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...
The OP is being rather disingenuous here by not telling you all how this payment method (PoLi) works. It basically acts as a man-in-the-middle website for you to make a payment through your bank's internet banking website. You provide your banking username, password and any two-factor credentials to the PoLi website, which then logs in to your bank internet banking website and makes the payment transaction using your credentials.
I have no idea how it lasted this long, to be honest.
The title of this post literally says Bangladesh is a "rapey shithole". What's wrong with just "shithole"?
Ah yes, all shitty countries are "rapey". Obviously, the idea that third-world countries are "rapey" couldn't possibly be feminist propaganda to perpetuate the idea of a men in evil patriarchies constantly wanting to subjugate woman, no. Let's perpetuate feminist propaganda to keep feminists in power - what could possibly go wrong?
No idea what you are talking about. Here is my comment in full:
Everyone in current times is so obsessed with sex they can't imagine a world where sex isn't the most important thing ever.
My comment clearly criticising at those "obsessed with sex" and you are off on a bizarre tangent.
conflate measuring the importance of something with being an addict of that thing
"Important" can have several interpretations depending on context (of course I also said "most important", not just "important"). When preceded by a comment regarding "obsession", the context would be clear to most people with a brain, alas you aren't one of these people.
I'm done here. This is a waste of time.
Sex being necessary is not the same thing as "sex is the most important thing ever". What a stupid comment. You sound like a land whale trying to justify being a glutton because "food is necessary to stay alive".
Everyone in current times is so obsessed with sex they can't imagine a world where sex isn't the most important thing ever.
Whoever controls your passions controls you.
From reading the reddit thread, none of those three perverts are even from Australia. The whole drag queen story time is clearly about perverting children, by anyone making tenuous links to paedophiles in other countries is not doing the opposition any favours. It's far too easy to shout down - "look how rare it is, you have to find cases in other countries!" And not a single person here has mentioned this yet.
To me, this looks like the posters themselves are an effort to poison the well. Perhaps put up by the regressive him(them?)self to be able to tear them down.
Stop falling to stupid manipulation attempts. Think more strategically and have more discipline. You people are meant to be clever, but it seems like the manipulators know exactly how to press your buttons so you shoot the movement in the foot, and you never even seem to consider this possibility. Shit like this should be ignored and the focus should be "drag queens are sexual by their very nature and therefore need to be kept away from kids".
Thinking for yourself is for stupid people. Nothing shows intelligence more than delegating all your thinking to state-sanctioned experts.
There's more that as well - men insult their friends to toughen each other up. If a man is used to getting shit from his friends, he'll have much thicker skin and not be easily taunted and lose his cool when his enemies taunt him.
It's amusing to see commentators misunderstand men and masculinity so badly. Men don't explicitly talk about their "feelings" - oh, it must mean that men don't know how to talk about their "feelings" or some bullshit.
Nothing shows how lacking in "empathy" the so-called "empathetic" sex is more than the feminist bullshit about men and feelings. Let's look a simple example that most men would probably understand, even if they haven't never thought about it in this way:
A bloke walks into a pub. Sits next to his mate. Mate ask, "Hey, how's it going?"
Bloke says, "Pretty shit really, boss is giving me hell at work. Can't do nothing right."
Mate replies, "Ah shit. That sucks. What are you going to do?"
"Nothing. Boss has always been a cunt. Nothing new, eh? Want another drink?" bloke says, laughing.
Feminists would say: Oh no! Look at these stoic men not talking about their feelings! They should talk about their feelings!
Reality: Bloke had a shit day and has communicated his feelings perfectly well to his mate. Mate checked in if he's coping alright. Bloke says it's nothing new and indicates it's nothing he can't tell handle. The two men used their empathy to exchange emotional content without explicitly talking about their feelings.
The reality is men are good at communicating their feelings. But they don't make a song and dance of it. Instead they do it by reading between the lines from each other's body language and words. That's empathy. Not the bullshit sold by feminists that apparently women are better at then men. In reality, if women (and male feminists) actually need to explicitly talk about their feelings, it must mean they suck at empathy.
As if everyone's definition of success in a relationship is the same - only a fool would pretend it doesn't matter. Some men are happy if their relationships produce children, others want their wives to support them in some way, others are focused on sex lives. It's autistic to think that there is some kind of universal definition of "relationship success" for everyone, and not only that, everyone just knows what this is without needing to talk about it.
To gain anything useful from this question, it is necessary to define what criteria are being used to determine if a relationship is "successful". The question and the resulting responses are useless otherwise. There is quite a difference between "I'm not very happy in my marriage, we never have sex, my wife nags me constantly, I work 60 hours a week and have to do all the housework, but my wife hasn't divorced me and taken the kids and my house (yet?)" compared to "me and my amazingly hot 10/10 wife have sex everyday, she is perfectly obedient to me, as are our ten home-schooled children who are in perfect in every way".
"Think You’re Too Stupid To Govern Yourself"
Stop falling for this trap. No, they don't think you're stupid. They know people aren't stupid. That's why the need to control the information people see so that they aren't able to think for themselves. The point of feeding people a constant roll of pro-government propaganda is to make them stupid.
It matters because "think you're stupid" makes it seem like it's all a naive mistake whereas "manipulate what you think", which is what it actually is, is far more nefarious.
Think about the terms you use. Otherwise you are simply propagating another layer of propaganda, still to the government's own benefit.
men are slowly weeding them out by giving them the silent treatment, which is funny given how that's normally a woman thing to do.
"Silent treatment" for women is a tactic of emotional manipulation employed against people that care about them (family members, friends, husbands) - it is used by the woman to show "how little she cares" about the target to hurt that person. What you're describing men doing is different - it's not to emotionally manipulate women, but rather just a matter of ignoring random people who aren't worthwhile interacting with. Don't conflate the two, they aren't the same thing.
Not, you implied women 'evolved' to be duplicitous. This argument is always evoked by people pushing biological determinism.
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.