Any man who claims women have a "natural in-group bias" has never been in an environment where women cattily stab each other in the back for social status, access to a desirable man, or just for fun.
In other words, they probably haven't spent any time around women.
Read what, some random screenshot of some random Reddit comment from some random user?
It's an opinion, just like anything else. I'm not even saying it's wrong, I'm just curious why you think this is some slam dunk "proof" or something. What's compelling about a snippet like this?
Ironically, every time I do a post with research and effort, or try to organize something, I get heavily downvoted.
I have given you very simple advice on how to not get downvoted, which when you have tried it had a 100% success rate.
Your spergy titles turn off everyone but the most self-pitying losers.
As for trying to organize something, I think you have improved, but you still don't know the secret. A boycott has to be easy. I have not used Gillette since the ad, because it's remarkably easy to recognize their products. No one's going to follow a boycott list that's longer than your list of mental illnesses, particularly when some of the grounds for boycott are ridiculous (which you've gotten better on).
No one's going to follow a boycott list that's longer than your list of mental illnesses, particularly when some of the grounds for boycott are ridiculous
It's not that long. It's not my fault that there are so many evil companies.
You should have seen the number I was going to add for sponsoring the UK government's incel propaganda crap, but I put them in a separate list due to lack of relevance to a US-centric website.
It's not that long. It's not my fault that there are so many evil companies.
He who fights the entire world fights nothing.
A dispersed boycott that is difficult to follow achieves absolutely nothing. If the entire right would pick one company and boycott it into the ground, it would encourage the others, in Voltaire's phrase. Like the old Chinese saying: "Kill one to warn a hundred others."
But how do you pick the most evil? There's so many choices and picking one lets the others off.
The idea is that you scan the list and see which are relevant to you, and act how you want to with the knowledge of what they have done.
I think my honest view would be to go for Kering. Their foundation features prominently in a lot of feminist political pushes.
But then you've got the ESG banks securing loans against increasing female hires, and there's tons of those, from NatWest Group in the UK, to France's BNP Paribas, to Bank of America and Wells Fargo in the US, and Toronto Dominion in Canada. That's already five companies and I could name more that deserve the same treatment. (BBVA of Spain, Starling Bank of the UK, Swedbank of the United Arab Emirates...just kidding, it's obviously Sweden.)
Then there's the (mostly European) companies taking these out such as Spain's Telefonica conglomerate of mobile companies, and Accor of France (not sure what they do, honestly. Hotels? All I know of them is that they used to sponsor Paris Saint-Germain)
Then there's companies with feminist CEOs like Bumble and Citigroup, they need to be targeted...
The idea is that you scan the list and see which are relevant to you, and act how you want to with the knowledge of what they have done.
It's good enough for that purpose.
Then there's the (mostly European) companies taking these out such as Spain's Telefonica conglomerate of mobile companies, and Accor of France (not sure what they do, honestly. Hotels? All I know of them is that they used to sponsor Paris Saint-Germain)
And they never will be.
Any man who claims women have a "natural in-group bias" has never been in an environment where women cattily stab each other in the back for social status, access to a desirable man, or just for fun.
In other words, they probably haven't spent any time around women.
That's not evidence of not having an in-group bias. That just means they hate each other less than they hate random, unspecified men.
You're defending me? That's a first.
I wonder if the downvoting cucks will read this and change their ways.
Probably not, back to "muh joos" spamming a few minutes after.
Read what, some random screenshot of some random Reddit comment from some random user?
It's an opinion, just like anything else. I'm not even saying it's wrong, I'm just curious why you think this is some slam dunk "proof" or something. What's compelling about a snippet like this?
Ironically, every time I do a post with research and effort, or try to organize something, I get heavily downvoted.
I just liked how it laid out the whole scam women are running, where the only way to fix things is to give our masters (them) more power.
I have given you very simple advice on how to not get downvoted, which when you have tried it had a 100% success rate.
Your spergy titles turn off everyone but the most self-pitying losers.
As for trying to organize something, I think you have improved, but you still don't know the secret. A boycott has to be easy. I have not used Gillette since the ad, because it's remarkably easy to recognize their products. No one's going to follow a boycott list that's longer than your list of mental illnesses, particularly when some of the grounds for boycott are ridiculous (which you've gotten better on).
It's not that long. It's not my fault that there are so many evil companies.
You should have seen the number I was going to add for sponsoring the UK government's incel propaganda crap, but I put them in a separate list due to lack of relevance to a US-centric website.
He who fights the entire world fights nothing.
A dispersed boycott that is difficult to follow achieves absolutely nothing. If the entire right would pick one company and boycott it into the ground, it would encourage the others, in Voltaire's phrase. Like the old Chinese saying: "Kill one to warn a hundred others."
But how do you pick the most evil? There's so many choices and picking one lets the others off.
The idea is that you scan the list and see which are relevant to you, and act how you want to with the knowledge of what they have done.
I think my honest view would be to go for Kering. Their foundation features prominently in a lot of feminist political pushes.
But then you've got the ESG banks securing loans against increasing female hires, and there's tons of those, from NatWest Group in the UK, to France's BNP Paribas, to Bank of America and Wells Fargo in the US, and Toronto Dominion in Canada. That's already five companies and I could name more that deserve the same treatment. (BBVA of Spain, Starling Bank of the UK, Swedbank of the United Arab Emirates...just kidding, it's obviously Sweden.)
Then there's the (mostly European) companies taking these out such as Spain's Telefonica conglomerate of mobile companies, and Accor of France (not sure what they do, honestly. Hotels? All I know of them is that they used to sponsor Paris Saint-Germain)
Then there's companies with feminist CEOs like Bumble and Citigroup, they need to be targeted...
You don't. You pick the most vulnerable.
It's good enough for that purpose.
Is there any issue with PSG?