The one where they discussed abortion based on gender and "accidentally" killing a male baby if they weren't allowed?
After birth? I don't think so.
How are they a lesser threat?
Cause they're weaker and are less extreme.
That ideology is too flawed and will eventually collapse on itself (Record non-white vote for Trump proves it.)
It 'proves' nothing - the ideology is stronger than ever in media, academia, etc. You're just looking for excuses to be obsessed with petty mosquitoes rather than the real problem.
Do you think Donald Trump would accept the support of these people? Of course he wouldn't. I bet they all voted for Sleepy Joe anyway, hoping he'll die before 2021.
It's not about Donald Trump, it's about being able to fight back against totalitarian cultists.
You see too much humanity in them
Even if I saw none, that would not change my mind. You can always take care of a group after defeating the common enemy.
Is it about that one girl from GC who used to post on KiA and I ended up frequently losing my mind over her interacting with my posts? Just because someone seems sane online, doesn't mean they're actually a good person.
Oh dear God, you're obsessed with her. You do know that she is a GG'er and not even much of a radfem, more of a conservative - but that she posted on GC for the same reason I did, because they are red-pilled on the issue of delusion?
Pretty sure that you simply don't like her because she is female, because you don't lose your mind over me - and I am if anything more positive about GC.
It is true, but that archive died so I just have to leave it there.
Killing all white men is less than killing all white people, I suppose. Although I have a feeling they'd go after their non-white allies on the left too once they got rid of us.
What's more likely, non-white men realizing women aren't their allies or young women treating men like humans? Intersectionality is already collapsing, Hispanics turned out for Trump and he only lost a 96% Hispanic Texas county by 5% after losing it by 31% last time.
Donald Trump is the only person positioned to fight back, you realize. If he doesn't manage to take the election back, they won. It'll just be infighting between the various factions over who to treat the worst.
That didn't really answer the question. What value are they to us though? They're disliked by their own side and by people who would support us. If anything, it's like the episode of South Park with the KKK. You want them on the opposite side to us because sane people will take our side.
I'm not obsessed with her. It just entered my mind when I was thinking about why you defend these people. It's not because she's female either, I've had okay interactions with female users here.
I don't lose my mind over you because in the end of the day, you aren't an infiltrator from their side. You are hated by them just as much as I am. You have a weird logic that makes you think they're worthy allies, but they would gladly watch both of us burn.
Although I have a feeling they'd go after their non-white allies on the left too once they got rid of us.
You think non-whites are going to stand for being lectured by blue-haired shrews? Let alone Muslims? Their complete BS ideology has been subverted, which is why they ignore the massive rape statistics when it's Favored Groups committing the rape. Same for Rotherham, Cologne and other stuff.
What's more likely, non-white men realizing women aren't their allies
Non-white men are not a monolith, but since white women are such absolute chumps, it is very easy to take political advantage of them if one wants.
Intersectionality is already collapsing
Again, you say that to justify trying to work with them to take out their enemies.
That didn't really answer the question. What value are they to us though?
They keep poking at the intersectionalist house of cards, from another perspective. I find this quite useful.
You want them on the opposite side to us because sane people will take our side.
They're not going to join the other side. They're actual feminists, meaning that they try to make things better for women - whether just or unjust. Intersectionalists support rape gangs and men in dresses, so that's not pro-women.
I've had okay interactions with female users here.
Alright, now I know I'm dreaming.
But I've posted on GC as well, probably for the same reasons. In general, I find them to be much more reasonable than intersectionalists, though often nuts still. Anyway, even if they were crazier, they would still be very useful.
I don't lose my mind over you because in the end of the day, you aren't an infiltrator from their side. You are hated by them just as much as I am.
This is pure identitarianism. So it is because I am male.
Stand for what? They hold the power, it's irrelevant what anyone else would want, even their useful idiots. Do you think NZ is suddenly going to prioritize anyone over women?
I'm not working with them, I'm working for myself against people I personally hate.
I have, notice I said okay and not good. I can keep things sane and professional, but never friendly. A bit like at work, honestly.
Who do you hate more, the CCP's spies or the idiots who think China is our friend? That's the best analogy I can think of.
Do you think NZ is suddenly going to prioritize anyone over women?
Absolutely. Jihadi Jacinda would prioritize Muslims and grooming gangs over women. Same for transvestites. That is intersectionality, but you don't see that due to your tunnelvision.
I'm not working with them, I'm working for myself against people I personally hate.
You're working for the triumph of feminism, you mean. Cause that's what you're doing by cheering censorship of the enemies of intersectionalists.
I have, notice I said okay and not good. I can keep things sane and professional, but never friendly.
Why? What does it say that I have better interactions with radical feminists and even intersectionalists than you can with a woman? Aren't you what you hate?
Who do you hate more, the CCP's spies or the idiots who think China is our friend? That's the best analogy I can think of.
The latter. Not sure this is how your analogy was supposed to work.
After birth? I don't think so.
Cause they're weaker and are less extreme.
It 'proves' nothing - the ideology is stronger than ever in media, academia, etc. You're just looking for excuses to be obsessed with petty mosquitoes rather than the real problem.
It's not about Donald Trump, it's about being able to fight back against totalitarian cultists.
Even if I saw none, that would not change my mind. You can always take care of a group after defeating the common enemy.
Oh dear God, you're obsessed with her. You do know that she is a GG'er and not even much of a radfem, more of a conservative - but that she posted on GC for the same reason I did, because they are red-pilled on the issue of delusion?
Pretty sure that you simply don't like her because she is female, because you don't lose your mind over me - and I am if anything more positive about GC.
It is true, but that archive died so I just have to leave it there.
Killing all white men is less than killing all white people, I suppose. Although I have a feeling they'd go after their non-white allies on the left too once they got rid of us.
What's more likely, non-white men realizing women aren't their allies or young women treating men like humans? Intersectionality is already collapsing, Hispanics turned out for Trump and he only lost a 96% Hispanic Texas county by 5% after losing it by 31% last time.
Donald Trump is the only person positioned to fight back, you realize. If he doesn't manage to take the election back, they won. It'll just be infighting between the various factions over who to treat the worst.
That didn't really answer the question. What value are they to us though? They're disliked by their own side and by people who would support us. If anything, it's like the episode of South Park with the KKK. You want them on the opposite side to us because sane people will take our side.
I'm not obsessed with her. It just entered my mind when I was thinking about why you defend these people. It's not because she's female either, I've had okay interactions with female users here.
I don't lose my mind over you because in the end of the day, you aren't an infiltrator from their side. You are hated by them just as much as I am. You have a weird logic that makes you think they're worthy allies, but they would gladly watch both of us burn.
You think non-whites are going to stand for being lectured by blue-haired shrews? Let alone Muslims? Their complete BS ideology has been subverted, which is why they ignore the massive rape statistics when it's Favored Groups committing the rape. Same for Rotherham, Cologne and other stuff.
Non-white men are not a monolith, but since white women are such absolute chumps, it is very easy to take political advantage of them if one wants.
Again, you say that to justify trying to work with them to take out their enemies.
They keep poking at the intersectionalist house of cards, from another perspective. I find this quite useful.
They're not going to join the other side. They're actual feminists, meaning that they try to make things better for women - whether just or unjust. Intersectionalists support rape gangs and men in dresses, so that's not pro-women.
Alright, now I know I'm dreaming.
But I've posted on GC as well, probably for the same reasons. In general, I find them to be much more reasonable than intersectionalists, though often nuts still. Anyway, even if they were crazier, they would still be very useful.
This is pure identitarianism. So it is because I am male.
Stand for what? They hold the power, it's irrelevant what anyone else would want, even their useful idiots. Do you think NZ is suddenly going to prioritize anyone over women?
I'm not working with them, I'm working for myself against people I personally hate.
I have, notice I said okay and not good. I can keep things sane and professional, but never friendly. A bit like at work, honestly.
Who do you hate more, the CCP's spies or the idiots who think China is our friend? That's the best analogy I can think of.
Absolutely. Jihadi Jacinda would prioritize Muslims and grooming gangs over women. Same for transvestites. That is intersectionality, but you don't see that due to your tunnelvision.
You're working for the triumph of feminism, you mean. Cause that's what you're doing by cheering censorship of the enemies of intersectionalists.
Why? What does it say that I have better interactions with radical feminists and even intersectionalists than you can with a woman? Aren't you what you hate?
The latter. Not sure this is how your analogy was supposed to work.