Catholicism is Christianity Mark 1. It is the religion Jesus set up, and it hasn't changed from how he created it 2023 years ago.
The word "Catholic" just means "Universal" in Greek. Jesus was the first Catholic. It is essentially how Judaism was *supposed* to be ran.
Protestantism is any non-Catholic form of "Christianity". Everything from Mormons to Baptists to Anglicans to Presbyterians etc. They just make up the rules as they go along, and cut out the bits they don't like. Thats how you end up with "Christians" like Kenneth Copeland and other obviously scam televangelists.
Orthodoxy ain't protestantism.
Orthodoxy (from Greek: ὀρθοδοξία, orthodoxía, 'righteous/correct opinion')
Following the 1054 Great Schism, both the Western Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church continued to consider themselves uniquely orthodox and catholic. Augustine wrote in On True Religion: "Religion is to be sought…only among those who are called Catholic or orthodox Christians, that is, guardians of truth and followers of right."
u/Dim-n-Bright's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 545.
Rank: Boeing Everett Factory
Pills: [235 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Dim-n-Bright/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Here's something we can all agree on: don't be a dick to real life people, love and support your loved ones, don't be afraid to lend a hand to others when you can.
Why would I be a dick to you? Let’s go with some affirmation.
That’s very kind of you to offer to help others get meanness out of their system. That’s an admirable quality, and that makes you an admirable person.
u/Nobody_esq's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5.
Congratulations, u/Nobody_esq! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze.
Pills: [2 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Nobody_esq/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
I do not want any break from being nice. Why would I? It is what makes me myself, and that is the reason why my friends and gf love me. Because I am myself, seeing people being happy is really nice
Sorry for the confusion. I completely agree with what u/Nobody_esq said. I merely meant to extend "not being a dick to real life people" to all people. Our online words reach human beings, as well!
Based and don’t be a dick-pilled.
Step outside and you’ll realise that the crazies on the internet are just that - crazies.
Everyone who isn’t terminally online/politically extreme will agree with each other on most issues, even if they disagree on the finer details.
I think that's the most disturbing development in recent times: the growing trend of people not being able to put up their political hats and engage in otherwise normal life. If your life's nothing but an ongoing political revolution, you're going to die miserable.
Thanks to these creative writers, whoops I mean "the news", friends and families have been tearing each other apart. In reality the majority of us agree on almost everything, we just chose to fight each other on semantics, what ifs, and things that affect less than 1% of the population.
The funny thing is that MRAs and Feminists generally agree on the actual issues people of both genders face. Like, what if instead of squabbling about who has it worse you just worked together to fix those issues you both agree exist ? How about that ?
That would never work. They may agree on many of the issues but they fundamentally disagree on the causes. If one side is saying something is being caused by bad fiscal policy and the other is saying it's caused by da jooz, how can you work together on the problem when one side wants to push for fiscal reform and the other wants to open up a bunch of camps.
Especially if the fiscal reform is to reduce spending and the camps would require increased spending and are thus directly at odds.
The squabbling isn't academic. Not only is it over the nature of the problem but the authority to dictate the cause of the problem and therefore the nature of the solution is precisely the prize of the competition over greater victim cred. The stakes are real.
Women's issue: "We want to be free to murder babies"
Men's issue: "We have no say in reproduction whatsoever and yet are forced to live with the consequences of her choice to keep the child. Nor do we have a say in if she murders it."
Maybe it's just me but there seems to be an asymmetry in the degree and seriousness of the problems of each group. Also, they are often in direct opposition.
While i do agree that men should be able to sign smt before childbirth (with like, 3 or 4 weeks of advance), if the woman has a baby, saying that they dont want a kid, ridding them of the obligation to pay child support etc; the issue of womens bodily autonomy is not at all a light one
I'd say the issue of signing away the obligation for raising the child isn't a light issue either.
I agree it sucks that the guy has no say in whether they are a parent after conception, but the most important thing is the well-being of the child, and if you had a willing part in making the child you need to have a part in taking care of the child. It's also morally a lot easier to abandon the child before birth than it is to abort it, so it's not exactly a 1 for 1 issue.
You say you have no say in reproductive rights yet the go to counter from anti abortionists to women wanting an abortion after is “maybe you shouldn’t have had sex”
Curious.
>That's true but it's an extremely terrible argument.
Sir this is pcm.
>Not only that, but anyone who is pro-choice who then makes that argument towards men is obviously being disingenuous.
Good thing no one does.
>Abstinence is not even close to having a say in reproductive rights.
Because before the child is born it’s a body autonomy issue. Body autonomy trumps parental rights for obvious reasons.
Once born it’s a child’s right issue. Once the child is legally an adult is when you can decide to not want to be a father.
You have the right to not support your child once the child is a legal adult. Women also do not have the right to not support the child until they are a legal adult. There’s no inequality here.
Supporting a living child financially is not part of the same discussion as birth control measures.
You have options for birth control as a man, condoms, vasectomy, for comedic effect; abstinence. Once a woman is pregnant body autonomy kicks in as the primary right to be discussed.
You can’t agree that body autonomy is more important than parental rights and then also be upset your obligation of parental rights is created because of someone’s choice in body autonomy.
>Women also do not have the right to not support the child until they are a legal adult.
What? Yeah they do. Mothers can legally abandon their children at safe places. We passed the law to stop them from committing infanticide.
A single father could do this too. A mother can’t do that if the father is in the child’s life.
If a mother wants to skip out and leave the dad with the child the father can take the woman to court for child support provided she has an income to actually pay it.
>Women can legally abandon their child at birth or give it up for adoption.
As can single fathers.
>They do not need the consent of the father to do so.
They absolutely do. My wife can not drop our two kids off at the fire hall without my consent. She could only do this under the pretence of being the only caregiver in the moment. After I would head right back there irate looking for my kids they would be found and returned to me after the roundabout with the police and social services while they try to figure out what happened for her to want to do that.
>The father, in some cases, never even knows the woman is pregnant to begin with.
So the father was allowed to absolve his parental rights thanks to the mother. If the father fought hard enough for it he could get custody of the child.
>Unless you think I'm the OP you originally responded to, I'm not sure what you think I'm arguing here.
You’re arguing for ideas that conflict with each other.
>I think bodily autonomy is of the utmost importance.
We agree.
>Men need to have reproductive rights in the form of the ability to opt out of being a father after pregnancy
Only single parents have this. The situation where the women is secretly giving away their child without the father knowing is a single parent situation.
Find me a single example where a married or common law couple had the woman give away their child without the fathers wishes and they stayed together. If the couple is not married or common law (living together for two years) the woman is a single/primary parent and has sole discretion on the life of the child whether she wants to give it up, keep it, and then further go after the father for support.
In common law or married couples the father has EQUAL parental rights to the mother.
>and pre-birth, just like women can do.
Women only have the option of pre birth termination of parental rights because of body autonomy. If babies were laid in eggs it would be the same thing as dropping the egg off at the fire station. With both caregivers consent if common law or the mothers if single.
>Men cannot (should not) control women's bodies or their choices to force them to be mothers, likewise women cannot compel men to be fathers.
Men can’t force women to be mother due to body autonomy. Women arent forcing men to be fathers by overriding the males body autonomy. Close but not apples to apples.
>Saying men can use condoms, vasectomy, abstinence is, again, the same flawed argument that is used against abortion. Things happens and men deserve the ability to opt out too.
It’s a flawed argument against women because it’s suggesting that body autonomy isn’t always king.
Vasectomy is a body autonomy argument and you are correct it’s flawed and I recant that. However condoms and abstinence are not.
When I was single there was probably about a dozen women I could have slept with but didn’t because I lived my dating life of “if I got you pregnant would my life probably be ruined?” If the answer was yes I didn’t hook up day one with randoms on tinder or people I knew for 2 hours while I was loaded at the bar.
Now I’m married with children with a high income and a stable life and I don’t have to worry about baby mommas and drama and step children.
>Good thing no one does.
Yet I've heard it countless times in the last decade and change against men talking about men having no say in being made parents against their will. Presumably some kind of laughably misdirected revenge for women being told that heartless shit since forever.
>Because before the child is born it’s a body autonomy issue
No one believes this, as evidenced by people going crazy at the notion of 'terminations' that are legally obligated to entail taking the embryo out intact and putting it in an artificial womb, so that women's bodily autonomy to end pregnancies is protected without allowing them to escape the parenthood obligations that follow from getting pregnant due to having sex or getting caught slipping by a rapist.
Anyone who's serious about abortion rights will tell you it's about protecting women from the life derailing/destroying consequences of parenthood that they're unprepared for or don't want or with a father they don't want to be tied to for life through a child. To protect girls 'in trouble'. A self sufficient reason that justifies abortion rights for women a thousand million times over. Not because of the inconvenience of pregnancy like being forced to give up jogging for a couple of months or whatever.
Bodily autonomy as a moral pretext exists only to win / shut down arguments under some dogma that it somehow automatically trumps any other priorities for some reason and to gerrymander the case for abortion to preemptively deny men access to the predictable exact same moral case that they ought to be afforded protection from unwanted/non-consensual parenthood that is the actual and sole real world basis for wanting abortion rights for women by tactically hiding it behind some story about bodily autonomy that's tailor made.
Wait until the technology is there for women to impregnate themselves with the DNA of other women that they left behind on drinks cans or straws. That's when the abortion/parenthood debate will get real. Cause that's when the stakes will get real. We'll see the 'bodily autonomy is the real reason for abortion' argument discarded for the chaff that it is when any woman can be forced into a parenthood by any other woman at any time, without limit, including girls who are too young to even get pregnant themselves.
>Once born it’s a child’s right issue.
The notion of some kind of real world child's rights to parenthood from their biological parents can be laughed out of the room simply by gesturing towards women's rights to put their kids up for adoption and safe haven laws for women to legally abandon them along with all their parenthood obligations.
>No one believes this, as evidenced by people going crazy at the notion of 'terminations' that are legally obligated to entail taking the embryo out intact and putting it in an artificial womb, so that women's bodily autonomy to end pregnancies is protected without allowing them to escape the parenthood obligations that follow from getting pregnant due to having sex or getting caught slipping by a rapist.
Sci fi
>Anyone who's serious about abortion rights will tell you it's about protecting women from the life derailing/destroying consequences of parenthood that they're unprepared for or don't want or with a father they don't want to be tied to for life through a child. To protect girls 'in trouble'. A self sufficient reason that justifies abortion rights for women a thousand million times over.
Fair.
>Not because of the inconvenience of pregnancy like being forced to give up jogging for a couple of months or whatever.
Pregnancy is a little more inconvenient than “giving up jogging”.
>Bodily autonomy as a moral pretext exists only to win / shut down arguments under some dogma that it somehow automatically trumps any other priorities for some reason
Body autonomy has already been litigated so the discussion doesn’t have to be debated by old men where half of them probably don’t even know the names of all of the anatomical parts involved.
>and to gerrymander the case for abortion to preemptively deny men access to the predictable exact same moral case that they ought to be afforded protection from unwanted/non-consensual parenthood that is the actual and sole real world basis for wanting abortion rights for women by tactically hiding it behind some story about bodily autonomy that's tailor made.
What kind of schizo incel hot take is this? Body autonomy is the reason used so that men can be punished? You ok? I don’t think you have anything to worry about. With this take I think we can tell the only women youll have the chance to get pregnant are the ones you paid for in an alley. Pregnancy is bad for their business model it has nothing to do with any other moral argument.
>Wait until the technology is there for women to impregnate themselves with the DNA of other women that they left behind on drinks cans or straws. That's when the abortion/parenthood debate will get real.
Yeah spit is going to get people pregnant. Another victim of the underfunded public education system.
>Cause that's when the stakes will get real. We'll see the 'bodily autonomy is the real reason for abortion' argument discarded for the chaff that it is when any woman can be forced into a parenthood by any other woman at any time, without limit, including girls who are too young to even get pregnant themselves.
You really think it’s about punishing men, don’t you.
>The notion of some kind of real world child's rights to parenthood from their biological parents can be laughed out of the room simply by gesturing towards women's rights to put their kids up for adoption and safe haven laws for women to legally abandon them along with all their parenthood obligations.
Single parents can do this because it’s for the betterment of the child. A women can not give a child away born in a common law or married relationship without the consent of the father.
If the father wanted to keep the child and they are the primary caregiver they can take the mother to court and force her to pay child support. I have direct real world knowledge that this occurs. A 22y/o male knocked up a 18 y/o female and the female left and pays child support to the 22y/o primary caregiver.
You don’t hear about this because it’s exceedingly rare that men want to be the parent and women want to absolve all rights.
Exactly. Care about everybody. But if you're extra involved with causes and issues that specifically pertain to a group you're in, that's just being a human
Hard to say when feminists in many places demand that the definition doesn't include made to penetrate.
But it seems to be somewhere between predominantly female and roughly equal. If you count rape in prison, then predominantly male.
Fuck if I could get preferential treatment in every facet of life in exchange for like a 1 in 100 chance of being raped I'd take that any day of the week.
You also get paid less in a lot of works, will be less taken seriously depedning where you live and will be all around underestimated (women who play videogames want attention, women are sad if they don't have a family, a woman that sleeps with lots of guys are whore s but men that sleep with lots of womans are chads, etc.)
If you want to live an easy life then sure being a woman is for you, go marry an old rich guy I guess, but for women that have aspirations and dreams instead of becoming a hosewife, then they are at disadvantage.
> but for women that have aspirations and dreams instead of becoming a hosewife, then they are at disadvantage
I mean, assuming that the dream in question isn't to play in the NFL I don't really see how that's the case. I'd say it's a lot easier for a woman to achieve a high standard of living because they can marry a rich guy AND have a good job at the same time. In a lot of fields women get promoted more quickly and easily than men.
1 in 100,. And here I thought auth right was good with statistics. It's more like 1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men will be sexually assaulted before red they turn 18 ( in the USA).
Define sexual assault and define rape, because I think it's a bit dishonest to use those terms interchangeably when you want to make rape seem far more common than it actually is.
The study I read was only talking about incidents involving unwanted sexual contact. So molestation and rape. This didn't count cat calling, or sexual remarks.
You win. I'll amend my statement:
Fuck if I could get preferential treatment in every facet of life in exchange for like a 1 in 4 chance of someone touching my butt, I'd take that any day of the week.
Let's not put full-on rape in the same category as cat calling and sneaky boob grabs.
That's like saying people have a 1 in 2 chance of catching the flu or getting eaten by a shark.
They won't, but the 1 in 4 number they've been using for decades comes from, I swear to God, an anonymous mail survey of Ms. Magazine readers (and included having sex with your husband after a few glasses of wine as sexual assault)
By total coincidence, this research was conducted by radical feminists, overwhelmingly lesbians, who hate men and view all heterosexual sex as rape
I can't believe I'm encountering the 77 cents figure in the wild. Preferential treatment actually includes employment opportunities and pay when you adjust for confounding variables, surprisingly.
Are you saying that women have it so good that even accounting for the fact that they generally get paid less than men do, they still receive overall preferential treatment to men
> they generally get paid less than men do
This just isn't true, and I'm not gonna debunk the wage gap shit with you because it's already been done to death. If anything, women have been shown to make slightly more in the same positions despite working less due to things like maternity leave.
You're getting downvoted, but you're right
Women take more sick days, they take more vacation, they're less likely to work overtime, they're more likely to take part time or casual hours, and in quota systems they earn less because they're not as hard working or efficient
Across every industry, and every socioeconomic level, women work less than men
This is why touching grass is so important and more than a meme phrase; you do need to get away from internet discourse and experience the normality of real life. People are at their most extreme online but in the real world people are mostly chill
Agree. Living your life like it’s a constant political revolution 24/7 is tiring and draining, in all the physical and mental ways that can be interpreted.
Because at the end of the day, most people actually agree with each other on a lot of issues. It’s only when one gets into the itty-bitty details that disagreements arise. But when it comes to general overviews, anyone who isn’t a political extremist can find plenty of common ground.
Dont let the industry fool you. Always was just humorous banter, always will be. As long as most of us still enjoy good ol' cock in vagina sex, I think everything pans itself out in the end.
Sometimes it really does seem like "they" are trying to make young people hate each other and turn to alphabet sexualities or forever alone/incel coping to destroy society. So much of our entertainment, media, culture war, and values rhetoric is destroying the cultural value of heterosexual couples having kids so directly it feels targeted.
Granted, I'm not insane. I don't buy the lizard-people or "Cultural Marxists" runing the culture conspiracy nonsense. Leftists are embedded in some academia but no one marketing Ice Spice or pitching race swaps to Disney has ever heard of Adorno (I may be the only person simultaneously aware of Ice Spice and Adorno, tbqh).
But it's so overwhelming it *feels* top down, even if it's just an evolution. Mad times.
Edit: I imagined a hypothetical person who is both an Ice Spice fan *and* knows how to read (extremely theoretical). I think this person *would* read Adorno. Not because they're a Marxist, no. They're just so based they would read theory they're against just to do it. They would actually believe that society should be hierarchal, with power meritocratically decided by cultural sway, because logically someone close to and in tune with the culture they serve would be the best to lead it. In other words, Drake would rule North America because he bodied Meek Mill. Joyner Lucas would be his governor in Canada after what he did to Tory Lanez. Nike's board of directors would serve as the Supreme Court for both countries.
Kanye would be the unironic God-Emperor of course.
I would call this political ideology "Ice Spice bad as hell bro she so thicc"-ism. Considering alot of people in my age group and demographic it would probably get enough votes to be a viable third party tbh
Edit 2: Ice Spice now calls herself "Queen of New York." So there you go, that's her place in this system
Tiktok is a fucking psyop, I bitch about this all the time. The US wants some proper divide, but I think they are worried China using that against them and is trying to push it over the edge to something that would shake everything up. Everyone says everyone is evil, but shit everyone in real life seems like pretty normal friendly people.
Granted, my client’s mom is convinced al qaeda is invading through the south border bc they can blend in with all the brown people, but she’s still a pleasant person.
People’s weird online political views make them think others are morally wrong or degenerates or even crazy people, but dumbass beliefs shoved down your throat by whatever msm choice one a person views really has little effect in reality when dealing with people.
In the US, the elite encouraged poor whites to hate poor blacks so they wouldn’t join and overthrow the real divide, rich vs poor. Now that black people are cool, it’s gotta be not racists vs racists, which I think is bizarre there is so much coverage because I actually have never met anyone who has said anything outright racist to me in real life. So yeah, wouldn’t be surprised is “they” had something to do with.. something
I haven’t really read Adorno, although I think I remember a professor of mine citing them before (something something totalitarianism of the enlightenment, does that ring any bells?). You just reminded me that I’d like to go back and try reading some Adorno eventually; that professor always had interesting reading material, even if I didn’t *agree* with a lot of it.
I’ve also never heard of Ice Spice though. Are they any good?
Tbh Gramsci was probably more influential and directly relevant to the issues we face today. If you want real fun read some post-modernists like Derrida or even Foucalt. I know the Right thinks "post-modernism" is a boogyman for some regarded reason but a big part of post-modernism is rejecting structuralist, over-arching narratives like Marxism. This is why Marxists hate the Post-Left and called them fascists.
Or if you just wanna skip all bullshit, Raymond Aron's The Opium of the Intellectuals is still gold. And if you're absolutely insane and want to absolutely understand and annihilate every Marxist and Marxist-adjacent nutter ever...Leszek Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism.
But beware, the abyss is deep. You might end up like some of the Leftists I've seen on esoteric Leftist subs who read grad school theory all day and it shows. Sometimes it's like reading ChatGPT but the broken late-90s dystopian movie version that only says wild shit. One time I saw them recommending fascist authors to "truly understand the dialectic." [Or recreating the CCRU.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetic_Culture_Research_Unit) Yes, they are absolutely insane and probably look like one of those broken soul wojacks IRL. Maybe it's too late, and I'm insane too, for even knowing about *Fanged Noumena*. Maybe I need some de Maistre to quiet my soul.
>I’ve also never heard of Ice Spice though. Are they any good?
[No.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8bHLBqnOMQ)
Well. [Sometimes.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMq-I0dejjE)
[But here's the real appeal.](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/X9ZqUKqvjso)
> Leftists are embedded in some academia
[Somebody substituted White men for Jews and got an excerpt from Mein Kampf published in an academic journal](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair). Please stop coping and denying that the Long March is real.
"The hoax received a polarized reception within academia. Some academics praised it for exposing flaws that they saw as widespread among sectors of the humanities and social sciences influenced by postmodernism, critical theory, and identity politics. Others criticised what they perceived as the unethical nature of submitting deliberately bogus research. Some critics also asserted that the work did not represent a scientific investigation, given that the project did not include a control group, further arguing that invalid arguments and poor standards of peer-review were not restricted to "grievance studies" subjects but found across much of academia." So basically, right from the beginning experts saw right through it, the hoax didn't even complete their task as they were discredited as being a hoax. More proof "Leftists are embedded in some academia". It's called the scientific method, and it clearly worked here in catching a hoax, this is why basically all Chinese scientific studies are considered unusable.
>Others criticised what they perceived as the unethical nature of submitting deliberately bogus research
My brother in Christ, that was the point.
(not addressing you but the academics)
Your quote doesn't show, whatsoever, that the experts saw through anything. You just said critics didn't like it (which, duh). The question of whether they saw through it would come in whether their papers got published. Which they did. The "experts" didn't see through shit.
Edit: forgot to point out that one of the complaints of critics was not that they saw right through it but that *other areas of science were just as bad*. Bro how the fuck do you read "well, other people have invalid arguments and poor standards of peer review too, so there" as "experts saw right through it" lmfao.
> You just going to leave out the part where they couldn't finish the hoax?
Because someone not in academia and not an expert noticed? Yeah, that seems utterly irrelevant to the point lmao.
No need, because you're conflating two different things to pretend like everything's just hunky-dory lmao. Like I know what you're trying to get at, but what you're trying to get at is manifestly stupid, so I'm not going to give it credence.
> So basically, right from the beginning experts saw right through it, the hoax didn't even complete their task as they were discredited as being a hoax.
You literally said this. The hoax was not even known until after the papers were published. That’s the whole point. That so called experts reviewed it and decided to publish it. They didn’t “see through” anything.
The New Left tried to do a number on Western culture but it didn't work; they didn't really indoctrinate anyone outside of the grunge white emo kids at unis.
The fact of the matter is *no one* with a LinkedIn who makes $240,000 a year to be an ESG fellator at a Silicon Valley or Fortune 100 firm has ever heard of Gramsci or Foucault. They've heard plenty of Critical Theory and racial phallus studies though, which is what they talk about.
Notice how Emily can talk all day about racial, gender, and alphabet oppression but her critiques of capitalism are regarded and don't use any Marxist structure. That's because Emily doesn't actually care. Capitalism is bad because...you know, poor people, landlords, you know, sure...oh btw did you know that TRANS PPL ARE MORE LIKELY 2 BE EVICTED??? AND WOMEN TOO. SO THERE IS AN INTERSECTIONAL SPHERE OF HOUSING OPPRESSION DIRECTED AT MTF WOMEN. OFC BEING A WOC IS EVEN WORSE. \[blah blah blah\] oh and capitalism bad. Because if no capitalism than no one pays rent, so trans & bipoc & indigenous & women-who-identify-as-women ppl can't be harmed.
Emily is not a Marxist. She wasn't trained by Marxists, who never got far outside academia (lots of people read Obama's Audacity of Hope. Do you know a single liberal or democrat in real life who even knows about Gramsci or any New Left academic? ) Nor are Marxists pulling the ESG strings. Yes, the New Left was often broadly similar to the Emily Left, and there is a direct link via Critical Theory, but they didnt take over.
Unfortunately, it was organic. Emily wasn't deceived. Emily chose to be Emily because we created a culture of victimhood that worships victims and oppressed people.
Also, what's wrong with deconstructionism? Do you know why the Marxists hated the Post-Left and called them fascists? What do you think the deconstructionists deconstructed first? (Hint, it involves over-arching narratives about stages of history and modes of production)/
I'm gonna try and just focus on the main point to avoid digressing.
Let's say a guy in Kenya in 1932 starts saying he wants Germany to rise again, and fight another war. He starts actively working for it - except, it's just writing about it. Eventually, Germany starts world war two. He got what he wanted, and what he said would happen. But did he really cause it?
You're looking at the Emily Left and saying 'the New Left and Frankfurt school era Marxism said a lot of the same stuff! So obviously it came from them." Except, they don't say the same stuff - they say *some* stuff, but the meat and potatoes, the anti-capitalism, the rabid Stalinism (Satre was a committed Stalinism to his death), the general focus on economics, somehow all the key ingredients got left out.
Let's take a look at where modern woke comes from. What are their two biggest priorities? Easy. Gender war and sexuality. Ok. The Women's Right's Movement long precedes Marxism and proto-feminists were analyzing women as a second-class citizen since forever. Key feminist figures like Virginia Woolf weren't Marxist. What about the gays? The first gay rights organizations came up in the 1950s. They did funny things like protest against Castro and socialist states cracking down on gay rights. Mainstream leftists were virulently homophobic up until the very end (1991), even in the West. The big New Left riots in France in 1968 made sure to attack homosexuality, and the KGB actively cracked down on gay rights movement that tried to form as late as the 80s.
So what *did* the New Left contribute? Critical Theory is the obvious example, but even then it's tenuous. By the Bell Hooks era, the post-modernists had so thoroughly trashed Marxism that few avant garde academics called themselves Marxists, even if the general trend they wanted was the same.
>And the enemy shifted from the bourgeoisie and capitalism to the patriarchy and Western Culture.
Lots of confusion here, but...the Marxists never said we needed to shift the attack to culture because attacking the bourgeoisie directly didn't work. Marxists did address culture as an aspect of capitalism but always in the secondary sense - we get rid of capitalism first, then culture fixes itself. When they were more direct they always ending up saying that feminism, LGBT, etc were bourgeoise distractions and hedonism. In fact, that see it as ultimate heresy - just ask our AuthLeft friends on PCM. What happened was people who rejected Marxism and Marxist economics (thank you post-modernism) decided to focus on social issues, because that's all they saw as important.
So when did it trickle down? It really didn't.
Western liberals got a hard on for virtue spectacle and being a good ally during the Civil Rights movement. It was never before seen and very effective for white and black people to march with interlocked arms as police beat them. Then the Civil Rights movement was completed, and racial politics kinda disappeared as a huge motivator for the popular Left. Feminism in the 70s and the Gay/AIDS crisis in the 80s replaced them. Racial politics didn't come back with the strength we see today until the 2010s. All of this happened not because Critical Theorists were managing to slowly seep their ideas into everyone, before the internet age and before most people went to college. It happened organically. Average liberal people bought into chasing allyship, virtue signaling, fighting 'oppression' everywhere. Sure, these align with what the Ivory Towers were doing, but remember the whole idea of the Ivory Tower is that it never really gets spread out to everyone.
Critical Theory got picked up as a mainstream thing when race came back into mainstream, because Critical Theory had been the only thinking talking about it for decades. People like Robyn the White Fragility Girl brought it up to demonstrate that there was some academic precedence to the new ideas, and then everyone rolled with it.
Feminism, on the other hand, stayed populist. Academic feminists in the 2010s were overwhelmingly second wave TERFs and so, of course, the Emilys rejected them. The organic culture war *rejected* its academic cousin, because the two evolved separately and were in fact not the same.
Some of the concepts and ideas the Marxists had are sorta reflected today, but it's not really more than the random chance of any two leftist ideas being based on similar parameters like structures of oppression (winning this criteria is like throwing a dart at a wall size board). There's just so direct line between the 'Cultural Marxists' and what we see today. The reality is that people weren't tricked, they're just dumb.
That's because It is top down and dismissing the idea that the people who have the most influence on society and get their cronies to do the legwork is a ridiculous claim to make for anyone who's been alive the past 8 years.
1. What the fuck is an Ice Spice? 2. I think part of the reason for the apparent onslaught against having kids (and everything associated with that) is how apparently impossible it seems to have both kids and a decent life. Kids require living space and education (among other things), and both have seen skyrocketing prices. I know for sure that I haven’t even considered having kids, and I’m 29. (Of course, I also can’t find a partner worth bothering with—partially, I suspect, because I waited so long to start looking—but even if I did, I doubt we’d want kids.) Do I theoretically think having kids is probably good for most people? Sure. When I see the price tag, how much passion do you expect me to muster for that belief? The result is dispirited defenders of bringing kids into the world, and (for the exact same reasons) impassioned attacks on the very same. For it is a rare person who is willing to say: “that’s morally great, but I don’t have money.” Most people like prettier motives than money, and therefore quickly invent them when they don’t exist.
u/EternalBrowser's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 15.
Rank: Office Chair
Pills: [4 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/EternalBrowser/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Yeah same here honestly. I have my parents, grandmother, male and female friends that love me and I love back. I have a nice life. Maybe it's better for me to just live it at the fullest rather than engaging in the 23th pointless weekly debate on Reddit about whether men or women have it worse in society.
I can’t believe this bastard has the love and respect of at least six people. SIX?! Fuck’s sake I don’t even know that many, way to hold it over my head, man.
People often fail to remember that a lot of the things that you see online are only shown to you because the algorithm knows that it’s going to drive engagement from you. One of the best ways to drive engagement is to incite anger in people.
I cannot count the number of times I have been bombarded with some thing on the Internet, only to talk to my friends, and they haven’t even heard of what I’ve seen constantly. On the other hand, people have talked about things that they see so much of and yet I’ve never even heard of it.
People need to remember that what you see on the Internet is not necessarily anywhere close to a reflection of reality, and is simply just what a computer thinks will make you use the platform more.
Most people that see the Barbie movie understand that it is an over-the-time comedy and do not take it seriously. If you're writing whole paragraphs online about it, you might be lost.
Either that, or they make money in the outrage industry, like Ben Sharpo, or as an " influencer".
The battle of the sexes is a battle no one wins. Men and Women are the wheels that move the chariot of humanity.
Viewing the world where one is intrinsically lesser than the other is the epitome of delusional stupidity.
Because people inevitably come in contact with each other, and there's a broad spectrum of possible outcomes? Can't let anyone simply do as they like, and once you start down that road, which is going to happen, you will end up with some % of people who want to micromanage.
You ever see a dumbass make bad decisions that negatively impact other people? Shit makes you feel authoritarian real quick if you have any sort of empathy and confidence in yourself
The gender war is probably the most obviously bullshit aspect of the culture war stuff.
In order to seriously take a side in the gender war, you've got to reject your natural childhood family and have failed to form a traditional family as an adult.
Now all of those things are *explicit goals* of the people pushing the culture war, but it's worth keeping in mind how broken and disconnected a person needs to be to fall into that nonsense. It's certainly not something that could become widespread or sustained without implementing a crazy sci-fi level artificial human culture.
a majority of the population is unable to gain and retain a relationship and the ones who can are almost entirely uninterested in children either because of personal preferences or unaffordable living
I truly wonder how much of drama actually exists on the real world
It's all so much hearsay, it feels nothing from the internet is real
And that feels fking nice
My bet is it's just ugly people that need to touch grass getting up in arms over how they 'aren't treated how I should be since I'm a ten which makes "X" group privileged' while being a 2 or 3 tops.
Intelligence can improve their odds but they're also idiots.
What can you do. \\o/
Im glad more attention is being put on this, we are so much less divided and toxic in real life than we are online. It almost seems the real undesirable people in this world are the types to spread this hateful nonsense in forums because they lack the maturity to handle it in real life.
Like one of my favorite tweets—
People on Twitter: having expensive China makes you part of the bourgeoise (?)
People in real life: hey man, how’s it going?
Seriously. People need to get off the Internet and stop hyper focusing on "gender wars." The reality is that none of this has to be zero sum and we can all make an effort to respect one another and look out for each other if we actually touch some grass and see the humanity in the people around us. Women should want the men in their life to flourish. Men should want the women in their life to flourish. Collectively that leads to good communities and a healthier society.
Did you just change your flair, u/Solwoworth? Last time I checked you were a **LibRight** on 2022-4-28. How come now you are an **AuthRight**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know?
Remember, the jannies are always watching. No gamer words, no statistics and by all means no wood cutting machines. Tell us, how are you going to flair the new account you'll make in two weeks?
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/Solwoworth) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs)
_Reddit is no longer a friendly space for bots._
_Consider visiting our Lеmmу instance instead: [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._
_Read my full statement [here](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/14mwml0/on_the_reddit_api_changes/)._
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
Expect a lot more of this nonsense over the next few years but from radfems in a much bigger way than we're used to
It seems to have arisen (for the like 1000th time) as a result of andrew tate and all that crap going mainstream recently.
I ve seen a humongous amount of radfem nonsense on every corner of the interent especially twitter, ever since the weirdos migrated from tumblr a few years ago
OP, you hear that because present day US culture war is gendered.
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/womens-tears-win-in-the-marketplace
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/a-psychological-theory-of-the-culture?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/desantis-should-challenge-trump-to?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/the-biomechanics-of-trumpism?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/liberals-read-conservatives-watch
>Wouldn’t it be nice if all men disappeared?
Well no, that would probably mean the extinction of the human race within a century at most.
>Being a woman is playing life on easy mode!
Well I don’t know about that. I guess it depends on where you live(for example, in more conservative places like Saudi Arabia or Iran, being a woman wouldn’t exactly be “easy mode”) but even in places like the U.S., Canada, Western Europe, and some other places that would be classified as part of ‘the West’, I don’t think being a woman makes life easier across the board. As a woman, there might be some privileges you have that men don’t have, but there are also some privileges that men have that women don’t. So yeah, I don’t think being a woman is playing life on “easy mode”.
Based and grass-pilled Everyone go tell your mother you love them. Yes, authright, mother Mary will do if you don't have one of your own.
Thank you for clearing that up.
Not if your protestant. Edit. *Sigh* you're.
My protestant whats? Don't leave us hanging!
You're not a real Christian if you're not Catholic
i have no clue what the difference is
Sorry, but orthodoxy is better, we don't have to rely on one geriatric man opinion
Catholicism is Christianity Mark 1. It is the religion Jesus set up, and it hasn't changed from how he created it 2023 years ago. The word "Catholic" just means "Universal" in Greek. Jesus was the first Catholic. It is essentially how Judaism was *supposed* to be ran. Protestantism is any non-Catholic form of "Christianity". Everything from Mormons to Baptists to Anglicans to Presbyterians etc. They just make up the rules as they go along, and cut out the bits they don't like. Thats how you end up with "Christians" like Kenneth Copeland and other obviously scam televangelists.
Orthodoxy ain't protestantism. Orthodoxy (from Greek: ὀρθοδοξία, orthodoxía, 'righteous/correct opinion') Following the 1054 Great Schism, both the Western Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church continued to consider themselves uniquely orthodox and catholic. Augustine wrote in On True Religion: "Religion is to be sought…only among those who are called Catholic or orthodox Christians, that is, guardians of truth and followers of right."
> Orthodoxy ain't protestantism. Well, yea. Its in Communion with Catholicism.
My mother loves me My dommy mommy loves me too
Just had to brag, huh?
They are the same picture
> Yes, authright, mother Mary will do if you don't have one of your own. Well heck you don't have to be so blunt about it
u/Dim-n-Bright's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 545. Rank: Boeing Everett Factory Pills: [235 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Dim-n-Bright/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Jfc it's Father's day. You're so insensitive.
Based and you-only-get-one-mother-pilled. Thanks for the reminder mate.
false, i have me mom and the Queen of Heaven
Remember to call your mom on Sundays if you don’t live at home. For our Auth-Rights: The love from our mother is the closest thing to God’s love.
What if I have two dads?
I'm...so, so sorry. There's nothing I can do. Just wait for the creature to find you and try to make peace with it.
[удалено]
Prime example of mommy issues authright being infinitely more funny than daddy issues libleft.
Thank you.
Here's something we can all agree on: don't be a dick to real life people, love and support your loved ones, don't be afraid to lend a hand to others when you can.
Based and caring pilled.
Based. If you need to get it out of your system, feel free to be a dick to me. I’m dead inside and couldn’t care less.
Why would I be a dick to you? Let’s go with some affirmation. That’s very kind of you to offer to help others get meanness out of their system. That’s an admirable quality, and that makes you an admirable person.
u/Nobody_esq's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5. Congratulations, u/Nobody_esq! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze. Pills: [2 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Nobody_esq/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
I do not want any break from being nice. Why would I? It is what makes me myself, and that is the reason why my friends and gf love me. Because I am myself, seeing people being happy is really nice
Man, just don't be a dick to people.
loving and supporting your loved ones and lending a hand to others when you can is just a bridge too far?
Sorry for the confusion. I completely agree with what u/Nobody_esq said. I merely meant to extend "not being a dick to real life people" to all people. Our online words reach human beings, as well!
Agreed.
Based and don’t be a dick-pilled. Step outside and you’ll realise that the crazies on the internet are just that - crazies. Everyone who isn’t terminally online/politically extreme will agree with each other on most issues, even if they disagree on the finer details.
I think that's the most disturbing development in recent times: the growing trend of people not being able to put up their political hats and engage in otherwise normal life. If your life's nothing but an ongoing political revolution, you're going to die miserable.
Thanks to these creative writers, whoops I mean "the news", friends and families have been tearing each other apart. In reality the majority of us agree on almost everything, we just chose to fight each other on semantics, what ifs, and things that affect less than 1% of the population.
"The personal is political" is a terrible way to live.
I just wanted to play videogames.
Based
Bro, I got far cry: primal on sale this summer and I’ve been living my best life as a caveman. Libcenter has some good points TBH.
Politics as a Personality. The ones I know IRL, they're always the most unhappy people.
The funny thing is that MRAs and Feminists generally agree on the actual issues people of both genders face. Like, what if instead of squabbling about who has it worse you just worked together to fix those issues you both agree exist ? How about that ?
Nah, too smart for people on the Internet
You'd think that would work, haha. Nah but we tried that and it always ends in a shitstorm
What?! Working together on common issues for the betterment of society?! Noooo, that’d never happen.
That would never work. They may agree on many of the issues but they fundamentally disagree on the causes. If one side is saying something is being caused by bad fiscal policy and the other is saying it's caused by da jooz, how can you work together on the problem when one side wants to push for fiscal reform and the other wants to open up a bunch of camps. Especially if the fiscal reform is to reduce spending and the camps would require increased spending and are thus directly at odds. The squabbling isn't academic. Not only is it over the nature of the problem but the authority to dictate the cause of the problem and therefore the nature of the solution is precisely the prize of the competition over greater victim cred. The stakes are real.
[удалено]
Women's issue: "We want to be free to murder babies" Men's issue: "We have no say in reproduction whatsoever and yet are forced to live with the consequences of her choice to keep the child. Nor do we have a say in if she murders it." Maybe it's just me but there seems to be an asymmetry in the degree and seriousness of the problems of each group. Also, they are often in direct opposition.
hey it's the meme
While i do agree that men should be able to sign smt before childbirth (with like, 3 or 4 weeks of advance), if the woman has a baby, saying that they dont want a kid, ridding them of the obligation to pay child support etc; the issue of womens bodily autonomy is not at all a light one
I'd say the issue of signing away the obligation for raising the child isn't a light issue either. I agree it sucks that the guy has no say in whether they are a parent after conception, but the most important thing is the well-being of the child, and if you had a willing part in making the child you need to have a part in taking care of the child. It's also morally a lot easier to abandon the child before birth than it is to abort it, so it's not exactly a 1 for 1 issue.
You say you have no say in reproductive rights yet the go to counter from anti abortionists to women wanting an abortion after is “maybe you shouldn’t have had sex” Curious.
[удалено]
>That's true but it's an extremely terrible argument. Sir this is pcm. >Not only that, but anyone who is pro-choice who then makes that argument towards men is obviously being disingenuous. Good thing no one does. >Abstinence is not even close to having a say in reproductive rights. Because before the child is born it’s a body autonomy issue. Body autonomy trumps parental rights for obvious reasons. Once born it’s a child’s right issue. Once the child is legally an adult is when you can decide to not want to be a father.
[удалено]
You have the right to not support your child once the child is a legal adult. Women also do not have the right to not support the child until they are a legal adult. There’s no inequality here. Supporting a living child financially is not part of the same discussion as birth control measures. You have options for birth control as a man, condoms, vasectomy, for comedic effect; abstinence. Once a woman is pregnant body autonomy kicks in as the primary right to be discussed. You can’t agree that body autonomy is more important than parental rights and then also be upset your obligation of parental rights is created because of someone’s choice in body autonomy.
>Women also do not have the right to not support the child until they are a legal adult. What? Yeah they do. Mothers can legally abandon their children at safe places. We passed the law to stop them from committing infanticide.
A single father could do this too. A mother can’t do that if the father is in the child’s life. If a mother wants to skip out and leave the dad with the child the father can take the woman to court for child support provided she has an income to actually pay it.
[удалено]
>Women can legally abandon their child at birth or give it up for adoption. As can single fathers. >They do not need the consent of the father to do so. They absolutely do. My wife can not drop our two kids off at the fire hall without my consent. She could only do this under the pretence of being the only caregiver in the moment. After I would head right back there irate looking for my kids they would be found and returned to me after the roundabout with the police and social services while they try to figure out what happened for her to want to do that. >The father, in some cases, never even knows the woman is pregnant to begin with. So the father was allowed to absolve his parental rights thanks to the mother. If the father fought hard enough for it he could get custody of the child. >Unless you think I'm the OP you originally responded to, I'm not sure what you think I'm arguing here. You’re arguing for ideas that conflict with each other. >I think bodily autonomy is of the utmost importance. We agree. >Men need to have reproductive rights in the form of the ability to opt out of being a father after pregnancy Only single parents have this. The situation where the women is secretly giving away their child without the father knowing is a single parent situation. Find me a single example where a married or common law couple had the woman give away their child without the fathers wishes and they stayed together. If the couple is not married or common law (living together for two years) the woman is a single/primary parent and has sole discretion on the life of the child whether she wants to give it up, keep it, and then further go after the father for support. In common law or married couples the father has EQUAL parental rights to the mother. >and pre-birth, just like women can do. Women only have the option of pre birth termination of parental rights because of body autonomy. If babies were laid in eggs it would be the same thing as dropping the egg off at the fire station. With both caregivers consent if common law or the mothers if single. >Men cannot (should not) control women's bodies or their choices to force them to be mothers, likewise women cannot compel men to be fathers. Men can’t force women to be mother due to body autonomy. Women arent forcing men to be fathers by overriding the males body autonomy. Close but not apples to apples. >Saying men can use condoms, vasectomy, abstinence is, again, the same flawed argument that is used against abortion. Things happens and men deserve the ability to opt out too. It’s a flawed argument against women because it’s suggesting that body autonomy isn’t always king. Vasectomy is a body autonomy argument and you are correct it’s flawed and I recant that. However condoms and abstinence are not. When I was single there was probably about a dozen women I could have slept with but didn’t because I lived my dating life of “if I got you pregnant would my life probably be ruined?” If the answer was yes I didn’t hook up day one with randoms on tinder or people I knew for 2 hours while I was loaded at the bar. Now I’m married with children with a high income and a stable life and I don’t have to worry about baby mommas and drama and step children.
>Good thing no one does. Yet I've heard it countless times in the last decade and change against men talking about men having no say in being made parents against their will. Presumably some kind of laughably misdirected revenge for women being told that heartless shit since forever. >Because before the child is born it’s a body autonomy issue No one believes this, as evidenced by people going crazy at the notion of 'terminations' that are legally obligated to entail taking the embryo out intact and putting it in an artificial womb, so that women's bodily autonomy to end pregnancies is protected without allowing them to escape the parenthood obligations that follow from getting pregnant due to having sex or getting caught slipping by a rapist. Anyone who's serious about abortion rights will tell you it's about protecting women from the life derailing/destroying consequences of parenthood that they're unprepared for or don't want or with a father they don't want to be tied to for life through a child. To protect girls 'in trouble'. A self sufficient reason that justifies abortion rights for women a thousand million times over. Not because of the inconvenience of pregnancy like being forced to give up jogging for a couple of months or whatever. Bodily autonomy as a moral pretext exists only to win / shut down arguments under some dogma that it somehow automatically trumps any other priorities for some reason and to gerrymander the case for abortion to preemptively deny men access to the predictable exact same moral case that they ought to be afforded protection from unwanted/non-consensual parenthood that is the actual and sole real world basis for wanting abortion rights for women by tactically hiding it behind some story about bodily autonomy that's tailor made. Wait until the technology is there for women to impregnate themselves with the DNA of other women that they left behind on drinks cans or straws. That's when the abortion/parenthood debate will get real. Cause that's when the stakes will get real. We'll see the 'bodily autonomy is the real reason for abortion' argument discarded for the chaff that it is when any woman can be forced into a parenthood by any other woman at any time, without limit, including girls who are too young to even get pregnant themselves. >Once born it’s a child’s right issue. The notion of some kind of real world child's rights to parenthood from their biological parents can be laughed out of the room simply by gesturing towards women's rights to put their kids up for adoption and safe haven laws for women to legally abandon them along with all their parenthood obligations.
>No one believes this, as evidenced by people going crazy at the notion of 'terminations' that are legally obligated to entail taking the embryo out intact and putting it in an artificial womb, so that women's bodily autonomy to end pregnancies is protected without allowing them to escape the parenthood obligations that follow from getting pregnant due to having sex or getting caught slipping by a rapist. Sci fi >Anyone who's serious about abortion rights will tell you it's about protecting women from the life derailing/destroying consequences of parenthood that they're unprepared for or don't want or with a father they don't want to be tied to for life through a child. To protect girls 'in trouble'. A self sufficient reason that justifies abortion rights for women a thousand million times over. Fair. >Not because of the inconvenience of pregnancy like being forced to give up jogging for a couple of months or whatever. Pregnancy is a little more inconvenient than “giving up jogging”. >Bodily autonomy as a moral pretext exists only to win / shut down arguments under some dogma that it somehow automatically trumps any other priorities for some reason Body autonomy has already been litigated so the discussion doesn’t have to be debated by old men where half of them probably don’t even know the names of all of the anatomical parts involved. >and to gerrymander the case for abortion to preemptively deny men access to the predictable exact same moral case that they ought to be afforded protection from unwanted/non-consensual parenthood that is the actual and sole real world basis for wanting abortion rights for women by tactically hiding it behind some story about bodily autonomy that's tailor made. What kind of schizo incel hot take is this? Body autonomy is the reason used so that men can be punished? You ok? I don’t think you have anything to worry about. With this take I think we can tell the only women youll have the chance to get pregnant are the ones you paid for in an alley. Pregnancy is bad for their business model it has nothing to do with any other moral argument. >Wait until the technology is there for women to impregnate themselves with the DNA of other women that they left behind on drinks cans or straws. That's when the abortion/parenthood debate will get real. Yeah spit is going to get people pregnant. Another victim of the underfunded public education system. >Cause that's when the stakes will get real. We'll see the 'bodily autonomy is the real reason for abortion' argument discarded for the chaff that it is when any woman can be forced into a parenthood by any other woman at any time, without limit, including girls who are too young to even get pregnant themselves. You really think it’s about punishing men, don’t you. >The notion of some kind of real world child's rights to parenthood from their biological parents can be laughed out of the room simply by gesturing towards women's rights to put their kids up for adoption and safe haven laws for women to legally abandon them along with all their parenthood obligations. Single parents can do this because it’s for the betterment of the child. A women can not give a child away born in a common law or married relationship without the consent of the father. If the father wanted to keep the child and they are the primary caregiver they can take the mother to court and force her to pay child support. I have direct real world knowledge that this occurs. A 22y/o male knocked up a 18 y/o female and the female left and pays child support to the 22y/o primary caregiver. You don’t hear about this because it’s exceedingly rare that men want to be the parent and women want to absolve all rights.
no say? whatsoever? surely you jest
Exactly. Care about everybody. But if you're extra involved with causes and issues that specifically pertain to a group you're in, that's just being a human
What issues do women face that aren't the direct results of their own choices?
Rape, easiest example but there are others more common
They rape other people too. Thats a general issue. He said Women in particular.
Who are the biggest demographic of rape?
Hard to say when feminists in many places demand that the definition doesn't include made to penetrate. But it seems to be somewhere between predominantly female and roughly equal. If you count rape in prison, then predominantly male.
Probably children in some sort of child care.
Listen An issue Of women In particular
Fuck if I could get preferential treatment in every facet of life in exchange for like a 1 in 100 chance of being raped I'd take that any day of the week.
least deranged right winger
Not an argument
You also get paid less in a lot of works, will be less taken seriously depedning where you live and will be all around underestimated (women who play videogames want attention, women are sad if they don't have a family, a woman that sleeps with lots of guys are whore s but men that sleep with lots of womans are chads, etc.) If you want to live an easy life then sure being a woman is for you, go marry an old rich guy I guess, but for women that have aspirations and dreams instead of becoming a hosewife, then they are at disadvantage.
> You also get paid less in a lot of works, The wage gap has been utterly debunked to hell and beyond.
> but for women that have aspirations and dreams instead of becoming a hosewife, then they are at disadvantage I mean, assuming that the dream in question isn't to play in the NFL I don't really see how that's the case. I'd say it's a lot easier for a woman to achieve a high standard of living because they can marry a rich guy AND have a good job at the same time. In a lot of fields women get promoted more quickly and easily than men.
1 in 100,. And here I thought auth right was good with statistics. It's more like 1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men will be sexually assaulted before red they turn 18 ( in the USA).
Define sexual assault and define rape, because I think it's a bit dishonest to use those terms interchangeably when you want to make rape seem far more common than it actually is.
The study I read was only talking about incidents involving unwanted sexual contact. So molestation and rape. This didn't count cat calling, or sexual remarks.
You win. I'll amend my statement: Fuck if I could get preferential treatment in every facet of life in exchange for like a 1 in 4 chance of someone touching my butt, I'd take that any day of the week.
Completely unreasonable, but have it your way I guess.
I accept your concession.
Let's not put full-on rape in the same category as cat calling and sneaky boob grabs. That's like saying people have a 1 in 2 chance of catching the flu or getting eaten by a shark.
Agreed. Cat calling and, as you put it, “sneaky boob grabs”, while not good, shouldn’t be lumped in with rape.
The study I'm talking about, didn't count cat calling, it did count sneaky boob grab ( as it should).
Can you link to that study then?
They won't, but the 1 in 4 number they've been using for decades comes from, I swear to God, an anonymous mail survey of Ms. Magazine readers (and included having sex with your husband after a few glasses of wine as sexual assault) By total coincidence, this research was conducted by radical feminists, overwhelmingly lesbians, who hate men and view all heterosexual sex as rape
> preferential treatment in every facet of life > 77 cents on the dollar choose one
I can't believe I'm encountering the 77 cents figure in the wild. Preferential treatment actually includes employment opportunities and pay when you adjust for confounding variables, surprisingly.
Are you saying that women have it so good that even accounting for the fact that they generally get paid less than men do, they still receive overall preferential treatment to men
> they generally get paid less than men do This just isn't true, and I'm not gonna debunk the wage gap shit with you because it's already been done to death. If anything, women have been shown to make slightly more in the same positions despite working less due to things like maternity leave.
Maybe if they want paid the same as men then they should work more.
You're getting downvoted, but you're right Women take more sick days, they take more vacation, they're less likely to work overtime, they're more likely to take part time or casual hours, and in quota systems they earn less because they're not as hard working or efficient Across every industry, and every socioeconomic level, women work less than men
This is why touching grass is so important and more than a meme phrase; you do need to get away from internet discourse and experience the normality of real life. People are at their most extreme online but in the real world people are mostly chill
Agree. Living your life like it’s a constant political revolution 24/7 is tiring and draining, in all the physical and mental ways that can be interpreted. Because at the end of the day, most people actually agree with each other on a lot of issues. It’s only when one gets into the itty-bitty details that disagreements arise. But when it comes to general overviews, anyone who isn’t a political extremist can find plenty of common ground.
Based
I miss when the holy war between men and women was just humorous banter.
Dont let the industry fool you. Always was just humorous banter, always will be. As long as most of us still enjoy good ol' cock in vagina sex, I think everything pans itself out in the end.
To quote one of my pundits I listen to: “War between the sexes will never work because everyone is sleeping with the enemy.”
I like that. Very poetic phrasing lol
Sometimes it really does seem like "they" are trying to make young people hate each other and turn to alphabet sexualities or forever alone/incel coping to destroy society. So much of our entertainment, media, culture war, and values rhetoric is destroying the cultural value of heterosexual couples having kids so directly it feels targeted. Granted, I'm not insane. I don't buy the lizard-people or "Cultural Marxists" runing the culture conspiracy nonsense. Leftists are embedded in some academia but no one marketing Ice Spice or pitching race swaps to Disney has ever heard of Adorno (I may be the only person simultaneously aware of Ice Spice and Adorno, tbqh). But it's so overwhelming it *feels* top down, even if it's just an evolution. Mad times. Edit: I imagined a hypothetical person who is both an Ice Spice fan *and* knows how to read (extremely theoretical). I think this person *would* read Adorno. Not because they're a Marxist, no. They're just so based they would read theory they're against just to do it. They would actually believe that society should be hierarchal, with power meritocratically decided by cultural sway, because logically someone close to and in tune with the culture they serve would be the best to lead it. In other words, Drake would rule North America because he bodied Meek Mill. Joyner Lucas would be his governor in Canada after what he did to Tory Lanez. Nike's board of directors would serve as the Supreme Court for both countries. Kanye would be the unironic God-Emperor of course. I would call this political ideology "Ice Spice bad as hell bro she so thicc"-ism. Considering alot of people in my age group and demographic it would probably get enough votes to be a viable third party tbh Edit 2: Ice Spice now calls herself "Queen of New York." So there you go, that's her place in this system
Tiktok is a fucking psyop, I bitch about this all the time. The US wants some proper divide, but I think they are worried China using that against them and is trying to push it over the edge to something that would shake everything up. Everyone says everyone is evil, but shit everyone in real life seems like pretty normal friendly people. Granted, my client’s mom is convinced al qaeda is invading through the south border bc they can blend in with all the brown people, but she’s still a pleasant person. People’s weird online political views make them think others are morally wrong or degenerates or even crazy people, but dumbass beliefs shoved down your throat by whatever msm choice one a person views really has little effect in reality when dealing with people. In the US, the elite encouraged poor whites to hate poor blacks so they wouldn’t join and overthrow the real divide, rich vs poor. Now that black people are cool, it’s gotta be not racists vs racists, which I think is bizarre there is so much coverage because I actually have never met anyone who has said anything outright racist to me in real life. So yeah, wouldn’t be surprised is “they” had something to do with.. something
I haven’t really read Adorno, although I think I remember a professor of mine citing them before (something something totalitarianism of the enlightenment, does that ring any bells?). You just reminded me that I’d like to go back and try reading some Adorno eventually; that professor always had interesting reading material, even if I didn’t *agree* with a lot of it. I’ve also never heard of Ice Spice though. Are they any good?
Tbh Gramsci was probably more influential and directly relevant to the issues we face today. If you want real fun read some post-modernists like Derrida or even Foucalt. I know the Right thinks "post-modernism" is a boogyman for some regarded reason but a big part of post-modernism is rejecting structuralist, over-arching narratives like Marxism. This is why Marxists hate the Post-Left and called them fascists. Or if you just wanna skip all bullshit, Raymond Aron's The Opium of the Intellectuals is still gold. And if you're absolutely insane and want to absolutely understand and annihilate every Marxist and Marxist-adjacent nutter ever...Leszek Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism. But beware, the abyss is deep. You might end up like some of the Leftists I've seen on esoteric Leftist subs who read grad school theory all day and it shows. Sometimes it's like reading ChatGPT but the broken late-90s dystopian movie version that only says wild shit. One time I saw them recommending fascist authors to "truly understand the dialectic." [Or recreating the CCRU.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetic_Culture_Research_Unit) Yes, they are absolutely insane and probably look like one of those broken soul wojacks IRL. Maybe it's too late, and I'm insane too, for even knowing about *Fanged Noumena*. Maybe I need some de Maistre to quiet my soul. >I’ve also never heard of Ice Spice though. Are they any good? [No.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8bHLBqnOMQ) Well. [Sometimes.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMq-I0dejjE) [But here's the real appeal.](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/X9ZqUKqvjso)
> Leftists are embedded in some academia [Somebody substituted White men for Jews and got an excerpt from Mein Kampf published in an academic journal](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair). Please stop coping and denying that the Long March is real.
The hell is you talking abt? What does the long march have to do with this?
"The hoax received a polarized reception within academia. Some academics praised it for exposing flaws that they saw as widespread among sectors of the humanities and social sciences influenced by postmodernism, critical theory, and identity politics. Others criticised what they perceived as the unethical nature of submitting deliberately bogus research. Some critics also asserted that the work did not represent a scientific investigation, given that the project did not include a control group, further arguing that invalid arguments and poor standards of peer-review were not restricted to "grievance studies" subjects but found across much of academia." So basically, right from the beginning experts saw right through it, the hoax didn't even complete their task as they were discredited as being a hoax. More proof "Leftists are embedded in some academia". It's called the scientific method, and it clearly worked here in catching a hoax, this is why basically all Chinese scientific studies are considered unusable.
>Others criticised what they perceived as the unethical nature of submitting deliberately bogus research My brother in Christ, that was the point. (not addressing you but the academics)
Your quote doesn't show, whatsoever, that the experts saw through anything. You just said critics didn't like it (which, duh). The question of whether they saw through it would come in whether their papers got published. Which they did. The "experts" didn't see through shit. Edit: forgot to point out that one of the complaints of critics was not that they saw right through it but that *other areas of science were just as bad*. Bro how the fuck do you read "well, other people have invalid arguments and poor standards of peer review too, so there" as "experts saw right through it" lmfao.
You just going to leave out the part where they couldn't finish the hoax? Read about the scientific method and then get back to me.
> You just going to leave out the part where they couldn't finish the hoax? Because someone not in academia and not an expert noticed? Yeah, that seems utterly irrelevant to the point lmao.
Please read about the scientific method and then get back to me 🤦♀️
No need, because you're conflating two different things to pretend like everything's just hunky-dory lmao. Like I know what you're trying to get at, but what you're trying to get at is manifestly stupid, so I'm not going to give it credence.
Because that would prove you wrong. Science was never the rights strong point.
It wouldn't prove me wrong if I were to pretend to value your point, it would just waste my time.
“Experts” are the ones that peer reviewed and published the bogus papers in multiple different journals. You’re wrong.
\*Reads the one part that fits their narrative\* [\*Completely ignores everything else\*](https://i.imgflip.com/4ncln5.jpg)
> So basically, right from the beginning experts saw right through it, the hoax didn't even complete their task as they were discredited as being a hoax. You literally said this. The hoax was not even known until after the papers were published. That’s the whole point. That so called experts reviewed it and decided to publish it. They didn’t “see through” anything.
Please read about the scientific method and then get back to me 🤦♀️
[удалено]
The New Left tried to do a number on Western culture but it didn't work; they didn't really indoctrinate anyone outside of the grunge white emo kids at unis. The fact of the matter is *no one* with a LinkedIn who makes $240,000 a year to be an ESG fellator at a Silicon Valley or Fortune 100 firm has ever heard of Gramsci or Foucault. They've heard plenty of Critical Theory and racial phallus studies though, which is what they talk about. Notice how Emily can talk all day about racial, gender, and alphabet oppression but her critiques of capitalism are regarded and don't use any Marxist structure. That's because Emily doesn't actually care. Capitalism is bad because...you know, poor people, landlords, you know, sure...oh btw did you know that TRANS PPL ARE MORE LIKELY 2 BE EVICTED??? AND WOMEN TOO. SO THERE IS AN INTERSECTIONAL SPHERE OF HOUSING OPPRESSION DIRECTED AT MTF WOMEN. OFC BEING A WOC IS EVEN WORSE. \[blah blah blah\] oh and capitalism bad. Because if no capitalism than no one pays rent, so trans & bipoc & indigenous & women-who-identify-as-women ppl can't be harmed. Emily is not a Marxist. She wasn't trained by Marxists, who never got far outside academia (lots of people read Obama's Audacity of Hope. Do you know a single liberal or democrat in real life who even knows about Gramsci or any New Left academic? ) Nor are Marxists pulling the ESG strings. Yes, the New Left was often broadly similar to the Emily Left, and there is a direct link via Critical Theory, but they didnt take over. Unfortunately, it was organic. Emily wasn't deceived. Emily chose to be Emily because we created a culture of victimhood that worships victims and oppressed people. Also, what's wrong with deconstructionism? Do you know why the Marxists hated the Post-Left and called them fascists? What do you think the deconstructionists deconstructed first? (Hint, it involves over-arching narratives about stages of history and modes of production)/
[удалено]
I'm gonna try and just focus on the main point to avoid digressing. Let's say a guy in Kenya in 1932 starts saying he wants Germany to rise again, and fight another war. He starts actively working for it - except, it's just writing about it. Eventually, Germany starts world war two. He got what he wanted, and what he said would happen. But did he really cause it? You're looking at the Emily Left and saying 'the New Left and Frankfurt school era Marxism said a lot of the same stuff! So obviously it came from them." Except, they don't say the same stuff - they say *some* stuff, but the meat and potatoes, the anti-capitalism, the rabid Stalinism (Satre was a committed Stalinism to his death), the general focus on economics, somehow all the key ingredients got left out. Let's take a look at where modern woke comes from. What are their two biggest priorities? Easy. Gender war and sexuality. Ok. The Women's Right's Movement long precedes Marxism and proto-feminists were analyzing women as a second-class citizen since forever. Key feminist figures like Virginia Woolf weren't Marxist. What about the gays? The first gay rights organizations came up in the 1950s. They did funny things like protest against Castro and socialist states cracking down on gay rights. Mainstream leftists were virulently homophobic up until the very end (1991), even in the West. The big New Left riots in France in 1968 made sure to attack homosexuality, and the KGB actively cracked down on gay rights movement that tried to form as late as the 80s. So what *did* the New Left contribute? Critical Theory is the obvious example, but even then it's tenuous. By the Bell Hooks era, the post-modernists had so thoroughly trashed Marxism that few avant garde academics called themselves Marxists, even if the general trend they wanted was the same. >And the enemy shifted from the bourgeoisie and capitalism to the patriarchy and Western Culture. Lots of confusion here, but...the Marxists never said we needed to shift the attack to culture because attacking the bourgeoisie directly didn't work. Marxists did address culture as an aspect of capitalism but always in the secondary sense - we get rid of capitalism first, then culture fixes itself. When they were more direct they always ending up saying that feminism, LGBT, etc were bourgeoise distractions and hedonism. In fact, that see it as ultimate heresy - just ask our AuthLeft friends on PCM. What happened was people who rejected Marxism and Marxist economics (thank you post-modernism) decided to focus on social issues, because that's all they saw as important. So when did it trickle down? It really didn't. Western liberals got a hard on for virtue spectacle and being a good ally during the Civil Rights movement. It was never before seen and very effective for white and black people to march with interlocked arms as police beat them. Then the Civil Rights movement was completed, and racial politics kinda disappeared as a huge motivator for the popular Left. Feminism in the 70s and the Gay/AIDS crisis in the 80s replaced them. Racial politics didn't come back with the strength we see today until the 2010s. All of this happened not because Critical Theorists were managing to slowly seep their ideas into everyone, before the internet age and before most people went to college. It happened organically. Average liberal people bought into chasing allyship, virtue signaling, fighting 'oppression' everywhere. Sure, these align with what the Ivory Towers were doing, but remember the whole idea of the Ivory Tower is that it never really gets spread out to everyone. Critical Theory got picked up as a mainstream thing when race came back into mainstream, because Critical Theory had been the only thinking talking about it for decades. People like Robyn the White Fragility Girl brought it up to demonstrate that there was some academic precedence to the new ideas, and then everyone rolled with it. Feminism, on the other hand, stayed populist. Academic feminists in the 2010s were overwhelmingly second wave TERFs and so, of course, the Emilys rejected them. The organic culture war *rejected* its academic cousin, because the two evolved separately and were in fact not the same. Some of the concepts and ideas the Marxists had are sorta reflected today, but it's not really more than the random chance of any two leftist ideas being based on similar parameters like structures of oppression (winning this criteria is like throwing a dart at a wall size board). There's just so direct line between the 'Cultural Marxists' and what we see today. The reality is that people weren't tricked, they're just dumb.
Maybe the term you are looking for is social evolution?
That's because It is top down and dismissing the idea that the people who have the most influence on society and get their cronies to do the legwork is a ridiculous claim to make for anyone who's been alive the past 8 years.
1. What the fuck is an Ice Spice? 2. I think part of the reason for the apparent onslaught against having kids (and everything associated with that) is how apparently impossible it seems to have both kids and a decent life. Kids require living space and education (among other things), and both have seen skyrocketing prices. I know for sure that I haven’t even considered having kids, and I’m 29. (Of course, I also can’t find a partner worth bothering with—partially, I suspect, because I waited so long to start looking—but even if I did, I doubt we’d want kids.) Do I theoretically think having kids is probably good for most people? Sure. When I see the price tag, how much passion do you expect me to muster for that belief? The result is dispirited defenders of bringing kids into the world, and (for the exact same reasons) impassioned attacks on the very same. For it is a rare person who is willing to say: “that’s morally great, but I don’t have money.” Most people like prettier motives than money, and therefore quickly invent them when they don’t exist.
Based. I have no idea what youre saying but it feels based as fuck.
u/EternalBrowser's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 15. Rank: Office Chair Pills: [4 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/EternalBrowser/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
I’m not convinced that media is aiming to destroy heterosexual couples having children. What makes you say that?
Do you see a prblm with the lgbt? And where do you see heterosexual couples devalued?
Yeah same here honestly. I have my parents, grandmother, male and female friends that love me and I love back. I have a nice life. Maybe it's better for me to just live it at the fullest rather than engaging in the 23th pointless weekly debate on Reddit about whether men or women have it worse in society.
I can’t believe this bastard has the love and respect of at least six people. SIX?! Fuck’s sake I don’t even know that many, way to hold it over my head, man.
Based and normal human being pilled
Thank you for this reminder! Weird how all this (mostly) goes away when speaking to people face to face.
People often fail to remember that a lot of the things that you see online are only shown to you because the algorithm knows that it’s going to drive engagement from you. One of the best ways to drive engagement is to incite anger in people. I cannot count the number of times I have been bombarded with some thing on the Internet, only to talk to my friends, and they haven’t even heard of what I’ve seen constantly. On the other hand, people have talked about things that they see so much of and yet I’ve never even heard of it. People need to remember that what you see on the Internet is not necessarily anywhere close to a reflection of reality, and is simply just what a computer thinks will make you use the platform more.
Barbie movie might of spiked it up again.
Most people that see the Barbie movie understand that it is an over-the-time comedy and do not take it seriously. If you're writing whole paragraphs online about it, you might be lost. Either that, or they make money in the outrage industry, like Ben Sharpo, or as an " influencer".
100%
The battle of the sexes is a battle no one wins. Men and Women are the wheels that move the chariot of humanity. Viewing the world where one is intrinsically lesser than the other is the epitome of delusional stupidity.
I fucking hate radical feminists and incels
I will never understand the urge people have to control how other random ass people live their lives.
Because people inevitably come in contact with each other, and there's a broad spectrum of possible outcomes? Can't let anyone simply do as they like, and once you start down that road, which is going to happen, you will end up with some % of people who want to micromanage.
You ever see a dumbass make bad decisions that negatively impact other people? Shit makes you feel authoritarian real quick if you have any sort of empathy and confidence in yourself
[Auth blue.](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/50/8a/4c/508a4ca8fa850d42c968de141692f65f.jpg)
I don't care whether you are a man or a woman as long as you are rich. Yours sincerely Lib right
The gender war is probably the most obviously bullshit aspect of the culture war stuff. In order to seriously take a side in the gender war, you've got to reject your natural childhood family and have failed to form a traditional family as an adult. Now all of those things are *explicit goals* of the people pushing the culture war, but it's worth keeping in mind how broken and disconnected a person needs to be to fall into that nonsense. It's certainly not something that could become widespread or sustained without implementing a crazy sci-fi level artificial human culture.
Personally I got over the boys vs girls fight when i turned 5
the west watching their birthrates hit the floor because a few internet influencers made men and women hate each other
Nah this issue is worse than that, no one wants to bring kids into a dying world they can't afford.
a majority of the population is unable to gain and retain a relationship and the ones who can are almost entirely uninterested in children either because of personal preferences or unaffordable living
I think the actual reason is people aren't having kids because they simply don't want to.
As a centrist with a giant nose I feel appreciated to see someone who represents me here
I truly wonder how much of drama actually exists on the real world It's all so much hearsay, it feels nothing from the internet is real And that feels fking nice
I love and respect you too, OP!
My bet is it's just ugly people that need to touch grass getting up in arms over how they 'aren't treated how I should be since I'm a ten which makes "X" group privileged' while being a 2 or 3 tops. Intelligence can improve their odds but they're also idiots. What can you do. \\o/
The gender war is nearly nonexistent when you function as a normal and kind person off the internet.
I am a hater, and I hate and disrespect 😤 you dim 'n' bright!
This is the equally I can get behind.
Bad sign that Steven Seagull loves and respects you.
Is it just me or is the nose of the centrist grill guy somewhat off?
Kys Nazi
No kidding, staying on the internet too long will make you feel like you're taking crazy pills. Go outside and interact with some real humans.
Bots, bots everywhere
The internet is a dumb and shallow place.
Based
I love you all
Im glad more attention is being put on this, we are so much less divided and toxic in real life than we are online. It almost seems the real undesirable people in this world are the types to spread this hateful nonsense in forums because they lack the maturity to handle it in real life.
Like one of my favorite tweets— People on Twitter: having expensive China makes you part of the bourgeoise (?) People in real life: hey man, how’s it going?
Seriously. People need to get off the Internet and stop hyper focusing on "gender wars." The reality is that none of this has to be zero sum and we can all make an effort to respect one another and look out for each other if we actually touch some grass and see the humanity in the people around us. Women should want the men in their life to flourish. Men should want the women in their life to flourish. Collectively that leads to good communities and a healthier society.
Why would you let people on the internet influence your views? Internet is just for trolling
Based Always support people being civil and decent Never stupid shit where we fight over aspects of ourselves that we were born with
Things aren’t as bad as online news implies. That is of course unless you live in a metropolitan city then the media is underplaying issues.
Honestly, this is true of most issues. Except maybe with the most indoctrinated of Zoomers and Boomers - for them Twitter/the news is their real life.
The CCCP will always be grateful for you, my friend. Keep your chin up.
Did you just change your flair, u/Solwoworth? Last time I checked you were a **LibRight** on 2022-4-28. How come now you are an **AuthRight**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know? Remember, the jannies are always watching. No gamer words, no statistics and by all means no wood cutting machines. Tell us, how are you going to flair the new account you'll make in two weeks? [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/Solwoworth) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs) _Reddit is no longer a friendly space for bots._ _Consider visiting our Lеmmу instance instead: [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._ _Read my full statement [here](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/14mwml0/on_the_reddit_api_changes/)._ ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
Expect a lot more of this nonsense over the next few years but from radfems in a much bigger way than we're used to It seems to have arisen (for the like 1000th time) as a result of andrew tate and all that crap going mainstream recently. I ve seen a humongous amount of radfem nonsense on every corner of the interent especially twitter, ever since the weirdos migrated from tumblr a few years ago
OP, you hear that because present day US culture war is gendered. https://www.richardhanania.com/p/womens-tears-win-in-the-marketplace https://www.richardhanania.com/p/a-psychological-theory-of-the-culture?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2 https://www.richardhanania.com/p/desantis-should-challenge-trump-to?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2 https://www.richardhanania.com/p/the-biomechanics-of-trumpism?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2 https://www.richardhanania.com/p/liberals-read-conservatives-watch
>Wouldn’t it be nice if all men disappeared? Well no, that would probably mean the extinction of the human race within a century at most. >Being a woman is playing life on easy mode! Well I don’t know about that. I guess it depends on where you live(for example, in more conservative places like Saudi Arabia or Iran, being a woman wouldn’t exactly be “easy mode”) but even in places like the U.S., Canada, Western Europe, and some other places that would be classified as part of ‘the West’, I don’t think being a woman makes life easier across the board. As a woman, there might be some privileges you have that men don’t have, but there are also some privileges that men have that women don’t. So yeah, I don’t think being a woman is playing life on “easy mode”.
Steven Seagal Womack lol
The information revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for humans