Atheism is the lack of belief in a God or gods. That's all it is. There is only one logically sound reason to be an atheist, and that is that you don't believe there's enough eveidence to convince you that God exists. Most atheists, as much as they'll tell you they are motivated by rationalism, aren't. That doesn't mean they're not atheists. It just makes them stupid.
Yandex is better anyway.
This is the real problem with the old 2000s "atheist" or "skeptic" crowd. Very few of them are actually committed to the principles of empiricism or rationalism as they claim to be. Their atheism is intellectually bankrupt and hypocritical from the start because it's motivated by emotion: usually resentment.
Whether JSG resents Christians because of the Biblical stance on homosexuality, or whether he's just holding on to some adolescent resentment towards his parents and attacking Christianity because he felt alienated by his own Christian upbringing, none of these are good reasons to call yourself an atheist, and that basis undermines literally all of his arguments.
He therefore can't form a coherent thought when he's debating with religious people on this or any other issue, especially not with Christians, even though Christianity probably has the softest approach to homosexuality out of any major modern religion.
Saying you don't support the anti-groomer bill just because Christians do support is is like saying you don't believe in God because you don't like what people have done in His name, or like saying you don't believe in physics because of nuclear weapons. It doesn't make any sense, and the more you point that out, the angrier he'll get.
It's not going to happen.
If they get enough people to agree with their revised definition of "standard conservative," they will succeed in casting a whole raft of actual conservative positions as being unacceptable in mainstream discourse.
This individual may be unaware, but the people behind them know exactly what they're doing. If they have their way, Mitt Romney will be the benchmark for how right wing it's acceptable to be.
Are you using yandex.com or yandex.ru? Because I've never had that problem on the English-language site.
Just ask her.
Oh wait, they did.
If men are going to be asked to go off and die for their country, they should have a say in who governs it. Only those who might be drafted should have the right to vote.
I don't actually find yandex that bad. Although for anything even remotely political, even bing is better than Google at this point.
Is it possible that even the Chinese have their limits?
I have no real interest in seeing wahmen back in the kitchen. All I can say is that, over all the decades I've lived, I've been endlessly told that perceiving women as weaker than me, or as being somehow in need of my protection, makes me a misogynist and a bad person.
Now here you are telling me that expecting women to fight their own battles against the big bad trannies who want into their bathrooms makes me a bad person.
Seems to me this is a game I can't win. Perhaps I was right from the start, and the best option is to choose not to play.
Yeah, people believed that about TruthSocial too.
You certainly are conferring a great many motivations onto me that I never expressed nor possessed. Is that possibly because you can't defend your own position, or don't remember what position you're supposed to be defending, and so can't do anything but attack? You're arguing with a strawman, not actually addressing anything that I've said.
The trans phenomenon is a direct result of women's unfettered sense of entitlement, and the vile rhetoric that is directed against men from all corners, for all of the reasons I explained above. Once again, the social contract that you appear to be holding up as an alternative to what you term "liberalism" no longer exists. Women are no longer entitled to men's protection in any societal sense. What have they done to earn it? If you want to flaunt your desire to protect them anyway, feel free, but trying to characterize it as somehow virtuous or as some sort of overarching responsibility is dishonest. What motivates you to take that position is your desire for women to like you. There's not even necessarily anything wrong with that, but I don't share that desire, and I'm not going to be shamed into taking part in this battle by your insistence that I'm somehow morally deficient for refusing to do so.
You were the one who chose to characterize my worldview as nihilistic. All I said was that I tend to focus more on the causes of problems rather than solutions, largely because I don't see any solutions that don't involve societal collapse. I never said I didn't care. I just have trouble finding hope.
As for the "tranny interpretation" as you put it, no. My outlook is informed more by evolutionary psychology than anything else. Someone with a y chromosome will never be a woman no matter how hard he tries. I just don't see why I should bother wasting any effort on defending the people who are responsible for creating that phenomenon from its inevitable consequences, especially when they will never thank you for it.
Who wouldn't feel at least some frustration as they watch the prosperous, successful society they grew up in collapse into atomized totalitarianism?
Owning more shit and trying to impress women with it wouldn't make me feel any happier or less frustrated, and neither would pathetically flaunting my desire to protect women from the big bad guys in dresses.
The single factor that plays the most significant part in making men miserable is women. In the past, it may have been worth the aggravation, but now, when you're almost certainly not going to get what you want out of it, it's not worth the risk or the frustration. It's possible to find fulfillment outside of chasing pussy, and it's easier.
Why do you bother talking to anyone about anything if you genuinely are this nihilistic?
For the same reason everyone else on this board is here: to express my frustration with the things that piss me off. If you think there's more to this place than just blowing off steam, then you're the one who's not being honest with yourself.
There is no utopian vision that will produce a permanently stable society
On this we agree.
Are you? Are the rest of the MGTOW types?
Yes. Many men can be perfectly happy coming home from work to a nearly empty house with a couch and a dog and some beer. Our lives don't actually need to be any more decadent than that.
I do my best not to advocate for anything. I'm not an accelerationist, but I am a pretty black-pilled sit-back-get-drunk-and-watch-the-world-burn type. I'm more inclined to try to understand the cause of what I see as societal problems, not to propose solutions to them.
There's no doubt in my mind that the traditional social contract between the sexes worked better than what we have now, but I also see no realistic prospect of it returning, at least not this side of a full societal reset, accompanied by widespread violence as these things often are. Even then, it would eventually be subverted and undermined again because of the fundamental biological impulses that drive both genders: women are biologically programmed to want more than they have, and men are biologically programmed to bend over backwards to try and give women what they want. In a post-scarcity society, that will only end one way.
As for the trans phenomenon, the both the MtF side and the FtM side are motivated by the same radical feminist politics. Women in general are never satisfied by the material opulence that modern society provides them, and feminism teaches them to blame men and resent men for their own unhappiness. The perception that men benefit from some unearned privilege that women don't have motivates some women to want to become men, and as I said above, the endless denigration and vitriol that men are subjected to motivates some men to seek to escape their own gender.
Nobody thinks TERFs are our friends.
I disagree. There has been entirely too much simping in nominally right-wing spaces on this issue. Not just with regard to TERFs, but regarding women in general, and a bunch of tradcuck white knights circlejerking about the need to protect real women from men who think they are women.
Feminists may have been the first to demolish the old social contract that entitled women to men's protection, but that doesn't change the fact that it was broken, and women of every sociopolitical stripe took advantage of it, demanding all of their female privileges while refusing to live up to their traditional responsibilities.
The trans phenomenon is a direct result of the hatred and vitriol, contempt, malice and callousness that are directed at men in our society by women in general, not just feminists: a phenomenon that has become so commonplace that men all over the place have grown to hate themselves so much just for being men that they're desperately trying to become women.
This isn't just a "let them fight" scenario. It's time for men everywhere, especially on the right, to stop standing up for and defending people who hate us.
It looks like there are serious efforts under way to primary Romney and Murkowski, so hopefully we won't need to deal with them for too much longer.
To an extent, yes, but formats like this one, which actually allow for long-form discussion when it's warranted, at least mitigate the worst excesses of Twitter.
Afghan opium isn't going anywhere. The Taliban themselves are the biggest money-maker off of the opium trade. This is just them trying to assume control and prevent anyone else from having a stake.
LePen is a leftist on every issue except immigration. She supports a large welfare state, she's openly feminist, and she's a leftist on most other social issues.
Gee, what could have happened over the past few years that could be making 8-year-olds this anxious?