I know she has since changed her point of view but I always hated this argument. Gay people are free to live as they choose but the fact remains that heterosexuality is the norm so it makes sense to see a massive amount of straight people in media and it looks odd when you go out of your way to represent a tiny portion of the population
She was fine with Stella Blade. But now she's bitching about fanservice. whilst she also acts like a whore. And she was pro lgbt as late as 2018 with a cross emoji . Sorry if i consider her a grifter.
They exist but I’ve been saying for years that if you want gay focused entertainment then market it to an lgbt audience. Why they thought that the masses would be interested in lgbt content is beyond me
Maybe he thinks there's a broader point to be made here about the eternal tradcuck's unending desire to sacrifice his every principle to the nearest hot chick who looks his way?
Maybe if conservative "men" would stop putting tradthots like Melanie Mac up on a pedestal just because they're hot and they say they agree with you, it wouldn't be necessary to put so much effort into exposing what these women really are.
Who's putting her on a pedestal? I haven't heard of this chick before, and wouldn't have seen anything that she screamed into the void outside of these posts.
She's been on FNT, Daily Wire and a whole bunch of other right-leaning political and pop culture shows. Her own channel has amassed a huge simping following on X and on YouTube, mainly boomercons and other so-called conservatives who are so desperate for women's approval that they need to hide behind this tattooed bulimic whenever feminists so much as glare in their direction and cry out in pathetic, whinging tones, "Look, see? We have women too!"
I've seen her on a couple of youtube videos with a panel of media commentators like Drinker and Nerdrotic, too. Not in quite a long time, at least a couple months, but she's still got enough of a presence online to make me disagree with u/Sumsuch.
Seems I pinged the wrong person. There was someone saying she was a complete nobody that no one ever heard of (paraphrasing), but I can't seem to find the same comment again. Sorry about that.
She's not a complete nobody, so I would disagree with anyone calling her such. But you're right that she's not really someone we should be concerned about that much either, just like pretty much all of those other twitch thots, beyond acknowledging the poison they are for society as a whole, and the horrible example they make for other women and our daughters.
I'd venture a safe guess most here have changed their minds on several things over the years, even core principles. I have.
I used to support gay people.
I used to support the empowerment of women.
I used to support the military and police.
I used to support Israel.
I used to think egalitarianism, individualism, and libertarianism were correct.
I used to be an agnostic.
People change. I'm also a relatively new Christian as well. Accepting Jesus naturally changes your heart. Reading the Bible and believing Jesus' words and lessons changes your heart.
Why would Christians, or right wingers, or anyone here be averse to changing one's mind? Why would we be averse to women changing their minds? Since women are the most susceptible to propaganda and psychological manipulation, if you demonize those who do come to our side, you're effectively telling them that you reject them, don't want them, that they'll never be good enough, and that you want women (or men) to remain under their brainwashing, that they are forever stained and sentenced to hell just for their views, which they were manipulated into.
This isn't a Christian view. We all fall short, but we're all forgiven, now matter how far we fell.
Could Melonie Mac be gritting? Possibly. But to demonize all women who break free of their conditioning, which I see more and more men do, is antithetical to their goals.
imo you gotta have a little grift and a lot of hustle if you're gonna be someone who slings ideologies on youtube for money. Is Mac a grifter? Possibly. Do I give a shit? No more than anyone grifting on the left. It's a job.
But I do gotta say, she has a bible reading channel where she reads the bible to viewers and I gotta say that's a lot effort for a low yield hustle if it's a grift.
One other piece of circumstantial evidence that her turn may be genuine is that she is not shy about breaking out the "faggot" slur and gives no fucks when it gets her banned.
that clip hit so hard because I got so used to living in a society where context no longer matters and we can't just use the words like rape, faggots, retarded casually without retard faggots going to HR to get them to rape you in the ass.
if this tweet was posted in like 2010 maybe i could forgive it. But by 2018 when culture was already so extremely woke and insane you are still woke and calling people bigots then no. I cant forgive it . i don't trust any adult who was still woke in 2018.
So you only accept converts so long as their conversion was a long time ago? You're not answering the fundamental problem of your stance, only putting an artificial time limitation on it. If you want people to come around to your views, if you want people to improve, would you not accept them, regardless of how long ago or how soon it was? If you reject new converts wholecloth, you dismiss push away people who would otherwise become your ally. That's not the mentality we should engender if we wish people to realize the truth and accept our views.
I changed several of my above viewpoints in just the last few years, with most occurring between 2016 and 2020. I'm a relatively new convert to many of my current stances. By your own standards, I am unwelcome, and everything I say is false and disingenuine.
They can convert. They just shouldn't be leaders or influencers in conservative movements. i do not trust such people (especially women) and you won't change my mind on it
Saint Paul was exactly that. Went from hunting Christians to becoming one of the core preacher (then eventually one of the biggest leader) in a matter or weeks.
I do think that's a good point, but this chick isn't leading anyone. I know you're annoyed at her opinions on X this week but that's literally all it is.
One of the most truth bound Christians I ever found was on Youtube, the two men doing the Stone Choir podcast. Don't forget that many of us attempt to use the platforms that we know are controlled by our enemies, to invade the enemy's space, to preach the truth.
They just shouldn't be leaders or influencers in conservative movements.
I agree with this somewhat. Leaders should be the best of us, should know what we know, and must prove themselves.
i do not trust such people (especially women) and you won't change my mind on it
I'm not asking you to blindly and naively accept everyone. I'm asking for you to forgive people who actually repent and accept truth.
There are obviously devious people, false converts, grifters, subversives, and liars who will always attempt to enter our spheres, homes, and nations, in an attempt to take them over and destroy them. Do not welcome or accept those people, but be sure you know how to spot them, and the differences between them and true converts.
With regards to women, they are easily manipulated, because they're less logical and more emotional than men. They are not meant to lead. We are to lead them. If we lead them, and they accept our ways, they aren't a false convert. They will always try to err, but that is the nature of women, and to a slightly lesser extent humans as a whole. If women could never be trusted of their convictions, they'd never be able to enter Heaven, because all of their prostrations and repentance would be meaningless.
Since women are the most susceptible to propaganda and psychological manipulation, if you demonize those who do come to our side, you're effectively telling them that you reject them, don't want them, that they'll never be good enough, and that you want women (or men) to remain under their brainwashing, that they are forever stained and sentenced to hell just for their views, which they were manipulated into.
Someone who converts in good faith, shuts up and doesn't immediately becomes an opinion leader asking to be at the helm, nor uses Christ as some sort of shield
This isn't a Christian view. We all fall short, but we're all forgiven, now matter how far we fell.
Jesus being a hippie who forgives everything is propaganda.
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household"
Could Melonie Mac be gritting? Possibly
What good is repentance if it's done for acceptance and not repentance's sake? If she truly believes what she preaches rejecting her isn't a problem
Jesus being a hippie who forgives everything is propaganda.
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household"
You are correct that Jesus didn't forgive people who were not repentant, but this verse is about the controversy of his teachings, not the risk of judgment. People would be affected so strongly by his words that deep divisions would open through society.
That specific passage is about people coming to accept Jesus (and God), accepting truth, which naturally divides a fallen world where people have embraced lies. Look at the above passage when combined with Luke 12:49-53 and Luke 14:26:
“I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed! 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.
These passages don't mean one should hate their family, or that Jesus is intentionally dividing families against themselves. It's that Jesus (and God) want us to prioritize him (truth) above all other priorities. It's identical to when a loved family member espouses a foolish thing, or does a foolish thing, and we correct them. Just because we love someone, doesn't mean we have to agree with everything they say and do. We must rebuke falsehoods and lies.
What good is repentance if it's done for acceptance and not repentance's sake? If she truly believes what she preaches rejecting her isn't a problem
By that logic, all new converts (Christian or otherwise) should be disbarred from earning any income or speaking. What time frame is long enough for you to recognize sincerity? 6 months. 1 year. 10 years?
I assume you're referring to how Job realized his own limitations in understanding God? If not, what are you meaning?
If you're meaning what I think you are, it's not analogous to the conversation. Scripture isn't infinite. Scripture is designed to bring us closer to God, how to live righteous lives, and live according to God's wishes. God is infinite, though. Realizing the totality of truth (or God), as humans, is impossible.
However, you're making a relatively common fallacious argument with regard to human failings. You're suggesting (if I assume your argument correctly) that because we don't know everything, that because we're mortal, finite, and imperfect, that because there will always be doubt about our actions being in accordance with God (given our limited understanding), that therefore we are forbidden to speak and act, for fear of transgressing against truth (God).
That is a fallacious argument, and no one in the Bible, even Jesus or God, advocate for that position. Furthermore, it's an inherently destructive philosophy, crushing all who believe it into pacifism, moral cowardice, inaction, and inevitable suicide, due to fear of any misstepped action or word.
Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’
Just because someone thinks they're christian doesn't mean they are.
If we were living, say, in the fifties, I would also attack fanservice. But, for now, it does more good than bad - at least it promotes the traditional kind of beauty and relationship between a man and a woman. Now is definitely not the time to attack it and doing so is hardly a priority.
Just because someone thinks they're christian doesn't mean they are.
True enough, but what bar do you set for how to determine if someone is truly Christian? What's the reasoning for your judgments? If someone says they're Christian, and acts in a Christian manner, how can we judge them any other way?
If we were living, say, in the fifties, I would also attack fanservice. But, for now, it does more good than bad - at least it promotes the traditional kind of beauty and relationship between a man and a woman. Now is definitely not the time to attack it and doing so is hardly a priority.
The promotion of beauty is the one positive of "fan service" and older style entertainment that was put out by Hollywood. However, it is always combined with the temptation of lust that's intentionally inserted into that media, to drive men toward sin (lusting after a woman who is not your wife is the same as adultery in the Bible).
Your position is the advocacy of the lesser evil, but that lesser evil also contains sin, and drives your brothers to sin (lust, masturbation, porn). What's happened to Western civilization with people constantly abdicating to the lesser evil? It's only resulted in more evil. At some point, decent men must reject all the compromises that were made before them, and become steadfast in truth. These men are always called zealots in their day, because their fervent adherence to truth appears radical in a world of lies and lesser evils.
Oh, it's easy - most people who say they're christian don't act christian at all.
And your second point is childish. It's not about abdicating to lesser evil, it's choosing which one to combat. And no, you can't fight them all - the modern reality is that hardly anyone can actually do anything about evil, outside of internet shitposting (which doesn't qualify as a christian act as it's no act at all).
Oh, it's easy - most people who say they're christian don't act christian at all.
You dodged the question. What bar, what metrics, do you use to judge if someone is Christian or not.
I somewhat agree, that many Christians do not act like Christians, but most Christians I've seen are better people than those I've seen who aren't, on average. Even considering the corruption of the modern church to espouse anti-Biblical stances, modern Christians are better people on average.
Also, I'm curious. Are you Christian?
And your second point is childish. It's not about abdicating to lesser evil, it's choosing which one to combat. And no, you can't fight them all - the modern reality is that hardly anyone can actually do anything about evil, outside of internet shitposting (which doesn't qualify as a christian act as it's no act at all).
You're putting forth different positions. You're initially arguing that people are incapable of fighting multiple things at once, to which I whole heartedly disagree. Secondly, you argue almost no one can fight evil, at all, to which I also whole heartedly disagree.
Both of your positions are an abdication of a man's responsibility to espouse truth in face of falsehoods and lies, and to violently fight evil in his presence. Your position is understandable, though, given how much demoralization propaganda abounds in Western culture, to keep men weakened, controlled, stupid, demoralized, and inactive. On top of this, civilizations at their peak naturally produce weak constituents who cling to their comforts like a sinking ship, refusing to alter their behavior or lift a finger in the face of the growing tide of corruption in their midst, or the ever accelerating slide toward collapse of their civilization. We see this evidence all over Western civilization.
People are still too comfortable, and will enumerate all manner of excuses for why they can't, won't, or shouldn't act. Your excuse is no different. In your own mind, your reasoning is sound, but it's because you're motivated purely by your comforts, knowing that if you were to take up the sword against the people hurting you, and everyone you love, it would rob you of what little comforts you have left. There will absolutely come a time where your excuses no longer suffice, that people will be forced to fight, or to die.
Can people do more than one thing at once? Yes. Can people fight more than one evil at once? Yes. Can people espouse more than one truth at once? Yes. You're acting like you believe individualism is correct, the false belief that people don't group up or have collective interests, or act collectively to fight back against common enemies. We group up precisely because we understand that we can achieve more together than we can by ourselves, to help us fight all the lies and evil.
Your philosophy is also self serving and self defeating, because you actively denounce any idea, action, or people who would fight back against the lies and evil, even though you admit that the lies and evil exists. Thus, your philosophy allows lies and evil to propagate, to spread, and to become worse, fulfilling your prophecy that it is harder to fight "all" the lies and evil at once. This philosophy would put your children and people in a worse position, essentially kicking the can down the road, because you don't want to act.
You also advocate that we should "pick our battles", and constantly compromise with the lesser evil, which is what's allowed evil to propagate in the first place. You can't correct a problem by acting identically to what caused the problem in the first place. Correct the behavior, and then you can correct the problem. But, in your case, you must correct your mind first.
Melanie Mac, Brittany Venti, Sydney Watson . . . .
Every tradthot is a honey trap whose job is to convince you to sacrifice your independence, your hobbies, your money, your free time and control of your life on the altar of women's demands and women's feelings.
I used to be "tolerant" of it but it became abundantly clear years ago that they can't keep it to themselves. That's why I have very low level of tolerance for alot of things at this point
I think that there are a majority of people who are homosexual and are happy to celebrate it within their own communities - I'm down with that.
I think some would like to see acceptance, equal to the normal heterosexual variety, within society - I'm down with that too but understand that there will be incompatibility issues with that.
Then there's the mindvirus.
When those with nothing but hate in their hearts used the LGB community as a shield to collectively try and tear society apart for no discernible reason we ended up with a community of otherwise loving people just looking for recognition turned into battered wives and everyone who was normally tolerant of it unable to say anything because apparently it would be an attack on an already battered wife.
I'd like to say there is space in my heart to try and help that situation but the mindvirus has already spread to more foundational elements of the society that allowed for the tolerance of such thing since viral entry.
Without a steady foundational framework to allow for such things the entire concept of individuality is smashed.
Considering how fucking bad most of the arguments in support of the Gays was, I will absolutely hate on the people who both fell for and argued that shit.
You don't get to just go "oops my bad, I didn't think about this at all while I was screaming hate in your face" years later when the consequences come home to roost in the obvious manner everyone you were fighting said they would.
Its almost more pathetic how many people try to leave their sinking ship and suck up to the side they used to try to shank, and then act like their principles or opinion should ever be worth something again.
Considering how fucking bad most of the arguments in support of the Gays was, I will absolutely hate on the people who both fell for and argued that shit.
Well said. It means these people were pliable enough to be convinced to support a trend that works against their own best/future interests. And if they fell for it once, they will fall for it again -- it just has to be under the right circumstances.
Unfortunately KIA, and most of our side in this "culture war," is replete with Former Lefties so the consensus always has to be "poor thing, I'm so glad you are with us now." Funnily, its the same invasion tactics used by Lefties everywhere else, to prove how little changed they are.
And, much like Clott Adams, they get really mad if you don't just totally ignore them revealing their own lack of credibility or principles prior. You just are supposed to say "BASED" and clap along to them being on our side now and saying things we want to hear.
The problem, as I see it, is that those running society are attempting to "take over" the natural world and replace it with a curated, sanitized, version of reality written by themselves. Because of this, it becomes necessary for them to account for everything which exists in their falsified narrative. So now there is a contrived conflict being presented to the population, to attempt to force people to choose between either accepting every perverse notion under the sun as an open part of society, or to wield the technological powers being created to dictate everyone's lives to an extreme degree. The common thread running through it all being the technocrats/false gods asserting that they WILL take over, and as long as people continue to follow their narratives their plan progresses.
The ability for us to communicate our thoughts at all (Or even form them) all comes from taxes being noted. This goes all the way back to why writing exists and why any credence is given to societal leadership. It always, eventually, falls into some sort of worship.
These people, I'd like to think unknowingly, demand attention and to be worshipped as if their are divine and beyond the reputes of mankind.
This is, of course, not the situation. However pointing that out gets anyone the Galileo treatment and so most remain schtum.
I'm not a fan of evil versus good but this is certainly a decent reason to think about the long game as to what is beneficial to who and what we are.
Exactly. It's people who can't deal with a shifting, human, social reality and need everything to be handled in an academic or litigious manner. They can't hear something they don't like and go, "man, that guy is a dick," and move on. There has to be a rule or regulation they can use to eliminate the thing they don't like to curate their experience just like the way the algorithm does for their social media feed. The slightest anxiety means the system is failing.
Not everything needs to be codified. "Soft" pressures like did a fantastic job of self-regulating things. Moving away from that to an explicit, game-rules approach to society has been a disaster.
Moving away from that to an explicit, game-rules approach to society has been a disaster.
Well, if you want some idea of why they hate games so much: I was actually the best gamer in the world at one point, and they've been trying to recruit me to help them "gamify" life since them. But instead of buying in to their plans I've been spending my time calling them retarded in increasingly elaborate detail for even attempting such a thing.
I guess the world before now was built upon copying notable individuals. Yet rather than actually being successful at controlling the world as they imagined they had been, the world had routed it's way around their bullshit and found a way to persist in spite of it. Now that they're employing increasingly forceful technologies in an attempt to fix what they consider to be flaws in their plans, they are instead removing everything which used to be keeping them alive despite their insanity.
It's quite sad, and they're not going to stop, since they're already thousands of years invested in their scheming. Best make plans for how you're going to roll with the fall once it all comes to a head.
There has to be a rule or regulation they can use to eliminate the thing they don't like
The reason for this is that "power" has been more and more removed from the common man's hand, leading to him being unable to remove the thorns from his own palm. A simple example is that I can't just smack the shit out of the local loudmouth talking shit to shut him up like for most of human history, the government/law has removed my power to do so. So I am left with this thorn in my hand and am forced to instead petition the government to use the power it has taken from me to do so instead.
You can see this across so many corners of society. You can't fix your own machine, it has to be a Certified Tech. You can't sell food, you need FDA Approval. On and on.
So people have forgotten that they have the power to begin with, and instead remain paralyzed by the real consequences there can be to use it. Its why the CEO shooting last week was so wildly popular, because it resonated with everyone by subverting that feeling of helplessness.
6 years ago lol. The only time I've even seen anything about this woman was itsagundam making a video about buttfuckers getting mad that she said butt fucking is wrong. People change. I mean I personally wouldn't give her the benefit of the doubt yet. Too many snakes in the grass
My point is that she didn't change, she's an oportunist who hops on whatever wandagon helps her get rid of anything that would appeal to het-men, because it gets at odds with her grifter thot lifestyle. She's tradthot Alyssa Mercante.
I doubt she has real political opinions, most likely she just uses broad politics to obfuscate her real grift
I was pro faggotry too. I advocated for faggot marriage to my family. I cheered when the court legalized it in 2015.
Then in 2018 the school district I worked with began requiring us to sign a document agreeing to hide gender confusion from the parents, and it only escalated from there. In 2018 almost nobody believed me when I told them about the increasingly insane policies being implemented with no public discussion behind the parent's backs.
The fact she was fine with this in 2018 makes her normal, and the fact she now recognizes that the right wing was 100% correct about that Astroglide-covered slope and that there is no live and let live with this faggotry just means she has a brain.
No it doesn't . i might give this kind of tweet a pass if it were made in 2010 but not in 2018 when the culture was already so woke and insane . . If someone was still woke in 2018 as an adult and calling people bigots then i dont trust him/her
I used to be ambivalent about fags too, but then the radical fag lobby decided that coopting the government into sending armed agents into churches so as to stick a gun in the face of pastors telling them to marry fags or else, that was my wake up call.
I'm all about not being judgmental, as Jesus commands, but fags want me to not just tolerate their existence in the bedroom, they want me to tolerate their perversion in public, and they want my children to watch.
So yea, attitudes change. Mine have hardened to that of granite over the years.
It is very difficult to determine the intent of that post without context. It seems like it might be ironic or an intentionally absurd reversal of another comment.
Scratch a tradthot and a feminist bleeds.
Because it's literally impossible for people to change in SIX FUCKING YEARS?
I hope she sees this bro
People don't change.
I know she has since changed her point of view but I always hated this argument. Gay people are free to live as they choose but the fact remains that heterosexuality is the norm so it makes sense to see a massive amount of straight people in media and it looks odd when you go out of your way to represent a tiny portion of the population
She didn't change her view. She's just a ran through whore who figured out that LARPing as trad allows her to grift more easily.
Oh. Gotcha
Outlaw is lying. She returned to Christianity, she had a legit return to her faith.
Great to hear! I subscribed to her Bible channel but haven’t watched it much yet.
She was fine with Stella Blade. But now she's bitching about fanservice. whilst she also acts like a whore. And she was pro lgbt as late as 2018 with a cross emoji . Sorry if i consider her a grifter.
Unfortunately gay people exist. Fuck the rainbow cult.
They exist but I’ve been saying for years that if you want gay focused entertainment then market it to an lgbt audience. Why they thought that the masses would be interested in lgbt content is beyond me
My god, just rub one out to her pics and be done with it Yoisi. You don't have to involve the entire board in your hatecrush on her.
Lmao for real. Dude is spamming this dumb shit. He should just go ahead and dm her about his undying love/hate
Maybe he thinks there's a broader point to be made here about the eternal tradcuck's unending desire to sacrifice his every principle to the nearest hot chick who looks his way?
Maybe if conservative "men" would stop putting tradthots like Melanie Mac up on a pedestal just because they're hot and they say they agree with you, it wouldn't be necessary to put so much effort into exposing what these women really are.
Who's putting her on a pedestal? I haven't heard of this chick before, and wouldn't have seen anything that she screamed into the void outside of these posts.
She's been on FNT, Daily Wire and a whole bunch of other right-leaning political and pop culture shows. Her own channel has amassed a huge simping following on X and on YouTube, mainly boomercons and other so-called conservatives who are so desperate for women's approval that they need to hide behind this tattooed bulimic whenever feminists so much as glare in their direction and cry out in pathetic, whinging tones, "Look, see? We have women too!"
She's the tradcon equivalent of Hunter Avallone
Is clicking on someone's video really putting them on a pedestal?
If you're going to watch someone read gaming news, might as well watch a good looking woman right? This isn't exactly Aristotle at the Lyceum.
I've seen her on a couple of youtube videos with a panel of media commentators like Drinker and Nerdrotic, too. Not in quite a long time, at least a couple months, but she's still got enough of a presence online to make me disagree with u/Sumsuch.
Disagree with me on what? Do you think Yoisi isn't spamming the board about how much he hates her? O.o
Seems I pinged the wrong person. There was someone saying she was a complete nobody that no one ever heard of (paraphrasing), but I can't seem to find the same comment again. Sorry about that.
She's not a complete nobody, so I would disagree with anyone calling her such. But you're right that she's not really someone we should be concerned about that much either, just like pretty much all of those other twitch thots, beyond acknowledging the poison they are for society as a whole, and the horrible example they make for other women and our daughters.
Oh my god that’s terrible. Where?
Don't know. Don't wanna know.
I'd venture a safe guess most here have changed their minds on several things over the years, even core principles. I have.
I used to support gay people.
I used to support the empowerment of women.
I used to support the military and police.
I used to support Israel.
I used to think egalitarianism, individualism, and libertarianism were correct.
I used to be an agnostic.
People change. I'm also a relatively new Christian as well. Accepting Jesus naturally changes your heart. Reading the Bible and believing Jesus' words and lessons changes your heart.
Why would Christians, or right wingers, or anyone here be averse to changing one's mind? Why would we be averse to women changing their minds? Since women are the most susceptible to propaganda and psychological manipulation, if you demonize those who do come to our side, you're effectively telling them that you reject them, don't want them, that they'll never be good enough, and that you want women (or men) to remain under their brainwashing, that they are forever stained and sentenced to hell just for their views, which they were manipulated into.
This isn't a Christian view. We all fall short, but we're all forgiven, now matter how far we fell.
Could Melonie Mac be gritting? Possibly. But to demonize all women who break free of their conditioning, which I see more and more men do, is antithetical to their goals.
imo you gotta have a little grift and a lot of hustle if you're gonna be someone who slings ideologies on youtube for money. Is Mac a grifter? Possibly. Do I give a shit? No more than anyone grifting on the left. It's a job.
But I do gotta say, she has a bible reading channel where she reads the bible to viewers and I gotta say that's a lot effort for a low yield hustle if it's a grift.
One other piece of circumstantial evidence that her turn may be genuine is that she is not shy about breaking out the "faggot" slur and gives no fucks when it gets her banned.
that clip hit so hard because I got so used to living in a society where context no longer matters and we can't just use the words like rape, faggots, retarded casually without retard faggots going to HR to get them to rape you in the ass.
if this tweet was posted in like 2010 maybe i could forgive it. But by 2018 when culture was already so extremely woke and insane you are still woke and calling people bigots then no. I cant forgive it . i don't trust any adult who was still woke in 2018.
So you only accept converts so long as their conversion was a long time ago? You're not answering the fundamental problem of your stance, only putting an artificial time limitation on it. If you want people to come around to your views, if you want people to improve, would you not accept them, regardless of how long ago or how soon it was? If you reject new converts wholecloth, you dismiss push away people who would otherwise become your ally. That's not the mentality we should engender if we wish people to realize the truth and accept our views.
I changed several of my above viewpoints in just the last few years, with most occurring between 2016 and 2020. I'm a relatively new convert to many of my current stances. By your own standards, I am unwelcome, and everything I say is false and disingenuine.
They can convert. They just shouldn't be leaders or influencers in conservative movements. i do not trust such people (especially women) and you won't change my mind on it
Saint Paul was exactly that. Went from hunting Christians to becoming one of the core preacher (then eventually one of the biggest leader) in a matter or weeks.
I do think that's a good point, but this chick isn't leading anyone. I know you're annoyed at her opinions on X this week but that's literally all it is.
I'll put it this way. How much would you be in favour of a male priest giving his opinions about pop culture on X?
Idk, I don't really feel any type of way about it lol. Just would hope he's not a retard.
she's got a youtube channel and is an influencer on youtube
And you're free to not watch. I love Mel even though I'm not a Christian and thinks she goes too extreme at times.
One of the most truth bound Christians I ever found was on Youtube, the two men doing the Stone Choir podcast. Don't forget that many of us attempt to use the platforms that we know are controlled by our enemies, to invade the enemy's space, to preach the truth.
I agree with this somewhat. Leaders should be the best of us, should know what we know, and must prove themselves.
I'm not asking you to blindly and naively accept everyone. I'm asking for you to forgive people who actually repent and accept truth.
There are obviously devious people, false converts, grifters, subversives, and liars who will always attempt to enter our spheres, homes, and nations, in an attempt to take them over and destroy them. Do not welcome or accept those people, but be sure you know how to spot them, and the differences between them and true converts.
With regards to women, they are easily manipulated, because they're less logical and more emotional than men. They are not meant to lead. We are to lead them. If we lead them, and they accept our ways, they aren't a false convert. They will always try to err, but that is the nature of women, and to a slightly lesser extent humans as a whole. If women could never be trusted of their convictions, they'd never be able to enter Heaven, because all of their prostrations and repentance would be meaningless.
Someone who converts in good faith, shuts up and doesn't immediately becomes an opinion leader asking to be at the helm, nor uses Christ as some sort of shield
Jesus being a hippie who forgives everything is propaganda.
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household"
What good is repentance if it's done for acceptance and not repentance's sake? If she truly believes what she preaches rejecting her isn't a problem
You are correct that Jesus didn't forgive people who were not repentant, but this verse is about the controversy of his teachings, not the risk of judgment. People would be affected so strongly by his words that deep divisions would open through society.
That specific passage is about people coming to accept Jesus (and God), accepting truth, which naturally divides a fallen world where people have embraced lies. Look at the above passage when combined with Luke 12:49-53 and Luke 14:26:
These passages don't mean one should hate their family, or that Jesus is intentionally dividing families against themselves. It's that Jesus (and God) want us to prioritize him (truth) above all other priorities. It's identical to when a loved family member espouses a foolish thing, or does a foolish thing, and we correct them. Just because we love someone, doesn't mean we have to agree with everything they say and do. We must rebuke falsehoods and lies.
Yes that is the fuller explanation and absolutely correct
By that logic, all new converts (Christian or otherwise) should be disbarred from earning any income or speaking. What time frame is long enough for you to recognize sincerity? 6 months. 1 year. 10 years?
It's Job's parable tho
I assume you're referring to how Job realized his own limitations in understanding God? If not, what are you meaning?
If you're meaning what I think you are, it's not analogous to the conversation. Scripture isn't infinite. Scripture is designed to bring us closer to God, how to live righteous lives, and live according to God's wishes. God is infinite, though. Realizing the totality of truth (or God), as humans, is impossible.
However, you're making a relatively common fallacious argument with regard to human failings. You're suggesting (if I assume your argument correctly) that because we don't know everything, that because we're mortal, finite, and imperfect, that because there will always be doubt about our actions being in accordance with God (given our limited understanding), that therefore we are forbidden to speak and act, for fear of transgressing against truth (God).
That is a fallacious argument, and no one in the Bible, even Jesus or God, advocate for that position. Furthermore, it's an inherently destructive philosophy, crushing all who believe it into pacifism, moral cowardice, inaction, and inevitable suicide, due to fear of any misstepped action or word.
Matthew 7:22
Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’
Just because someone thinks they're christian doesn't mean they are.
If we were living, say, in the fifties, I would also attack fanservice. But, for now, it does more good than bad - at least it promotes the traditional kind of beauty and relationship between a man and a woman. Now is definitely not the time to attack it and doing so is hardly a priority.
Fanservice? That's too complicated an issue to call someone a fake Christian over.
True enough, but what bar do you set for how to determine if someone is truly Christian? What's the reasoning for your judgments? If someone says they're Christian, and acts in a Christian manner, how can we judge them any other way?
The promotion of beauty is the one positive of "fan service" and older style entertainment that was put out by Hollywood. However, it is always combined with the temptation of lust that's intentionally inserted into that media, to drive men toward sin (lusting after a woman who is not your wife is the same as adultery in the Bible).
Your position is the advocacy of the lesser evil, but that lesser evil also contains sin, and drives your brothers to sin (lust, masturbation, porn). What's happened to Western civilization with people constantly abdicating to the lesser evil? It's only resulted in more evil. At some point, decent men must reject all the compromises that were made before them, and become steadfast in truth. These men are always called zealots in their day, because their fervent adherence to truth appears radical in a world of lies and lesser evils.
Oh, it's easy - most people who say they're christian don't act christian at all.
And your second point is childish. It's not about abdicating to lesser evil, it's choosing which one to combat. And no, you can't fight them all - the modern reality is that hardly anyone can actually do anything about evil, outside of internet shitposting (which doesn't qualify as a christian act as it's no act at all).
You dodged the question. What bar, what metrics, do you use to judge if someone is Christian or not.
I somewhat agree, that many Christians do not act like Christians, but most Christians I've seen are better people than those I've seen who aren't, on average. Even considering the corruption of the modern church to espouse anti-Biblical stances, modern Christians are better people on average.
Also, I'm curious. Are you Christian?
You're putting forth different positions. You're initially arguing that people are incapable of fighting multiple things at once, to which I whole heartedly disagree. Secondly, you argue almost no one can fight evil, at all, to which I also whole heartedly disagree.
Both of your positions are an abdication of a man's responsibility to espouse truth in face of falsehoods and lies, and to violently fight evil in his presence. Your position is understandable, though, given how much demoralization propaganda abounds in Western culture, to keep men weakened, controlled, stupid, demoralized, and inactive. On top of this, civilizations at their peak naturally produce weak constituents who cling to their comforts like a sinking ship, refusing to alter their behavior or lift a finger in the face of the growing tide of corruption in their midst, or the ever accelerating slide toward collapse of their civilization. We see this evidence all over Western civilization.
People are still too comfortable, and will enumerate all manner of excuses for why they can't, won't, or shouldn't act. Your excuse is no different. In your own mind, your reasoning is sound, but it's because you're motivated purely by your comforts, knowing that if you were to take up the sword against the people hurting you, and everyone you love, it would rob you of what little comforts you have left. There will absolutely come a time where your excuses no longer suffice, that people will be forced to fight, or to die.
Can people do more than one thing at once? Yes. Can people fight more than one evil at once? Yes. Can people espouse more than one truth at once? Yes. You're acting like you believe individualism is correct, the false belief that people don't group up or have collective interests, or act collectively to fight back against common enemies. We group up precisely because we understand that we can achieve more together than we can by ourselves, to help us fight all the lies and evil.
Your philosophy is also self serving and self defeating, because you actively denounce any idea, action, or people who would fight back against the lies and evil, even though you admit that the lies and evil exists. Thus, your philosophy allows lies and evil to propagate, to spread, and to become worse, fulfilling your prophecy that it is harder to fight "all" the lies and evil at once. This philosophy would put your children and people in a worse position, essentially kicking the can down the road, because you don't want to act.
You also advocate that we should "pick our battles", and constantly compromise with the lesser evil, which is what's allowed evil to propagate in the first place. You can't correct a problem by acting identically to what caused the problem in the first place. Correct the behavior, and then you can correct the problem. But, in your case, you must correct your mind first.
Melanie Mac, Brittany Venti, Sydney Watson . . . .
Every tradthot is a honey trap whose job is to convince you to sacrifice your independence, your hobbies, your money, your free time and control of your life on the altar of women's demands and women's feelings.
I used to be pro LGB.
I still have nothing against the concept but that was the first one to get corrupted.
Don't hate on people for what they believed, question what it was that made them drop support for it.
I used to be "tolerant" of it but it became abundantly clear years ago that they can't keep it to themselves. That's why I have very low level of tolerance for alot of things at this point
I think that there are a majority of people who are homosexual and are happy to celebrate it within their own communities - I'm down with that.
I think some would like to see acceptance, equal to the normal heterosexual variety, within society - I'm down with that too but understand that there will be incompatibility issues with that.
Then there's the mindvirus.
When those with nothing but hate in their hearts used the LGB community as a shield to collectively try and tear society apart for no discernible reason we ended up with a community of otherwise loving people just looking for recognition turned into battered wives and everyone who was normally tolerant of it unable to say anything because apparently it would be an attack on an already battered wife.
I'd like to say there is space in my heart to try and help that situation but the mindvirus has already spread to more foundational elements of the society that allowed for the tolerance of such thing since viral entry.
Without a steady foundational framework to allow for such things the entire concept of individuality is smashed.
The quiet nice gays are the bugs, not the features.
Considering how fucking bad most of the arguments in support of the Gays was, I will absolutely hate on the people who both fell for and argued that shit.
You don't get to just go "oops my bad, I didn't think about this at all while I was screaming hate in your face" years later when the consequences come home to roost in the obvious manner everyone you were fighting said they would.
Its almost more pathetic how many people try to leave their sinking ship and suck up to the side they used to try to shank, and then act like their principles or opinion should ever be worth something again.
Well said. It means these people were pliable enough to be convinced to support a trend that works against their own best/future interests. And if they fell for it once, they will fall for it again -- it just has to be under the right circumstances.
Unfortunately KIA, and most of our side in this "culture war," is replete with Former Lefties so the consensus always has to be "poor thing, I'm so glad you are with us now." Funnily, its the same invasion tactics used by Lefties everywhere else, to prove how little changed they are.
And, much like Clott Adams, they get really mad if you don't just totally ignore them revealing their own lack of credibility or principles prior. You just are supposed to say "BASED" and clap along to them being on our side now and saying things we want to hear.
Even on here there's still plenty of left wing hold outs
Do you love your wife?
Let's say you couldn't.
Capiche?!?
So your entire basis was "look at this sad picture, let's throw away all laws and reason."
I'll grant you this, its a simple position that dodges most of the obvious problems by being literally too simplistic.
I'm a simple man :)
The problem, as I see it, is that those running society are attempting to "take over" the natural world and replace it with a curated, sanitized, version of reality written by themselves. Because of this, it becomes necessary for them to account for everything which exists in their falsified narrative. So now there is a contrived conflict being presented to the population, to attempt to force people to choose between either accepting every perverse notion under the sun as an open part of society, or to wield the technological powers being created to dictate everyone's lives to an extreme degree. The common thread running through it all being the technocrats/false gods asserting that they WILL take over, and as long as people continue to follow their narratives their plan progresses.
The ability for us to communicate our thoughts at all (Or even form them) all comes from taxes being noted. This goes all the way back to why writing exists and why any credence is given to societal leadership. It always, eventually, falls into some sort of worship.
These people, I'd like to think unknowingly, demand attention and to be worshipped as if their are divine and beyond the reputes of mankind.
This is, of course, not the situation. However pointing that out gets anyone the Galileo treatment and so most remain schtum.
I'm not a fan of evil versus good but this is certainly a decent reason to think about the long game as to what is beneficial to who and what we are.
Very interesting thought
Exactly. It's people who can't deal with a shifting, human, social reality and need everything to be handled in an academic or litigious manner. They can't hear something they don't like and go, "man, that guy is a dick," and move on. There has to be a rule or regulation they can use to eliminate the thing they don't like to curate their experience just like the way the algorithm does for their social media feed. The slightest anxiety means the system is failing.
Not everything needs to be codified. "Soft" pressures like did a fantastic job of self-regulating things. Moving away from that to an explicit, game-rules approach to society has been a disaster.
Well, if you want some idea of why they hate games so much: I was actually the best gamer in the world at one point, and they've been trying to recruit me to help them "gamify" life since them. But instead of buying in to their plans I've been spending my time calling them retarded in increasingly elaborate detail for even attempting such a thing.
I guess the world before now was built upon copying notable individuals. Yet rather than actually being successful at controlling the world as they imagined they had been, the world had routed it's way around their bullshit and found a way to persist in spite of it. Now that they're employing increasingly forceful technologies in an attempt to fix what they consider to be flaws in their plans, they are instead removing everything which used to be keeping them alive despite their insanity.
It's quite sad, and they're not going to stop, since they're already thousands of years invested in their scheming. Best make plans for how you're going to roll with the fall once it all comes to a head.
The reason for this is that "power" has been more and more removed from the common man's hand, leading to him being unable to remove the thorns from his own palm. A simple example is that I can't just smack the shit out of the local loudmouth talking shit to shut him up like for most of human history, the government/law has removed my power to do so. So I am left with this thorn in my hand and am forced to instead petition the government to use the power it has taken from me to do so instead.
You can see this across so many corners of society. You can't fix your own machine, it has to be a Certified Tech. You can't sell food, you need FDA Approval. On and on.
So people have forgotten that they have the power to begin with, and instead remain paralyzed by the real consequences there can be to use it. Its why the CEO shooting last week was so wildly popular, because it resonated with everyone by subverting that feeling of helplessness.
Read the subtext tho: A thot thinks two men buttfucking is a-ok, but gets mad when a female character appeals to straight men. Why would that be? 🤔
6 years ago lol. The only time I've even seen anything about this woman was itsagundam making a video about buttfuckers getting mad that she said butt fucking is wrong. People change. I mean I personally wouldn't give her the benefit of the doubt yet. Too many snakes in the grass
My point is that she didn't change, she's an oportunist who hops on whatever wandagon helps her get rid of anything that would appeal to het-men, because it gets at odds with her grifter thot lifestyle. She's tradthot Alyssa Mercante.
I doubt she has real political opinions, most likely she just uses broad politics to obfuscate her real grift
I was pro faggotry too. I advocated for faggot marriage to my family. I cheered when the court legalized it in 2015.
Then in 2018 the school district I worked with began requiring us to sign a document agreeing to hide gender confusion from the parents, and it only escalated from there. In 2018 almost nobody believed me when I told them about the increasingly insane policies being implemented with no public discussion behind the parent's backs.
The fact she was fine with this in 2018 makes her normal, and the fact she now recognizes that the right wing was 100% correct about that Astroglide-covered slope and that there is no live and let live with this faggotry just means she has a brain.
No it doesn't . i might give this kind of tweet a pass if it were made in 2010 but not in 2018 when the culture was already so woke and insane . . If someone was still woke in 2018 as an adult and calling people bigots then i dont trust him/her
I used to be ambivalent about fags too, but then the radical fag lobby decided that coopting the government into sending armed agents into churches so as to stick a gun in the face of pastors telling them to marry fags or else, that was my wake up call.
I'm all about not being judgmental, as Jesus commands, but fags want me to not just tolerate their existence in the bedroom, they want me to tolerate their perversion in public, and they want my children to watch.
So yea, attitudes change. Mine have hardened to that of granite over the years.
She was also A-OK with stellar blade. She is just a disingenuous hack trying to get more engagement and attention.
It is very difficult to determine the intent of that post without context. It seems like it might be ironic or an intentionally absurd reversal of another comment.
No such thing as a trad women who lives on the internet, literally a contradiction...
Like many women, every political idea she has was probably put in her head by some guy she dated.
>tweet reply from 6 years ago clearly framed as a hypothetical and with no context provided
Great find OP /s
Women’s political opinions come from the last dick they had inside of them.
Ah, so she's a grifter. Just like all the other so-called "trad" women influencers.
Accept the anal fissures, bigots.
Hilarious, not even that long ago.
I always assumed she was a born again Christian after being a cumdump for a few years.
I'm more for the total annihilation of influencers anyway. I really don't gain anything from knowing the opinion of this random internet chick.