Topic: I can't take anyone seriously who complains about "woke culture" or "woke propaganda"
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 year ago #118,050
It's a made up boogeyman that lets straight white people feel victimized and thus justified in their backwards, regressive world views
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 23 minutes later[^] [v] #1,298,055
How the fuck do weird people feel victimized by wokeness? Do you mean the white people complaining about wokeness? Like the MAGA fag boys?
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,057
Meh, it's a cruel world and I have no hard time seeing imagining anyone get victimized by anything. However that's not to say that I'm not aware of the type you described.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 59 seconds later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,058
@1,298,055 (B)
It isn't just the MAGA crowd. There has been an increase of popularity in pseudo intellectual podcasters who platform right wing ideas while maintaining the guise of being "in the middle" or "apolitical," giving such ideas a new audience to spread to.
It isn't just the MAGA crowd. There has been an increase of popularity in pseudo intellectual podcasters who platform right wing ideas while maintaining the guise of being "in the middle" or "apolitical," giving such ideas a new audience to spread to.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 43 seconds later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,059
Learning history is a necessary part of life, even if it shows white people in a bad light.
Democrats have gone a lot farther than that and make everything about how much they hate white men. That's going to cause a reaction where people get annoyed by it.
Democrats have gone a lot farther than that and make everything about how much they hate white men. That's going to cause a reaction where people get annoyed by it.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,060
I think it's dangerous that you think that, in reality there is an anti-white agenda in certain countries and it's all the fault of the fucking blacks and browns
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,061
@1,298,058 (A)
They are the middle. Those people are almost never Christian or Dixie or far right republicans.
The left has alienated regular people with their platform.
The far right doesn't try to form a dialogue and raise their concerns, and they don't spend their time mingling with media figures and academics.
They are the middle. Those people are almost never Christian or Dixie or far right republicans.
The left has alienated regular people with their platform.
The far right doesn't try to form a dialogue and raise their concerns, and they don't spend their time mingling with media figures and academics.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 17 minutes later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,063
@1,298,055 (B)
> How the fuck do weird people feel victimized by wokeness? Do you mean the white people complaining about wokeness? Like the MAGA fag boys?
they dont know what "Woke" is because its something they made up to be outraged about
> How the fuck do weird people feel victimized by wokeness? Do you mean the white people complaining about wokeness? Like the MAGA fag boys?
they dont know what "Woke" is because its something they made up to be outraged about
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 55 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,064
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,066
@1,298,059 (D)
Promoting equal treatment of non whites does equate to hating whites.
@1,298,060 (E)
What countries? I'm primarily speaking of the west, and the US in particular as it is where I am from.
@1,298,061 (D)
I doubt them being middle based on the guests and topics of conversation, which tend to veer into right wing territory. At best, they are in the middle and are just ignorant of the harm their giving platform to these ideas can pose. I think it's more likely they are using their shows as a way to ease people into the right wing sphere of influence.
Promoting equal treatment of non whites does equate to hating whites.
@1,298,060 (E)
What countries? I'm primarily speaking of the west, and the US in particular as it is where I am from.
@1,298,061 (D)
I doubt them being middle based on the guests and topics of conversation, which tend to veer into right wing territory. At best, they are in the middle and are just ignorant of the harm their giving platform to these ideas can pose. I think it's more likely they are using their shows as a way to ease people into the right wing sphere of influence.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,068
@1,298,064 (D)
> It was a word the left made up, even if they've stopped using it now.
no it wasn't, it was always a buzzword used by right wing jackoffs
> It was a word the left made up, even if they've stopped using it now.
no it wasn't, it was always a buzzword used by right wing jackoffs
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 25 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,069
@1,298,066 (A)
Many white countries have fifth column race traitors within them and it's usually pro-tranny pro-lgb pro-bixnood leftists
Many white countries have fifth column race traitors within them and it's usually pro-tranny pro-lgb pro-bixnood leftists
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,078
@previous (E)
What countries?
@1,298,068 (F)
A long time ago it was used by the black community to mean someone who is aware of the discrimination they face. It eventually morphed to encompass a much wider array of social issues, and then of course later distorted by bad actors in an effort delegitimize advocating for anyone who isn't a straight white christian male.
What countries?
@1,298,068 (F)
A long time ago it was used by the black community to mean someone who is aware of the discrimination they face. It eventually morphed to encompass a much wider array of social issues, and then of course later distorted by bad actors in an effort delegitimize advocating for anyone who isn't a straight white christian male.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 15 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,080
@1,298,063 (F)
> Promoting equal treatment of non whites does equate to hating whites.
Nice strawman, but the actual argument was that making everything about identity politics will get this reaction.
I even said it's important to teach those parts of history.
@1,298,068 (F)
It was a leftist phrase first, then right wingers started using it, and kept doing so after leftists dropped it.
> Promoting equal treatment of non whites does equate to hating whites.
Nice strawman, but the actual argument was that making everything about identity politics will get this reaction.
I even said it's important to teach those parts of history.
@1,298,068 (F)
It was a leftist phrase first, then right wingers started using it, and kept doing so after leftists dropped it.
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
Anonymous D double-posted this 1 year ago, 46 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,081
@1,298,078 (A)
> A long time ago it was used by the black community to mean someone who is aware of the discrimination they face. It eventually morphed to encompass a much wider array of social issues, and then of course later distorted by bad actors in an effort delegitimize advocating for anyone who isn't a straight white christian male.
Revisionism is a core part of leftism.
Every leftist movement, after it fails, is followed by a denial they ever did it.
> A long time ago it was used by the black community to mean someone who is aware of the discrimination they face. It eventually morphed to encompass a much wider array of social issues, and then of course later distorted by bad actors in an effort delegitimize advocating for anyone who isn't a straight white christian male.
Revisionism is a core part of leftism.
Every leftist movement, after it fails, is followed by a denial they ever did it.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 28 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,084
@1,298,080 (D)
Who are the ones making everything about identity politics again? The ones saying to let people be people and coexist or the ones crying about it?
@previous (D)
Not sure of the relevance, but do give some examples.
Who are the ones making everything about identity politics again? The ones saying to let people be people and coexist or the ones crying about it?
@previous (D)
Not sure of the relevance, but do give some examples.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 40 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,085
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,086
@previous (G)
Communism as an academic concept is pretty different from how it has been implemented in authoritarian regimes throughout history.
Communism as an academic concept is pretty different from how it has been implemented in authoritarian regimes throughout history.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 33 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,087
@1,298,066 (A)
> Promoting equal treatment of non whites does equate to hating whites.
...
> affirmative action, the only irrevocably racist law present, still exists; which almost exclusively harms whites. Which no "anti-racist activist" cares about being the self awareness lacking ilk that they are.
> mass immigration from the non-white countries to all white countries that international bodies (the UN) mandate, and within those countries relocation assistance provided by the national government which inevitably is funded by their tax dollars.
> welfare and social security programs given to these people, also funded by there tax dollars; which itself is done by the government to essentially buy votes (refer to any demographic voting statistics provided by the same bodies you use to trust the vote)
> countless charities which many white citizens donate to with the sole service of giving further aid to third-world countries, many exclusive scholarships for "marginalized groups"
> All mass media and 70% of the film industry, and companies favor these people whenever any movement or event related to them occurs.
Yeah, totally equal footing here lol. It's made even more funny when you consider that all of the above is executed primarily by whites themselves.
If you are to rebuke with the gap in socioeconomic status they still have in spite of the above as to suggest it justifies it or indicates otherwise then in the case of...:
> the former
you admit that you're essentially a commie-to-be (i.e you think that unless everyone has extremely similar wealth, redistribution to those that dont is justified regardless of its effectively discriminatory).
> the latter
you admit that you're a religious hypocrite as you implicitly suggest that, given your belief of equality, that the only reason they could be poorer than us is the result of our maltreatment which itself is the reason they need all these contemporary benefits. i.e if these benefits werent in place they couldn't possibly be equal cause whites are racist.
If you are to suggest that the present discrepancy is a result of colonial stuff you'll have to answer why this doesn't consistently apply given the state of South-East-Asians despite having an even longer history with colonialism than the other groups.
> Promoting equal treatment of non whites does equate to hating whites.
...
> affirmative action, the only irrevocably racist law present, still exists; which almost exclusively harms whites. Which no "anti-racist activist" cares about being the self awareness lacking ilk that they are.
> mass immigration from the non-white countries to all white countries that international bodies (the UN) mandate, and within those countries relocation assistance provided by the national government which inevitably is funded by their tax dollars.
> welfare and social security programs given to these people, also funded by there tax dollars; which itself is done by the government to essentially buy votes (refer to any demographic voting statistics provided by the same bodies you use to trust the vote)
> countless charities which many white citizens donate to with the sole service of giving further aid to third-world countries, many exclusive scholarships for "marginalized groups"
> All mass media and 70% of the film industry, and companies favor these people whenever any movement or event related to them occurs.
Yeah, totally equal footing here lol. It's made even more funny when you consider that all of the above is executed primarily by whites themselves.
If you are to rebuke with the gap in socioeconomic status they still have in spite of the above as to suggest it justifies it or indicates otherwise then in the case of...:
> the former
you admit that you're essentially a commie-to-be (i.e you think that unless everyone has extremely similar wealth, redistribution to those that dont is justified regardless of its effectively discriminatory).
> the latter
you admit that you're a religious hypocrite as you implicitly suggest that, given your belief of equality, that the only reason they could be poorer than us is the result of our maltreatment which itself is the reason they need all these contemporary benefits. i.e if these benefits werent in place they couldn't possibly be equal cause whites are racist.
If you are to suggest that the present discrepancy is a result of colonial stuff you'll have to answer why this doesn't consistently apply given the state of South-East-Asians despite having an even longer history with colonialism than the other groups.
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 15 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,088
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 43 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,092
@1,298,084 (A)
> Who are the ones making everything about identity politics again?
The left
> The ones saying to let people be people
That's a meaningless tautology. Why are the left always averse to concrete definitions and meaningful propositions?
>
>
> Not sure of the relevance, but do give some examples.
Pretending the right made up the word woke. Any example of the right using it can be refuted with the left using it unironically earlier.
> Who are the ones making everything about identity politics again?
The left
> The ones saying to let people be people
That's a meaningless tautology. Why are the left always averse to concrete definitions and meaningful propositions?
>
>
> Not sure of the relevance, but do give some examples.
Pretending the right made up the word woke. Any example of the right using it can be refuted with the left using it unironically earlier.
(Edited 8 seconds later.)
boof joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 49 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,093
where did this fuckin 20-reply thread suddenly come from
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,100
@1,298,087 (H)
The first part of your post seems to indicate an opinion that we shouldn't help non-whites live better lives just because they aren't white, which is of course absurd. The only partially valid point brought up is affirmative action, which I do think is akin to putting a bandaid on a broken bone, but to suggest that it has the express goal of harming white people is disingenuous.
> you admit that you're essentially a commie-to-be (i.e you think that unless everyone has extremely similar wealth, redistribution to those that dont is justified regardless of its effectively discriminatory).
Equality is hardly an idea specific to communism. We should be trying to ensure that every person has the same opportunities to succeed, regardless of their skin color, where they were born, their sexuality, their religious beliefs, how much money their family has, etc. Isn't that what the "American dream" is supposed to be all about?
> you admit that you're a religious hypocrite
I'm not following how religion has played into the discussion in this way.
> i.e if these benefits werent in place they couldn't possibly be equal cause whites are racist
It's not that it's an inherent quality of whites to be racist, obviously. It's not an inherent quality in any person to be racist. Racism primarily exists as a means of control (a ruling group subjugating a perceived "lesser" group, whether formally through policy or socially) or as a means to allow an individual to feel good about themselves without effort (in that they are inherently "good" due to being of the "superior" group).
> If you are to suggest that the present discrepancy is a result of colonial stuff you'll have to answer why this doesn't consistently apply given the state of South-East-Asians despite having an even longer history with colonialism than the other groups.
I don't know what's going on in Southeast Asian countries, but it's silly to think that just because one group is affected a particular way by some action, that all groups must be affected the same way by similar actions.
@1,298,092 (D)
> Why are the left always averse to concrete definitions and meaningful propositions?
Very few things in life are concrete, no matter how comforting it may be to pretend otherwise. What sort of meaningful propositions are you referring to?
> Pretending the right made up the word woke. Any example of the right using it can be refuted with the left using it unironically earlier.
The origin of the word is very well known. Don't take the mistake of one anon in this thread as some kind of indicator of what people in general believe.
The first part of your post seems to indicate an opinion that we shouldn't help non-whites live better lives just because they aren't white, which is of course absurd. The only partially valid point brought up is affirmative action, which I do think is akin to putting a bandaid on a broken bone, but to suggest that it has the express goal of harming white people is disingenuous.
> you admit that you're essentially a commie-to-be (i.e you think that unless everyone has extremely similar wealth, redistribution to those that dont is justified regardless of its effectively discriminatory).
Equality is hardly an idea specific to communism. We should be trying to ensure that every person has the same opportunities to succeed, regardless of their skin color, where they were born, their sexuality, their religious beliefs, how much money their family has, etc. Isn't that what the "American dream" is supposed to be all about?
> you admit that you're a religious hypocrite
I'm not following how religion has played into the discussion in this way.
> i.e if these benefits werent in place they couldn't possibly be equal cause whites are racist
It's not that it's an inherent quality of whites to be racist, obviously. It's not an inherent quality in any person to be racist. Racism primarily exists as a means of control (a ruling group subjugating a perceived "lesser" group, whether formally through policy or socially) or as a means to allow an individual to feel good about themselves without effort (in that they are inherently "good" due to being of the "superior" group).
> If you are to suggest that the present discrepancy is a result of colonial stuff you'll have to answer why this doesn't consistently apply given the state of South-East-Asians despite having an even longer history with colonialism than the other groups.
I don't know what's going on in Southeast Asian countries, but it's silly to think that just because one group is affected a particular way by some action, that all groups must be affected the same way by similar actions.
@1,298,092 (D)
> Why are the left always averse to concrete definitions and meaningful propositions?
Very few things in life are concrete, no matter how comforting it may be to pretend otherwise. What sort of meaningful propositions are you referring to?
> Pretending the right made up the word woke. Any example of the right using it can be refuted with the left using it unironically earlier.
The origin of the word is very well known. Don't take the mistake of one anon in this thread as some kind of indicator of what people in general believe.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,104
@previous (A)
Saying "let people be people" doesn't mean anything, it's one of the many platitudes the left throws out to distort the truth.
The point of a statement like that is to have no meaning.
Saying "let people be people" doesn't mean anything, it's one of the many platitudes the left throws out to distort the truth.
The point of a statement like that is to have no meaning.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 46 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,106
> there's no propaganda, it's just the white devil being rude
> JUST LET PEOPLE BE PEOPLE THATS ALL WE SAY DURR
> JUST LET PEOPLE BE PEOPLE THATS ALL WE SAY DURR
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 8 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,137
Anonymous B double-posted this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,138
@1,298,058 (A)
All while not wanting to admit that Arabic societies are going to one day surpass their own. Saudi fucking Arabia has Universal Healthcare while the United States still hasn't come to terms with that yet or why having healthy citizens/employees are important. The only thing these Arabic societies need to realize now is that the biggest threat to their faith isn't the gays or the trannies, it's actually the country (or countries) they ally with. They also have to lay off women too. Once they get past that then they could be that shining beacon on a hilltop they are now trying to present themselves as. Also, they don't reward stupidity, unlike the U.S. does.
All while not wanting to admit that Arabic societies are going to one day surpass their own. Saudi fucking Arabia has Universal Healthcare while the United States still hasn't come to terms with that yet or why having healthy citizens/employees are important. The only thing these Arabic societies need to realize now is that the biggest threat to their faith isn't the gays or the trannies, it's actually the country (or countries) they ally with. They also have to lay off women too. Once they get past that then they could be that shining beacon on a hilltop they are now trying to present themselves as. Also, they don't reward stupidity, unlike the U.S. does.
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 14 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,140
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,142
@1,298,138 (B)
What do you mean they don't reward stupidity?
You're MASIVELY downplaying how badly they treat women and the lgbt community
What do you mean they don't reward stupidity?
You're MASIVELY downplaying how badly they treat women and the lgbt community
(Edited 37 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,144
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
I've known women from that country and one of them came out to me as a trans man. They're not as bad as the United States in how women get treated.
I've known women from that country and one of them came out to me as a trans man. They're not as bad as the United States in how women get treated.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,145
@previous (B)
This is absolutely not true
Fuck you, Catherine
I fucking hate how you lick the asses of Saudi pricks. It makes it seem like you are not an ally to cis women at all, because you act like the mistreatment of cis women is just a small blip that needs to be cleared up to attain utopia
This is absolutely not true
Fuck you, Catherine
I fucking hate how you lick the asses of Saudi pricks. It makes it seem like you are not an ally to cis women at all, because you act like the mistreatment of cis women is just a small blip that needs to be cleared up to attain utopia
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 51 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,147
@1,298,104 (D)
It absolutely means something. Demonizing someone because they're black, or muslim, or gay, or trans, or any sort of "other" instead of just letting them be and coexisting, is not letting people be people. Stop being purposefully dense.
@1,298,106 (E)
Are you familiar with the idea of the paradox of tolerance?
@1,298,144 (B)
That's certainly an interesting take. I'm curious to know specifically why you feel women are treated better there than in the US.
It absolutely means something. Demonizing someone because they're black, or muslim, or gay, or trans, or any sort of "other" instead of just letting them be and coexisting, is not letting people be people. Stop being purposefully dense.
@1,298,106 (E)
Are you familiar with the idea of the paradox of tolerance?
@1,298,144 (B)
That's certainly an interesting take. I'm curious to know specifically why you feel women are treated better there than in the US.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 11 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,148
The right are generally the ones who want to control everyone else and punish people who are not exactly like them (straight, religious, uneducated, white males AND rich white males in power).
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,150
@1,298,138 (B)
Most gulf countries have high standards of living because they import indentured servants/slave labor to do menial and household tasks. The average life of a Saudi citizen is good because the average life of an underclass laborer there is horrendous. It's also just like insane to say women in Saudi Arabia are treated better than women in the West???
Most gulf countries have high standards of living because they import indentured servants/slave labor to do menial and household tasks. The average life of a Saudi citizen is good because the average life of an underclass laborer there is horrendous. It's also just like insane to say women in Saudi Arabia are treated better than women in the West???
(Edited 43 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,173
@1,298,147 (A)
Please, tell me about the paradox of tolerance. I'm so curious to hear how you misunderstood it.
Please, tell me about the paradox of tolerance. I'm so curious to hear how you misunderstood it.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 21 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,182
@previous (E)
It's a very simple idea. A society that is tolerant of the intolerant ceases to be tolerant.
Coddling intolerant people in an effort to be tolerant of all opinions and beliefs only allows those intolerant ideas to spread and fester. Racists, homophobes, etc like to whine and cry when people rightfully call them out on their bullshit opinions. "So much for the tolerant left," they say, as if they are making a point on some inherent hypocrisy of tolerance.
It's a very simple idea. A society that is tolerant of the intolerant ceases to be tolerant.
Coddling intolerant people in an effort to be tolerant of all opinions and beliefs only allows those intolerant ideas to spread and fester. Racists, homophobes, etc like to whine and cry when people rightfully call them out on their bullshit opinions. "So much for the tolerant left," they say, as if they are making a point on some inherent hypocrisy of tolerance.
tteh !MemesToDNA joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 15 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,184
@1,298,138 (B)
Saudi Arabia is an oil-rich country with a very poorly diversified economy that relies on modern slavery.
Saudi Arabia is an oil-rich country with a very poorly diversified economy that relies on modern slavery.
tteh !MemesToDNA double-posted this 1 year ago, 20 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,185
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,186
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 year ago, 24 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,189
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,190
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 15 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,191
@1,298,147 (A)
If someone thinks that a behavior or lifestyle is unhealthy they aren't "demonizing" anything.
Deciding white men who want a stable healthy nuclear family are the root of all evil is demonizing people for existing.
If someone thinks that a behavior or lifestyle is unhealthy they aren't "demonizing" anything.
Deciding white men who want a stable healthy nuclear family are the root of all evil is demonizing people for existing.
Anonymous D double-posted this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,192
@1,298,185 (tteh !MemesToDNA)
Rich white women according to the people that repeat that line all the time.
Rich white women according to the people that repeat that line all the time.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,193
@1,298,191 (D)
You're right, it isn't the thinking that's the problem, it's the actions.
No one is upset about white men who want a nuclear family. It's white men who want a nuclear family and also want no one else to ever have anything different that are the problem.
You're right, it isn't the thinking that's the problem, it's the actions.
No one is upset about white men who want a nuclear family. It's white men who want a nuclear family and also want no one else to ever have anything different that are the problem.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,194
@previous (A)
Most of those men don't care what others do.
It's the left that wants discriminatory laws to "balance the power", ban women under 25 from making their own decisions about their sexuality, and have teachers indoctrinating kids against having families.
Most of those men don't care what others do.
It's the left that wants discriminatory laws to "balance the power", ban women under 25 from making their own decisions about their sexuality, and have teachers indoctrinating kids against having families.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,197
@previous (D)
Of course most don't. Most people are not the problem.
> discriminatory laws to "balance the power"
If you're referring to affirmative action, I do think that a better solution is needed, because it's only addressing a symptom of the issue rather than tackling the root issue itself.
> ban women under 25 from making their own decisions about their sexuality
What on earth is this even in reference to?
> have teachers indoctrinating kids against having families
Made up right wing rage bait.
Of course most don't. Most people are not the problem.
> discriminatory laws to "balance the power"
If you're referring to affirmative action, I do think that a better solution is needed, because it's only addressing a symptom of the issue rather than tackling the root issue itself.
> ban women under 25 from making their own decisions about their sexuality
What on earth is this even in reference to?
> have teachers indoctrinating kids against having families
Made up right wing rage bait.
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 1 year ago, 23 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,198
@1,298,190 (A)
I see no problems here. Gott mit uns.
@1,298,189 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
No because all you'll tolerate is MTG and being Jewish. :(
I see no problems here. Gott mit uns.
@1,298,189 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
No because all you'll tolerate is MTG and being Jewish. :(
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 10 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,199
@1,298,182 (A)
I see. And the part where free speech should be respected, people with intolerant ideas reasoned with respectfully with the aim of opinion conversion, and such intolerant views only dis-tolerated at the point of "bombs and bullets"? How do you feel about that?
I see. And the part where free speech should be respected, people with intolerant ideas reasoned with respectfully with the aim of opinion conversion, and such intolerant views only dis-tolerated at the point of "bombs and bullets"? How do you feel about that?
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 38 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,206
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,207
@1,298,199 (E)
Free speech is still respected. It's someone's right to say vile things, and it's another's right to call them out on it. But some people see that calling out as censorship and then try to turn the situation around to make themselves look like the victims rather than the aggressors.
> such intolerant views only dis-tolerated at the point of "bombs and bullets"?
Intolerant views will almost certainly lead to this eventually when left unchecked. We're at that point though. I don't think we as a country have ever not been at that point.
Free speech is still respected. It's someone's right to say vile things, and it's another's right to call them out on it. But some people see that calling out as censorship and then try to turn the situation around to make themselves look like the victims rather than the aggressors.
> such intolerant views only dis-tolerated at the point of "bombs and bullets"?
Intolerant views will almost certainly lead to this eventually when left unchecked. We're at that point though. I don't think we as a country have ever not been at that point.
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 50 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,211
@1,298,145 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
honestly... fuck cis women, they got more priviledge than all other groups combined and they actively use all that privilege to make everyone elses lives worse.
honestly... fuck cis women, they got more priviledge than all other groups combined and they actively use all that privilege to make everyone elses lives worse.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,215
@previous (G)
Cis men commit the vast majority of all violent crime. They're the vast majority of politicians, cops, lawyers, and judges as well
Fuck you
Cis men commit the vast majority of all violent crime. They're the vast majority of politicians, cops, lawyers, and judges as well
Fuck you
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,217
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,219
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,225
@1,298,215 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Men have to fight to earn the money they need to get a mate.
Women have no such pressure.
Why do you think the disparity exists?
Women are the ones setting these rules, men just have to play the game
Men have to fight to earn the money they need to get a mate.
Women have no such pressure.
Why do you think the disparity exists?
Women are the ones setting these rules, men just have to play the game
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,228
@previous (D)
Men are the ones who set these rules. They're competing with each other. Or at least they think they are
Men are the ones who set these rules. They're competing with each other. Or at least they think they are
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,231
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Nonsense. Why would men choose mass incarceration, workplace injury, gang violence, and all the rest of it?
And in your worldview women just were the smart good ones that realized that was all bad and should be avoided?
It's nonsense. Women can survive without violence, men can't. That is because of how our system of dating and reproduction operates. A system that only serves women.
Nonsense. Why would men choose mass incarceration, workplace injury, gang violence, and all the rest of it?
And in your worldview women just were the smart good ones that realized that was all bad and should be avoided?
It's nonsense. Women can survive without violence, men can't. That is because of how our system of dating and reproduction operates. A system that only serves women.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,233
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,235
@1,298,219 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
sorry, but impotent obscenities is not equivilent to having an arguement
eddit: not sorry, you people legitimately are a plague.
sorry, but impotent obscenities is not equivilent to having an arguement
eddit: not sorry, you people legitimately are a plague.
(Edited 22 seconds later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 21 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,236
@1,298,233 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
That's not an answer at all, because the question why do men like that and not women?
People like what natural selection drives them to like, and natural selection drives them to like survival.
Men who don't play the game get weeded out. Women don't need to play that game to survive.
You could use "they just like it" to avoid answering almost any questions about human behavior, but you'd be explaining nothing.
That's not an answer at all, because the question why do men like that and not women?
People like what natural selection drives them to like, and natural selection drives them to like survival.
Men who don't play the game get weeded out. Women don't need to play that game to survive.
You could use "they just like it" to avoid answering almost any questions about human behavior, but you'd be explaining nothing.
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,238
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 36 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,239
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 1 year ago, 39 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,240
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,241
@1,298,238 (P)
Occam's razor would be that we already have a way to explain the behavior we see across all life, and it's a very simple mechanism: creatures that do what it takes to survive will stick around and spread, while those that don't will disappear.
Men act this way for the same reason all creatures act the way they do.
A very not-simple answer would be some conspiracy about men hurting themselves and women because of a "toxic masculinity" that just popped out of nowhere and stuck around by coincidence.
Occam's razor would be that we already have a way to explain the behavior we see across all life, and it's a very simple mechanism: creatures that do what it takes to survive will stick around and spread, while those that don't will disappear.
Men act this way for the same reason all creatures act the way they do.
A very not-simple answer would be some conspiracy about men hurting themselves and women because of a "toxic masculinity" that just popped out of nowhere and stuck around by coincidence.
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 36 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,242
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 28 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,243
@1,298,240 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
The question, for the third time, is why do men like to act that way, and why don't women?
Avoiding that question over and over is a perfect example of how feminists form their beliefs: by ignoring the contradictions and holes in their theory, and using passive aggressive language to deflect from forming an argument.
The question, for the third time, is why do men like to act that way, and why don't women?
Avoiding that question over and over is a perfect example of how feminists form their beliefs: by ignoring the contradictions and holes in their theory, and using passive aggressive language to deflect from forming an argument.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,244
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 1 year ago, 15 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,245
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,247
@1,298,244 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Men's nature is just like women's nature: survive by any means.
You choose to blame men for the same behavior that exists in women, because men have different pressures that mean they must act differently.
I am saying that this is avoidable, and it's the fault of feminists (not women) for creating a system that predictably causes more violence and suffering for both.
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Again, that avoids the question because testosterone and how the body reacts to its hormones are a product of natural selection.
Why do male sex hormones cause this behavior while female sex hormones don't?
Very simple: different selective pressures.
We've already had societies where those pressures were understood and accounted for to minimize destruction, but feminists fought hard to destroy those systems.
Men's nature is just like women's nature: survive by any means.
You choose to blame men for the same behavior that exists in women, because men have different pressures that mean they must act differently.
I am saying that this is avoidable, and it's the fault of feminists (not women) for creating a system that predictably causes more violence and suffering for both.
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Again, that avoids the question because testosterone and how the body reacts to its hormones are a product of natural selection.
Why do male sex hormones cause this behavior while female sex hormones don't?
Very simple: different selective pressures.
We've already had societies where those pressures were understood and accounted for to minimize destruction, but feminists fought hard to destroy those systems.
Anonymous P replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,248
69 GET
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,249
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 22 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,250
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
ah... no, sorry thats wrong.
we actually have more violence than ever before, its just dispersed into the way we interact with everything. brainrot is utterly everywere, it divides us from dealing with actual propblems, like for instance, weve got unchecked literal subhumans flooding in from everywhere, seeking a metaphorical goldrush, for the express purpose of undermining wages. femoids and trannoids staunchly defend this as if being a jewpuppet is their sole reason for existence.
ah... no, sorry thats wrong.
we actually have more violence than ever before, its just dispersed into the way we interact with everything. brainrot is utterly everywere, it divides us from dealing with actual propblems, like for instance, weve got unchecked literal subhumans flooding in from everywhere, seeking a metaphorical goldrush, for the express purpose of undermining wages. femoids and trannoids staunchly defend this as if being a jewpuppet is their sole reason for existence.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,252
Anonymous Q replied with this 1 year ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,255
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)one would think that if one was a shut-in, however my posting is at bare minimum equal to your posting, so you really do yourself a disservice. meanwhile i have obtained a spot on my county heads city council through the strenth of my arguements.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,256
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,258
@1,298,255 (Q)
this post sounds like wine being poured and sobbing
eddit: am currently stoned outta my gourd, meant to type @previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC).
sorry.
this post sounds like wine being poured and sobbing
eddit: am currently stoned outta my gourd, meant to type @previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC).
sorry.
(Edited 8 minutes later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,259
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,261
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
you stay mad mister, im going to explore the universe in my laundry room
you stay mad mister, im going to explore the universe in my laundry room
Anonymous P replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,262
Anonymous P double-posted this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,264
part-time job
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 16 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,265
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,266
@1,298,244 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
@1,298,249 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> We have less violence now than we ever have. What are you talking about
Technological advancement, and a police state can keep violence in check.
Political division isn't at a high for no reason. Bottling up tension temporarily, and then dealing with a civil war isn't progress.
Authoritarian states don't solve problems they cover it up until they can't.
@1,298,249 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> We have less violence now than we ever have. What are you talking about
Technological advancement, and a police state can keep violence in check.
Political division isn't at a high for no reason. Bottling up tension temporarily, and then dealing with a civil war isn't progress.
Authoritarian states don't solve problems they cover it up until they can't.
(Edited 18 seconds later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,267
@previous (D)
I also don't think political division is at an all time high because I've read history books
I also don't think political division is at an all time high because I've read history books
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,283
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
When was the last time a mob tried to storm the capitol? When did wages stagnate for 50 years despite big gains to productivity?
When was the last time a mob tried to storm the capitol? When did wages stagnate for 50 years despite big gains to productivity?
(Edited 40 seconds later.)
Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,305
@OP
> straight white people
> backwards, regressive world views
Stop discriminating against people based on their sexual preferences and colour, you racist heterophobe.
> straight white people
> backwards, regressive world views
Stop discriminating against people based on their sexual preferences and colour, you racist heterophobe.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,315
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,337
@1,298,283 (D)
It's very odd that you consider "storming the capitol" to be the pinnacle of political violence. Read a book
It's very odd that you consider "storming the capitol" to be the pinnacle of political violence. Read a book
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 8 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,378
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> It's very odd that you consider "storming the capitol" to be the pinnacle of political violence.
I said it was a sign of high political division, and it is.
The only time the US had division at this level was the civil war, and it was hardly a unified country at that point. Most states operated as their own countries in most respects, and there wasn't even a unified currency.
> Read a book
There are a lot of books about how divided society is now, try one of those.
> It's very odd that you consider "storming the capitol" to be the pinnacle of political violence.
I said it was a sign of high political division, and it is.
The only time the US had division at this level was the civil war, and it was hardly a unified country at that point. Most states operated as their own countries in most respects, and there wasn't even a unified currency.
> Read a book
There are a lot of books about how divided society is now, try one of those.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 50 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,395
@previous (D)
The entire world has had political riots, wars, murders, and assassinations, for always
There is no proof that we are more politically divided now, or that its the fault of feminists
Also, the two major politicians involved were men, the capitol cops were men, and I wonder what sex the majority of the protesters were?
The entire world has had political riots, wars, murders, and assassinations, for always
There is no proof that we are more politically divided now, or that its the fault of feminists
Also, the two major politicians involved were men, the capitol cops were men, and I wonder what sex the majority of the protesters were?
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,412
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
You're acting like the disagreement is that I'm saying men aren't involved, which I never claimed.
The real argument I gave was that men behave a cording to natural selection and that this is a predictable outcome. There's a reason men are doing this and not women, but feminists don't want to investigate that.
You're acting like the disagreement is that I'm saying men aren't involved, which I never claimed.
The real argument I gave was that men behave a cording to natural selection and that this is a predictable outcome. There's a reason men are doing this and not women, but feminists don't want to investigate that.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,413
Anonymous P replied with this 1 year ago, 17 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,422
@1,298,378 (D)
> The only time the US had division at this level was the civil war
False. You just have a boner for the USAmerican civil war
> The only time the US had division at this level was the civil war
False. You just have a boner for the USAmerican civil war
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,466
@1,298,413 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Society has functioned much better when there were orderly rules for how people would mate.
When only a small % can survive instinct pushes creatures to take any risk to become part of the survivors. For women not subject to this, they stay docile. For men, who are subject to it, they become more violent, steal, and embrace radical political ideologies.
Before feminism destroyed it, that system existed in the west. Before that system was adopted there was a chaotic competitive environment.
It's always existed, but for a time it was mostly managed and the destructive aspects were mostly mitigated.
Society has functioned much better when there were orderly rules for how people would mate.
When only a small % can survive instinct pushes creatures to take any risk to become part of the survivors. For women not subject to this, they stay docile. For men, who are subject to it, they become more violent, steal, and embrace radical political ideologies.
Before feminism destroyed it, that system existed in the west. Before that system was adopted there was a chaotic competitive environment.
It's always existed, but for a time it was mostly managed and the destructive aspects were mostly mitigated.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous D double-posted this 1 year ago, 23 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,467
@1,298,422 (P)
> > The only time the US had division at this level was the civil war
>
> False. You just have a boner for the USAmerican civil war
Ok, what other time did this division exist?
> > The only time the US had division at this level was the civil war
>
> False. You just have a boner for the USAmerican civil war
Ok, what other time did this division exist?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 18 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,472
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,476
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> I don't agree that society used to function better
not once have you done anything more than make baseless claims
> I don't agree that society used to function better
not once have you done anything more than make baseless claims
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,479
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 26 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,480
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 12 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,483
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 19 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,489
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 10 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,492
Anonymous P replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,494
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 43 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,298,501
@1,298,472 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Stagnating wages, and attacks on the capitol don't looks like a decline to you?
Stagnating wages, and attacks on the capitol don't looks like a decline to you?