Nah, what you're witnessing is the lack of distinction between ChatGPT and many people who love posting on the Internet- there usually isn't that much to say, so anyone who post a lot is going to sound like ChatGPT as 99% of their "ideas" will be worthless drivel.
So you believe Israel convinced Hamas to attack them because of Musk visiting the border of a country halfway around the world?
This is a standard "conspiracy theories at all ludicrous"-style response. Instead of it being a mundane plausible conspiracy, such as, "the media focused relentless on a new story that happened to pop up that they knew would distract people", it has to be an elaborate ridiculous conspiracy like "so you're saying the media conspired to make this thing happen so that they could report it and distract people?!". It's either bad faith, or shows how much people have been trained to immediately misrepresent anything involving a "conspiracy" by turning it into a strawman.
Oh no, you're back with your pseudo-intellectual babbling and strange desire to need external validation from a bunch of nutters on an internet forum (of which I am one, after all, I'm here).
Let's be real, porn isn't helping the situation, but even if you abolish all pornography tomorrow you still have to address the root problem which is that getting involved with a woman is legally a catastrophic proposition.
It's way more complicated that that. The effect of porn on relationships isn't one way. While use of porn can help men to obtain sexual satisfaction without being in a relationship, it also feeds the male sex drive which makes more men likely to want to get in a relationship.
This is the reason why feminists have such a inconsistent and unpredictable attitude towards porn. On the one hand it reduces the reliance of men on women, reducing their power, but on the other hand it can increase female sexual power. So their are all sorts of different feminist factions in relation to porn, which generally relates to what benefits they are getting out of the effect of porn on men.
The gynocentric nature of Western society is partly caused by the effect of constant exposure of males to a very softcore form of porn - the highly revealing clothing worn by many females, and sexualised female bodies displayed all over the media. This feeds the male sex drive, making men and boys more dependent on women and more gynocentric due to the halo effect from sexual attraction.
I'm surprised how few men seem to understand this. Most men should be able to see it in themselves if they were properly able to use stoic or mindfulness techniques to assess their feelings about women.
Any right thinking man, if he truly wanted to be free of women and relationships, would do well to stay away from both women and porn for his own good.
Lamenting a "demographic" not being credited for "99% of modern technology and society" is just lame. Just being part of the same demographic is meaningless. The achievements are down to those individuals that actually did the work. Feeling warm and fuzzy because some other person who also has a penis and has a similar skin tone to you achieved something is completely pointless and counterproductive.
I didn't listen to the interview, but based on the report above, he was wrong for personally attacking her based on her sexual attractiveness. Whatever he said might be true, but it is completely pointless. The main problem with the feminist isn't that she is annoying and unattractive. The problem is she is sexist against men, like all feminists. That's what he should have focused on. Not whether or not any man wanted to date or shag her. Who cares? It's the same attitude as the "incel" insult, where someone's sexual attractiveness to the opposite sex is being used as an indicator of their value - that always leads to gynocentrism and is a losing game for anyone opposed to feminists.
I think males displaying sexuality is more oppressed today than it was 100 years ago.
No doubt. But even 100 years ago feminists were already gaining power and were influencing society in a big way.
Men are only allowed to express sexuality when women say so which is no freedom of expression at all.
Exactly, in the past, there were restrictions on male (and female) sexuality, but were based on stronger logic and principles than "what women want men to do" which is the norm these days.
As I pointed out, modern tradcucks are feminists, not "traditionalists" as traditionalists obtained their sexual morality from God, not women. Apparently these so-called "traditionalists" don't believe the warning in Genesis 2 about deferring to women applies any longer.
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.
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.
Great idea. Piss off a woman in a foreign country so that he becomes a target for her, her simps, or the law ("He abused me!").