Prominent gay rights activist Milo Yiannopolis was unverified by Twitter last night without reason
Should we protest Twitter due to their censorship and homophobic acts towards Milo?
>I don't really understand the significance of being unverified though.
Ironic how the biggest advocate for press censorship gets hoisted by his own petard.
If he's demanded the state muzzle journalists who offend him, then who are we to judge what a private company does with its private property.
Capitalism, free markets and all, you know.
I really liked that guy until I heard him shit talk atheism saying they're all thin skinned autists, sure I'm not much of an active atheist I really don't care about whether someone a Christian or not(unless it starts to fuck with scientific progress or freedom), I'm ok with Muslims but I find it to be a toxic ideology and i don't want it in Europe, it's against everything the west stands for!
He said there was a high correlation between atheism and autism, that might be so, there's also a high correlation between atheism and higher IQ and theism and lower IQ. Scientisits tend to be near the spectrum, on the gray area... anyways but when that faggot started saying atheist where like autist in that they didn't understand love and compassion and that they had to learn these feelings like a sociopath, that's when I lost all my respect for this guy. I myself have atypical autism and I'm pretty sure I have more love and empathy in me than most other normies, normies tend to be self righteous phonies.
tl;dr He's dead to me, fuck that faggot and his Catholic church loving ass.
Also, he's just a attention whore, he's just trying to get noticed and more and more famous, he says so himself. If anything he's a narcissist and an unbearable faggot.
What about you show a picture of the petition itself rather than the reaction of some organization to that said petition? I don't need to say that any media company is always obsessed with creating a narrative.
Milo is an idiot, but at least try being more impartial on the subject.
>I really liked that guy until I heard him shit talk atheism saying they're all thin skinned autists
Nice job proving his point.
You are *exactly* the kind of person he was mocking when he said that.
Oh, I know who he is all right. And I have plenty of reasons to hate him: he's blatantly sexist and racist, and shames people for living their lives the way they want, rather than conforming to his idea of "alpha". But I've never heard anything about him involving child pornography. And google isn't giving me any meaningful results on that.
Because i find him to be mean and nasty at times. He sounds like he's two faced.
Also, i'm mad that I'm being compared to a sociopath from the likes of him.
He just acts like an unbearable faggot, he says we are all just broken people(homosexuals).
I liked him from interviews I saw, but when I heard him on his own podcast I could just hear that this guy is a rotten individual.
Yeah but with his support of the whole "drop the T" campaign he's gone so far in the other direction that he's just as bad, if not worse, than the trannies. I mean, not supporting trannies is one thing, but associating yourself with a campaign that spreads blatant lies about trannies trying to "convert" homosexual kids just makes one look like some kind of paranoid nutjob.
>Just look at any given tranny thread on 4chan and you will see exactly this behavior.
No, if anything it's gays that are trying to convert trannies. Trannies don't say you have to transition because you're homosexual or gender non-conforming. They do say transitioning is a good idea if you have gender dysphoria. Claiming that people with gender dysphoria SHOULDN'T transition and instead just be gay or lesbian is in fact an attempt by LGB to convert trannies. Telling people that transition is an option that they can choose to take if that's what they think is what's right for them is not converting people. Telling people that transition is NOT an option and that being gay is their only choice IS converting people, however. It's no different than how religious fundamentalists treat gay kids. Telling people they can't be gay is equivalent to trying to convert them to be straight. Whereas telling people they can be straight, gay, bi, cis, trans etc, isn't converting, it's letting them choose for themselves. Trannies aren't forcing gay people to transition, they're saying that if someone currently identifies as gay and has feelings of gender dysphoria then transition may be something worth looking into.
Stop sinning then you faggot before you'll burn in hell for eternity, ya merry faggot! Half ass Christians are the worst.
Also, you're just feeble minded if you actually believe in any of this religious nonsense.
I bet you also believe in alternative medicine and energy fields.
Truth about what? He's just an attenstion whore that likes to bandwagon things like gamergate to further his convective views. Sure sjw's are the devil, but I'm not gonna team up with the likes of Bill oreilly or Bratbart.
I might be a faggot bitch but at least I'm not a mean spirited bitch like Milo.
Fuck him. He's an asshole who shit up /v/ with GamerGate idiocy and he's anti-trans as well.
Seriously, I couldn't give less of a fuck what happens to this literal asshole. Maybe he shouldn't have been a piece of shit, because I might have cared had he not.
This word has lost it's meaning, along with the word "bigot", thanks to PC gone mad and sjw's with mental problems and bright colored hair.
Nothing wrong with being banter racist, just for the banter and to piss of righteous liberal "official good persons" .
I wasn't the person who said he was, I merely criticized the use of "banter" to excuse actual hostile racism. I think calling Milo out for being anti-trans is a far more relevant criticism than saying he's racist.
Because it's discrimination on the basis of race, not on anything that actually matters? I mean, if race itself was relevant, like a part in a movie or a play that absolutely had to be someone of a certain race, that wouldn't really be racism. But if you think of people as inferior or dangerous or whatever simply because they're white/black/arab/asian etc, then that's racism.
If nobody here's noticed he's a narcissist who's more interested in his own public image than the issues he talks about you're all really bad judges of characters.
I'd always attributed the apparently shitty lovelives on the board to people with problems being louder than the others, but maybe there's an alternate explanation.
>If nobody here's noticed he's a narcissist
That's what i've been saying. Also he got raped as a kid. That type of trauma usually don't make people grow up to be nice people.
He claims he wasn't rape, but at that age(don't remember what it was) it's defenitly rape(or corruption of a minor) when a catholic preist sodomizes a little boy. Milo claims he wanted it... well all I'm saying is that yall should be wary of people that were raped or sexually abused as kids, because there's a change they might also turn into abusers(NOT ALL, IM NOT SAYING ALL OF COURSE).
Don't trust people with personality disorders, especially a charming narcissists.
If those statistics exist, then those statistics are relevant; race is not. Putting more police in black community *because* black people are more likely to commit crimes make sense. But just asserting "this community is full of blacks, it needs more police" without using statistics to explain the connection, is racist.
>I'll keep repeating these unverifiable claims until people accept them as objective fact!
Why? Just why? What do you hope to accomplish by doing this? I mean, I get that you hate the guy, but couldn't you just use actual verifiable facts about the guy to show everyone how terrible he is? I mean, you could easily find plenty of reasons to hate him just by going to his website, but instead you keep repeating this nonsense about child pornography? Or did he hire you to spread this rumor so he can play the victim later and claim people were trying to defame him or something?
My apologies for bumping this shit thread one last time. But I just wanted to state, for all who see it:
MODS = GODS
>let's just ignore the statistics and crime rate disparities in data comparing races!
Unless you showed some from non-american countries (or white countries with more than 10%) foreigners, your argument would be invalid.
Un-verification is just an attempt by Twitter to get him to play by their rules and not say things they dont like, but why protest it? Twitter arent going to do shit. If anything, he's going to post something else and theyre just going to ban him.
Anyway, he likes to pretend he's very rational and listens to evidence, but it isnt remotely true. He just looks at what confirms what he already believes.
For example, he's Catholic despite the only evidence of God being the scibblings of some Jews 2000 years ago a couple hundred years after the events they describe were meant to have happened.
And he's the same with trans people. Claims the trans suicide rate goes up after transition, which was true of people who started transition in the 70's and 80's but every study done since 2000 onwards has shown a dramatic drop off in the suicide rate.
Then he quotes the things we apparently "often see" along side transgenderism like 'narcissism' and he says thats somehow reason to not let them transition, despite the fact he's gay and the most narcissistic man on the planet. I doubt he'd agree with something along the lines of "gay men arent gay, theyre just narcissistically attracted to themselves and therefore male bodies, we shouldnt accept them or let them be together, have sex, adopt, or be married"
And he completely ignores the neurological studies that show trans people have regions of the brain more similar to the opposite sex. I'll admit some show differences, some dont, but the fact that any differences show up at all, should suggest there's something to it, but he literally never mentions those studies.
Too often he lumps SJWs in with real trans people. He's a big fan of that retarded "cant say you can be born the wrong gender and that gender is a social construct" thing that gets posted to this board every week. Individual SJWs only believe one or the other, even they dont believe both, its just the same group saying both
Essentially being verified is confirmation that the account is who it claims to be. It stops imitators, and lets people know that this is the official account of that person.
Removing verification is a really petty thing of them to do. They said he broke a rule (though they refuse to say which one), okay, sure, so warn him he's being bad, then ban him if he continues. Why take away verification? It doesnt allow him to do anything, it just confirms the account is him.
Its kind of a status thing, that youre famous enough to need verification. Milo's twitter get more views, likes, and re-tweets than major news corporations, he has hundreds of thousands of followers, there's no question he deserves to be verified, thats why its such a petty little bitch move to remove his verification for tweeting things people at Twitter dont agree with. The idea being, to make him be good, only tweet things Twitter wants him to tweet, and then they'll reward him with verification for being a good boy.
In a strange sort of way, I know we all hate tripfags, but its kinda like if a mod just removed some tripfags tripcode, so you didnt know if it was really them or not, instead of banning the fucker for breaking some rule
That petition is something I can get behind. Transwomen and transmen who don't want to be outed shouldn't have to be my local or, god forbid, national news agencies who are covering the story for ratings.
Well thats like saying "I need feminism because there are people who dont think I need feminism"
>"atheists are all angry autists"
>"wtf no we're not"
>"I need feminism because there are people who think I dont need feminism"
>"but you dont need feminism"
Just because he's set up a trap where you either remain silent and agree, or speak against him and "prove his point" doesnt mean youre proving shit
That's a thing?
What the fuck is even going on over at Twitter HQ? A while back they were going on about how they're going to ban all the porn accounts, then recently they went around saying they're going to ban all the "hate speech" etc., then they were considering upping the character limit to 10,000, now apparently they're removing the verified badge for dumb petty reasons. How long until the site just completely collapses?
It'd be fine if he wasnt stupid enough to think that you cant be against otherkin and "transracialism" but be for transgender people
Literal only the fucking bait threads even try to make that comparison here any more because for the most part, people understand a foetus can grow as male or female and there can be complications, wheres as race and species are determined by your parents
By "that petition" are you referring to the drop the T campaign? How does the drop the T campaign protect trans people from being outed? Literally all that campaign does is spread lies to make people hate trannies.
No, it legitimately isnt. I think its 9 weeks into pregnancy that a baby develops its sex, and that is all very dependent on the hormones and other chemicals in the womb to trigger development. There are cases of babies that are insensitive to testosterone and develop as female instead of male to varying degrees.The genes in theory are meant to trigger the correct development, sure, but that doesnt mean they do. And when it comes to brain development, its even more sensitive to that sort of shit. Thats why people are always concerned about chemicals in the food and the water, and pregnant women are meant ot stay away from all sorts of shit, because babies share their mother's blood flow and their development can be altered by any sort of shit that shouldnt be in the womb
This is why when it comes to gender, which is how the brain develops, Im completely open to the idea there was some kind of fuck up.
I dont think nearly as many people who claim to be transgender actually are, but thats a completely different topic
Don't you mean shitposter, neo-con and all-round asshole?
Because as far as gay rights go we're talking about a guy who is against same sex marriage and says gay people shouldn't be parents because we're all fucked up in the head (despite what a shit job his own hetero parents did with him).
I was talking about suppressing news about people who are trans. If trans people want to advertise that their trans on the news it should be up to them. I don't feel that the media can just out people whenever they want. It's an invasion of privacy.
Also, if you wanted to make it clear that you were talking about dropping the T from LGBT then you should have posted a pic of that instead
>I was talking about suppressing news about people who are trans. If trans people want to advertise that their trans on the news it should be up to them. I don't feel that the media can just out people whenever they want. It's an invasion of privacy.
What does that have to do with the petition one way or the other? Who's saying the media should be allowed to out trans people without their consent?
>Also, if you wanted to make it clear that you were talking about dropping the T from LGBT then you should have posted a pic of that instead
That's the petition >>5519889 (the post you replied to) is talking about. The picture in that post is a response to the petition.
>Who's saying the media should be allowed to out trans people without their consent?
Er the media. Tabloid journalists do it all the time. they claim its "in the publics" interest. I think we have laws in the UK now that say you cant report it unless it is genuinely relevant to a story, but obviously that leaves a LOT of space to justify whatever they want
Sargon of Akkad and Milo in the same room, I'll enjoy this. I still find Milo to be a narcissistic cunt tho.
I didn't know Sargon was friend with faggots.
I still find Milo to be a horrible human being, the more I hear him talk the less I like him. Sargon on the other hand is based as fuck.
I hate how Milo uses homosexuality as an excuse to say he can't be sexist.
>>gay rights activist
>Not the same as "Gay, right's activist", remind you.
Hats off to this anon.
this is such bullshit. If I could I'd fire all the white converts into the sun with the rest of them. I'd much rather associate with middle easterners who were christian or atheist than westerners who were muslim.
I'm sorry but Sargon is none of those things. Well, he's above average in terms of intelligence, but he's really nothing special. He falls apart pretty quickly when he gets grilled by anyone but a feminist
You sound buttblasted, you in the sjw camp by any chance?
>falls apart pretty quickly when he gets grilled by anyone but a feminist
Something tells me you're full of shit, because the feminists I know are fucking brilliant.
Have you read a single feminist classic in your life?
Nope. I just find it funny that he's anti mass immigration and tries to act "le repilled" but the second you try to talk about race with him he full on flips his shit and refuses to have the rational discussion he is so loved by circlejerking redditors for.
Reading comprehension love. Just because you claim to know "brilliant" feminists doesn't make the ones Sargon has spoke with any less inept. Have you read anything other than feminist literature your entire life?
You can't be serious...
>anti mass immigration
Homos should fear this, wait til they'll be using grindr to lure gays in for a gang beating in Europe, wait until they'll demanding sharia laws(like in the UK, muslims have special laws). Wait until more women get rapped by these savages(NOT ALL MUSLIMS).
Islam is an political ideology that's so efficient in spreading and converting people that it is scary. It's a doctrine of conquest.
>Have you read anything other than feminist literature your entire life?
Yeah, gobbled up sexual liberation dogma, religious FREEZE PEACH adherence, and other libertarian shit that dominates the white male sphere on the Internet (i.e. most of it) my whole life.
Radical feminism was a breath of fresh fucking air.
So, have you read any feminist literature?
Because there's quite good a possibility that you're simply failing to understand basic feminist arguments that are being raised by which ever feminists you're watching. If you watch two people, both bad at arguing, one of who says things you agree with and the other says things you disagree with, and since both are bad at arguing you end up NOT changing your mind, that's bound to make the person you're disagreeing with seem stupid.
Yeah It's true, blacks do commit mo crimes than whitey or any other ethnic group in America for that matter.
I guess mo money, mo dick
No, it's a pretty weak argument though. There's a massive amount of ideological literature out there and I'm not going to spend any time reading up on Dworkin dross when intersectional feminism is the infinitely more valid and popular branch of the two. Intersectional feminism is just an opinion I happen to disagree with, radical feminists seem to be almost universally mentally ill, walking stereotypes.
i can't believe he's been able to make an accomplished novelty out of himself as someone everyone knows someone exactly like is otherwise unremarkable. there have been many gay fascists who romanticise nonsense. until he creatively suicides like yukio mishima or something, all he is to me is that person who helped expose that mtf trans paedo--and all he did was relay that verifiable info. i wish we talked more about sexually abusive personalities who seek popularity and influence in trans women's and activist communities, but he's no one special, no one's friend, just an obnoxious misogynist and racist
if he fucked gavin mcinnes in public as performance art then maybe i would be entertained
>radical feminists seem to be almost universally mentally ill, walking stereotypes
>MacKinnon represented Bosnian and Croatian women against Serbs accused of genocide since 1992. She was co-counsel, representing named plaintiff S. Kadic, in Kadic v. Karadzic and won a jury verdict of $745 million in New York City on August 10, 2000. The lawsuit (under the United States' Alien Tort Statute) established forced prostitution and forced impregnation as legally actionable acts of genocide.
There, you have texts (pic related), talks, and deeds by some prime radical feminist figureheads.
Wow, such mentally ill. Very stereotype.
>>radfems' arguments can be discarded because I assume they're fat
yeah, radfems are a lot smarter and i'm more worried what damage they can do to trans women. it's sad because i'm rationally less afraid of him because of his position as a gay male in the right--i'm afraid of cis het guys and their agenda above all, but this guy is just their pet and he seems to find fulfillment in that. pathetic.
Oh here's also a very good radical feminist news site:
And something from Dworkin in pic related.
Dworkin actually was literally mentally ill, having suffered years of physical violence under a wife beater, but if you read her writings you will notice that the illness inflicted no damage to her intellect, it only caused personal anguish.
>it's sad because i'm rationally less afraid of him because of his position as a gay male in the right--i'm afraid of cis het guys and their agenda above all, but this guy is just their pet and he seems to find fulfillment in that. pathetic.
I thought you people were suppose to be "righteous" and "good people" toward "marginalized groups" and have a smug sense of self worth. But here you are talking about me like I'm just some little faggot that looks up to straight men like some dog...
Anyways, gender study is just a pile of garbage anyways. I can't really take people seriously that dedicate their life toward it. Especially when they all look like filthy Marxists and commies.
oh yeah, meghan murphy and canada's apparently "radical" feminist left; only in a nominal sense. baity muckrakers who don't give a shit about gender lumpens. yes very radical.
they fully collab'd on a professional level with the conservatives drafting c-36 putting sex workers out of work, meanwhile where was the economic aid for women and girls in survival sex work? needs not even meaningfully discussed. i don't seem -erfs/radfems at ocap or other anti-poverty rallies, and i doubt i ever will. i like how they started the shelters, but they have an ideology of demanding "exiting" so they have motivations not dissimilar to christian conservatives who also run shelters
>like I'm just some little faggot that looks up to straight men like some dog
>[bla bla bla...]filthy Marxists and commies
i don't think that of you, but i guess i can see that you have a pretty distorted view of reality in general. sorry anyway. i don't really know what to say.
But why do you say it's pathetic? What horribly sexist agenda do these hetero male scums have?
i don't know who is pictured.
but history. they don't see a place for us in the conservative population ecological goals and norms for achieving them that they want to push and enforce, and see anything discrepant as harmful and a degeneration of their society.
you won't last. you think it's just disgust and fear of rape that is why they hate gay men, that's like the blunt awful primitive imagery of the dead babies in anti-abortion garbage. they see you as an obstacle to enforcing a family-centred norm, they see your existence as encouraging women to tease ideas other than reproduction heterosexual monogamy or polygyny. this is why we are left scrounging for our histories. trans people just have people like d'Eon who were nobles and thus could make history before diy press and internet access. the classics with record of accepted homosexuality would have been lost if not preserved by the whims of the ottomans.
you don't make history in the margins, when you are recorded at all you are recorded as to how they want to explain you--or if your family was influential, it would have likely been covered up in any trace of your memory. if you die, you are brought back outside the city limits because you "brought it on yourself" whatever you were doing and "no one needs to see that"
>oh yeah, meghan murphy and canada's apparently "radical" feminist left; only in a nominal sense.
Megan Murphy seems pretty radical to me. Don't know what you mean.
>baity muckrakers who don't give a shit about gender lumpens. yes very radical.
What is a "gender lumpen"?
If you're asking "why isn't she taking part in transsexual activism", the question should be why should she, if she already has her hands full with feminist activism.
>they fully collab'd on a professional level with the conservatives drafting c-36 putting sex workers out of work, meanwhile where was the economic aid for women and girls in survival sex work?
Can you give me a link or so? I'm genuinely curious about this. Megan is for the Swedish model, which is very much about providing good social support to prostituted women.
>i don't [see] -erfs/radfems at ocap or other anti-poverty rallies, and i doubt i ever will
This is again that typical "why aren't they doing more of this and that" argument, where the question should rather be why they should. Radical feminism is an ideology that seems, sadly, relatively obscure when compared to liberal feminism and otherwise sexual libertarianism. The sexual liberals in general have such immense power that porn is ubiquitous and "feminist" organizations are fighting for the legalization of prostitution. I think it's fair of radfems to put all their power into spreading consciousness about the wrongs inherent in a prostitution industry that normalizes sexual violence, and a sex trade industry where women are routinely abused in all kinds of ways. These are very much cultural establishments of male sexual dominance over women and need to be fought against. If you disagree with the urgency of porn culture and prostitution, then we can agree to disagree...
>a prostitution industry that normalizes sexual violence, and a sex trade industry where
Meant to say pornography industry that normalizes sexual violence.
>they have an ideology of demanding "exiting" so they have motivations not dissimilar to christian conservatives who also run shelters
Well they certainly don't have the same *ideals* as Christian conservatives. Christian conservatives are most likely against sex equality, no? If Christian conservatives and radical feminists happen to have the same concrete motivation that is to abolish prostitution, but for deeply different ideological reasons, so what?
>>baity muckrakers who don't give a shit about gender lumpens. yes very radical.
>What is a "gender lumpen"?
>If you're asking "why isn't she taking part in transsexual activism", the question should be why should she, if she already has her hands full with feminist activism.
she does. she is just more baity & suggestive and tries to open things up for other people to snipe trans women. she attempts plausible deniability in her case because she's actually also a v mainstream journalist, not just her involvement with rabble.ca. wasn't really the core of it tho, sex workers would also obviously be "gender lumpens" in terms of people intellectually debate whether are harmful or helpful to the revolution with their own voices in absentia apart from who they've screened. a lot of women have bad sexual experiences with men, this is the tragic norm, it isn't specific to sex work. violence is at the core of it, not the premise upon which sexual activity was engaged in.
>>they fully collab'd on a professional level with the conservatives drafting c-36 putting sex workers out of work, meanwhile where was the economic aid for women and girls in survival sex work?
>Can you give me a link or so? I'm genuinely curious about this. Megan is for the Swedish model, which is very much about providing good social support to prostituted women.
you can google the extensive hearings where groups contributed to what became c-36, like vancouver rape relief and co-ordinated groups part of the same culture. i can go into more background on them but it is a tiring and awful subject. the fight was lost, women can be criminalised for advertising themselves.
>male sexual dominance over women and need to be fought against. If you disagree with the urgency of porn culture and prostitution
im just going to address this quote but again, male sexual dominance & violence and enforced economic power over is not specific to sex work. it is in all relations w men, *theyre* seeking liberal reform
>>they have an ideology of demanding "exiting" so they have motivations not dissimilar to christian conservatives who also run shelters
>Well they certainly don't have the same *ideals* as Christian conservatives. Christian conservatives are most likely against sex equality, no? If Christian conservatives and radical feminists happen to have the same concrete motivation that is to abolish prostitution, but for deeply different ideological reasons, so what?
again, this is nominal. they failed equality, and endangered economic security and further the physical safety of sex workers without economic compensation to them because they have a distaste for particular practices, when men rape, harm, and kill partners in all circumstances possible. for radicals, they do not get to the root of anything, just something they are uncomfortable with.
Heterosexual men aren't that bad, you make them sound like they're the evil overlords of our culture.
You feminists are trying to destroy masculinity, make straight men weak and deal with emotions like women(passive aggressiveness and all that beta bullshit). There's nothing more beautiful in this world than a charming, strong level headed, masculine, straight man who's fair and kind and uses cold logic and reasoning.
Radical feminists have certainly always fought against all sorts of violence against women. Domestic, workplace, prostitution-related, porn-related.
Porn and prostitution play a very big role in normalizing men's ideas about women being sexual commodity for them. If a cooperation with some conservatives allows a head-on attack to these limbs of male supremacy, I really don't see why not.
I see Feminist Current actually published some stuff about this.
>I see Feminist Current actually published some stuff about this.
so would have canlii or parliament, verbatim, of open statements presented, transcribed. they made women's economic security and equality no condition for their support, which was essential to the women and girls impacted and is the root. economic inequality, the hegemony and violence of not just direct male violence, but the structural, how resources for even basic living are withheld, why many women end up in marriages or relationships they wouldn't otherwise all the time, was not challenged. they aren't radical, they would get to the root of hegemony, violence, and coercion if they did, which is an entire structure.
So you're saying that we should stop fighting against prostitution, that is one arm of male supremacy, just because we can't fight against all its other arms yet? (Implying we can't and assuming we aren't...)
>You feminists are trying to destroy masculinity, make straight men weak and deal with emotions like women(passive aggressiveness and all that beta bullshit). There's nothing more beautiful in this world than a charming, strong level headed, masculine, straight man who's fair and kind and uses cold logic and reasoning.
A lot of men get the wrong idea of masculinity, thinking that being violent and aggressive, indeed just as emotional as a woman if not more, but in a different direction, is the epitome of masculinity. And there are those who think that because of the stereotype of men being logical, a man's opinions and feelings are automatically more logical than those of a woman. Being calm and rational and logical is something we should aspire to, yes, but we need to face that everyone, male or female has emotions. Encouraging men to suppress their emotions, and shaming those who express their emotions in a "feminine" way, doesn't really help anyone.
>like in the UK, muslims have special laws
No, no they dont. They held to the same legal system as everyone else. But they have their own retarded courts for dealing with shit like when one of them touches a pig or drinks alcohol. It is completely unrelated to the legal system, it doesnt over rule the legal system either. If they do something actually illegal, it goes to court, if they do something that their little book says illegal, let em deal with it themselves. Its not like they can kill each other or enforce their laws on others, its mostly just paying fines to the mosque and shit like that, and its exclusively within their own community
Yep, its Marxism, but instead of the rich and the poor its the men and the women. Utterly retarded.
Even the ones that arent like that just use complete sophistry. It sound like it could be true, so theres no need to scientifically demonstrate it, just assert that this is the reason things are the way they are, despite no real evidence
And when they do use statistics, theyre invariably lies. They go out with the intention to prove what they want to prove, so they set things up to skew data, make questions misleading, classify things that arent rap as rape, only focus on the rates of violence etc for women and dont compare to men. All sorts of shit.
>A lot of men get the wrong idea of masculinity, thinking that being violent and aggressive, indeed just as emotional as a woman if not more
Right and you can demonstrate this yeah? You not only know how men think, but you know how ALL men think? Okay
if by prostitution, you mean male brokerage of access to women for sex in place of consent, then yes, fight that.
beyond that, people especially women, have sex with others for social reasons including advantages they should already have access to other than their own sexual attraction at all all of the time, and it isn't even called prostitution or sex work.
i think the core of this is sadly atwoodian (in that i mean dystopian like in a handmaids tale like orwellian and 1984) yes, you live in a culture where you are sexually commodified, the degree to which you are valued sexually is according to standards which are not fair and we all have to live with. radical feminists and conservatives similarly treat with scepticism and cynicism women who have many partners (whether they be fun fems, "lesbians until graduation", or people they don't want to talk about so much as have people who can speak for in their place as if the same), and see more security in a culture around monogamy where things you can't control like getting older have less bearing, that's where i see the different reasoning tho. one is patriarchal racist population ecology, one is dealing with unfair standards and unfulfilled expectations vs what men can expect in terms of being valued.
a woman who is against sex work because of bad experiences is more akin to a woman who has become a political lesbian because men brutalised her. it doesn't mean all men are violent, but it is a huge problem and the impacts are gigantic. what we can do is try to level the playing field, so women are not beholden to men economically, for lodging, or for physical safety. ever.
We shouldn't be enabling that kind of separatist behavior, especially from religious zealots who want the west to have medieval values.
>Right and you can demonstrate this yeah? You not only know how men think, but you know how ALL men think? Okay
I literally never said "ALL men" think like that, just that a lot of them do. I've encountered quite a few guys who think getting into physical fights with strangers over literally nothing is the epitome of manliness. But I never said that applies to ALL men.
So you're opposed to freedom of religion? I'm no fan of Islam, but as that anon pointed out these "courts" are purely religious, they don't exempt Muslims from ordinary secular laws, nor are they enforced on non-Muslims.
I never said it wasn't. But freedom of worship is a right, if we decide it's okay to deprive people of that right for being "anti-progress" it will set a precedent for denying freedom of expression to anyone who voices opinions we disagree with.
you only need a few enforcers of fear-inducing hegemony for power, whether it be terror-inducing displays to secure earlier monarchical power whether in feudal or medieval circumstances or in modern gangs, or paranoia-inducing in disciplinary power in modern governmental control
so that it's notallmen doesn't matter, it's that it's upheld.
men are always the enthused instigators of these practices, first to rally, first to answer the call to rally. it's a sickness. brutality and fear, male violence, is practically all of human history, and why people outside of it can only scramble to find out if they even existed or are "ahistorical" or "unnatural", nevermind if they were commonly deemed enemies or unsightlies
humans are not survivors. many men posting on 4chan probably wouldn't have made it through male adulthood, temperament-altering if not life terminating head injury. women, without control over birth, reduced to population ecological roles, would be displaced from serious roles in the recording of history
>tired notallmen staple
It's only "tired" to you because it's
1) A fact which makes nonsense of your argument
2) That you can't dismiss by just waving your magic wand
How about this, as a compromise: We'll stop pointing that you're making ridiculous over-generalizations if you stop making them.
When your *entire argument* relies on such generalizations, and falls apart the instant when anyone points out that you're hinging everything on a logical fallacy, it's time to quit making that argument.
The problem with "notallmen" as an argument is that it doesn't really mean anything, it's just used to dismiss and derail the idea/accusation that a group encourages harmful behavior, "We're not ALL like that!" Which, although true of virtually every group, isn't an actual argument. That's like saying "Some politicians aren't corrupt, therefore political corruption isn't a problem that needs to be addressed." When feminists criticize men for encouraging toxic masculinity, or really when anyone criticizes any group, they don't mean every single individual in that group is responsible, they're talking about the group as a whole. And when you say "not all [x]!" you're basically shifting the topic of the conversation to yourself, arguing that a group shouldn't be criticized because it has some good members. Which is really just an inverted version of what /pol/ always does, pointing to a gay and trans person that does something bad and using it to argue that we're all mentally ill. You can't accurately judge a group based on individuals.
Yeah but that doesn't mean encouraging straight men to face their emotions is making them weak or destroying masculinity. The idea that men can't show any weakness is the cause of many of the problems men face. It's why men are afraid to report being raped or abused even to people who would believe them, and it's why men are constantly putting down other men who they see as weak or inferior.