It's an important story but your editorialized title once again hurts you and the message. Not that the BBC's title puke ("landmark move") is much better.
I don't think it's editorialized at all. Everything I said was true. The law was written and advocated by feminists, it does remove the need for evidence and everyone was distracted by "the gays" while it was being quietly passed.
No that's your opinion. Editorialized means you changed the original title, here in an attempt to make your point about "the gays". You should be adapting your message to the audience. Was adding some clever stinger like "rainbow ruse" necessary? If you must add opinion you should be trying to piggy-back on top of the LGBT bill instead of telling us the things we value are wrong. Something like...
"It gets worse: Along with the LGBT bill Japan passes wide-ranging feminist re-write of rape laws"
Then put your bullet points about why it's bad in a comment. You could even end the comment with "Honestly I think the LGBT bill was a distraction. This is far worse for men."
Your tactic is instead to run around screaming LISTEN TO ME YOU FOOLS while slapping people and calling them idiots, simps, stormcucks, and allies of TERFs. One of the reasons people cannot take you seriously is that you don't even seem to be trying.
Well, I wasn't going to keep the original pro-woman title and have my name attached to it.
I don't believe gay people existing is a problem. I don't even think trans people existing is a problem. I think if you prevent a feminized culture, nobody will want to change gender except those who are genuinely unwell in the head.
To be fair, my opposition's tactics is to log on, downvote everything I say regardless of community or topic, then log back off.
It's an important story but your editorialized title once again hurts you and the message. Not that the BBC's title puke ("landmark move") is much better.
I don't think it's editorialized at all. Everything I said was true. The law was written and advocated by feminists, it does remove the need for evidence and everyone was distracted by "the gays" while it was being quietly passed.
No that's your opinion. Editorialized means you changed the original title, here in an attempt to make your point about "the gays". You should be adapting your message to the audience. Was adding some clever stinger like "rainbow ruse" necessary? If you must add opinion you should be trying to piggy-back on top of the LGBT bill instead of telling us the things we value are wrong. Something like...
"It gets worse: Along with the LGBT bill Japan passes wide-ranging feminist re-write of rape laws"
Then put your bullet points about why it's bad in a comment. You could even end the comment with "Honestly I think the LGBT bill was a distraction. This is far worse for men."
Your tactic is instead to run around screaming LISTEN TO ME YOU FOOLS while slapping people and calling them idiots, simps, stormcucks, and allies of TERFs. One of the reasons people cannot take you seriously is that you don't even seem to be trying.
Well, I wasn't going to keep the original pro-woman title and have my name attached to it.
I don't believe gay people existing is a problem. I don't even think trans people existing is a problem. I think if you prevent a feminized culture, nobody will want to change gender except those who are genuinely unwell in the head.
To be fair, my opposition's tactics is to log on, downvote everything I say regardless of community or topic, then log back off.
but what about lesbians or ftm who want to date gay guys? 🤔