Isn't that the same thing? You consider them useless and funny so you don't pay attention, because they're dumb and it won't go anywhere, but then it does and you're left shocked because you didn't address the initial threat.
The problem is more that your assumptions aren't borne out by any reality. And they blind you to the reality of feminism, which is that it will always put the interests of other identity groups before that of women.
Hell, you yourself have claimed that the "rights" of troons will take away the "privileges" of women. Yet nearly all feminists find troon nonsense to be unquestionable.
You can't put 1+1 together because you think it's always a conspiracy by the nefarious wahmen.
But that's clearly not true. There have been so many instances of feminists ditching their allies for power for themselves. Even as far back as the 1900s, they allied with white nationalists to get the vote to "snow under" black men's votes, then have the nerve to criticize the history of others. In the 80s they allied with evangelicals to try and get porn banned. Even today, they pretty much kicked gay men out of their own movement. Their history is a constant stream of alliances for a single goal that ended as soon as it was achieved. Intersectionalism is no different.
That's what I hope, but they usually find a way to make sure only men lose out.
Sounds like a bit of a tunnelvision. If it's not one group, it must be one person? You imply that one person screwing up is wildly implausible, and I agree, but so is 'one group'. It need not be one group. Every ethnic group has good people and bad people, and no group is solely responsible for this nonsense.
The funny thing is that you realize that it's bad to attack white people for their supposedly collective supposed sins, but not that it's bad to attack Jew for the same.
I also generally find that people who try to blame SJW'ism on one group do it on a group with which they had a pre-existing grievance.
Not keeping our eyes on the ball is why we keep losing.
Isn't that the same thing? You consider them useless and funny so you don't pay attention, because they're dumb and it won't go anywhere, but then it does and you're left shocked because you didn't address the initial threat.
The problem is more that your assumptions aren't borne out by any reality. And they blind you to the reality of feminism, which is that it will always put the interests of other identity groups before that of women.
Hell, you yourself have claimed that the "rights" of troons will take away the "privileges" of women. Yet nearly all feminists find troon nonsense to be unquestionable.
You can't put 1+1 together because you think it's always a conspiracy by the nefarious wahmen.
But that's clearly not true. There have been so many instances of feminists ditching their allies for power for themselves. Even as far back as the 1900s, they allied with white nationalists to get the vote to "snow under" black men's votes, then have the nerve to criticize the history of others. In the 80s they allied with evangelicals to try and get porn banned. Even today, they pretty much kicked gay men out of their own movement. Their history is a constant stream of alliances for a single goal that ended as soon as it was achieved. Intersectionalism is no different.
That's what I hope, but they usually find a way to make sure only men lose out.
When have they ever lost?
Oh, so the ball has to be some group? I think the ball is whoever holds these bad ideas. And that's not just Jews or wahmen.
Sounds like a bit of a tunnelvision. If it's not one group, it must be one person? You imply that one person screwing up is wildly implausible, and I agree, but so is 'one group'. It need not be one group. Every ethnic group has good people and bad people, and no group is solely responsible for this nonsense.
The funny thing is that you realize that it's bad to attack white people for their supposedly collective supposed sins, but not that it's bad to attack Jew for the same.
I also generally find that people who try to blame SJW'ism on one group do it on a group with which they had a pre-existing grievance.