Imagine an alternative world to ours, where Covid came from an all-male lab, the vaccines were created by men and seemed to only kill women, where world leaders talked about a return to patriarchy.
People who considered women evil ran the hospitals and social media platforms, silencing all concerns and pushing the vax as hard as they could.
Any stories about young women dying were instantly prefaced with "this is very rare and shouldn't be a concern" by the institutions controlled by men as the conversation built towards mandatory vaccination, led by men who weren't even elected, but installed into power.
Would there still be the uncaring tone towards anyone who questioned the official narrative? Or would we see the whole world stop to demand to know what's going on?
AstraZeneca killed hundreds of men, but the moment it affected women, they pulled it from use.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
So here's the thing. Imp1 was careful to just go with "people". Where the two of you differ is:
No one specified. In fact, the best way to describe this inference is that the people who considered women evil: hardline incels? That's not any sort of race, ethnicity, religion, or any such characteristic. Those are ideologues.
In this one, you got the whole comparison backwards. If we are to make interchange incels with whites, and women with jews, then your statement should be: "People who considered jews evil"
So, your interchange is actually backwards.
The whole goyim thing, however, confers an assumption of hostility based on the eternal race war narrative. With "goyim" you're already asserting jewish racial-supremacism from the perspective of the white racialist anti-jews. You're not asserting it from Zionism, nor are you asserting it from Feminism like Imp1 is, you're not even asserting it from jewish religious supremacism. That would be the problem with that statement.
You've actually re-written the statement to violate rule 16, instead of just interchanging the groups properly. Had you done that, it wouldn't inherently violate Rule 16.
Not that your comment does since it's done with such pure disingenuous cynicism that it can't actually violate the spirit of the rule. I have to make an exception to this, explicitly because you don't mean it and are just trying to get my attention.