Seriously, how many feminist plants exist on the right?
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (37)
sorted by:
The fact that we are unwilling to use violence against them is not showing they are better than us.
Quite the contrary, it's showing our restraint and humanity compared to their lack of it.
The system could be fixed if men acted in their own interests. Even here, there are people who are trying to help women - do you remember how this movement started? It started from women's attacks on men's hobbies.
And we've declined to defending women's sports like tradcuck simps.
Correct. The system could be fixed if men stopped being weak.
Ergo: It's men's fault.
Women's rights are men's fault. It's a failed shit test.
When they started demanding rights they had no need of at the beginning of the 20th century, we should've gone full Mohammed on them.
It's not weakness. It's misguided kindness. The "not all women" lie holds us down.
Young men are broken by women's school system, older men still think it's just a loud group of college psychos.
Weirdly, I think the best thing that could happen to us, as a population, is if a woman hugely oversteps the line and pulls the mask off so far it exposes them all - but at what cost of lives will this be?
The UK will be the one that shows what's really going on. They've had power so long, unchallenged, through puppet leaders with no credible opposition, that their sadism will one day come out in an undeniable way.
SK already warned us, but hardly anyone in the West can speak Korean. I certainly can't. When it happens in an English-speaking country, is the day we form a pact to pull every woman out of power and challenge every election they win as fraudulent.
Tautology.
Feminism only exists because of the weakness of men.
Being a good person isn't a weakness.
Only feminist women consider things that way.
Literally all cowardice can be framed this way, if you ignore the future consequences of negligence.
Conflict leads to suffering -> "I'm not conflict averse I'm just too compassionate to cause suffering".
But that ignores the fact that conflict with a bad actor can lead to preventing them from causing very much more suffering in the future, so the "minimizing suffering" rationale is bullshit with the barest amount of foresight.
Most modern men know feminism is just malicious, self-serving bullshit now, and that it causes far more injustice and suffering than it helps. That the majority will never attack it is some combination of cowardice and stupidity, both of which are factors that make a man objectively weak.
But you're right that the most effective way to solve the problem now is probably for men to foster an even stronger in-group bias of their own. Most men over 25 have been damaged too long to ever hope to improve their weakness enough to fight effectively on their now, but even cowards will be happy to fight once enough people have their back, and the idiots will be just as likely to start blindly believing and supporting calls for male recompense once enough people keep telling them it's the right thing to do.
Maybe once that happens we'll stop stamping out the will of the next generations of men to believe in themselves and be willing to proactively fight for what they believe in, rather than conditioning them to believe the only suffering that is morally permissable is their own.