At this point, aren't you making the same point that our feminist "friends" do about the danger of the incel that's hiding under their bed, or in the gym they don't go to, or in the workplace they got diversity hired into?
By now, it's abundantly clear that the "incel rebellion" was a fabrication to allow women to add themselves as a protected minority group, despite not being a minority. This will lead to the criminalization of "misogyny" which will protect them from all the nasty claims like "men have rights" and "women in power do seem to help women more than they ever seem to care about men."
That's the issue I have. You can see actual racism in action in history. You can see anti-semitism. When can you ever see misogyny except when it's being used as a deflection from something horrendous a woman said or did?
Attacking people in the street will always be a crime, regardless of ideology. You could strip out the politics entirely and it's happened thousands of times.
Do I believe that classifying hate speech against women (as they define it) as justified would cause violence? Honestly, no. Calls for violence will still not be justifiable, regardless.
At this point, aren't you making the same point that our feminist "friends" do about the danger of the incel that's hiding under their bed, or in the gym they don't go to, or in the workplace they got diversity hired into?
The SJW's use a hypthetical like I spelled out to justify whatever action it is they want to do anyway. SJW's spell out a hypothetical like that as part of a claim that such an incident is frequent, widespread and common, as well as *secretly the views of all men who do not sufficiently publically express their subservience and opposition to such ideas.
Me? I'm just posing you an entirely hypothetical situation, concerning a someone who does not exist and a specific person you know and are close to, to aid as well as complicate your ability to visualise the hypothetical situation.
Do I believe that classifying hate speech against women (as they define it) as justified would cause violence? Honestly, no. Calls for violence will still not be justifiable, regardless.
This is interesting, but none of it really answers my actual question. I'm not saying you do or do not do anything of the sort.
Our central premise is the idea that misogyny doesn't exist. How would you describe our imaginary asshole? Would you describe him as a misogynist, and if not, how would you describe him? Imagine for a moment, that the next time you go visit your Mother, she tells you a story more or less exactly as above. If you honestly believed it had legitimately happened and wasn't just a silly hypothetical, how would that change your reaction and view on the situation?
Here's a follow up, (but only tackle this after the above); The exact same situation, but the anti-social, probably high thug was actually an extremely radical female leftist of some kind, whose views on women trace back to a philosophy about women being inherently greedy and immoral and only through rejecting womanhood and becoming a political lesbian or identifying as some special new gender could the crime of being a regular woman begin to be atoned for.
I'd probably describe him as crazy. Psychopathic. I can't bring myself to use feminist created deflection words and give them unearned legitimacy.
I'd probably be worried for her, not really go into the politics much and promise to be there to protect her. It wouldn't really make me change much, except for really stressing the point that violence will not help us, it's both morally and strategically wrong.
That's not too far from something that actually happened, except without the attacks and threats. She went to a really woke part of England for a job interview and had to sit next to a political lesbian on the bus. The cultist saw the wedding ring and went crazy about how women shouldn't be tied down and they should all be in open lesbian relationships. Needless to say, she didn't take the job.
At this point, aren't you making the same point that our feminist "friends" do about the danger of the incel that's hiding under their bed, or in the gym they don't go to, or in the workplace they got diversity hired into?
By now, it's abundantly clear that the "incel rebellion" was a fabrication to allow women to add themselves as a protected minority group, despite not being a minority. This will lead to the criminalization of "misogyny" which will protect them from all the nasty claims like "men have rights" and "women in power do seem to help women more than they ever seem to care about men."
That's the issue I have. You can see actual racism in action in history. You can see anti-semitism. When can you ever see misogyny except when it's being used as a deflection from something horrendous a woman said or did?
Attacking people in the street will always be a crime, regardless of ideology. You could strip out the politics entirely and it's happened thousands of times.
Do I believe that classifying hate speech against women (as they define it) as justified would cause violence? Honestly, no. Calls for violence will still not be justifiable, regardless.
The SJW's use a hypthetical like I spelled out to justify whatever action it is they want to do anyway. SJW's spell out a hypothetical like that as part of a claim that such an incident is frequent, widespread and common, as well as *secretly the views of all men who do not sufficiently publically express their subservience and opposition to such ideas.
Me? I'm just posing you an entirely hypothetical situation, concerning a someone who does not exist and a specific person you know and are close to, to aid as well as complicate your ability to visualise the hypothetical situation.
This is interesting, but none of it really answers my actual question. I'm not saying you do or do not do anything of the sort.
Our central premise is the idea that misogyny doesn't exist. How would you describe our imaginary asshole? Would you describe him as a misogynist, and if not, how would you describe him? Imagine for a moment, that the next time you go visit your Mother, she tells you a story more or less exactly as above. If you honestly believed it had legitimately happened and wasn't just a silly hypothetical, how would that change your reaction and view on the situation?
Here's a follow up, (but only tackle this after the above); The exact same situation, but the anti-social, probably high thug was actually an extremely radical female leftist of some kind, whose views on women trace back to a philosophy about women being inherently greedy and immoral and only through rejecting womanhood and becoming a political lesbian or identifying as some special new gender could the crime of being a regular woman begin to be atoned for.
I'd probably describe him as crazy. Psychopathic. I can't bring myself to use feminist created deflection words and give them unearned legitimacy.
I'd probably be worried for her, not really go into the politics much and promise to be there to protect her. It wouldn't really make me change much, except for really stressing the point that violence will not help us, it's both morally and strategically wrong.
That's not too far from something that actually happened, except without the attacks and threats. She went to a really woke part of England for a job interview and had to sit next to a political lesbian on the bus. The cultist saw the wedding ring and went crazy about how women shouldn't be tied down and they should all be in open lesbian relationships. Needless to say, she didn't take the job.
Well, then I have good (or possibly bad) news for you, then.
The word predates feminism by hundreds of years. Back to a specific incident in 1615 or so, apparently. Entirely unrelated to the feminist movement.
I'll admit, I laughed. Public transport is one hell of a way to get around, and no mistake.