FuckGenderPolitics 3 points ago +3 / -0

A wild based tranny appears?!

There's nothing based about it. Read this part again:

How can we have any confidence that such a bylaw will be enforced uniformly and without inequitable prejudice

He's worried that he'll get nailed for perving on women. There's nothing principled about his stance. He's just a troon doing what troons do.

FuckGenderPolitics 3 points ago +3 / -0

This comment made me realize that there's a sexual component to women's insistence on importing large numbers of male criminals. Ladies love a bad boy after all.

FuckGenderPolitics 8 points ago +8 / -0

I'm not against pranks like this, but the pRedditors have us completely outclassed in terms of perversion. We're never going to one up a faggot who sees forced feminization as something to do on a lazy Tuesday afternoon in lieu of something more adventurous.

FuckGenderPolitics 12 points ago +12 / -0

I remember when I took a Western religion class and one of the extra credit assignments was attending an event about gender and religion hosted by the gender studies department. Considering what we were discussing in class I get why he assigned it. The thing is that he was classical liberal in his late 50s who had no idea how bad the loony departments are. Like I'd bring it up in class and he'd believe me, but I don't think it ever really sank in. He was a great dude but I think it was beyond his imagination that people on "his side" are so opposed to honest intellectual inquiry.

FuckGenderPolitics 8 points ago +9 / -1

There's no way that faggot is going to honestly discuss female hypergamy or Tinder's role in enabling it like Better Bachelor does. That's why decent recommendation algorithms take the user and the channel itself into account rather than just the content of the video being watched. Of course in this instance they did take the channels into account, but for malicious reasons. I doubt the simps watching that clown get Better Bachelor recommended to them.

FuckGenderPolitics 8 points ago +8 / -0

There are some pretty based responses, but I did see the editors note accusing "incel communities" of raiding their backwater shithole.

FuckGenderPolitics 5 points ago +5 / -0

I've seen him posted in those spaces, so he's close enough even if he doesn't technically count. He certainly fits the pattern of being a lead poisoned Chinese knockoff version of the Manosphere.

FuckGenderPolitics 15 points ago +15 / -0

Fair point, but this topic has gotten more attention in the the last couple weeks than in the last couple years. This shit seems come in phases. Remember last year when the big thing became pretending to give a fuck about lonely men because Andrew Tate became the boogeyman of the day?

FuckGenderPolitics 44 points ago +44 / -0

It seems that shaming men who don't want to date whores with 3 or 4 digit body counts is the next feminist push. They must be having trouble finding chumps to play house when they lose their game of musical dicks.

FuckGenderPolitics 12 points ago +12 / -0

Women are addicted to drama. It's like a drug to them. I've seen exceptions to most "rules" about women, but I haven't met a single one that isn't a drama junkie. It's tedious as fuck, but I did find out that my department is full of degenerates that way. I suspect a lot of the antisocial shit they do is about getting their drama fix rather than anything deeper.

It does go some way to explaining why men's relationships tend to be pretty drama free for the most part or if they do have a problem they 'settle it like men'. Women could learn a lot from men when it comes to how they deal with disputes and friendships, but of course they've bought into the 'women are more emotionally intelligent' narrative which is just unsubtle code for we're the superior gender.

One thing I've noticed is that women always assume the worst of each other socially. I've had women shit talk other women to me, and it's usually over something that probably has an innocent explanation but they jump to the worst possible interpretation of what happened. Men on the other hand are more direct. If we have a question we'll ask, and if we want something done differently next time we'll say so. Not even in a dickish way, just in a way that makes it clear what we expect. That clears up misunderstandings and allows adjustments to be made before things have a chance to fester and turn into resentments. That's why the catty rivalries that are so prevalent in women are basically nonexistent in men (except the homos who act like women). 99% of those rivalries started over something stupid and non-malicious.

FuckGenderPolitics 3 points ago +3 / -0

even the okay ones do it to a degree and it's clear when you make it into their in-group you're part of a hierarchy and if you can't 'behave yourself' they will start having a fight with you

I dealt with that when I was younger. Never again. It's particularly grating when they have shitty friends that hate you but you're expected to be the house nigger who never crosses them. My refusal to do that spelled the end of that "friendship". I know one woman who doesn't do the social hierarchy shit (at least with me), and I wouldn't put up with it if she did.

FuckGenderPolitics 19 points ago +19 / -0

A decade ago Target's AP was known for being very aggressive in detaining shoplifters. Did they give up when the cops refused to do anything about the dindus they caught?

FuckGenderPolitics 9 points ago +9 / -0

It sounds like the former from the wording. I also wonder if they're going all the way to 1964 for Boomers. The younger portion of that generation a) is still working and b) made use of computers 20 years ago depending on the field they worked in. There are people in their 60s who are at least functional with a computer.

FuckGenderPolitics 30 points ago +30 / -0

I don't think anyone born past the early to mid 90's seriously struggled with any kind of tech, so they can't troubleshoot. I feel like an old man preferring PCs to mobile crap, but at least I'm able to figure shit out if either malfunctions. I just don't understand how anyone can prefer a mobile interface over a good old point and click GUI. Mobile is fine when I don't have access to my laptop, but the laptop is far more useful.

FuckGenderPolitics 19 points ago +19 / -0

So apparently this is what passes for "national conversation". A bunch of maladjusted leftards (you know they're leftards if they're participating in this crap) using words they learned in therapy to try to control each other and avoid handling basic social situations like adults.

With the TikTok-ification of therapy, some believe therapy-speak has backfired to the point where people are deploying this sensitive language in meaningless or manipulative ways.

No fucking shit. Did you think these clowns were serious about self improvement?

"People should focus on what is within their control to do or change instead of putting it on other people," she said.

Why would they do that? The reason these freaks are in therapy in the first place is so they can lord it over everyone else and talk down to them. They're shit bags who don't plan on changing.

FuckGenderPolitics 4 points ago +4 / -0

That's fair, and his people committed malpractice if they didn't walk him through these implications.

That's important, because its the very reasoning why prenups often get thrown out. Because the man has "more power" to maneuver the contract to his benefit, and the very act of being asked to sign one puts it "under duress" (which nobody comedians are likely under a lot of duress given if they don't sign they don't get a career).

I know you probably agree with me, so this is just me discussing things rather than contradicting you. The problem with this logic is that it makes it impossible for a contract to accomplish its intended purpose, because it become void the minute it does. That makes the contract worthless under all circumstances. A civil court would probably agree with me in Chappelle's case, and a family court would absolutely disagree with me in the case of a prenup. Family court bias being what it is, they count a refusal to marry in the absence of a prenup coercion that justifies throwing it out, which means it necessarily can't offer protection. I know I'm never going to put myself in a position where my future depends on a family court ruling against a woman.

FuckGenderPolitics 16 points ago +16 / -0

What's really ridiculous is that he's equating instances where he was scammed and stolen from (assuming that actually happened) to a contract he willingly if reluctantly signed. I get that he had reservations about it but it sounds like they told him to take or leave it, and he signed up for the consequences when made his decision. It's also dishonest to say he didn't get paid. He did get paid as agreed, otherwise he would have had cause to sue. It was just a one off payment and didn't include syndication rights. It also kickstarted his career, so he should just write that off as an investment that paid off handsomely.

FuckGenderPolitics 21 points ago +21 / -0

In other words the higher you are on the woke pecking order the more this should be aimed at you.

FuckGenderPolitics 12 points ago +13 / -1

I don't see this resulting in the outcome that the inspins pushing this are hoping for. It will just make MGTOW an even bigger thing among men, especially the ones with the most to lose. They're not going to become some carousel rider's retirement plan just because some bitter hags eliminated their younger competition.

FuckGenderPolitics 7 points ago +11 / -4

Making age gap relationships illegal is retarded and probably unconstitutional, but Rollo's advice to date younger women amounts to betabuxing for anyone who who wasn't already slaying when they were in their early 20s. The only upsides are that the woman allowing him to starfish her is still in her prime and less likely to have bastard kids that she needs him to foot the bill for. Rollo frustrates me because he's an expert on female nature but insists on giving men horrible advice that will lead to divorce rape.

FuckGenderPolitics 17 points ago +17 / -0

There's no reason to believe that they would be any more serious about enforcing this law on women than the laws that they're already breaking when they do that.

view more: Next ›