A classic from the DNC archcuck Ezra Klein:
The Yes Means Yes law could also be called the You Better Be Pretty Damn Sure law. You Better Be Pretty Damn Sure she said yes. You Better Be Pretty Damn Sure she meant to say yes, and wasn't consenting because she was scared, or high, or too tired of fighting. If you're one half of a loving, committed relationship, then you probably can Be Pretty Damn Sure. If you're not, then you better fucking ask…
The Yes Means Yes law is trying to change a culture of sexual entitlement. That culture of sexual entitlement is built on fear; fear that the word “no” will lead to violence, or that the complaint you bring to the authorities will be be (sic) ignored, or that the hearing will become a venue for your humiliation, as the man who assaulted you details all the ways you were asking for it. “No Means No” has created a world where women are afraid. To work, “Yes Means Yes” needs to create a world where men are afraid.
For that reason, the law is only worth the paper it’s written on if some of the critics' fears come true. Critics worry that colleges will fill with cases in which campus boards convict young men (and, occasionally, young women) of sexual assault for genuinely ambiguous situations. Sadly, that's necessary for the law’s success. It's those cases — particularly the ones that feel genuinely unclear and maybe even unfair, the ones that become lore in frats and cautionary tales that fathers e-mail to their sons — that will convince men that they better Be Pretty Damn Sure.
It could hardly be more obvious that that repellent little worm is seething at Chad and exuberantly fantasizing about destroying Chad's life while posturing as the Nice Guy- erm I mean Male Ally, when really he just wants to punish Chad for having sex that he can't. Heck, maybe "Chud" is a Freudian slip, it is rather close to "Chad" after all.
This is from an old essay of his from the height of metoo, and lefties try to gaslight everyone about metoo not having been as batshit insane as it actually was, when they really only reeled it back a bit for rapefugees, trannies, and Joe Biden. Because of course it was never really about protecting women.
But it's important to not allow the memory of metoo to fade, because the gender war is being dialed back up again, spiteful troons and landwhales are still brainwashing kids with the metoo ideology, and it's important to emphasize that it isn't just randos on tumblr or twitter or tiktok espousing these insane beliefs. A high-level DNC propagandist openly and explicitly advocated for a totalitarian policy with the intent of destroying the lives of innocent men, and they're gearing up to try it again with zoomers, even as they allow vibrancy and troons to rape little girls.
If you have ever read or studied female feminist media and literature, it has a trope based on reality where they don't want to get rid of all men but rather they want a society with just two groups of individuals - women and "Chad". The male "ally" is too blind to see this and assumes his sycophancy will save him under this ideology. It's also why as Government cabinets become majority women and male feminist (such as the UK one is now), you're starting to see the beginning of the introduction of new misogyny reviews and laws which will criminalise incels, unwanted attention, communication and behaviour (such as a woman having to swipe left or reject a man's advances) as well as unrequited love that only Chads would not fall foul of at any point.
Do you think the UK will have enough time to implement it before the collapse? There is a balance with Islamist and the Globalist that they need to keep.
Don't know of any dystopian literature that handles that situation, seems even they did not predict such insanity to function, haha
They, and us, are likely to be in a hot civil war by the end of the decade.
But would the muslims comply with such a curfew?
It won't be too long before the legislation comes to Parliament. The review into misogynistic violence is due soon.