I just find it odd that a group that spends so much time saying that they are shut out of everything, is present nearly every time something nefarious happens.
Imagine that, when you're 51% of the population, there are a lot of suspicious sightings. They're not exactly Bigfoot. And no, they're not shut out of everything, that's a feminist lie. But don't lie in response to that.
That's a stretch, because they don't outwardly say it, it isn't true? By that logic the Holocaust isn't real because there isn't a speech by Hitler talking about it.
It's true if there is evidence for it. You're making all sorts of assumptions about whodunnit, and you can apparently even read the mind of the whodunnit (you divined that MasterCard's VP is very interested in helping OnlyFans). This is all without evidence, and more of your usual "when in doubt, blame a wahmen".
It's obvious it's about OnlyFans because of the timing and target - they decided to attack the porn sites now, when they just happen to have a better way to get rich off their bodies without any men limiting their pay?
Yes, it had absolutely nothing at all to do with PornHub promoting pedophilia, it was... Mastercard's VP trying to boost the salaries of OF-thots.
I predicted they would lash out in some way when he started to pull their privileges away.
And as I said, you didn't prove she was a feminist, let alone a radfem, nor did you prove that the reason for the assassination attempt was "their privileges".
They may be 51% of the population, but as they keep reminding us, they are underrepresented in positions of power.
Fortunately, there are enough of them for you to blame anything that you don't like on the nearest wahmen.
The VP of Mastercard is a known female supremacist. Member of the WEP.
That would show that she is a terrible person, but not your claim that she was the one who banned PornHub, let alone your divining of her motivation.
So what about Facebook, Twitter etc that also have CP on them? Oh, those don't get in the way of women making money off nothing.
It's almost as if such decisions, as with the one against SubscribeStar, are completely arbitrary, and that you see the 'patterns' that you want to see based on your own irrational hatreds.
I mean, who celebrates International Women's Day except for feminists and HR trash?
Who tweets about it? Any number of people, I think.
But now you say 'feminist'. In your original thread, you called her a 'radfem'. Can we conclude that you were absolutely full of it when you were saying that she was a 'radfem'? Furthermore, you now also 'forgot' to provide evidence for your claim that she targeted Trump for 'taking away THEEEIR privileges'.
Imagine that, when you're 51% of the population, there are a lot of suspicious sightings. They're not exactly Bigfoot. And no, they're not shut out of everything, that's a feminist lie. But don't lie in response to that.
It's true if there is evidence for it. You're making all sorts of assumptions about whodunnit, and you can apparently even read the mind of the whodunnit (you divined that MasterCard's VP is very interested in helping OnlyFans). This is all without evidence, and more of your usual "when in doubt, blame a wahmen".
Yes, it had absolutely nothing at all to do with PornHub promoting pedophilia, it was... Mastercard's VP trying to boost the salaries of OF-thots.
And as I said, you didn't prove she was a feminist, let alone a radfem, nor did you prove that the reason for the assassination attempt was "their privileges".
So... always wrong, but never in doubt.
Fortunately, there are enough of them for you to blame anything that you don't like on the nearest wahmen.
That would show that she is a terrible person, but not your claim that she was the one who banned PornHub, let alone your divining of her motivation.
It's almost as if such decisions, as with the one against SubscribeStar, are completely arbitrary, and that you see the 'patterns' that you want to see based on your own irrational hatreds.
Who tweets about it? Any number of people, I think.
But now you say 'feminist'. In your original thread, you called her a 'radfem'. Can we conclude that you were absolutely full of it when you were saying that she was a 'radfem'? Furthermore, you now also 'forgot' to provide evidence for your claim that she targeted Trump for 'taking away THEEEIR privileges'.