Anonymous A started this discussion 1 year ago#117,782
I guess in America, peaceful protests are now forbidden. Probably to protect the Elite's fragile egos. Notice how anything that comes out that criticizes a rapist, pedophile, racist, narcissist, or genocidist immediately gets seen as a threat? Homosexuals have been the ultimate threat to the pedophile exists which is why they so desperately try to walk among them or reject them when they get rejected?
There reason why the #MeToo movement got so much controversy was because women finally banded together to say enough is enough and it's time for a change. Men are the biggest whores in history.
Even gun control laws are ways of ensuring that the lower classes are controlled. Noticed the rising costs of owning a gun plus the various hoops you have to jump through just to register one? It's like they are purposely price gauging so that the poor can't have access to them. Especially those who are black or brown. If the state police can have guns and the population can't. It makes it easier to enforce their will.
Disabled people across America also lost access to healthcare while at the same time CO2 chambers were passed in Congress. Sounds like some eugenicist bullshit to me. Not surprising considering who we almost aligned with if the Hindenburg never blew up.
But you toothless hillbillies keep pretending like somehow America doesn't have a lot of problems.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,295,747
> Elite's
elites'* > exists
elites* > There reason
The reason* > price gauging
gouging* > If the state police can have guns and the population can't. It makes it easier to enforce their will.
Why do you end sentences like this, Catherine?
Anonymous H replied with this 1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,295,773
@previous (I)
We owe nothing to you people. You literally scream at us for merely existing in public. And it has nothing to do with behavior. You hate the concept of us.
> We owe nothing to you people. You literally scream at us for merely existing in public. And it has nothing to do with behavior. You hate the concept of us.
By your logic this would make the 1st, 2nd and 3rd amendment of a countries constitution invalid because it hurt a minority.
You broke the law, and the police came. Don't whine about free speech when your free speech was never infringed. it makes it look like you don't understand why the arrests are actually happening
Anonymous H replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,295,793
@previous (I)
That's their narrative and you fell for it hook line and sinker. We've broken no laws. @1,295,775 (J)
All we're doing is fighting fire with fire.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 1 day later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,296,221
@1,295,751 (F)
No, like this: > If the state police can have guns and the population can't. It makes it easier to enforce their will.
This is an abomination.
> There reason why the #MeToo movement got so much controversy was because women finally banded together to say enough is enough and it's time for a change. Men are the biggest whores in history.
#MeToo was controversial because they couldn't explain what they wanted to change.
Obviously less sexual assault is the goal, but how would that be achieved?
They refused to elaborate, and the few that did were calling for an end to due process summed up with "believe women".
Saying out loud that you want a presumption of guilt sounds bad so they were always refusing to seriously engage with the discussion, and ended up giving up any real political movement when their vague demands weren't met.
Like I said, this wasn't a movement that ever wanted to engage in serious accountable discussion.
When a million people say this on social media, on campuses, and in private conversations at home they never have to worry about being quoted.
Any movement that acts like this, unable to put forward leaders who can represent them, is doing so because they have no concrete demands and no good justification for what they actually want.
If you say "believe women" you're calling for people to prejudge a situation, which is how all members of that movement behaved. They decided who was telling the truth and who was lying even before they knew any details about a case, even when there was no way they could ever know.
Saying "rape is hard to prove" is a tacit way of communicating that you don't believe the burden of proof should be a barrier, and that line was said over and over during the height of metoo.
No concrete demands means they would never agree someone was their representative, and then have that person say it clearly to the public. They can't do that, because like all leftist positions, it's not something that was devised on rational principles that they believe will stand up to the scrutiny of a calm public conversation. So instead it's just a lot of random people who conveniently the movement is never accountable for, and they all say it in various ways.
Anonymous I replied with this 1 year ago, 11 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,296,254
@previous (K)
And the reforms the mob wanted wasn't "let people report crimes". They wanted the accusations to be immediately believed, and they wanted politicized courts to lynch whoever they brought them.
Reporting crimes existed before MeToo, and when women started reporting rapes the mob wasn't satisfied. Twitter and Reddit were full of people saying the courts needed to punish the accused even when there was no proof of a crime, and many of the people demanding this were openly admitting rape was impossible to prove. They never said "get rid of due process" but that was the demand they were describing.
Same shit was going on at campuses, and anyone who left their house and talked to women would have heard the same lines repeated over and over. The moment anyone ever said "how can you punish someone without proof?" they were labeled a rape apologist.
Anonymous I replied with this 1 year ago, 24 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,296,256
@previous (K)
Yes, and since you're about to ask me for threads: it was 7 years ago, and this conversation was happening across many threads on many subs. Twitter would be even harder to show because of how that site operates.
Meaning the decentralized nature of the movement works as intended, because there are no representatives that can be quoted, no public debates to cite.
If you could find a large general discussion about the #MeToo movement from '17 or '18 on Reddit we could pick through that.