Five minutes of hate news

[Bigking321]

One is a YT video and thus worthless.

That's a rather bizarre point of view. Why on earth would you think that?

 

[SoliFortissimi]

Your point?

Already pointed out that a bunch of studies about domestic violence have nothing to do with negative consequences of feminism.

 

[LordsFire]

Already pointed out that a bunch of studies about domestic violence have nothing to do with negative consequences of feminism.

And this is the third or fourth time you've ignored the main thrust of an argument to focus on peripheral elements.

I'm not as out of patience with you as Skitzy is, but the burden at this point is very much on you to prove that you're interested in an actual debate, rather than wasting other people's time.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

And this is the third or fourth time you've ignored the main thrust of an argument to focus on peripheral elements.

WHAT is the main thrust? Could anyone here actually talk to me straight? I've already shown I'm more than willing to accept your points if they have merit.

 

[MarkWarrior]

WHAT is the main thrust? Could anyone here actually talk to me straight? I've already shown I'm more than willing to accept your points if they have merit.

It's clear here that the main thrust is that Feminism is destroying the lives of everyone it touches. It's obvious to even a lurker like me that that's the point that they're trying to make. Everything I've read (From both your posts and the others in this) looks like you're sidestepping and attempting to shift the topic.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

..and that's it. I'm out of this.

 

[LordsFire]

WHAT is the main thrust? Could anyone here actually talk to me straight? I've already shown I'm more than willing to accept your points if they have merit.

The main thrust has been explained directly to you multiple times. If I wasn't well-versed in psychology, I'd conclude that you were being deliberately obtuse.

I'm not ruling it out, but I'm also considering the possibility that you have an ideological or emotional blindspot that is making you subconsciously obtuse.

Either way, if you want to know, just review the thread discussion. It's all there.

 

[mrttao]

Yeah, and this post has ten.

Your point?

he is a troll, just block him

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Already pointed out that a bunch of studies about domestic violence have nothing to do with negative consequences of feminism.

Lmao okay dude - never mind that every single time a mom drives one of her offspring to suicide its covered up or the fact that children are routinely awarded in custody battles to abusive women or the fact nearly every serial killer, tranny, school shooter and corner drug dealer were raised by single moms.

 

[Terthna]

I honestly suspect the dude's either a Rino (or may God forgive me; a neocon.) Or a shitty attempt at a psyop on the board by an SV leftoid who thinks he can dupe us to shifting our views by appearing as the "reasonable conservative"

Which is just, lol.

I'm pretty sure they're attempting to concern troll, but I'm starting to think there is a small chance that they're actually being legitimate about recently converting to conservatism; but even then, I expect the constant and overwhelming pushback they're getting for their refusal to let go of most of their regressive leftist beliefs, will quickly lead to them abandoning their newly-adopted identity as a conservative.

 

[Ixian]

Feminism is a misandrist cancer and the sooner it dies as an ideology the better the world will be.

 

[mrttao]

 

[Poe]

The main thrust has been explained directly to you multiple times. If I wasn't well-versed in psychology, I'd conclude that you were being deliberately obtuse.

I'm not ruling it out, but I'm also considering the possibility that you have an ideological or emotional blindspot that is making you subconsciously obtuse.

Either way, if you want to know, just review the thread discussion. It's all there.

Lmao okay dude - never mind that every single time a mom drives one of her offspring to suicide its covered up or the fact that children are routinely awarded in custody battles to abusive women or the fact nearly every serial killer, tranny, school shooter and corner drug dealer were raised by single moms.

Why do you guys keep feeding this obvious troll

 

[Captain X]

Turns out GM gathers telemetry on the vehicles they sell and then sell that information to third parties, like insurance companies.

 

[TheRejectionist]

So they waste time to find nothing.

 

[Bassoe]

How?

Under our current sociopolitical system we aren’t reproducing at population-sustaining rates. This fact cannot be denied, but every faction has their own ideas for solutions.

• The capitalists don’t care, they can just import foreigners to replace the babies we aren’t having.
• The socialists see it as a self-correcting problem, as the reserve army of labor shrinks, wages and working conditions must rise to compensate, eventually returning to the fifties status quo where a single breadwinner could sustain a family. Not accounting for the capitalists’ foreign scabs and the singularitarians’ robots anyway.
• The reactionaries want to remove women’s rights to employment and welfare programs ensuring they’re economically dependent upon men and have no choice but to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen making their husbands sandwiches, while cutting the reserve army of labor by fifty percent so said men can afford to sustain their new tradwives and children.
• The singularitarians think they’ll have automated substitutes up and running fast enough to replace the nonexistent future generations of workers.

 

[Doomsought]

The reactionaries want to remove women’s rights to employment and welfare programs ensuring they’re economically dependent upon men and have no choice but to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen making their husbands sandwiches, while cutting the reserve army of labor by fifty percent so said men can afford to sustain their new tradwives and children.

I'm very tempted to supporting women being banned from working more than 20 hours per week prior to menopause. For most of history, women worked the equivalent of part time jobs rather than not working at all. At least outside of nobility.

 

[Typhonis]

I'm very tempted to supporting women being banned from working more than 20 hours per week prior to menopause. For most of history, women worked the equivalent of part time jobs rather than not working at all. At least outside of nobility.

Depends on the nobility and where they were. Making clothes, running the household and ensuring things were going well. She was also her husband's confidant and had to ensure the guests were treated well.She would also tend to the sick and wounded. Needlepoint was not just for clothing but for stitches.

 

[Cherico]

Under our current sociopolitical system we aren’t reproducing at population-sustaining rates. This fact cannot be denied, but every faction has their own ideas for solutions.

• The capitalists don’t care, they can just import foreigners to replace the babies we aren’t having.
• The socialists see it as a self-correcting problem, as the reserve army of labor shrinks, wages and working conditions must rise to compensate, eventually returning to the fifties status quo where a single breadwinner could sustain a family. Not accounting for the capitalists’ foreign scabs and the singularitarians’ robots anyway.
• The reactionaries want to remove women’s rights to employment and welfare programs ensuring they’re economically dependent upon men and have no choice but to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen making their husbands sandwiches, while cutting the reserve army of labor by fifty percent so said men can afford to sustain their new tradwives and children.
• The singularitarians think they’ll have automated substitutes up and running fast enough to replace the nonexistent future generations of workers.

well lets look at thing.

1. this is a global problem, its hitting east asia, Latin america, and the third world its even started to affect the middle east and africa. Importing ever more people is not a good long term solution.

2. To some degree your correct and in the long term this could correct itself but holy shit thats going to be a painful ass process.

3.This would work it wouldn't be fun and it would be ugly but it would most defiantly work and with whole generations of disafected men who have every reason to rebel and burn shit to the ground eventually some one is going to propose this deal and get that instant army. They have a good chance of winning and becoming the new emperor of the west.

4. I very much doubt this is going to work out, technology has a way of being incredibly disapointing and having trade offs you dont see and then you have a break down of globalization affecting the very most high end of the chips, investment money vanishing because older people are takiing their money out of the system and the fact that the tech companies have allied with a very dispised establishment.

 

[LordsFire]

• The reactionaries want to remove women’s rights to employment and welfare programs ensuring they’re economically dependent upon men and have no choice but to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen making their husbands sandwiches, while cutting the reserve army of labor by fifty percent so said men can afford to sustain their new tradwives and children.

Women are, by and large, still economically dependent on men, they just have the government acting as intermediary to seize the money for them.

...Don't mistake this for me supporting the reactionary position, especially your description of it.