They do everything men do, but magnified, spicily because their emotions snowball. Look into crimes involving stabbings. Women are often the ones who leave more stab wounds on average when they are the perpetrators. Look it up. They don't know when to stop. Hell, all that "slut shaming" crap they go on about is almost entirely perpetrated by other women. Often jealous ones. Men fly off the handle and yes, it can be scary because of our size and our strength is magnified when we get angry, but the shame we feel when we lose control after the come down is insurmountable. Women don't feel that shame.... they blame the victims for pissing them off.
People who are weak and want strength without working for it, don't learn it's limitations, nor how to be responsible for it.
If a woman never gets punched in the face, she doesn't know how far she's going, and is very surprised when someone throws down far earlier than she expects.
all that "slut shaming" crap they go on about is almost entirely perpetrated by other women
When women complain they can't wear the same outfit again it's not because of what men will say or do. Men can and will go full on simp to the point of looking like a cartoon character. There's a pic somewhere of Drake in a club looking like a freaking Titan the way his mouth is so exaggeratedly open however I can't seem to work out what search strings are needed to find it. Even then there are other examples where men will more than willingly go along with a very obviously stupid concept if they think it might get them laid.
yeah it's one of the mainline bluepill lies told to me to keep them under the yoke. Women are solipsistic and supremely self-interested. This is due to their evolutionary path and what was required of women to keep their young children alive. Women who were not self-centered and selfish had less resources for their children, less healthy children, and their children more often died. So those women had their offspring weeded out of the gene pool.
Men that would protect and provide for a woman, and sacrifice safety and resources for their woman and children had more children and had them grow and prosper. So those men's genes propagated while others did not.
Also, in the long ago, lots of rape happened. The echoes of this pop up every now and then when women talk about their fantasies. It's all evolution: who died, who survived, and by what mechanisms.
That's a pretty logical take. Everything that is happened for a reason. Break it down as far as it can and it almost always leads to the same base root. Survival.
All the women Ive talked to have admitted that that is a blatant lie. Women are only kinder or more altruistic around men, and even then, not all the time.
My school teachers knew this about fights between boys and girls in school.
Boys would throw hands, maybe hurt each other, and then be friends later in the day.
Girls would literally try to gouge each-other's eyes out, stab each other, and have to be physically restrained. Then they would need to be separated physically for weeks.
No no, they're right. If human societies were matriarchal, we'd be still living in caves, and that's a really low-carbon way of living.
Climate change is a women's issue, because on average they're much more likely to fall for all that emotional bullshit that's being peddled to justify the destruction of advanced societies. They're less knowledgeable about how the world works and what it takes to make a pencil and how we can make sure it all happens efficiently, and they're less likely to think long-term. So someone tells them that, oh, we must shut down fossil fuel plants and replace them with nothing otherwise all the cute Koalas will spontaneously combust, and they'll go with it, and then pitch a fit when there's no power to run the washing machine. Oh no, how could this have happened? We built all these solar panels, what do you mean there's no way to store energy at scale, what scale?! FIX THIS!
Cars are big eww and we should ban them because they're ugly and smell bad until she needs a lift.
I wouldn't be entirely so sure. Carbon emissions might actually go up if you have to reduce technology. Think about how India is building coal fired power plants to supply electricity because wood-based cooking is the norm and it's absolutely smothering India in pollution.
Which part exactly are you replying to? If it's the first paragraph, I meant literally living in caves. Ooga booga. That's pretty carbon neutral.
If it's about the rest, then yes, I agree, but nobody actually gives a shit about carbon dioxide, it's just one of today's Satans, kinda like white supremacy... or VR groping, since that's on my mind right now. Actual harmful pollution would skyrocket if we shit down our nukes (because they're scawwy!) and then were forced to go back to coal/oil/gas power generation because you can't run a power grid on wind and solar.
I think most right thinking people do. Hell, I would even say a lot of the talk about how “climate change doesn’t exist” is about the Lefts Gaia Worship stance on the issue. For my own stance, I am a TR-style Conservationist: We should absolutely protect wildlife and maintain areas of pristine wilderness. But for the benefit of both the Earth and humanity. And that we overcome pollution with technology and efficiency, not punishment and returning to monke like the Climate Cult wants.
TLDR: Nuclear Reactors or you are a lying cultist.
Carbon Emissions are an existential threat. The thing is, most people don't know what a real existential threat looks like. The idea that cities would be slowly abandoned over the next hundred years due to inhospitability due to sea level rise isn't crazy.
In fact, one of the most interesting things in archaeology is seeing how emergent civilizations live on top of previous civilizations, and even though they are direct descendants, there is no information about the previous civilization.
These massive cities are large economic centers, and they were constructed from imperial economies that supported them. When the empire collapsed economically it took it's cities with it. The popping of the economic bubble caused a total collapse of the wholes civilization. For the Assyrians, it's a prime example of why you don't build your entire civilization on military expansionism alone.
If you've read Jared Diamond's "Collapse", you'll also note that significant environmental degradation can cause the collapse of these cities. These cities and their incredible urban density must import vast quantities of food, and they also require significant transportation using waterways and coast lines. If environmental degradation (or poisoning) disrupts the logistical system to support these cities, the cities die, and the civilization typically goes with it because these cities include all of the formalized knowledge, wealth, and technical class of those civilizations. This seems to have at least partly happened with Easter Island, however it may have also contributed to the Bronze Age Collapse.
Not every civilization dies from fiery disaster. Many just fade away. People typically abandon cities. Old ways of doing things are lost. The technical knowledge of previous civilizations is lost, particularly if the language is no longer readable. Although Rome was sacked, Rome continued to exist long after the Western Roman Empire fell, and even after the Eastern Roman's re-conquered it. However, back in Gaul, despite being occupied by Romans for centuries, despite adopting Roman civilizations, despite traveling on Roman roads, even despite Charlemagne effectively claiming the title of Caesar, the Franks couldn't speak Latin, and they could tell you what a Rome even was. Even though they could still travel to it on the roads built by Romans and Romanic Gauls.
If major cities and their economic power are damaged by changing water-ways and rising coast-lines, this is an existential threat that could cause the entire Global power structure to shift on it's foundations. It's not the first time shit like that has happened. The Globalist power structure needs food production to stay where it is, city size to increase, and effectively no changes to anything anywhere. Well, that's not going to happen, and cultivatable farming regions are already shifting, and their own economic policies are causing cities to be abandoned already.
You're looking at a proper collapse, that the Globalists think is existential; but in reality is simply existential... ... to them. We'll be fine.
There is also something to be said about how their attempt at top down control of an environment fails just as much as their attempts to control just about everything else. Its the locals who usually understand their own environment and its needs.
For instance, here in Kansas, a lot of the environmentalist types have been trying to ban control burning for years. They claim it creates significant amounts of pollution, that it "destroys nature", and that it harms wildlife. Meanwhile, fire is essential for the prairie to continue to exist, as all of the native species of grasses and trees have evolved over millennia with fire so either their roots are deep underground or they are hardened against fire, while any invaders burn to ash because that is not their way (and we hold off the Red Cedar scourge for one more year). Even the Native Americans, who are pseudo-deified by the environmentalist for being "one with nature" burned the prairie because it allowed for easier movement and the fresh grass brought the bison herds.
Additionally, they also pitch a fit over cattle grazing in this region. This despite the fact that cattle are the only reason the prairie still exist. They wanted to plow this all under and turn it into farmland (because unfortunately, all the properties that make good prairie make good farms), but the soil was so shallow and rocky it didnt work here. So they brought in the cattle to graze, and as it turns out your average bovine has a very similar grazing pattern to the bison. So they managed to bring the prairie back up to its former glory after decades of decay thanks to the near extinction of the bison.
But no, some central bureaucrat talked with a scientist who has never been here who says we are clearly morons who dont understand how much harm we are doing and that we need to stop being naughty children and listen to the smart people now.
The technical knowledge of previous civilizations is lost, particularly if the language is no longer readable.
The one that is always amazing to me is that we know that Roman Concrete is significantly stronger than anything we make now. As in, to make anything even near its durability, we have to use steel-reinforced concrete, because normal concrete wont even get close. But no one knows how to make it! Even the ROMANS THEMSEVLES forgot how! And that is honestly the thing that terrifies me more about all of the push for "diversity" into all these industries. That some diversity hire is going to break something, and then no one knows how to fix it, and now we just have to live with inferior quality planes or steel.
but in reality is simply existential... ... to them. We'll be fine.
Yep. Especially since I live in one of those places where the food comes from. Because speaking around here, the only shortages that have been noticed due to the supply line issues has been luxury items like electronics. All of the basics, like clothing, food, and fuel are readily available. And while fuel is more expensive than it used to be, everything else is actually largely the same price it has been and shows no sign of prices going up. So if the collapse comes, I will at least still be able to eat. Meanwhile, the cities will probably descend into absolute anarchy as people resort to extreme means because they cant exactly eat their brand new Iphone.
For instance, here in Kansas, a lot of the environmentalist types have been trying to ban control burning for years. They claim it creates significant amounts of pollution, that it "destroys nature", and that it harms wildlife.
This is devastatingly stupid and they should be classified as terrorists for trying to cause widespread fires.
Additionally, they also pitch a fit over cattle grazing in this region. This despite the fact that cattle are the only reason the prairie still exist
Correct. Literally the purpose of the prarie.
But no, some central bureaucrat talked with a scientist
This is where my objections come in. Any good scientist should be stating this. Horticulture and Agricultural management is a major aspect of how to deal with climate change.
Because speaking around here, the only shortages that have been noticed due to the supply line issues has been luxury items like electronics.
The danger in those areas is not that you'll starve, just that if the biome changes enough from the climate, some crops will no longer be profitable, and you might even have problems with soil nutrients, and you can't just dump and infinite number of fertilizers into land that's been over-farmed or over-grazed. If you genuinely change the rainfall patterns and growing seasons, a lot of shit starts to have a knock-on effect that could be really disruptive.
Does it have bread, does it have meat, does it have/not have the cheese I specifically asked for? It's a burger. It's good. Do w/e else the fuck you feel with it as long as it's edible and won't make me sick
The demographic responsible for 80%+ of household purchasing decisions? Climate conscious? Let me know when Dolce and Gabbana, Banana Republic, L'Oreal, etc. all declare bankruptcy
This article is typical feminist delusion. Women spend more than they earn (especially other people's money). They absolutey emit more carbon than men.
Women will emit less carbon. They are smaller and therefore use less energy to live therefore exhale less carbon dioxide. LOL I'm sure that's not what they had in mind though.
Women are always more "whatever-stupid-activist-cause-is-trending-today" conscious. Then weak, stupid men just follow them to get the women.
That's all it is. They're more susceptible to propaganda, simple as that.
That's quite a funny way to say 'deranged climate cultist'.
Really it's just a positive-sounding way of saying 'obedient'.
I call bullshit on this part. The worse people I've ever known in my life have been women.
Women are far more generous with other peoples' money.
They do everything men do, but magnified, spicily because their emotions snowball. Look into crimes involving stabbings. Women are often the ones who leave more stab wounds on average when they are the perpetrators. Look it up. They don't know when to stop. Hell, all that "slut shaming" crap they go on about is almost entirely perpetrated by other women. Often jealous ones. Men fly off the handle and yes, it can be scary because of our size and our strength is magnified when we get angry, but the shame we feel when we lose control after the come down is insurmountable. Women don't feel that shame.... they blame the victims for pissing them off.
It's not shame, it's just a lack of feedback.
People who are weak and want strength without working for it, don't learn it's limitations, nor how to be responsible for it.
If a woman never gets punched in the face, she doesn't know how far she's going, and is very surprised when someone throws down far earlier than she expects.
When women complain they can't wear the same outfit again it's not because of what men will say or do. Men can and will go full on simp to the point of looking like a cartoon character. There's a pic somewhere of Drake in a club looking like a freaking Titan the way his mouth is so exaggeratedly open however I can't seem to work out what search strings are needed to find it. Even then there are other examples where men will more than willingly go along with a very obviously stupid concept if they think it might get them laid.
yeah it's one of the mainline bluepill lies told to me to keep them under the yoke. Women are solipsistic and supremely self-interested. This is due to their evolutionary path and what was required of women to keep their young children alive. Women who were not self-centered and selfish had less resources for their children, less healthy children, and their children more often died. So those women had their offspring weeded out of the gene pool.
Men that would protect and provide for a woman, and sacrifice safety and resources for their woman and children had more children and had them grow and prosper. So those men's genes propagated while others did not.
Also, in the long ago, lots of rape happened. The echoes of this pop up every now and then when women talk about their fantasies. It's all evolution: who died, who survived, and by what mechanisms.
That's a pretty logical take. Everything that is happened for a reason. Break it down as far as it can and it almost always leads to the same base root. Survival.
All the women Ive talked to have admitted that that is a blatant lie. Women are only kinder or more altruistic around men, and even then, not all the time.
It was through Eve that death entered the world.
To be fair, eden sounded boring as fuck.
My school teachers knew this about fights between boys and girls in school.
Boys would throw hands, maybe hurt each other, and then be friends later in the day.
Girls would literally try to gouge each-other's eyes out, stab each other, and have to be physically restrained. Then they would need to be separated physically for weeks.
No no, they're right. If human societies were matriarchal, we'd be still living in caves, and that's a really low-carbon way of living.
Climate change is a women's issue, because on average they're much more likely to fall for all that emotional bullshit that's being peddled to justify the destruction of advanced societies. They're less knowledgeable about how the world works and what it takes to make a pencil and how we can make sure it all happens efficiently, and they're less likely to think long-term. So someone tells them that, oh, we must shut down fossil fuel plants and replace them with nothing otherwise all the cute Koalas will spontaneously combust, and they'll go with it, and then pitch a fit when there's no power to run the washing machine. Oh no, how could this have happened? We built all these solar panels, what do you mean there's no way to store energy at scale, what scale?! FIX THIS!
Cars are big eww and we should ban them because they're ugly and smell bad until she needs a lift.
I wouldn't be entirely so sure. Carbon emissions might actually go up if you have to reduce technology. Think about how India is building coal fired power plants to supply electricity because wood-based cooking is the norm and it's absolutely smothering India in pollution.
Which part exactly are you replying to? If it's the first paragraph, I meant literally living in caves. Ooga booga. That's pretty carbon neutral.
If it's about the rest, then yes, I agree, but nobody actually gives a shit about carbon dioxide, it's just one of today's Satans, kinda like white supremacy... or VR groping, since that's on my mind right now. Actual harmful pollution would skyrocket if we shit down our nukes (because they're scawwy!) and then were forced to go back to coal/oil/gas power generation because you can't run a power grid on wind and solar.
kicks a small stone
... i care about carbon dioxide levels...
I think most right thinking people do. Hell, I would even say a lot of the talk about how “climate change doesn’t exist” is about the Lefts Gaia Worship stance on the issue. For my own stance, I am a TR-style Conservationist: We should absolutely protect wildlife and maintain areas of pristine wilderness. But for the benefit of both the Earth and humanity. And that we overcome pollution with technology and efficiency, not punishment and returning to monke like the Climate Cult wants.
TLDR: Nuclear Reactors or you are a lying cultist.
Basially.
Carbon Emissions are an existential threat. The thing is, most people don't know what a real existential threat looks like. The idea that cities would be slowly abandoned over the next hundred years due to inhospitability due to sea level rise isn't crazy.
In fact, one of the most interesting things in archaeology is seeing how emergent civilizations live on top of previous civilizations, and even though they are direct descendants, there is no information about the previous civilization.
Xenophon's retreat from Persia includes the first western, written, accounts of the Assyrian Empire, 200 years after it collapsed. The people who lived in these cities abandoned them, and the people who lived in these cities had no memory of the civilization who built these massive cities just 200 years earlier. Imagine if no one in the US had any information about how the city of Philadelphia came to be.
These massive cities are large economic centers, and they were constructed from imperial economies that supported them. When the empire collapsed economically it took it's cities with it. The popping of the economic bubble caused a total collapse of the wholes civilization. For the Assyrians, it's a prime example of why you don't build your entire civilization on military expansionism alone.
If you've read Jared Diamond's "Collapse", you'll also note that significant environmental degradation can cause the collapse of these cities. These cities and their incredible urban density must import vast quantities of food, and they also require significant transportation using waterways and coast lines. If environmental degradation (or poisoning) disrupts the logistical system to support these cities, the cities die, and the civilization typically goes with it because these cities include all of the formalized knowledge, wealth, and technical class of those civilizations. This seems to have at least partly happened with Easter Island, however it may have also contributed to the Bronze Age Collapse.
Not every civilization dies from fiery disaster. Many just fade away. People typically abandon cities. Old ways of doing things are lost. The technical knowledge of previous civilizations is lost, particularly if the language is no longer readable. Although Rome was sacked, Rome continued to exist long after the Western Roman Empire fell, and even after the Eastern Roman's re-conquered it. However, back in Gaul, despite being occupied by Romans for centuries, despite adopting Roman civilizations, despite traveling on Roman roads, even despite Charlemagne effectively claiming the title of Caesar, the Franks couldn't speak Latin, and they could tell you what a Rome even was. Even though they could still travel to it on the roads built by Romans and Romanic Gauls.
If major cities and their economic power are damaged by changing water-ways and rising coast-lines, this is an existential threat that could cause the entire Global power structure to shift on it's foundations. It's not the first time shit like that has happened. The Globalist power structure needs food production to stay where it is, city size to increase, and effectively no changes to anything anywhere. Well, that's not going to happen, and cultivatable farming regions are already shifting, and their own economic policies are causing cities to be abandoned already.
You're looking at a proper collapse, that the Globalists think is existential; but in reality is simply existential... ... to them. We'll be fine.
There is also something to be said about how their attempt at top down control of an environment fails just as much as their attempts to control just about everything else. Its the locals who usually understand their own environment and its needs.
For instance, here in Kansas, a lot of the environmentalist types have been trying to ban control burning for years. They claim it creates significant amounts of pollution, that it "destroys nature", and that it harms wildlife. Meanwhile, fire is essential for the prairie to continue to exist, as all of the native species of grasses and trees have evolved over millennia with fire so either their roots are deep underground or they are hardened against fire, while any invaders burn to ash because that is not their way (and we hold off the Red Cedar scourge for one more year). Even the Native Americans, who are pseudo-deified by the environmentalist for being "one with nature" burned the prairie because it allowed for easier movement and the fresh grass brought the bison herds.
Additionally, they also pitch a fit over cattle grazing in this region. This despite the fact that cattle are the only reason the prairie still exist. They wanted to plow this all under and turn it into farmland (because unfortunately, all the properties that make good prairie make good farms), but the soil was so shallow and rocky it didnt work here. So they brought in the cattle to graze, and as it turns out your average bovine has a very similar grazing pattern to the bison. So they managed to bring the prairie back up to its former glory after decades of decay thanks to the near extinction of the bison.
But no, some central bureaucrat talked with a scientist who has never been here who says we are clearly morons who dont understand how much harm we are doing and that we need to stop being naughty children and listen to the smart people now.
The one that is always amazing to me is that we know that Roman Concrete is significantly stronger than anything we make now. As in, to make anything even near its durability, we have to use steel-reinforced concrete, because normal concrete wont even get close. But no one knows how to make it! Even the ROMANS THEMSEVLES forgot how! And that is honestly the thing that terrifies me more about all of the push for "diversity" into all these industries. That some diversity hire is going to break something, and then no one knows how to fix it, and now we just have to live with inferior quality planes or steel.
Yep. Especially since I live in one of those places where the food comes from. Because speaking around here, the only shortages that have been noticed due to the supply line issues has been luxury items like electronics. All of the basics, like clothing, food, and fuel are readily available. And while fuel is more expensive than it used to be, everything else is actually largely the same price it has been and shows no sign of prices going up. So if the collapse comes, I will at least still be able to eat. Meanwhile, the cities will probably descend into absolute anarchy as people resort to extreme means because they cant exactly eat their brand new Iphone.
This is devastatingly stupid and they should be classified as terrorists for trying to cause widespread fires.
Correct. Literally the purpose of the prarie.
This is where my objections come in. Any good scientist should be stating this. Horticulture and Agricultural management is a major aspect of how to deal with climate change.
The danger in those areas is not that you'll starve, just that if the biome changes enough from the climate, some crops will no longer be profitable, and you might even have problems with soil nutrients, and you can't just dump and infinite number of fertilizers into land that's been over-farmed or over-grazed. If you genuinely change the rainfall patterns and growing seasons, a lot of shit starts to have a knock-on effect that could be really disruptive.
I'll tell you, my woman sure doesn't emit less carbon.
BRAAAAAAAAAAP
Now that's my kinda woman.
Or methane?
"It's the patriarchy that makes women capitalists."
"Also, women can't be bourgeoisie. ... ... stop looking at my $500 shoes."
How forgetful of them to ignore how much trash the cosmetic industry generates
Yes, women are far more pro-communist then men, in general. "Climate Change" and "Green" are progressive authoritarian code words for Communism.
Considering women do most of the spending, that's a bald faced lie. "The Capitalist System" pollutes primarily on behalf of women.
Imagine if everything could only be purchased by men.
Server: "Welcome to Burger Store 506."
Man: "Yes I'd like big burger with 'the usual', a kid's burger meal, and a normal 'woman's burger option' with Cola #3"
Server: "Would you like me to ask your lady what variant she prefers?"
Man: "Yeah, I can't remember all that shit. Go ahead and start the rest of the order now."
Server: "Ma'am, what would you like? Our current popular Woman's Burger variants are WB-37, WB-2489, and WB-674."
Woman: "Oh, I'm not sure, what do you have?"
Server: "Well the burger varieties come in honey bun, pretzel bun, regular bun, sesame seed bun, red lettuce, green lettuce, salty pickles, sweet pickles, straight cut pickles, crinkle pickles, american cheese, provolone cheese, swiss cheese, tomatoes, tomillos, ..."
Woman: "I don't think I'm sure."
Man: "We normally just get Variety WB-105 when she's being indecisive"
Woman: "Does that come with the honey buns?"
Man: "WB-106."
Woman: " ... well, wait. What if I want a man's burger? "
Server: "That's highly irregular, but I can do that."
Woman: "What does it come with?"
Server: "... meat?"
Woman: "Okay, but what else?"
Server: "... bread?"
Woman: "No, really!"
Server: "Honestly ma'am, we have no idea."
Woman: "Wait... how do you know it's right?"
Server: "It looks like a burger."
Woman: "But what if it's not what I want?"
Server: "Well, no man has ever complained, so I would recommend the Women's Burger."
Does it have bread, does it have meat, does it have/not have the cheese I specifically asked for? It's a burger. It's good. Do w/e else the fuck you feel with it as long as it's edible and won't make me sick
FTFY
The demographic responsible for 80%+ of household purchasing decisions? Climate conscious? Let me know when Dolce and Gabbana, Banana Republic, L'Oreal, etc. all declare bankruptcy
That is why it is picked. Women can say that they're doing their part, it's those men ruining the Earth-Mother.
On with the climate concentration camps!
This article is typical feminist delusion. Women spend more than they earn (especially other people's money). They absolutey emit more carbon than men.
Women will emit less carbon. They are smaller and therefore use less energy to live therefore exhale less carbon dioxide. LOL I'm sure that's not what they had in mind though.
it's not anyone's issue
Emit less carbon? Their farts are constructed exactly the same way .
We already know feminists are morons. You just went down the crazy town version of Incel-Front, where all the women are out to get us.
I'm not calling you an incel. I don't think you want to have sex with women because you're afraid they'll steal your kidneys.
Here's the thing, the vast and sweeping majority of women don't do any of those things. (aside from the vaccine stuff)
Your issue is with particular women, not all of them.