CS 317 Shades of Grey

[Speaker to Animals]

They were never reasonable. Karen Straun did a few videos where she goes into detail about how fucked up these kinds of women were going all the way back.

They wanted to be treated as if they are equals to men without any of the corresponding obligations and accountability. They always demand men sacrifice and give them shit by virtue of possessing vaginas.

The bullshit we saw with Hillary taking zero responsibility for her many failures and then blaming "misogyny" for people even mentioning or considering her failures is par for course. Feminists even invented a term for blaming men for their failures: glass cliff. Look that shit up for a laugh.

[Zero]

Could be manipulated by an outside agent as well. I know Storm Front has been doing this to google for years with some funny results.

So either way, we’re being manipulated, but now because of the scale and reach of the Internet, it’s manipulation that is global and anonymous.


Due to the source, it’s unironically slanted and places an inordinate burden on the right and conservative news outlets, but the underlying point stands.

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy having to do with how we know things and what it means for something to be true or false, accurate or inaccurate. (Episteme, or ἐπιστήμη, is ancient Greek for knowledge/science/understanding.)

The US is experiencing a deep epistemic breach, a split not just in what we value or want, but in who we trust, how we come to know things, and what we believe we know — what we believe exists, is true, has happened and is happening.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... mic-crisis

So, is there a ‘purple pill’ variety of news and information so that we can at least have a common set of facts with which to base decisions off of without destroying the aspirational veneer of the American Dream? Just give me some truth, some options and a desire to see as many people succeed at life as possible when given the opportunity to work at it on as level a playing field as possible.

For example, why is it so hard just to have a honest evaluation of American inventors that contributed to the advancement of society in some way without tilting to absurdity that ultimately distracts from their real contribution.



****Disclaimer- I know this is likely training wheels stuff for y’all.

[Ex-California]

They were never reasonable. Karen Straun did a few videos where she goes into detail about how fucked up these kinds of women were going all the way back.

They wanted to be treated as if they are equals to men without any of the corresponding obligations and accountability. They always demand men sacrifice and give them shit by virtue of possessing vaginas.

The bullshit we saw with Hillary taking zero responsibility for her many failures and then blaming "misogyny" for people even mentioning or considering her failures is par for course. Feminists even invented a term for blaming men for their failures: glass cliff. Look that shit up for a laugh.

Animal Farm

[Zero]

They were never reasonable. Karen Straun did a few videos where she goes into detail about how fucked up these kinds of women were going all the way back.

What’s unreasonable about half the population seeking the same political and societal liberation that was at the heart of the Revolution?

From History.com - “[Abigail Adams] wrote in part, “I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.”

Again, I don’t dispute that things have gone off the rails and that modern feminism has collapsed under its own weight to a large extent and that liberation and equity has been largely replaced by them with a seemingly perpetual sense of victim hood, which is then exploited.

Further, to my original point,

Do you draw a distinction between a recognition and desire to address historical inequities versus rabid SJW types?

[Speaker to Animals]

They were never reasonable. Karen Straun did a few videos where she goes into detail about how fucked up these kinds of women were going all the way back.

What’s unreasonable about half the population seeking the same political and societal liberation that was at the heart of the Revolution?

From History.com - “[Abigail Adams] wrote in part, “I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.”

Again, I don’t dispute that things have gone off the rails and that modern feminism has collapsed under its own weight to a large extent and that liberation and equity has been largely replaced by them with a seemingly perpetual sense of victim hood, which is then exploited.

Further, to my original point,

Do you draw a distinction between a recognition and desire to address historical inequities versus rabid SJW types?

Did I stutter? They were never reasonable people.

First of all, the woman's rights movement was not feminism. Feminism is a cultural marxist ideology that arose in the 1960s. Feminists recast the women's rights movement as "first wave feminism" to lend themselves credibility and try to make the marxist pill easier for people to swallow.

Secondly, the woman's right movement was almost as fucked up as feminism. They were NEVER fighting for "the same political and societal liberation that was at the heart of the Revolution". Dude, listen to what people are telling you. These women wanted the right to vote, but not the obligation to serve. They wanted custody of children in divorces, but not the financial responsibility for those children. While these women weren't rioting and attacking people on the streets for rights with no obligations, they were busy shaming young men to go die in WW1 with a white feather campaign when those young men also had zero enfranchisement.


Listen to this speech by Emmeline Pankhurst extolling men to go sacrifice their lives in a useless war for the sake of her privileges:




These are not people who want equality at all. It's a sham and always was.

[SuburbanFarmer]

You’ll find that female soldiers have regularly agitated for the “right” to serve in combat roles. Wrong or right, they do want to serve.

[StCapps]

These are not people who want equality at all. It's a sham and always was.

[StCapps]

You’ll find that female soldiers have regularly agitated for the “right” to serve in combat roles. Wrong or right, they do want to serve.

The dykes might want to serve, most straight chicks, not so much. The ones who do want to serve aren't doing a great job convincing the one's who don't that it's a good idea.

[heydaralon]

This might sound sexist, but some women need to lose some weight. Not all, but some of them definitely do. I don't know if this the right thread for me to post this in.

[Speaker to Animals]

You’ll find that female soldiers have regularly agitated for the “right” to serve in combat roles. Wrong or right, they do want to serve.

You realize there are not many of them, right? And that most women say FUCK NO to having to sign up for the draft??

In the United States, the right to vote was tied to the obligation to serve when men challenged the draft. Then women came along and demanded the right to vote without the obligation to serve, and they got it. In the 19th century, if a marriage was legally dissolved, the man got the children because he was financially responsible for them (and probably his ex-wife to boot). Suffragettes wanted custody of children but they wanted men to remain financially responsible instead of them, and they got it.

There was never any hint of "gender equality" in this movement. It's a sham. That doesn't mean people who actually want gender equality are hucksters either. Usually, if you advocate for gender equality you will get labeled a "misogynist" for whatever that's worth anymore.