he was previously covering for, and the second one was a regular on his comment section who, in so many words, threatened to either get his critic's husband fired or kill her children. However, feminists are as incompetent as they are stupid, so not only were the dox wrong, the second woman forgot to mask her own identity and was herself doxed by her victim.

But they weren't done embarrassing themselves yet, because next they decided to threaten the children of one of the fucking retards who writes for AVFM, whom David has spent the past few years painting as serial killers when in reality, most MRAs are simply pathetic basement dwelling fatties who do nothing but whine about women not fucking them and masturbate to anime porn all day.

Use scrollbar to see the full image

The writer refused and Futrelle offered another reluctant denouncement before unironically continuing to write articles about how thunderf00t is guilty for Anita Sarkeesian getting death threats because his criticism of her is too inflammatory and his fans too crazy.

Is David Futrelle Just Like Luka Magnotta?

The answer Is Yes

Both of these sick fucks have an unhealthy obsession with cats. Neither has been with a woman. Looking at the picture below it is quite clear that David has a lot of victims buried under the floor in his mom's basement.