Never mind, in that case you're doing God's work. I don't know who would be stupid enough to seriously think any serious modern-day liberal is an ally.
They're just useful pawns, at best, and I hope the TERFs and LBTQIA+ groups keep at each other's throats; mutual extinction would be an ideal outcome.
Simple balance of power logic suggests that one ought to back whatever side is weaker, because when one side overwhelms the other, it comes an even greater threat to the rest of us.
At least, for people who want to actually win, rather than throw tantrums.
but at the same time you can't back them too much. TERFs will turn around and stab you in the back - they're still feminists, narcissists, Cluster B types after all.
They're just useful pawns, at best, and I hope the TERFs and LBTQIA+ groups keep at each other's throats; mutual extinction would be an ideal outcome.
Bingo, let them fight. Make like the US and give them some ammo to help destroy themselves - you can give a TERF a "platform" but don't give your trust in them - just let them get enough of a voice that it ends up destroying these other SJW groups, then step as far away as possible from them.
They are one and the same, if they destroy each other it only helps us.
We have to be mindful of the fact that "the enemy of my enemy" sometimes sees us as its enemy.
Wokeness isn't the only totalitarian ideology that has tried to take over culture in recent years. Feminism obviously did this, and succeeded, in the 60s. Another example, much less well known, is that of the cult of Scientism, aka scientific rationalism. This ideology, contrary to its gaslighting and bullshit, is a totalitarian ideology that began to rise in the late 70s and was ascendant all the way til the 2000s, when it was split in 2 by Wokeness, creating Atheism+. Scientific rationalism is to rationality as social justice is to justice.
All of these are scummy totalitarian ideologies that try to take over culture by taking over academia. All of them must be kerb-stomped back into the sewer they crawled out of if Western society is to continue to exist free of totalitarianism.
All are arguably an extension of Marxism, just replacing class grievance with gender/race/etc, but these types of comparisons are a bit oversimplified IMO. For example, vanilla Marxists vehemently oppose wokeness. Also, most of the literary foundation of wokeness didn't exist during early feminism.
The problem with TERFs is that, although we have some common enemy, at the end of the day they are still radfems, with all of that type of political baggage attached. Enemy of my enemy is not always a friend, sometimes they are also enemies.
The enemy of the enemy is not necessarily my friend.
Just let the terfs and the other radfems kick and scream at each other. No reason to get involved, just sit back and have a laugh at all of their expense. They're all disgusting wastes of space to begin with.
You're consumed by hatred. They're quite alright, and useful to boot. You just want to whine about the non-existent oppression leveled at you like a reverse feminist.
It's easy for you to say that, you're not a child. You managed to be born and not indoctrinated to hate yourself by them.
And same for you. I'd still say they're much preferable than intersectionalists, insofar as their barren wombs can create any life, who teach their children to hate themselves not just because they're male, but also white and Commonwealth of Independent States.
They haven't made my life specifically that much worse, other than superficial things like ruining my hobbies
It's not them doing it. They're more likely to say that gamers are stupid losers. It's intersectionalists who pretend to be interested in order to engage in entryism and ruin it.
making me boycott half the companies that exist
Which ones?
9 month anniversary of the GenderCritical late term abortion - March 29th 2021.
Keep cheering censorship, I'm sure it will never come back to bite you in the ass.
I'm surrounded by nitwits and idiots who make a sport of losin.
You know, Impossible, I was thinking about you a while back, and it occurred to me that you are just like a woman.
Men often complain that when women complain, they don't want a solution, they want to complain. Indeed, some have speculated to me that you are actually a woman, though I did not believe it.
However, you are like them in that respect. You don't want no stinkin' solutions. You don't want to make stuff better. You just want to whine and complain.
That's like saying AIDS is better than cancer. Maybe, but you don't want either.
Quite right. That is because AIDS cannot be balanced against cancer, or vice versa. There is a reason weaker states balance against what is at any point the dominant hegemon. It is because they're being smart. While you are throwing a tantrum, constantly talking about what you don't like.
You are more wedded to saying "me no like" than you are to doing anything productive.
Your mistake is believing that when trans ideology isn't involved, they aren't fighting alongside the intersectionalists just to hurt us for fun.
They are enemies. We can use that. Instead, you cheer when intersectionalists censor GC-types. That is not smart. When there is one big bad bully vs. a bunch of weaker parties, the smart strategy is for all the weaker parties - whatever their disagreements- to take down the big bad bully. That is the position we are in.
Instead, you are cheering the bully as he smashes the other weaklings one after the other, not realizing who is next. Because you don't like the other weaklings. I submit that this is extraordinarily stupid.
I couldn't be more censored than I already am, so...
Oh, I'm sure you could be. And it's not just about you, you know.
Sure. TERFS aren't worth inviting to the clubhouse. But "TERFS" are, because, like us, some people get labels dropped on them for the purpose of smear campaigns and behavior-correcting abuse. If someone called you a TERF, I'm not gonna take that at face value.
Labels are super useful communicative tools, but they can be wielded against us. We'd think twice before allying with someone labeled "sjw", though we'd hopefully look into the matter for proof before settling to conviction. Similarly, any other label we come to rely on will not have respect given to its linguistic merit because our enemies do not respect language outside of being an effective weapon to impose their wills.
I'm no stormfag, Hitler conquering Europe would not have been a good outcome for the non-Germans. That being said, the Allies' requirement for unconditional surrender led to far more destruction than what was needed.
Specifically with regard to "balance of power", yes Germany needed to be taken down a notch. But we didn't do that- we completely wiped them out, teaming up with Marxists to do so, thus enabling them to extend their influence over most of Eastern Europe, completely messing up the power balance in the region.
A united self ruling Germany, neighbored by a Western Europe that was not totally destroyed by war, would have been a better counterbalance to the Soviets, than what we got- a divided Germany and a devastated Western Europe dependent on the US. Then you have to factor in the post-war Marxist infiltration of government and academia that was directly and indirectly caused by the Soviets, leading to much of the issues we face today.
Taking those points into account, it is logical to say that the outcome of WW2 that we got, was not a good one and that better outcomes were possible.
For the best "balance of power" outcome, we should have pushed the Germans back into Germany, let them sue for peace, then withdraw Lend-lease from Russia and let the Germans and Soviets duke it out.
I specifically mentioned balance of power, but things would also have been way worse in humanitarian terms if Hitler had won. Particularly in the east.
That being said, the Allies' requirement for unconditional surrender led to far more destruction than what was needed.
The national socialist regime was not going to surrender either way. And without a demand for unconditional surrender, this may have led Stalin to make a separate peace with the Germans. And Western leaders were very interested in making sure that it would continue to be Russians who would die fighting the Germans, rather than their tax base.
Taking those points into account, it is logical to say that the outcome of WW2 that we got, was not a good one and that better outcomes were possible.
That the outcome of World War II was not good is beyond question. The question is whether a better outcome was possible by a way other than fantasy. I do not think so. If the cowardly politicians had acted in 1936 or 1938, then sure, the outcome would have been far better, but by the time Germany was too strong, there was no other option than to side with the Soviets against the Germans.
For the best "balance of power" outcome, we should have pushed the Germans back into Germany, let them sue for peace, then withdraw Lend-lease from Russia and let the Germans and Soviets duke it out.
Not particularly. Then you would have been better off never getting involved to begin with. But the truth of the matter is that a Germany in possession of the Soviet Union, and ruled by aggressive, belligerent Nazis, would be a lethal threat to the rest of Europe. Which is why Britain and France declared war on Germany to begin with.
Balance of power means that you don't let your enemies get too powerful. When two major powers fight, and one completely overwhelms the other, then it becomes too powerful by definition.
Antonio, the entire left is consumed by SJW ideology.
Which is why you exacerbate divisions among them to make them turn on each other. And then you back the side that is losing, until you are strong enough to let one side win and destroy the winner. What's so difficult about this?
There's nothing left but civil wars between the various factions over who gets to pretend to be oppressed this year.
One side is clearly in the driver's seat and censoring the other side.
shrug I still have some leftist beliefs. Abortion in very, VERY very VERY restricted means. but how do you prevent people from wanting abortion in the first place? Curbing back the oversexualization and hedonism of our culture. Encourage people to stop fucking around like jackrabbits and keep it in your pants and concentrate on their careers. Contraceptive use should be minimized by minimizing this constant need for people to talk about their sexuality 24/7 like it's a shit they're taking.
And yes, this also means concentrating on black neighborhoods and addressing 13/50 more traditional families, more fathers in homes. Roll back Section 8 that gives women gibs for shitting out kids and not having a father around.
I also still want socialized healthcare, but not as a single payer system - anyone who wants a single payer government-controlled system is retarded. Socialized healthcare should not cover dumb shit like breast implants and dick mutilation surgery. The "big stuff" should be something people should plan for by paying for their own secondary private insurance.
Guns I changed my mind on - encourage (BUT DO NOT MANDATE) training when people buy guns. Getting a gun should be easier than getting a driver's license. Stop adding fucking restrictions to them. Enforce the existing laws and get rid of the laws that make no sense. "Common sense gun control" is the mantra of the left, right?
But I still dislike the 1%, and I still think tax loopholes that the 1% takes advantage of should be closed. Crony capitalism needs to be addressed, etc. etc.
Some of these are right wing views, but some of these other views are probably to the left of you, so with that mentality I might be excluded from this ideological pure cool kids club, but I also know that to save the West, right-wing populism and nationalism is what is needed.
I dunno, maybe we can leave a little bit of room for nuance?
That was a weird answer. If any woman who is willing to become a moderator is "usually" a feminist plant, why does that not apply to racial minorities as well?
A majority of women are casually to strongly anti-feminist and recognize it for what it is, just like a majority of non-whites see straight through SJWs.
T_D has a female mod who has been part of the mod team and loyal to T_D since the beginning of its inception and moved with them to .win
I dunno man. She's probably a tradwife type that understands what her position in life is considering I haven't heard any drama from her - she probably even wants to keep the tradwife system going and wants her men to be strong men who can protect the wamens.
A bit of gynocentrism, yes, but is that not the gynocentrism that also allowed the US to build a successful society back in the 50's?
See, I do follow MGTOW, and I am sympathetic to its cause as I object to any sort of demonization of masculinity, there's a spectrum with you guys as well just like there's a spectrum with the feminists and I find that rather interesting as an outsider.
You're not using our platform to censor other people.
The obsession is bordering on the psychotic.
Not only is your... thirst for censorship immoral, it's also extraordinarily stupid. That you would aid a hegemonic ideology trying to censor its opponents. Frankly, you deserve whatever censorship you get. You have no principles.
It is amazing that you link a SJW source here and expect to be believed. While you're at it, go to the article on Gamergate.
Their head mod who created their website openly admitted there's no such thing as a non-toxic man.
So your feewings were hurt?
My conscience is clear if I kick them off the internet
Your conscience? Considering that your 'conscience' approves of censorship and hating more than half the human population, I am not sure what it's supposed to guarantee.
Can you say the same for defending them?
Absolutely. They've been very useful so far in the fight against SJ, which is why they were banned. You, being the useful that you are, never cease doing the bidding of your intersectionalist female masters.
I don't speak Korean, you know. I can only say what I've read in English and it seems logical.
You do not speak Korean, so you decided to believe the claims of Wikipedia, with a long list of SJW buzzwords and accusations?
It doesn't seem false in any way judging by what I know about these kinds of "communities."
"show extreme hatred towards transgender people"
WOMAD has been called "Korean-style TERFs"[
Actually, I don't hate the children, unlike them.
You only hate girls once they turn 18?
Imagine if I made a community where the first rule was "Women cannot be anything other than the enemy." - You don't think some lunatic would go too far and kill someone?
Wouldn't surprise me from you, to be honest. That could be because you make yourself look bad in the way you post your views, while when you are challenged, you then respond with something that is more nuanced and less crazy.
Very useful how? Both sides want men killed, they're just arguing over what counts as a man.
Even if that were true, you'd want there to be rancor and division among them.
Banning them doesn't protect anything other than your feewings. As I said, you're more of a feminist and a woman than anyone. Your entire nonsense is literally based on hurt feewings. And like feminists then scream at all men because some man called them bossy, you scream at women in general.
I don't care if they want us banned. They're weak, and they are useful. So don't do anything of the sort.
Why are you subjecting yourself to this type of mental illness?
Never mind, in that case you're doing God's work. I don't know who would be stupid enough to seriously think any serious modern-day liberal is an ally.
They're just useful pawns, at best, and I hope the TERFs and LBTQIA+ groups keep at each other's throats; mutual extinction would be an ideal outcome.
Reminds me of Braveheart... "Arrows cost money. The dead cost nothing. Send in the Irish."
Let the TE'R'Fs fight the battle, and clean up the survivors. They're not allies.
Simple balance of power logic suggests that one ought to back whatever side is weaker, because when one side overwhelms the other, it comes an even greater threat to the rest of us.
At least, for people who want to actually win, rather than throw tantrums.
Logic.. something that a lot of people on the left lacks, which brought us to this situation.
but at the same time you can't back them too much. TERFs will turn around and stab you in the back - they're still feminists, narcissists, Cluster B types after all.
If you put yourself in a position where someone can stab you in the back, that's your problem right there.
Bingo, let them fight. Make like the US and give them some ammo to help destroy themselves - you can give a TERF a "platform" but don't give your trust in them - just let them get enough of a voice that it ends up destroying these other SJW groups, then step as far away as possible from them.
They are one and the same, if they destroy each other it only helps us.
As cannon fodder, nothing more. If we'd followed this adage more strictly in the 1900s, we wouldn't be dealing with this now.
We have to be mindful of the fact that "the enemy of my enemy" sometimes sees us as its enemy.
Wokeness isn't the only totalitarian ideology that has tried to take over culture in recent years. Feminism obviously did this, and succeeded, in the 60s. Another example, much less well known, is that of the cult of Scientism, aka scientific rationalism. This ideology, contrary to its gaslighting and bullshit, is a totalitarian ideology that began to rise in the late 70s and was ascendant all the way til the 2000s, when it was split in 2 by Wokeness, creating Atheism+. Scientific rationalism is to rationality as social justice is to justice.
All of these are scummy totalitarian ideologies that try to take over culture by taking over academia. All of them must be kerb-stomped back into the sewer they crawled out of if Western society is to continue to exist free of totalitarianism.
Feminism and wokeness are the same thing. The only difference is how much power they've managed to accumulate.
All are arguably an extension of Marxism, just replacing class grievance with gender/race/etc, but these types of comparisons are a bit oversimplified IMO. For example, vanilla Marxists vehemently oppose wokeness. Also, most of the literary foundation of wokeness didn't exist during early feminism.
The problem with TERFs is that, although we have some common enemy, at the end of the day they are still radfems, with all of that type of political baggage attached. Enemy of my enemy is not always a friend, sometimes they are also enemies.
The enemy of the enemy is not necessarily my friend.
Just let the terfs and the other radfems kick and scream at each other. No reason to get involved, just sit back and have a laugh at all of their expense. They're all disgusting wastes of space to begin with.
They are our fellow humans beings. Don't dehumanize. You're always taking things too far.
Why would you adopt their logic?
AS if people couldn't be wrong or evil. You crazy coot.
You're consumed by hatred. They're quite alright, and useful to boot. You just want to whine about the non-existent oppression leveled at you like a reverse feminist.
And same for you. I'd still say they're much preferable than intersectionalists, insofar as their barren wombs can create any life, who teach their children to hate themselves not just because they're male, but also white and Commonwealth of Independent States.
It's not them doing it. They're more likely to say that gamers are stupid losers. It's intersectionalists who pretend to be interested in order to engage in entryism and ruin it.
Which ones?
Keep cheering censorship, I'm sure it will never come back to bite you in the ass.
I'm surrounded by nitwits and idiots who make a sport of losin.
You know, Impossible, I was thinking about you a while back, and it occurred to me that you are just like a woman.
Men often complain that when women complain, they don't want a solution, they want to complain. Indeed, some have speculated to me that you are actually a woman, though I did not believe it.
However, you are like them in that respect. You don't want no stinkin' solutions. You don't want to make stuff better. You just want to whine and complain.
May we call you an Honorary Woman?
Quite right. That is because AIDS cannot be balanced against cancer, or vice versa. There is a reason weaker states balance against what is at any point the dominant hegemon. It is because they're being smart. While you are throwing a tantrum, constantly talking about what you don't like.
You are more wedded to saying "me no like" than you are to doing anything productive.
They are enemies. We can use that. Instead, you cheer when intersectionalists censor GC-types. That is not smart. When there is one big bad bully vs. a bunch of weaker parties, the smart strategy is for all the weaker parties - whatever their disagreements- to take down the big bad bully. That is the position we are in.
Instead, you are cheering the bully as he smashes the other weaklings one after the other, not realizing who is next. Because you don't like the other weaklings. I submit that this is extraordinarily stupid.
Oh, I'm sure you could be. And it's not just about you, you know.
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
Sure. TERFS aren't worth inviting to the clubhouse. But "TERFS" are, because, like us, some people get labels dropped on them for the purpose of smear campaigns and behavior-correcting abuse. If someone called you a TERF, I'm not gonna take that at face value.
Labels are super useful communicative tools, but they can be wielded against us. We'd think twice before allying with someone labeled "sjw", though we'd hopefully look into the matter for proof before settling to conviction. Similarly, any other label we come to rely on will not have respect given to its linguistic merit because our enemies do not respect language outside of being an effective weapon to impose their wills.
One's allies don't need to be good people.
See: Joseph Stalin.
You're not wrong there but
that is the worst example you could have picked.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-tiC6KWsAE5MQn.jpg
Nah, that statement is dumb. Simple balance of power logic dictated siding with the USSR against Hitler.
And where did that get us today?
I'm no stormfag, Hitler conquering Europe would not have been a good outcome for the non-Germans. That being said, the Allies' requirement for unconditional surrender led to far more destruction than what was needed.
Specifically with regard to "balance of power", yes Germany needed to be taken down a notch. But we didn't do that- we completely wiped them out, teaming up with Marxists to do so, thus enabling them to extend their influence over most of Eastern Europe, completely messing up the power balance in the region.
A united self ruling Germany, neighbored by a Western Europe that was not totally destroyed by war, would have been a better counterbalance to the Soviets, than what we got- a divided Germany and a devastated Western Europe dependent on the US. Then you have to factor in the post-war Marxist infiltration of government and academia that was directly and indirectly caused by the Soviets, leading to much of the issues we face today.
Taking those points into account, it is logical to say that the outcome of WW2 that we got, was not a good one and that better outcomes were possible.
For the best "balance of power" outcome, we should have pushed the Germans back into Germany, let them sue for peace, then withdraw Lend-lease from Russia and let the Germans and Soviets duke it out.
Compared to what, and in what respect?
I specifically mentioned balance of power, but things would also have been way worse in humanitarian terms if Hitler had won. Particularly in the east.
The national socialist regime was not going to surrender either way. And without a demand for unconditional surrender, this may have led Stalin to make a separate peace with the Germans. And Western leaders were very interested in making sure that it would continue to be Russians who would die fighting the Germans, rather than their tax base.
That the outcome of World War II was not good is beyond question. The question is whether a better outcome was possible by a way other than fantasy. I do not think so. If the cowardly politicians had acted in 1936 or 1938, then sure, the outcome would have been far better, but by the time Germany was too strong, there was no other option than to side with the Soviets against the Germans.
Not particularly. Then you would have been better off never getting involved to begin with. But the truth of the matter is that a Germany in possession of the Soviet Union, and ruled by aggressive, belligerent Nazis, would be a lethal threat to the rest of Europe. Which is why Britain and France declared war on Germany to begin with.
Balance of power means that you don't let your enemies get too powerful. When two major powers fight, and one completely overwhelms the other, then it becomes too powerful by definition.
This archive has working stylesheets: https://archive.is/8eO4p
I'm trying to imagine the wretched pitiful creature she breeds with.
The enemy of my enemy is still the enemy of my enemy, but they are useful to my cause and can be manipulated to help me accomplish my goals.
KiA2 is not 'right', nor is KiA. Nor will they ever be. Opposing SJW scum is something anyone who isn't a lowlife can agree on.
Which is why you exacerbate divisions among them to make them turn on each other. And then you back the side that is losing, until you are strong enough to let one side win and destroy the winner. What's so difficult about this?
One side is clearly in the driver's seat and censoring the other side.
shrug I still have some leftist beliefs. Abortion in very, VERY very VERY restricted means. but how do you prevent people from wanting abortion in the first place? Curbing back the oversexualization and hedonism of our culture. Encourage people to stop fucking around like jackrabbits and keep it in your pants and concentrate on their careers. Contraceptive use should be minimized by minimizing this constant need for people to talk about their sexuality 24/7 like it's a shit they're taking.
And yes, this also means concentrating on black neighborhoods and addressing 13/50 more traditional families, more fathers in homes. Roll back Section 8 that gives women gibs for shitting out kids and not having a father around.
I also still want socialized healthcare, but not as a single payer system - anyone who wants a single payer government-controlled system is retarded. Socialized healthcare should not cover dumb shit like breast implants and dick mutilation surgery. The "big stuff" should be something people should plan for by paying for their own secondary private insurance.
Guns I changed my mind on - encourage (BUT DO NOT MANDATE) training when people buy guns. Getting a gun should be easier than getting a driver's license. Stop adding fucking restrictions to them. Enforce the existing laws and get rid of the laws that make no sense. "Common sense gun control" is the mantra of the left, right?
But I still dislike the 1%, and I still think tax loopholes that the 1% takes advantage of should be closed. Crony capitalism needs to be addressed, etc. etc.
Some of these are right wing views, but some of these other views are probably to the left of you, so with that mentality I might be excluded from this ideological pure cool kids club, but I also know that to save the West, right-wing populism and nationalism is what is needed.
I dunno, maybe we can leave a little bit of room for nuance?
Wow, they got a mod who belongs to... 51% of the population? SLIPPERY SLOPE!
People who are this stupid deserve to lose.
Does that apply to racial minorities as well?
That was a weird answer. If any woman who is willing to become a moderator is "usually" a feminist plant, why does that not apply to racial minorities as well?
A majority of women are casually to strongly anti-feminist and recognize it for what it is, just like a majority of non-whites see straight through SJWs.
T_D has a female mod who has been part of the mod team and loyal to T_D since the beginning of its inception and moved with them to .win
I dunno man. She's probably a tradwife type that understands what her position in life is considering I haven't heard any drama from her - she probably even wants to keep the tradwife system going and wants her men to be strong men who can protect the wamens.
A bit of gynocentrism, yes, but is that not the gynocentrism that also allowed the US to build a successful society back in the 50's?
See, I do follow MGTOW, and I am sympathetic to its cause as I object to any sort of demonization of masculinity, there's a spectrum with you guys as well just like there's a spectrum with the feminists and I find that rather interesting as an outsider.
They already reconstituted on SaidIt and on their own https://www.ovarit.com/. They also have https://spinster.xyz/.
You're not using our platform to censor other people.
The obsession is bordering on the psychotic.
Not only is your... thirst for censorship immoral, it's also extraordinarily stupid. That you would aid a hegemonic ideology trying to censor its opponents. Frankly, you deserve whatever censorship you get. You have no principles.
Based and redpilled
It is amazing that you link a SJW source here and expect to be believed. While you're at it, go to the article on Gamergate.
So your feewings were hurt?
Your conscience? Considering that your 'conscience' approves of censorship and hating more than half the human population, I am not sure what it's supposed to guarantee.
Absolutely. They've been very useful so far in the fight against SJ, which is why they were banned. You, being the useful that you are, never cease doing the bidding of your intersectionalist female masters.
You do not speak Korean, so you decided to believe the claims of Wikipedia, with a long list of SJW buzzwords and accusations?
"show extreme hatred towards transgender people"
WOMAD has been called "Korean-style TERFs"[
You only hate girls once they turn 18?
Wouldn't surprise me from you, to be honest. That could be because you make yourself look bad in the way you post your views, while when you are challenged, you then respond with something that is more nuanced and less crazy.
Even if that were true, you'd want there to be rancor and division among them.
Banning them doesn't protect anything other than your feewings. As I said, you're more of a feminist and a woman than anyone. Your entire nonsense is literally based on hurt feewings. And like feminists then scream at all men because some man called them bossy, you scream at women in general.
I don't care if they want us banned. They're weak, and they are useful. So don't do anything of the sort.