Funny how they didn't have a problem with that 'toxic misogynistic media culture' when it actually was the 2000s
TIL that feminists didn't exist in the 2000s, and never complained about misogynistic media at that time. Of course, a feminist like you probably never noticed as you agreed with it.
Oh no! Pointing out that AoV is a feminist who thinks women are angels is "shizobabble". I feel so stupid!
I thought the left was all sex positive?
LOL. You obviously haven't been paying attention. The left is sex positive when it involves women - women being promiscuous as they want is 100% great and should be supported by everyone. But this doesn't apply to men, of course. When it comes to sex and men, men are considered all evil rapists who take advantage of innocent women and subject them to horrific abuse.
To be fair though, this doesn't just apply to the "left" but feminists in general, including tradcucks of which there are many on this forum, who are also feminists as they would never criticise female behavior (even if they don't call themselves feminists and even if their moral code would tell them that such female behavior is wrong, they are unable to think badly of women).
But that doesn't fit the mainstream narrative of Chad good, Virgin bad. Society places a value judgement on men based on their ability to attract a mate and we look at men who succeed in finding a partner in a better light than the man who consistently fails
"Society" didn't do this until it became dominated by female values. The whole "men are valued by the ability to attract a women" is basically applying female sexual preference as a core value to the whole population.
It's a bullshit value, of course, but very few people understand it for what it is. As a female value, it corrupts men in many ways in their attempts to become "attractive to women", ultimately turning them into servants of women. From being pussy-worshipping Chads who spend hours of their time becoming better that "gaming" women to obtain a bunch of empty sex to satisfy female sexual urges, to pussy-worshipping incels who take everything women say at face value and fall flat on their faces, but in doing so providing emotional tampons and plenty of other free services to women.
This is why the concept of MGTOW is so powerful - it completely undermines this female-imposed value system and allows men to start valuing themselves for other reasons.
I'm perfectly fine with such a prohibition.
Of course you are. You think all women are angels, so no women would take advantage of such legislation to manipulate and harm men. And yes, women. Because such laws are always only applied to men and never to women, such is the sexism prevalent in society that you seem to fully support.
Part of the "democracy" psyop is convincing people that voting is more important than it really is. It makes everyone focus on "elections" as being the only source of change in society, so that people stop doing anything that would really make a difference, such as building resilient and principled communities that become dominant by outcompeting other communities.
No company is going to agree to a contract that opens them up to unlimited liability based on an interaction between third parties (Unity and customers installing their game) that they can't even audit. So, obviously the way this will be implemented is the game will phone home to both Unity and the developer during install. The developer will be able to allow or disallow the install, and will gain an audit record of all "installs" being performed, prior to being charged by Unity.
TLDR: This will result in customers having to deal with games having a limited number of installs, and pirates having to overcome the phone home systems rather than developers being exposed to unlimited liability.
Yeah, letting all these fighting age third world men into the country has been a real boon to women's safety.
Perfect way to prove my point.
Left-wing guy "all those right-wing people are opposed to free access to healthcare for women, see how much they hate women!" Right-wing guy "all those left-wing people are letting these evil brown men into my country who are harming women, see how much they hate women!"
What does it matter? If there is one thing that everyone on both the "left" and "right" agrees on it is that women are special and must be protected at all costs. Yes, even fictional women.
Your brother is a sinner, no doubt. There is, of course, truth to feminine discourse. There are violent men. There are rapists. There are men who cheat and commit adultery. That men sin should be of no revelation to a Christian.
In my opinion, however, if one takes a Christian point-of-view, adopting feminism is more sinful than any of the above. Why? Because it violates the most important commandment of them all - you will have no other gods other than God Himself. Embarrassingly, I called myself a feminist once, and looking back at that time, I can see what it did to me. It turned me into someone who worshipped women. Who believed that anything a woman said was truth, and that the way forward for society was to obey women even more than I already did. I put it to you then, was I not violating the first commandment? In my mind, yes I was. I had made women, or perhaps feminism, my god, and I was committing a most egregious violation of the commandments.
I will make a further point in addition to this, and that is that it is not only feminists that worship women. In fact, it is almost the de facto religion of Western societies. Both "traditionalists" and "progressives" worship women, but in different ways. "Traditionalists" claim that it is men's main and only role to provide for and protect women. Perhaps ultimately to "build society" or some such excuse. Even if that claim has merit, it is still sinful as it is, once again, violating that first commandment. The role of men is to follow God, and that must be the focus, not "providing for women" or "building society".
You might despair. But then, if I don't have a wife and children, how will my society continue? Leave that to God. Make it your goal to be follow God as truly as you can, that should be your focus as a man, for good will flow on from there. After all, for everything else, unlike God, we are not omniscient, and we should not be trying to overthink what may happen in the future if we do this or that. Have faith that it will be, for God is on your side.
Yes, she's a time bomb if she uses feelings to derive moral principles of what's right and wrong, your words were:
When you rely on feelings you can justify any of your actions because it "felt right/good"
Someone willing to justify their any of their actions based on their feelings has no moral core. Sure, everyone, both men and women, often rationalize their wrongful behaviour away, but at the end of the day what's stopping people becoming truly evil is their conscience which (eventually) steps in to say "stop". What you described above is someone who is willing to override their conscience for "any of their actions" if the action, for example, makes them happy. Unlike TheImp, I don't believe women are all morally-deficient, so not all women are like that. But anyone that fits that description is.
Again you mistake modern trends for "tradition". You vastly overestimate how "dangerous" life was for men in traditional societies.
Meat grinder wars, such as that happening in Ukraine, are a modern phenomenon where the danger is orders of magnitude higher than anything faced by men in previous times (i.e. pre-20th century) due to power of modern weaponry. Not to mention that the idea of the draft is also a modern phenomenon.
Evolutionary biology is incorrect here. It's evolutionary psychology -- which is basically splitting hairs.
Yes, it's usually called "evolutionary psychology" but it's bullshit no matter what it's called. Actual evolutionary biology can be a useful science. Evolutionary psychology not so much.
One of the hardest red pills I have ever had to swallow is that the vast majority of women (even my PhD wife) are logically deficient and rely on feelings. When you rely on feelings you can justify any of your actions because it "felt right/good."
She isn't logically deficient then. She is morally deficient. You are married to a time bomb. Good luck!
You're calling me a tradcuck? Do you know who you're speaking to?
Yes, when you start spouting bullshit about traditional societies valuing women over men, I'll use the term that fits.
Enough of your tradcuck bullshit. Tradcuck ideas are not traditional. They are feminist. Actual traditional societies valued men over women.
Humans are not pigs or dogs, and if you think human behavior is as limited as that of dogs or pigs, you are the one that needs a biology lesson, not me.
Them helping young women isn't them forgetting about young men. Some help is better than no help.
Elsewhere you claim that these feminists now realize the damage they've done to boys and are starting to regret it. Yet, this logic makes little sense - if their main victims are boys, why start by helping girls? It is far more likely that they still don't really care about boys, yes, even their sons, because years and years of absorbing hateful propaganda about "men being trash" will do that to you. So, I'm not buying this at all. These women are still feminists. And feminists still only care about women and girls, and don't give a shit about men or boys apart from paying lip-service or using manipulative tactics that ultimately benefit women and girls at the expense of men and boys.
I wasn't disputing this. I simply said that it is their "default mode" to not be.
Not, you implied women 'evolved' to be duplicitous. This argument is always evoked by people pushing biological determinism.
Historical records show a huge amount of war...
Yes, I'm sure there are historical records in support of your idea. It doesn't prove anything because you are simply backfitting the data to fit what you have already decided.
In the end, it's a completely pointless and unnecessary argument. All that matters is observing their behavior now and pointing out how this is bad behavior. There is no need to try to tenuously link that behavior to "evolution"; that simply detracts from the main point.
Evolutionary biology acknowledges that the most likely women to reproduce and survive were those who could switch loyalties.
Enough of that pop culture "evolutionary biology" shit. You idea isn't biology, it's coming up with a vaguely scientific-sounding justification of contemporary female behavior. It's also unfeasible and unprovable, because to prove there is no such experiment we can carry out to prove how humans evolved.
The reality is that humans are extremely capable of adopting many vastly different types of behavior, mainly to adapt to their environment. In the current environment of Western societies, it is beneficial for women to adopt selfish duplicitous behavior, so they do so. But this doesn't mean that they can't be better people. They simply choose not to be better people.
What a stupid take. ChatGPT isn't "lying" because the stupid thing can't lie, it's not human. It's also not "deliberately" doing anything because stupid thing is a sophisticated text completion algorithm without any free will. I can't believe anyone is still complaining that the algorithm has been trained to push it's creators' point of view. No shit, mate. Are you always that thick? Do you waste time trying to prove that the sun rises in the east too?
capitalizing on lazy consumerist suckers
Read "Propaganda" by Edward Bernays. The rise of "public relations" (i.e. propaganda in the form of advertising) is responsible for driving this, and in that book Bernays gleefully preaches how that is a good thing (because those in power obviously know better than everyone else) and gives plenty of examples of the manipulative methods used to sell stuff.
Assuming this happened (it didn't) what she is asking for here is to destroy the entire legal system just to give women an unshakeable instant win card.
This is a feature, not a bug. She knows exactly what she is doing and she is doing it to give women the power of the state to use against men at their whim. She wants this power for herself and others like her.
The checks and balances on the system are a problem when one seeks to manipulate the system to their advantage. She is not concerned that this will backfire because she is a woman, and thus personally immune to accusations of rape or sexual assault from men. It may backfire by affecting her male relatives, but more than likely she is not concerned about male suffering, seeing them only cogs in the machine to serve her (or she believes her ability to manipulate other women will allow her to rise to the top of the female hierarchy, and thus have to power to impose her own self-interest on the system).
That's why all feminism is doomed to fail when it tries to "empower" women, because the moment they are faced with actually dealing with a decision they will always default back to being cowardly little waifs who can't do anything without a man to take care of them.
You continue to misunderstand women then. For women, being, or pretending to be, "cowardly little waifs" is exactly how they gain power, because they use that to manipulate men to their own advantage.
Far too many "conservative" and "red-pilled" men continue to misunderstand this about women. The comment refrain "women are children" is a clear example of this*. Women are not children. They are intelligent adults. Except, unlike men, they almost entirely focus their intelligence on how to manipulate other people, both men and women, to get their way.
* "Women are children" actually has some truth to it but not in the way most people use it. Children also tend to try to use manipulative tactics to get their way, e.g. a child crying until their parents give them what they want. Of course, women are significantly more adept at this than children (and men), having honed their skills in their peer groups as teenagers.
In what way was CNN "destroyed"? They still have a massive platform to go around spreading propaganda and you make a big deal out of a largely inconsequential and stupid Twitter fight.
Anyone who is saying "I don't buy media for the attractive female characters" is probably naive or lying. The reason such characters are used is obviously because sex sells. It's the easiest and most pervasive form of manipulation of men out there.
Like most forms of such manipulation, it's impossible to not be affected by it except by consciously avoiding consuming such material. It's pretty sad that most men aren't awake to the degree they are being manipulated by sex. In fact, now that there is a drive to remove attractive females from media to push political messages, you can see men fighting for the inclusion of sexualised characters so they can continue being controlled by their sex drives, in other words, fighting to be manipulated by sex (and by implication, women).
Let's all engage in a pile on to report the bad man to the authorities! People engage in feminine behaviour and wonder why feminists are in charge...
Not only that, but women in particular are very good hamstering each other into believing something when in groups. The whole "crowd-sourced morality" that is currently prevalent in society is a female thing - women talk to each other, and basically decide if that thing is right/wrong (or true/false) based on how they collectively "feel" about that thing. Therefore, lesbians, being in a relationships with women, are probably going to reinforce each others delusions more than men would reinforce female delusions in heterosexual relationships. Not to mention that lesbians probably mostly avoid men and thus are completely surrounded by women and only women.