So...a majority? Don't be shy, tell us what you really want.
I mean, I already know. But I wish you'd outright say it so I don't sound crazy.
We don’t finance women’s campaigns the way we finance men’s. That’s a great problem.
Women are free to fund their own genocide supporting psychos. The reason most of the feminist backed politicians don't get funding is because their beliefs are radicalized, stochastic terrorism that is unpalatable to people with human emotions.
I am wildly surprised you of all people used the term 'stochastic terrorism' which is just academic talk for "i can't find any direcy causality but my feelings tell me it's true."
Stochastic terrorism is very real. As is frequently the case, the leftists who complain about it are projecting; they constantly signal for their political allies to commit violence. It just so happens that those leftist terrorists are working for the DOJ and the FBI.
Right, but that's not stochastic terrorism. Stochastic Terrorism is the fanciful idea that when Trump says "I love and work for all Americans" it's really a dog whistle to his 'followers' to be violent towards some group that is considered to be "unamerican" -- as one example.
The logic is that as violence against target groups goes up, it must be ____ person's rhetoric -- which didn't call for violence -- but in other ways inspired people to be violent. Asian Hate Crimes/Violence was such a thing in the news because it was evidence of this "stochastic terrorism" because of Trump's language ("China Virus") -- which is stupid because it was mostly Asians getting assaulted by blacks in the inner cities that continue to decay into cultural dust.
When Maxine Waters spouts off about telling people they should go confront people - that's not stochastic terrorism, that's just plain old incitement to violence. And there's dozens of examples of this on the left.
That's how they use it, but it actually has a definition that fits feminists really well.
the public demonization of a person or group resulting in the incitement of an act, which is statistically probable but whose specifics cannot be predicted
It isn't confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that the feminist rhetoric of wanting all men dead is resulting in higher male suicides or more abused kids, but it's extremely likely.
If you want to assert feminist rhetoric is leading to increased male suicides you can't just hypothesize that and assert it as logically likely -- you have to show some sort of causation.
So...a majority? Don't be shy, tell us what you really want.
I mean, I already know. But I wish you'd outright say it so I don't sound crazy.
Women are free to fund their own genocide supporting psychos. The reason most of the feminist backed politicians don't get funding is because their beliefs are radicalized, stochastic terrorism that is unpalatable to people with human emotions.
I am wildly surprised you of all people used the term 'stochastic terrorism' which is just academic talk for "i can't find any direcy causality but my feelings tell me it's true."
Other than that, agree.
Stochastic terrorism is very real. As is frequently the case, the leftists who complain about it are projecting; they constantly signal for their political allies to commit violence. It just so happens that those leftist terrorists are working for the DOJ and the FBI.
Right, but that's not stochastic terrorism. Stochastic Terrorism is the fanciful idea that when Trump says "I love and work for all Americans" it's really a dog whistle to his 'followers' to be violent towards some group that is considered to be "unamerican" -- as one example.
The logic is that as violence against target groups goes up, it must be ____ person's rhetoric -- which didn't call for violence -- but in other ways inspired people to be violent. Asian Hate Crimes/Violence was such a thing in the news because it was evidence of this "stochastic terrorism" because of Trump's language ("China Virus") -- which is stupid because it was mostly Asians getting assaulted by blacks in the inner cities that continue to decay into cultural dust.
When Maxine Waters spouts off about telling people they should go confront people - that's not stochastic terrorism, that's just plain old incitement to violence. And there's dozens of examples of this on the left.
That's how they use it, but it actually has a definition that fits feminists really well.
It isn't confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that the feminist rhetoric of wanting all men dead is resulting in higher male suicides or more abused kids, but it's extremely likely.
No it's not.
If you want to assert feminist rhetoric is leading to increased male suicides you can't just hypothesize that and assert it as logically likely -- you have to show some sort of causation.
He's an SJW, of course he's going to use thier terms
There is nothing wrong with using the enemy's weapons against him.