We are on the same page regarding the women (and men) who have hatred for anyone white or male.
What you haven't answered, and what I still do not understand, is how your claim that 45% of women are bad, if true, would justify hating the 55% who, it follows, are not bad.
Don't get me started on the traitors. Imagine siding with a mere theory over your own humanity. Even if they genuinely believe men leading is bad, they are allowed to hear discussions that would shock the world if they were disseminated openly. Look at Zuckerberg's tacit admission that banning hate speech against men would basically remove nearly all of the "equality" crusaders. They talk about us in a way that rivals how Hitler talked about Jews, yet their own allies who hear it all just enable them. How do they not realize that all men means all men?
Most discourse on social media is between the 45% and us. I don't see the reason to self-censor based on offending a group that plainly just isn't present. Nobody's going up to old women and saying "Fuck you for this!". The "misogynistic" discourse is either on containment platforms like here, where offence is expected, or on Twitter and Facebook, where it is absolutely dwarfed by hatred from women.
How do they not realize that all men means all men?
When you say Women, people think you mean all Women.
Am I right in saying that what you actually mean is some Women, but that you are happy enough to offend that you don't care if people think you mean all women, given that you expect the people to be reading to fall within whatever percentage it is that you are arguing are bad?
Ah, but they literally say all men. They don't imply it by omission, on purpose or by accident. They outright state it.
It's an interesting thing to talk about and I'd honestly be confusing even myself if I tried to explain. I don't believe all women are bad, but I also believe they all can be, if the conditions are correct. This is what informs the decisions in my personal life when interacting with them. Treat everyone like they're going to stab you in the back and you'll catch the knife before it goes in.
On the other hand, in political terms, it's simple figures that make me say just women and not give exceptions. The majority vote with us - at the current point - but this is hideously skewed by the elderly population, which hides the massive levels of hatred that will be unleashed when that group dies off.
What are the chances that an over 65 Republican voter sees my comment and also has it change their mind on who to vote for? They've been voting R since Ronald Reagan, nothing will stop them, and we should be thankful for that.
The reason I don't use qualifiers is because they are just misleading. If I said 55% of women are our allies, it projects an overly optimistic view, when in reality our backs are up against the wall and the guns are already being loaded. Being overly cautious of a group that has consistently abused most power they have been given - Nasdaq CEO really helps hammer this point home - is not a bad thing. If your suspicions are wrong, nobody's hurt.
It comes down to pattern recognition and risk mitigation.
Most discourse on social media is between the 45% and us. I don't see the reason to self-censor based on offending a group that plainly just isn't present.
It's not about offending anyone. I don't care about offending people. It's specifically about saying that it is justified to hate every single woman, simply because 45% are bad (if true). That is wrong.
The "misogynistic" discourse is either on containment platforms like here, where offence is expected, or on Twitter and Facebook, where it is absolutely dwarfed by hatred from women.
That's like justifying calling blacks 'niggers' is justified because there is a far greater amount of hatred coming from (some) blacks, or that hating black people is justified because some black people did some bad things.
If we don't wake people up to how much hatred young women have soon, we're fucked. That's the bottom line.
If we don't step up and counter it without violence, because violence will give their side justification, we'll lose every election.
We are on the same page regarding the women (and men) who have hatred for anyone white or male.
What you haven't answered, and what I still do not understand, is how your claim that 45% of women are bad, if true, would justify hating the 55% who, it follows, are not bad.
Don't get me started on the traitors. Imagine siding with a mere theory over your own humanity. Even if they genuinely believe men leading is bad, they are allowed to hear discussions that would shock the world if they were disseminated openly. Look at Zuckerberg's tacit admission that banning hate speech against men would basically remove nearly all of the "equality" crusaders. They talk about us in a way that rivals how Hitler talked about Jews, yet their own allies who hear it all just enable them. How do they not realize that all men means all men?
Most discourse on social media is between the 45% and us. I don't see the reason to self-censor based on offending a group that plainly just isn't present. Nobody's going up to old women and saying "Fuck you for this!". The "misogynistic" discourse is either on containment platforms like here, where offence is expected, or on Twitter and Facebook, where it is absolutely dwarfed by hatred from women.
When you say Women, people think you mean all Women.
Am I right in saying that what you actually mean is some Women, but that you are happy enough to offend that you don't care if people think you mean all women, given that you expect the people to be reading to fall within whatever percentage it is that you are arguing are bad?
Ah, but they literally say all men. They don't imply it by omission, on purpose or by accident. They outright state it.
It's an interesting thing to talk about and I'd honestly be confusing even myself if I tried to explain. I don't believe all women are bad, but I also believe they all can be, if the conditions are correct. This is what informs the decisions in my personal life when interacting with them. Treat everyone like they're going to stab you in the back and you'll catch the knife before it goes in.
On the other hand, in political terms, it's simple figures that make me say just women and not give exceptions. The majority vote with us - at the current point - but this is hideously skewed by the elderly population, which hides the massive levels of hatred that will be unleashed when that group dies off.
What are the chances that an over 65 Republican voter sees my comment and also has it change their mind on who to vote for? They've been voting R since Ronald Reagan, nothing will stop them, and we should be thankful for that.
The reason I don't use qualifiers is because they are just misleading. If I said 55% of women are our allies, it projects an overly optimistic view, when in reality our backs are up against the wall and the guns are already being loaded. Being overly cautious of a group that has consistently abused most power they have been given - Nasdaq CEO really helps hammer this point home - is not a bad thing. If your suspicions are wrong, nobody's hurt.
It comes down to pattern recognition and risk mitigation.
It's not about offending anyone. I don't care about offending people. It's specifically about saying that it is justified to hate every single woman, simply because 45% are bad (if true). That is wrong.
That's like justifying calling blacks 'niggers' is justified because there is a far greater amount of hatred coming from (some) blacks, or that hating black people is justified because some black people did some bad things.