How is blanket rejection of evidence of consent by the prosecutor not reflectively understood as an absurd violation of the rights of someone accused?
Let's not kid ourselves, this will negatively impact men 99% of the time. And unless the feminazis manage to make this policy in court too, not just at the prosecutor level, the only result will be to increase the % of not-guilty verdicts. Because prosecutors will have to proceed with cases they know are meritless.
The feminist kangoroo "courts" in the USA universities that are currently getting sued all over the place by male victims of false rape accusations works like that.
I like how the justification for making it even more like an actual witch hunt was simply "we're convicting less people of rape, obviously something's wrong with the courts".
Like the idea of rape being actually down isn't something that even needs considering.
How is blanket rejection of evidence of consent by the prosecutor not reflectively understood as an absurd violation
Sexting is not consent. Sexting is a digital exchange of risque messages. That is not consent to sex. Do not fuck a woman just because she sent you a risque message.
If it helps, consider it this way: I interpret receipt of a dick pic to be permission to castrate the imbecile that sent it to me. If your interpretation of sexting being consent because that's how the recipient views it, then you must also agree that my interpretation gives me carte blanche to castrate any man that sends me a dick pic.
So this guidance is in fact not rejecting evidence of consent. There may or may not be sexts. There may or may not be consent. The two are entirely orthogonal.
Anyway, regarding your point...if I can even call it one, it's just a shit smear on the page, but I'll try and bring something coherent out of it.
Men's rights activists advocated for text messages confirming enthusiasm before and after the act as a response to the MeToo movement, because your hateful little cult was too busy worshipping pedophiles to care about such things as due process.
This action is a direct attack on that practice based on flimsy logic that has one sole goal - regain the power that was lost when workplaces went online and you could no longer accuse us of impropriety, because everything is recorded.
First off: Stop accusing people you don't know online of worshipping paedophilia. It makes me feel I'm responding to a 12 year old.
I am responding though because even 12 year olds need to understand that sexting is not consent. Do not fuck anybody without their consent. Do not pretend that cybersex is consent for physical interactions. Do not be stupid. Do not rape.
Also do not be stupid enough to believe that text messages sent prior to meeting someone and having sex with them will save you from a false rape accusation. They won't. Protect yourself better than that.
Well, your movement's leader was Asia Argento. You literally were worshipping a pedophile.
You are obviously a moron making false equivalencies. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a string of messages is proof, compared to worthless claims with no backing.
Nothing will protect you, that's kind of the idea of every action women's groups have ever taken. Can't take a recording for proof, because it won't be accepted - involuntary recording, can claim coercion. Can't use past messages because that's not real consent, handily for your worthless cult of psychotic wannabe Nazis. (Did your side ever explain why your slogan is the title of an essay advocating for male extermination? Actually, probably best you don't bother, because you're perfectly happy lying through your teeth about your motives.)
Honestly, cut the attitude, it doesn't make you sound smarter at all.
I'm sorry, but the whole castration bit already betrayed your true political and social leanings, so I'm treating you like one of the true believer cultists.
You're making bad assumptions and launching continual unfounded accusations based on them. You're failing to understand simple points. You're getting angry that someone online dared to disagree with you, and that they used a ridiculous analogy to demonstrate how ridiculous your position is.
Incidentally, claims are evidence. Not necessarily good evidence, but evidence nonetheless.
why is a woman's word proof of an issue
I haven't said that it is. I've merely said that sexts are not consent.
actual physical proof of a positive interaction is worthless
I haven't said that an amicable exchange of text messages is worthless as evidence. I've said that it does not indicate consent.
Because it does not indicate consent.
I don't know why this is so difficult a concept for you.
your cult
What cult? Stop attacking me by making wild spurious claims about things you think I believe in or support. You're being silly.
Prosecutor reviewing evidence, text messages saying :
He : "Oh God I want meatballs so bad."
She : "Yeah meatballs would be nice, I want your meatballs in my mouth."
He : My place?
She : Sure.
Police complaint :
She : "He forcefully fed me, I never talked about wanting to eat with him!"
He : "She came to my place and we had dinner. Here are text messages leading up to that."
Sex itself isn't a crime. Castrating someone is.
Of course it's in the realm of possibility that she changed her mind before dinner and he actualy forcefully shoved meatballs in her mouth. It's also possible she lied because the meatballs weren't up to her expectations, or she regreted cheating on her diet, or felt shame about eating meatballs as she has Vegan friends, etc.
And extremely unlikely such a case would be entertained by a judge with circumstancial evidence, the texts messages, showing there was intent for consensual dinner.
Rape is a crime. Sexting is not consent. Sex without consent is rape.
It absolutely is indeed in the realm of possibility that she is willing to flirt electronically but has no intention of getting sticky. Which is all that this guidance points out.
I can answer that. You're so incredibly dishonest about everything you do that you genuinely are covering up the blindingly obvious motive behind this decision.
Go to hell, and take your "Coercive Control" laws with you, you horrid Nazi pieces of shit.
I'm honest enough to step back and read the guidance, understand it, and understand the reasons behind it, then discuss them sanely instead of attacking other people online.
Let's keep this simple: Sexting is not consent to sex.
SEXTING
IS
NOT
CONSENT
In case you didn't catch that, sexting is not consent.
I hope that provides adequate clarity regarding my position.
Your type wouldn't know honesty if it was printed in the back of your latest genocidal manifesto, so you can stop trying to use that angle.
Claims are not evidence.
Claims are not evidence.
Claims are not evidence.
I can also repeat obvious slogans like a child trying to win an argument.
You haven't explained this though - why is a woman's word proof of an issue but actual physical proof of a positive interaction is worthless? If you want to be consistent, every claim your cult makes should be thrown out unless you have actual evidence other than crocodile tears and a wild fan fiction.
I find it rather suspicious that you only now within the last week started enforcing these rules (which at first glance, makes it look like you made it up on the spot) when he and several other posters have posts just like this going back many many months no issue, because it was part of a wider discussion that frankly needs to be had. If we aren't allowed to talk about it because the subject has a pussy, what was the point of making a KIA2 Win in the first place if you enforce reddit's bullshit regardless?
Reddit jannies can quit Reddit, but not the Reddit attitude.
Remember when AOV decided to deepthroat the halfkia mods and chose to sacrifice the new place to his delusions of coming together by forcibly outsourcing any discussion on modding, leadership etc. to kiameta? Remember when Dom decided that pointing out the skin color of a perpetrator was doubleplusungood when it was a black on white crime?
Remember when the writing was on the wall for literal MONTHS and they wasted like two months stroking eachother off instead of just creating kia.win only to have it "snatched away at the last moment" by the faggots over on halfkia and we were once again forced to play number 2?
These people can't help themself. They just HAVE to be worthless little sandpit tyrants.
I made up all the rules on the spot months ago. If you think I didn't enforce them, it's likely because I missed them.
The issue is not about the subject about you having a problem with women. The issue is about declaring an entire gender to be your enemy. You'll notice I haven't done anything about 'should women be allowed to vote'. That's still an ideological frame work to go off of.
Women as an enemy demographic conspiring to murder all men is pretty fucking bonkers. There has to be a line somewhere for the sake of basic decorum.
If you think I didn't enforce them, it's likely because I missed them.
I ask again, for months on end until this very week? I just don't buy that for a second.
The issue is not about the subject about you having a problem with women.
Surely you of all people should know by now that pointing out a harsh truth about a "protected" demographic does not mean one hates it.
The issue is about declaring an entire gender to be your enemy.
You mean as the Radical Femenists (who, by this point, are the mainstream, no longer a fringe) have done so publicly and gleefully w/o punishment by anybody going as far back as 1967 with the publishing of the SCUM Manifesto by Valerie Solanas? (Edit2: slight correction) Or how about an essay titled "The Future - If There Is One- Is Female" which advocates genociding 90% of all men on Earth, leaving the surviving 10% as slaves for the sole purpose of breeding? Or how about the various Kill All Men hashtags that have trended to varying degrees by these same feminists going back to 2014 without a single removal by the platform?
You'll notice I haven't done anything about 'should women be allowed to vote'.
That just makes your moderation inconsistent. Either allow all discussion or none at all.
That's still an ideological frame work to go off of.
So you say, yet look at where we are today. No idea as to what triggers a response or what doesn't from moderation.
Women as an enemy demographic conspiring to murder all men is pretty fucking bonkers.
See above. The proof is there, and while it isn't all women advocating the teachings of the SCUM Manifesto, most women will definitely look the other way while radicals carry out their dastardly deeds. There is a reason why women in ancient times embraced their conquerors after they had got done killing all their men.
There has to be a line somewhere for the sake of basic decorum.
Tell that to the feminists.
EDIT: And for a final point that caused me to flee from KIA1 in the first place. Feminists, BLM, and Antifa are all part of the same rotting left wing, and they all occupy Academia, Media (all media, not just video games as we would find out), Hollywood, and an entire US political party. They have declared ideological war on all that don't fall lockstep with their ever changing doctrine, a war that as of last month (Portland, OR shooting) has turned hot. The mod team of KIA1 refused/ignored/hid from this inevitable conclusion, and it cost them their sub.
anybody going as far back as 1967 with the publishing of the SCUM Manifesto by Valerie Solanas? A book which advocates genociding 90% of all men on Earth, leaving the surviving 10% as slaves for the sole purpose of breeding?
I'm sorry to be a pedantic asshole, but you've mixed up two different radfem manifestos.
The SCUM Manifesto declared the objective of clandestine sabotage until their power reached critical mass and artificial sperm was available. This would be the catalyst for the extermination of men. Valerie herself stated it was not satirical, despite constant claims by feminist allies.
The 10/90 plan is from "The Future - if there is one - is Female.", the essay that gave the feminist movement their slogan. It declares that to protect the environment and humanity's future, the male population must be reduced to 10% of the levels at the time, which is actually far lower than 10% of the levels now. This 10% would live in a ghetto-like community far away from the women and solely be used to produce sperm.
Ninja edit: I actually welcome well needed corrections like this. Being submerged in how left wing politics operate for long periods of time as I have means that a few things are mixed up with eachother just on account of how batshit insane the individuals involved are.
I ask again, for months on end until this very week? I just don't buy that for a second.
Well, I don't have an auto-mod, and it's basically just me, so I have to rely on reports. If people weren't reporting it, and I didn't see it, then I missed it.
Surely you of all people should know by now that pointing out a harsh truth about a "protected" demographic does not mean one hates it.
Do you really believe that women, as a gender, are collectively guilty of conspiring to murder and enslave men. I think I'm setting a fairly low bar here.
The issue is about declaring an entire gender to be your enemy.
You mean as the Radical Femenists ... have done so publicly and gleefully
Yes.
Just because Feminists are morons, it doesn't mean you have to be a moron.
That just makes your moderation inconsistent. Either allow all discussion or none at all.
How is it inconsistent. Saying you oppose the right of women to vote could be constructed in a way that doesn't identify women as conspiracist murderers?
There is a reason why women in ancient times embraced their conquerors after they had got done killing all their men.
They were raped concubines you god damned lunatic!
The fact that you are enforcing this now, and not the 100s of other times across his posts over the months that this discussion happens just like this, is pathetic Dom.
He posts something like this every day or two. They are filled with these types of conversations, I know because I partake in them. This might be the first time I've seen a removal in a manner when it isn't dead threads.
You are trying to be a lawman in what has already become a wild west.
I'm not actually doing anything different, I just actually showed up this time.
Enforcement in dead threads is meaningless theater. The majority of people have already come through and almost nobody would notice your action. If you were a mod who didn't give people the "removed this" reply, I doubt 90% would even know it happened.
In fact, I don't think I've seen you do it once in over a month and I'm fairly active on here. I just gave that caveat in case I missed it.
I don't see this as a problem.
Your complete failure to be punctual and properly enforce the rules have told people they are able to post specific things, that you are now turning around and trying to undo. Your failure to enforce rule of law gave people freedom, that you are now selectively taking away.
I get you are busy with like 5 variations of KIA2 and that's the big factor, but that doesn't absolve your failure to enforce nearly any of the rule breaking behavior for long stretches.
If you don't enforce your rules consistently and evenly, you don't have rules, just suggestions and privileges.
Men today are too fucking gutless to ever fight back as a group against rampant feminism in western society.
Atleast half of "men" today are the most weak and spineless state that men have ever been in history outside of being actual eunuchs.
These fools are too eager to follow the societal life script, they go to a college and get an overpriced degree, then they most likely get a mediocre job working for some globalist corporation, they then marry some used up whore, they experience a dead bedroom then get divorce raped and still manage somehow to continually talk shit against men like me who refuse to ever get married or date in this gynocentric system.
I have no hope that things will ever get better in my lifetime without a catastrophic reset.
All I want at this point in history is for Trump to win re-election so I can continue to make money and live my peaceful minimalistic lifestyle away from socialists and women.
Men today are too fucking gutless to ever fight back as a group
The enemies of western civilization have pulled off a brilliant maneuver. They have used their cultural hegemony to preemptively program normies to hate any group that organizes against the commie agenda. They were able to do that because individualists just wanted to get shit done and didn't fight back against the twisting of language so that any anti-commie principles are now seen as "misogynist" "racists" "nazi" etc.
As it stands there is no way for any man, particularly white man, with anything to lose to openly organize against them.
That doesn't mean the war is lost, just that we need to gently educate our brothers on reality without either turning them off by harping on it, or blackpilling them by pushing down too much truth at once. And we need to fight like an insurgency. We don't have the resources of our enemy but our ability to blend with the populace is our advantage.
One who cares about their son/brother/husband/father?
They only care in so much as it benefits them in the time. Often the social consequences are the only thing holding them accountable.
Because if they don't, the next step won't be anti-feminism.
If they had the ability to plan ahead, we wouldn't need abortion or suffer under teen pregnancy, or single motherhood, or the numerous other society crumbling issues born entirely of their shortsightedness.
How is blanket rejection of evidence of consent by the prosecutor not reflectively understood as an absurd violation of the rights of someone accused?
Let's not kid ourselves, this will negatively impact men 99% of the time. And unless the feminazis manage to make this policy in court too, not just at the prosecutor level, the only result will be to increase the % of not-guilty verdicts. Because prosecutors will have to proceed with cases they know are meritless.
The feminist kangoroo "courts" in the USA universities that are currently getting sued all over the place by male victims of false rape accusations works like that.
I like how the justification for making it even more like an actual witch hunt was simply "we're convicting less people of rape, obviously something's wrong with the courts".
Like the idea of rape being actually down isn't something that even needs considering.
Sexting is not consent. Sexting is a digital exchange of risque messages. That is not consent to sex. Do not fuck a woman just because she sent you a risque message.
If it helps, consider it this way: I interpret receipt of a dick pic to be permission to castrate the imbecile that sent it to me. If your interpretation of sexting being consent because that's how the recipient views it, then you must also agree that my interpretation gives me carte blanche to castrate any man that sends me a dick pic.
So this guidance is in fact not rejecting evidence of consent. There may or may not be sexts. There may or may not be consent. The two are entirely orthogonal.
Anyway, regarding your point...if I can even call it one, it's just a shit smear on the page, but I'll try and bring something coherent out of it.
Men's rights activists advocated for text messages confirming enthusiasm before and after the act as a response to the MeToo movement, because your hateful little cult was too busy worshipping pedophiles to care about such things as due process.
This action is a direct attack on that practice based on flimsy logic that has one sole goal - regain the power that was lost when workplaces went online and you could no longer accuse us of impropriety, because everything is recorded.
First off: Stop accusing people you don't know online of worshipping paedophilia. It makes me feel I'm responding to a 12 year old.
I am responding though because even 12 year olds need to understand that sexting is not consent. Do not fuck anybody without their consent. Do not pretend that cybersex is consent for physical interactions. Do not be stupid. Do not rape.
Also do not be stupid enough to believe that text messages sent prior to meeting someone and having sex with them will save you from a false rape accusation. They won't. Protect yourself better than that.
Well, your movement's leader was Asia Argento. You literally were worshipping a pedophile.
You are obviously a moron making false equivalencies. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a string of messages is proof, compared to worthless claims with no backing.
Nothing will protect you, that's kind of the idea of every action women's groups have ever taken. Can't take a recording for proof, because it won't be accepted - involuntary recording, can claim coercion. Can't use past messages because that's not real consent, handily for your worthless cult of psychotic wannabe Nazis. (Did your side ever explain why your slogan is the title of an essay advocating for male extermination? Actually, probably best you don't bother, because you're perfectly happy lying through your teeth about your motives.)
I do apologise, I was under the misapprehension that you were replying to me.
Since all of your message is clearly directed at someone else I shall ignore it.
Who is it directed to, if not you?
Honestly, cut the attitude, it doesn't make you sound smarter at all.
I'm sorry, but the whole castration bit already betrayed your true political and social leanings, so I'm treating you like one of the true believer cultists.
You're making bad assumptions and launching continual unfounded accusations based on them. You're failing to understand simple points. You're getting angry that someone online dared to disagree with you, and that they used a ridiculous analogy to demonstrate how ridiculous your position is.
Incidentally, claims are evidence. Not necessarily good evidence, but evidence nonetheless.
I haven't said that it is. I've merely said that sexts are not consent.
I haven't said that an amicable exchange of text messages is worthless as evidence. I've said that it does not indicate consent.
Because it does not indicate consent.
I don't know why this is so difficult a concept for you.
What cult? Stop attacking me by making wild spurious claims about things you think I believe in or support. You're being silly.
Can you just call everyone an incel for me? I was close to finishing the bingo card.
Prosecutor reviewing evidence, text messages saying :
Police complaint :
Sex itself isn't a crime. Castrating someone is.
Of course it's in the realm of possibility that she changed her mind before dinner and he actualy forcefully shoved meatballs in her mouth. It's also possible she lied because the meatballs weren't up to her expectations, or she regreted cheating on her diet, or felt shame about eating meatballs as she has Vegan friends, etc.
And extremely unlikely such a case would be entertained by a judge with circumstancial evidence, the texts messages, showing there was intent for consensual dinner.
Rape is a crime. Sexting is not consent. Sex without consent is rape.
It absolutely is indeed in the realm of possibility that she is willing to flirt electronically but has no intention of getting sticky. Which is all that this guidance points out.
I'm confused that it's causing such distress.
I can answer that. You're so incredibly dishonest about everything you do that you genuinely are covering up the blindingly obvious motive behind this decision.
Go to hell, and take your "Coercive Control" laws with you, you horrid Nazi pieces of shit.
I'm honest enough to step back and read the guidance, understand it, and understand the reasons behind it, then discuss them sanely instead of attacking other people online.
Let's keep this simple: Sexting is not consent to sex.
SEXTING IS NOT CONSENT
In case you didn't catch that, sexting is not consent.
I hope that provides adequate clarity regarding my position.
Your type wouldn't know honesty if it was printed in the back of your latest genocidal manifesto, so you can stop trying to use that angle.
Claims are not evidence.
Claims are not evidence.
Claims are not evidence.
I can also repeat obvious slogans like a child trying to win an argument.
You haven't explained this though - why is a woman's word proof of an issue but actual physical proof of a positive interaction is worthless? If you want to be consistent, every claim your cult makes should be thrown out unless you have actual evidence other than crocodile tears and a wild fan fiction.
I agree. I don't see the relevance to a discussion on sexting.
Comment Removed: Rule 16
this is supposed to be a censorship free forum. You're exactly why we started visiting .win
I think I'm being reasonable.
I find it rather suspicious that you only now within the last week started enforcing these rules (which at first glance, makes it look like you made it up on the spot) when he and several other posters have posts just like this going back many many months no issue, because it was part of a wider discussion that frankly needs to be had. If we aren't allowed to talk about it because the subject has a pussy, what was the point of making a KIA2 Win in the first place if you enforce reddit's bullshit regardless?
Reddit jannies can quit Reddit, but not the Reddit attitude.
Remember when AOV decided to deepthroat the halfkia mods and chose to sacrifice the new place to his delusions of coming together by forcibly outsourcing any discussion on modding, leadership etc. to kiameta? Remember when Dom decided that pointing out the skin color of a perpetrator was doubleplusungood when it was a black on white crime?
Remember when the writing was on the wall for literal MONTHS and they wasted like two months stroking eachother off instead of just creating kia.win only to have it "snatched away at the last moment" by the faggots over on halfkia and we were once again forced to play number 2?
These people can't help themself. They just HAVE to be worthless little sandpit tyrants.
I made up all the rules on the spot months ago. If you think I didn't enforce them, it's likely because I missed them.
The issue is not about the subject about you having a problem with women. The issue is about declaring an entire gender to be your enemy. You'll notice I haven't done anything about 'should women be allowed to vote'. That's still an ideological frame work to go off of.
Women as an enemy demographic conspiring to murder all men is pretty fucking bonkers. There has to be a line somewhere for the sake of basic decorum.
I ask again, for months on end until this very week? I just don't buy that for a second.
Surely you of all people should know by now that pointing out a harsh truth about a "protected" demographic does not mean one hates it.
You mean as the Radical Femenists (who, by this point, are the mainstream, no longer a fringe) have done so publicly and gleefully w/o punishment by anybody going as far back as 1967 with the publishing of the SCUM Manifesto by Valerie Solanas? (Edit2: slight correction) Or how about an essay titled "The Future - If There Is One- Is Female" which advocates genociding 90% of all men on Earth, leaving the surviving 10% as slaves for the sole purpose of breeding? Or how about the various Kill All Men hashtags that have trended to varying degrees by these same feminists going back to 2014 without a single removal by the platform?
That just makes your moderation inconsistent. Either allow all discussion or none at all.
So you say, yet look at where we are today. No idea as to what triggers a response or what doesn't from moderation.
See above. The proof is there, and while it isn't all women advocating the teachings of the SCUM Manifesto, most women will definitely look the other way while radicals carry out their dastardly deeds. There is a reason why women in ancient times embraced their conquerors after they had got done killing all their men.
Tell that to the feminists.
EDIT: And for a final point that caused me to flee from KIA1 in the first place. Feminists, BLM, and Antifa are all part of the same rotting left wing, and they all occupy Academia, Media (all media, not just video games as we would find out), Hollywood, and an entire US political party. They have declared ideological war on all that don't fall lockstep with their ever changing doctrine, a war that as of last month (Portland, OR shooting) has turned hot. The mod team of KIA1 refused/ignored/hid from this inevitable conclusion, and it cost them their sub.
I'm sorry to be a pedantic asshole, but you've mixed up two different radfem manifestos.
The SCUM Manifesto declared the objective of clandestine sabotage until their power reached critical mass and artificial sperm was available. This would be the catalyst for the extermination of men. Valerie herself stated it was not satirical, despite constant claims by feminist allies.
The 10/90 plan is from "The Future - if there is one - is Female.", the essay that gave the feminist movement their slogan. It declares that to protect the environment and humanity's future, the male population must be reduced to 10% of the levels at the time, which is actually far lower than 10% of the levels now. This 10% would live in a ghetto-like community far away from the women and solely be used to produce sperm.
Thank you for the correction.
Ninja edit: I actually welcome well needed corrections like this. Being submerged in how left wing politics operate for long periods of time as I have means that a few things are mixed up with eachother just on account of how batshit insane the individuals involved are.
Well, I don't have an auto-mod, and it's basically just me, so I have to rely on reports. If people weren't reporting it, and I didn't see it, then I missed it.
Do you really believe that women, as a gender, are collectively guilty of conspiring to murder and enslave men. I think I'm setting a fairly low bar here.
Yes.
Just because Feminists are morons, it doesn't mean you have to be a moron.
How is it inconsistent. Saying you oppose the right of women to vote could be constructed in a way that doesn't identify women as conspiracist murderers?
They were raped concubines you god damned lunatic!
There aren't any here for me to tell.
I don't disagree with any of that.
The fact that you are enforcing this now, and not the 100s of other times across his posts over the months that this discussion happens just like this, is pathetic Dom.
Absolute failure.
I feel like I've been consistent, but it's entirely possible I missed things.
He posts something like this every day or two. They are filled with these types of conversations, I know because I partake in them. This might be the first time I've seen a removal in a manner when it isn't dead threads.
You are trying to be a lawman in what has already become a wild west.
Okay, so then you at least acknowledge that I'm not actually doing anything different, I just actually showed up this time.
I don't see this as a problem.
Enforcement in dead threads is meaningless theater. The majority of people have already come through and almost nobody would notice your action. If you were a mod who didn't give people the "removed this" reply, I doubt 90% would even know it happened.
In fact, I don't think I've seen you do it once in over a month and I'm fairly active on here. I just gave that caveat in case I missed it.
Your complete failure to be punctual and properly enforce the rules have told people they are able to post specific things, that you are now turning around and trying to undo. Your failure to enforce rule of law gave people freedom, that you are now selectively taking away.
I get you are busy with like 5 variations of KIA2 and that's the big factor, but that doesn't absolve your failure to enforce nearly any of the rule breaking behavior for long stretches.
If you don't enforce your rules consistently and evenly, you don't have rules, just suggestions and privileges.
Fuck off jannie
Lots of stuff, why?
I'm a janny. I do it for free.
Feminists: Spend decades crusading for a drop in rape cases.
Also Feminists: Complain and change the law when rape cases go down.
Not surprised that this is happening in the cucked U.K.
Labour are complete marxists so I expect this feminist garbage from them.
Boris Johnson and the Tories are spineless pieces of shit for letting this unfold.
As cucked as the politicians are, this wouldn't happen if the good women we are told exist started protesting against this abuse of law.
What woman is going to go out and protest something the media doesn't tell them to protest?
I don't expect women to fight for men's rights. They have never done it in any substantial numbers before so why would they start now?
The problem is that as men, we have no unity.
We have too many cucks, simps and male feminists that fight against our rights.
Men's desperate thirst for a crumb of pussy is destroying our freedoms.
The sexual revolution was a terrible mistake.
One who cares about their son/brother/husband/father?
Because if they don't, the next step won't be anti-feminism. It'll make my ideology look pro-women by comparison.
All of those are raised by women to act that way. They know no better.
The inability of society to acknowledge women's hatred as real and not just idle ranting will doom us all.
Men today are too fucking gutless to ever fight back as a group against rampant feminism in western society.
Atleast half of "men" today are the most weak and spineless state that men have ever been in history outside of being actual eunuchs.
These fools are too eager to follow the societal life script, they go to a college and get an overpriced degree, then they most likely get a mediocre job working for some globalist corporation, they then marry some used up whore, they experience a dead bedroom then get divorce raped and still manage somehow to continually talk shit against men like me who refuse to ever get married or date in this gynocentric system.
I have no hope that things will ever get better in my lifetime without a catastrophic reset.
All I want at this point in history is for Trump to win re-election so I can continue to make money and live my peaceful minimalistic lifestyle away from socialists and women.
Is even this small thing too much to ask for?
I just wanted to play video games in peace.
The enemies of western civilization have pulled off a brilliant maneuver. They have used their cultural hegemony to preemptively program normies to hate any group that organizes against the commie agenda. They were able to do that because individualists just wanted to get shit done and didn't fight back against the twisting of language so that any anti-commie principles are now seen as "misogynist" "racists" "nazi" etc.
As it stands there is no way for any man, particularly white man, with anything to lose to openly organize against them.
That doesn't mean the war is lost, just that we need to gently educate our brothers on reality without either turning them off by harping on it, or blackpilling them by pushing down too much truth at once. And we need to fight like an insurgency. We don't have the resources of our enemy but our ability to blend with the populace is our advantage.
They only care in so much as it benefits them in the time. Often the social consequences are the only thing holding them accountable.
If they had the ability to plan ahead, we wouldn't need abortion or suffer under teen pregnancy, or single motherhood, or the numerous other society crumbling issues born entirely of their shortsightedness.
I need this exact text in an amendment to the constitution
Comment Removed: Rule 16
stunning
quite possibly even stunning and brave.
Can't leave the modding faggotry behind on Reddit, eh?