There was a graph, I posted it a long time ago. Resources were redirected from Islamic extremism to "right-wing extremists" and "non ideological/other extremists" after the very, very questionable "incel shooting" with no manifesto and a string of male victims.
Did I admit to that? I don't recall. I feel like saying it would get an R16 ban, so I doubt I would. I do believe the existence of "misogyny" is about as logical as being a "Naziphobe".
What I was saying there is that we aren't free just because we can criticise our leaders. The UK is under a regime just as autocratic as the countries it criticizes. Just because they pretend to give a choice, people think it's better. But if you can't find a single party that will openly oppose feminism, then you aren't picking your leader. They are.
There was a graph, I posted it a long time ago. Resources were redirected from Islamic extremism to "right-wing extremists" and "non ideological/other extremists" after the very, very questionable "incel shooting" with no manifesto and a string of male victims.
That does not sound implausible. But you claimed the you (1) know (2) her agents are reading (3) this [website]. Resources being redirected to their phantom obsessions does not prove that.
Did I admit to that? I don't recall. I feel like saying it would get an R16 ban, so I doubt I would. I do believe the existence of "misogyny" is about as logical as being a "Naziphobe".
I am pretty sure that you did, but even if you didn't, you are here confirming it by saying that the only reason you wouldn't is because you would get banned, not because you do not believe it.
So you don't want resources redirected to keeping track of people who hate women. I agree with you on that. But at least be honest.
Just because they pretend to give a choice, people think it's better. But if you can't find a single party that will openly oppose feminism, then you aren't picking your leader. They are.
You're so, so, so close.
What I was saying there is that we aren't free just because we can criticise our leaders. The UK is under a regime just as autocratic as the countries it criticizes.
I agree with that. But I asked you why that concubine would be reading this website though. Would that not be a giant waste of her time, if she's supposed to puppeteer England?
If you think she isn't having them keep an eye on everyone who looks at her as the puppet master of the failing UK...
I'm not confirming anything. I'm just saying I wouldn't have said that because it would be a ban. Considering Carrie's crusade against "incel violence" took monitoring off a convicted extremist who later killed an MP, I don't think I even need to say anything on the topic of it being a bad idea. Not as if she cares, men are below her anyway, in her mind.
To what?
Like I said at the beginning, I bet she has her agents report to her on whether people have worked out what's going on yet.
If you think she isn't having them keep an eye on everyone who looks at her as the puppet master of the failing UK...
I thought you said you 'knew' it. Seems like standards for what counts as 'knowledge' are different when you are speaking.
I'm not confirming anything. I'm just saying I wouldn't have said that because it would be a ban.
It is a confirmation, otherwise you'd have said "No, I don't believe that". You do.
Considering Carrie's crusade against "incel violence" took monitoring off a convicted extremist who later killed an MP, I don't think I even need to say anything on the topic of it being a bad idea. Not as if she cares, men are below her anyway, in her mind.
I guess now you can read minds from a distance as well. But feel free to show me that it was a crusade against 'incel violence' that took that terrorist from off the monitoring - that would be nice ammunition. While you're at it, you could show that the concubine was responsible for it.
To what?
To seeing things as they are. If it weren't for your blinding hatred for the females of the opposite sex.
Like I said at the beginning, I bet she has her agents report to her on whether people have worked out what's going on yet.
Smart, you're now making bets that cannot be proven false, as opposed to your previous ones which you all lost.
If anything AoV at this point it looks like you are holding Imp to different standards, not that imp is using different standards.
If anyone else said things in a slightly hyperbolic manner, you seem to interpret them correctly and understand the meaning of their messages.
With Imp, you take him stone cold literally and nit pick.
It is PROVEN that governments monitor websites. Is it questionable that they're checking this specific one? Sure. But that doesn't refute imps point that they can and likely do.
Just like you're implying they're using human man power to monitor this and other sites, when you know full well they can just use scrapers.
You don't need to read minds either to make a good estimate of someone's behaviour. Carries behaviour has long been antimale, this is very apparent when you note her associations and meeting points. Much like we don't have to read minds to know that Imp will see the worst in women ( right or not) and that you will be right there nitpicking and cherry picking (again right or not).
There was a graph, I posted it a long time ago. Resources were redirected from Islamic extremism to "right-wing extremists" and "non ideological/other extremists" after the very, very questionable "incel shooting" with no manifesto and a string of male victims.
Did I admit to that? I don't recall. I feel like saying it would get an R16 ban, so I doubt I would. I do believe the existence of "misogyny" is about as logical as being a "Naziphobe".
What I was saying there is that we aren't free just because we can criticise our leaders. The UK is under a regime just as autocratic as the countries it criticizes. Just because they pretend to give a choice, people think it's better. But if you can't find a single party that will openly oppose feminism, then you aren't picking your leader. They are.
That does not sound implausible. But you claimed the you (1) know (2) her agents are reading (3) this [website]. Resources being redirected to their phantom obsessions does not prove that.
I am pretty sure that you did, but even if you didn't, you are here confirming it by saying that the only reason you wouldn't is because you would get banned, not because you do not believe it.
So you don't want resources redirected to keeping track of people who hate women. I agree with you on that. But at least be honest.
You're so, so, so close.
I agree with that. But I asked you why that concubine would be reading this website though. Would that not be a giant waste of her time, if she's supposed to puppeteer England?
If you think she isn't having them keep an eye on everyone who looks at her as the puppet master of the failing UK...
I'm not confirming anything. I'm just saying I wouldn't have said that because it would be a ban. Considering Carrie's crusade against "incel violence" took monitoring off a convicted extremist who later killed an MP, I don't think I even need to say anything on the topic of it being a bad idea. Not as if she cares, men are below her anyway, in her mind.
To what?
Like I said at the beginning, I bet she has her agents report to her on whether people have worked out what's going on yet.
I thought you said you 'knew' it. Seems like standards for what counts as 'knowledge' are different when you are speaking.
It is a confirmation, otherwise you'd have said "No, I don't believe that". You do.
I guess now you can read minds from a distance as well. But feel free to show me that it was a crusade against 'incel violence' that took that terrorist from off the monitoring - that would be nice ammunition. While you're at it, you could show that the concubine was responsible for it.
To seeing things as they are. If it weren't for your blinding hatred for the females of the opposite sex.
Smart, you're now making bets that cannot be proven false, as opposed to your previous ones which you all lost.
If anything AoV at this point it looks like you are holding Imp to different standards, not that imp is using different standards.
If anyone else said things in a slightly hyperbolic manner, you seem to interpret them correctly and understand the meaning of their messages.
With Imp, you take him stone cold literally and nit pick.
It is PROVEN that governments monitor websites. Is it questionable that they're checking this specific one? Sure. But that doesn't refute imps point that they can and likely do.
Just like you're implying they're using human man power to monitor this and other sites, when you know full well they can just use scrapers.
You don't need to read minds either to make a good estimate of someone's behaviour. Carries behaviour has long been antimale, this is very apparent when you note her associations and meeting points. Much like we don't have to read minds to know that Imp will see the worst in women ( right or not) and that you will be right there nitpicking and cherry picking (again right or not).