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.
The problem I see here, is that you are effectively misrepresenting what you actually believe. That both means that you will be frequently misunderstood and dismissed without people actually taking you seriously at all, but also that you can fall into a lot of mental traps.
Inaccurately defining things both hinders your ability to convey your ideas and risks hindering your ability to accurately form ideas.
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.
In terms of communication, if you mean young women it's better to say young women. It lets people more easily understand what you're even saying, and it makes it easier for you to keep track of what you're actually trying to say.
For example, you talk in terms of us and our allies, with the "them" being those who are against us, but you frequently slip into suggesting that the "us" is "all men" and the "them" is "all women", as if there is any uniformity in either of those groups.
If you actually mean by us, "men who believe in men's rights" and the them is *young women who oppose men's rights (possibly for political reasons or because of some kind of urge to preserve social advantages" then you have a much more specific and understandable situation described. There's significantly more room to interestingly examine the issues in the latter than the former, given how easy it is to find examples in anyone reading's personal life that would seem to easily debunk the central tenets.
If you actually mean by us, "men who believe in men's rights" and the them is *young women who oppose men's rights (possibly for political reasons or because of some kind of urge to preserve social advantages" then you have a much more specific and understandable situation described.
But it isn't that simple.
Not all of our opponents are young. Some of the worst opponents of our side are middle-aged or older.
Them is more like this : The known feminists, the young (possibly brainwashed) psychopaths, the "allies" (traitor male feminists) and the feminists we have no clue about because they're hiding their feelings long enough to acquire power <- These are the people that confuse matters so greatly, the ones who blend in with normal people up until they get their hands on power, maybe even a little afterwards.
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.
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.
The problem I see here, is that you are effectively misrepresenting what you actually believe. That both means that you will be frequently misunderstood and dismissed without people actually taking you seriously at all, but also that you can fall into a lot of mental traps.
Inaccurately defining things both hinders your ability to convey your ideas and risks hindering your ability to accurately form ideas.
In terms of communication, if you mean young women it's better to say young women. It lets people more easily understand what you're even saying, and it makes it easier for you to keep track of what you're actually trying to say.
For example, you talk in terms of us and our allies, with the "them" being those who are against us, but you frequently slip into suggesting that the "us" is "all men" and the "them" is "all women", as if there is any uniformity in either of those groups.
If you actually mean by us, "men who believe in men's rights" and the them is *young women who oppose men's rights (possibly for political reasons or because of some kind of urge to preserve social advantages" then you have a much more specific and understandable situation described. There's significantly more room to interestingly examine the issues in the latter than the former, given how easy it is to find examples in anyone reading's personal life that would seem to easily debunk the central tenets.
But it isn't that simple.
Not all of our opponents are young. Some of the worst opponents of our side are middle-aged or older.
Them is more like this : The known feminists, the young (possibly brainwashed) psychopaths, the "allies" (traitor male feminists) and the feminists we have no clue about because they're hiding their feelings long enough to acquire power <- These are the people that confuse matters so greatly, the ones who blend in with normal people up until they get their hands on power, maybe even a little afterwards.
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.