The feminist talking point that "men aren't allowed to feel any emotion" (due to "toxic masculinity") is a favourite example of mine to demonstrates that feminists don't understand men or masculinity at all.
Letter to Mary Clarke Mohl (13 Dec 1861), published in Florence Nightingale on Women, Medicine, Midwifery and Prostitution: Collected Works of Florence Nightingale (2005), Volume 8, edited by Lynn McDonald, p. 84
While Imp's views are extreme, he does have a point - a lot of problems in society are due to simps and cucks who can't say 'no' to women because they worship women. The view you're promoting is not effectively any different - "we can't say 'no' to women because that will mean there are no more babies!".
The reality, of course, is that women, in general, have at least as much of a drive to have babies as men do. Men need to be willing to stand up and say 'no' when the deal is bad, because that's the only way to make women offer a different deal. Yet your view promotes the opposite, all the while we have articles like the OP telling women that "they don't need to have children or get married". What this leads to is (1) women being willing to say 'no' to men (even if they would be better off not saying 'no') (2) men not being willing to say 'no' to women (even if they would be better off saying 'no') and (3) a shit show when men are treated terribly, women are treated like angels, and society collapses because all the children are raised in broken families.
You're living in a dream land if you think that simply having "strong family values" is enough to keep most boys on the straight and narrow. Unless you live off grid with no access to the internet (which you obviously don't), it's quite like that you'll find many young men become corrupted by the oldest trick in the book - female sexuality - which is on being blasted at full volume at every corner on the internet and wider society. All it takes is one attractive young woman with "liberal" values to use her pussy to brainwash these young men into opposing you and all you've achieved is made new "warriors" for those you oppose. The fight to change society won't be won by those whose only contribution is popping out children, but rather those with the moral fortitude, courage and willingness to sacrifice everything to say no and draw a clear line in the sand.
You raise a good point. It's a ridiculous that someone could be "very close" to having evidence but it is very revealing about how these people think. These people already know the answers to everything, it's just a matter of filling in the blanks to get there. They know that Trump is going to be indicted because "Trump is bad". They know that "vaccines" are "safe and effective" so they don't need any actual evidence of this, and when the evidence starts pointing the other way, then the narrative goes from "prevents transmission" to "stops you dying" to "gets you sick faster so that you don't spread it as quickly".
Assuming the article is accurate, this shows how ridiculous the notion that a tribe/community only needs a few men to survive because the women are the reproductive bottleneck (this notion is used by many including many non-feminist men to justify male disposability and justify gynocentrism). Such a tribe gets wiped out by a tribe with more men. Reproduction is far from the only matter of importance when it comes to human communities. In almost any matter apart from reproduction, men are more valuable than women, so when it comes to survival in competition with other communities, a tribe allowing their men to mostly die out is a disaster that usually leads to extinction.
Everyone on that insurance plan should expect their premiums to go up because Walmart sure as shit won't pay the extra costs.
Sounds a bit like a socialist health care system. I thought other countries had that and the US didn't?
Haven't read the article and don't plan to but from the headline I've got this to say - this is a shit test, pure and simple.
Committing suicide because other people are destroying something of value to you has to be the stupidest response ever. I know it's just a figure of speech but even as a figure of speech it probably leads to submission and surrender to these people at a subconscious level, rather than finding ways to fight them.
Seriously he didn't say anything about her being a female. What garbage to call it misogyny. That word means as much as racist now.
Always has. I'd say "misogyny", or at least cries of "sexism/sexist", predate the widespread use of the "racism/racist" to attack opponents. In fact, I think the root of the use of these attacks come from manipulative feminine behaviour, where emotional manipulation is used against opponents; this was first popularised by feminists though their cries of men being all sexist, way before being "racist" was consider a such a big issue..
Nope, it would have been faster to look up whether English was an official language of the Phillipines than post that comment. Expecting people to spend 3 seconds to inform themselves before posting dumb comments is a rather low bar.
You also demonstrate your rather limited imagination by assuming everyone not from the US must be from Europe.
Because English is an official language of the Philippines. You are a good demonstration of why Americans have a reputation for being clueless about anything outside the USA.
You are assuming a static virus-host interaction. It's not a static system, it's dynamic. The virus is evolving to escape vaccine-induced immunity because that immunity is narrow and very similar across all vaccinated individuals. Newer variants are better at infecting and reinfecting vaccinated individuals. These individuals are poorly able to improve their immunity due to immune imprinting/OAS.
It's not truthful though. The sanctions were always being directed against their own citizens, not Russia. This is part of the propaganda by pretending the sanctions "failed" when they actually achieved exactly what they were intended to do.
By December 2021, the negative efficacy signal was already clearly present in the data so that doesn't mean you are particularly clever. Various people have been warning about the possibility of vaccine-enhanced immunity since these injections first came out in 2020/early 2021.
With 95% match, I wonder what else you've been watching...
The majority of no ethnic group owned slaves, and I've never seen a claim otherwise.
Not explicitly, no, but plenty of people imply that slavery of black people in the US rests entirely with white people and all white people at that. Yet, as you've pointed out, the majority of white people in the US would not have been rich enough to ever own slaves (plus plenty of white people in the US would have had ancestors that arrived in the US after slavery was abolished). Instead, it is likely that the upper class of white people from generationally wealthy families who are the ones who have historic ties to slavery.
Here you can see why the ruling elite love pushing the slavery message on to white people as a whole - it distracts from the actual reality that it is their inherited wealth that was accrued in part due to slavery. If anyone was to pay "repatriations", it should be these people, not white people as a whole. What they are pushing has some resemblance to "privatise the profits, socialise the losses".
Do NPCs dream of NP sheep?
You've basically defined MAD out of existence. Basically, you've stated that because no party actually wants destruction, nuclear weapons will never be used, and thus the different parties can freely attack each other with conventional weapons without MAD ever being an issue. As the Cold War showed, however, that isn't how MAD works. Instead, MAD means that neither party will ever risk a direct confrontation because the consequences of even a small conflict could lead to MAD, and no one wants to take that risk.
And it will happen.
Of course it will happen. This is by design, not coincidence. Women know that to be believed without question when it comes to these allegations that it will give them a huge amount of power. They want this power, because they know it won't really backfire directly on themselves - their own allegations against men will be take seriously, whereas allegations against themselves (women) by men won't be taken seriously.
Social power - this is the arena that one area women absolutely excel at gaining and using. Yet men continuously underestimate this - they think women are generally innocent angels that are too stupid to understand the social consequences of the policies they are advocating for. Of course they know.
No. "Someone with XX chromosomes" is a stupid definition of a woman. Unless there are abnormalities present, no one does a chromosome test to check if someone is male or female. The distinction between male and female humans is obvious just by examining them.
Why the fuck make things more complicated than they need to be? A woman is an adult female human. The distinction between male and female in humans is obvious from a physical examination so adding extraneous details about chromosomes is just complicating things unnecessarily. I suppose it's a good way to pretend "I'm so clever I know about chromosomes" or something of that vein though.
Some intersex people have androgen insensitivity syndrome (XY but have female genitalia). Trying to make edge cases fit perfectly into the male/female binary is futile - they're rare exceptions to the rule and simply aren't going to fit.
Women do need to shit test men.
No they don't. They might need to test men. But they don't need to shit test men. A shit test is basically testing if a man will refuse to be emotionally manipulated by her. While men should be resistant to emotional manipulation, they shouldn't have to tolerate their wives constantly trying to emotionally manipulate them as a test of "manliness".
The rest of your comment is gynocentric tradcon "poor milady" trash. Both men and women need to have standards of behaviour. Yet, the tradcon view is that it's all on the man to act like an adult, while the woman can do whatever she wants and the man just needs to put up with it. Of course, traditional societies did actually have standards of behaviour expected of women, yet talking about these is taboo in the gynocentric thinking being pushed by both feminists and "traditionalists" (the only such standard so-called "traditionalists" seem to care about is sexual propriety, yet that was only one of many expected standards of behaviour of women).
As I said, things will only get better when men stand up and are willing to say "no" to crappy women.
What you've said is true, BUT the larger issue at hand, which is implied (badly) by the meme is that anything women say they "want from a man" these days is effectively a shit test, even if they don't even know the they are doing it.
Female culture is largely based on some kind of weird collective where women say (and probably believe) what is "popular" in that culture. While in the past that culture may have been calibrated to what women actually want and need (a reliable man with masculine qualities), these days, it's popular for women to say how they want a "sensitive man" or some such trash, yet of course they actually want and need no such thing. This has something to do with the rise of feminism and the feminisation of society, which promotes crappy feminine values like vulnerability and being emotional as "good" qualities, at the expense of useful masculine values like stoicism (which feminists completely misunderstand as a denial of emotion, but that's a separate issue).
Of course, the reality is no one really needs these feminine values, at least not expressed to do level they currently are in society. Expressing vulnerability is perhaps useful for building trust between people (if someone doesn't take advantage of you when you are vulnerable, then they are more likely to be trustworthy). Emotions can be useful heuristics, but it is much better if they are used to guide behaviour; they certainly shouldn't be used to govern behaviour completely.
This means that high maintenance women, which express these qualities to a high degree, are also a problem for men and society. But men put up with women expressing these values since they want sex, and the pussy cartel gets to set the price of that. In fact, men could do the world a favour by not just being masculine themselves, but by insisting that that women stop being so emotional. Here, I'm not suggesting that women (on average) will be less emotional than men (on average), but rather that just because women tend to be emotional doesn't mean that men should tolerate all and any emotional displays from women, or allow women to use emotional manipulation to get their way. It's time to hold women to a higher standard. And the only real way of doing this is being willing to say "no" to a bad deal from women.
Absolutely bullshit. All definitions of "diseases" I've seen require only a departure from normal physiological functioning of an organism, i.e. a pathological state. They do not require transmissibility. Cancer is considered a disease. Go ahead, look it up.
This comment highlights how you little you know about what you're talking about. It's the same with many other topics. Yet, rather than try to learn, you phrase all your arguments about as if you "know better" than everyone else, usually based on zero to actually back them up. You remind me very much of a left-wing activist.