Funny events in anti-woke world

[McElroy]

The reason it "hits differently" is these young men feel entitled to women's attention, affection and bodies and when they don't get them they become angry. Because they're misogynistic little chodes. And what's the proposed solution to appeasing these turds? They're only like this because they get rejected? So should women just take one for the team and sleep with them when they don't want to? Fuck that, tell them they're shits and they need to be better.

Now you're just reducing them to incels. The RP idea is that women and men are fundamentally different yet simple creatures and thus relationships can be gamed to favor men. It includes self improvement, of course, but also a pretty appalling ideal that commitment is secured through wealth and status while just straight up admitting that you're constantly looking for better options. To put it simply: RP encourages winning the intrasexual competition and then making rules and demands for your benefit once you're at the top. It's pretty garbage for the average dude.

Solutions? We can do something about conmen like Tate, but in general our liberal, individualistic societies in which feminism enjoys mainstream acceptance doesn't have answers for these issues, and the situation will probably continue to exacerbate. The world has to deal with the "manosphere" in some form and if its moderate forms are rejected time and time again, it will turn inward and more vehemently anti-feminist.

I'd endorse putting heavy restrictions on children's social media use, but it's hard to raise the political will for such measures.

 

[BrawlMan]

Kiwi Farms, A Notorious Hate Site, Has Been Taken Down By Cloudflare (msn.com)

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Kiwi Farms, A Notorious Hate Site, Has Been Taken Down By Cloudflare (msn.com)

And as a side effect, took down a New Zealand/Aotearoa neo-Nazi web site, because of course the Kiwifarms guy would host neo-Nazis as a side hustle.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Le sigh.



Also hate to be designated shitty news giver, but is worth knowing some stuff if only to make sure relevant ppl keep their guards up still;

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Armed religious imbeciles are trying to intimidate library officials to ban books the library doesn't have:


Now there's "cancel culture" for you.

 

[Cheetodust]

Now you're just reducing them to incels.

You said it was a respons to rejection. How did anything I say not relate to that?

Solutions? We can do something about conmen like Tate, but in general our liberal, individualistic societies in which feminism enjoys mainstream acceptance doesn't have answers for these issues, and the situation will probably continue to exacerbate. The world has to deal with the "manosphere" in some form and if its moderate forms are rejected time and time again, it will turn inward and more vehemently anti-feminist.

Nope, the solution is actually simple. We loudly say that their views and lessons are wrong and vile and have no place in society. Absolutely fuck this modern snowflake nonsense that bigots need to be treated with kid gloves lest we hurt their feelings and radicalise them. We're talking about people who support a man who has publicly stated that choking and punching a woman is how to keep her in line. Has publicly stated that a man's partner is his property.

The civil rights movement wasn't won by respecting the views of the Klan. The strides made in LGBTQ+ rights since stonewall weren't made by telling violent homophobes that we understood how they feel.

The idea that acceptance and equality were won through the exchange of ideas is a bullshit liberal myth or just a lie fascists tell so they can continue spreading hateful messages.

 

[McElroy]

You said it was a respons to rejection. How did anything I say not relate to that?

It did, but you pull up entitlement like it's the key issue here. You'll get zero expectation of entitlement in the RP community. It's a ruthless competition in which one must first succeed at being a better man above others and then being the best target for women's affections. It's easy to agree with most of it in moderation, but there is obviously a lot of horseshit in there and then guys like Tate in the extreme end.

Nope, the solution is actually simple.

Ah yes, purity. Andrew Tate has tainted some of the topics now for sure, but how much of it? Is it possible to be moderate and be against feminism without being a misogynist or a fascist? Do redpillers or feminists tell men to be better? I know a bunch of tenets from both of them and they are often at odds. Can any sort of synthesis be reached? Or maybe leftist ideology is just so much better that any speech against the grain might as well be dismissed and shut down.

 

[Cheetodust]

It did, but you pull up entitlement like it's the key issue here. You'll get zero expectation of entitlement in the RP community. It's a ruthless competition in which one must first succeed at being a better man above others and then being the best target for women's affections. It's easy to agree with most of it in moderation, but there is obviously a lot of horseshit in there and then guys like Tate in the extreme end.

Ah yes, purity. Andrew Tate has tainted some of the topics now for sure, but how much of it? Is it possible to be moderate and be against feminism without being a misogynist or a fascist? Do redpillers or feminists tell men to be better? I know a bunch of tenets from both of them and they are often at odds. Can any sort of synthesis be reached? Or maybe leftist ideology is just so much better that any speech against the grain might as well be dismissed and shut down.

Purity? Fuck of with all that bollocks. If we're talking Tate specifically then support for him is support for a man who's methods of "keeping his woman in line" is to choke amd and punch her. So yeah, support for him automatically singles you out as scum.

And you can shove your intolerant left rhetoric too. Red Pillers believe that women should be subservient to men amd should know their place. No there is absolutely no third way bullshit compromise between the two view points. One is literally about one group asserting dominance over another.

 

[McElroy]

Purity? Fuck of with all that bollocks.

…and then you go on how in order to be in your good books one must be pure (dismiss every single thing Tate or any redpiller ever says by association). This rhetoric is only useful in preaching to the choir and eventually imploding on itself because in reality people can never be as pure as some commentator online. Lumping people with evil strawmen sure is simple, but will never get you anywhere.

And women should know their place in a society that gives them a lot of goodies. They should know men's place too, both the top men who have plenty of goodies and the rest of us that don't. That's a way we can have less sexism and not more.

 

[Cheetodust]

…and then you go on how in order to be in your good books one must be pure (dismiss every single thing Tate or any redpiller ever says by association). This rhetoric is only useful in preaching to the choir and eventually imploding on itself because in reality people can never be as pure as some commentator online. Lumping people with evil strawmen sure is simple, but will never get you anywhere.

And women should know their place in a society that gives them a lot of goodies. They should know men's place too, both the top men who have plenty of goodies and the rest of us that don't. That's a way we can have less sexism and not more.

Ah so you are just a red piller. Right peace out. You're views are shit

 

[Silvanus]

…and then you go on how in order to be in your good books one must be pure (dismiss every single thing Tate or any redpiller ever says by association).

Everybody considers some views beyond-the-pale. That doesn't make it a "purity check", which typically refers to when someone is being unreasonably stringent.

It's not a "purity check" to reject violent misogyny. It's basic human compassion.

 

[McElroy]

Everybody considers some views beyond-the-pale. That doesn't make it a "purity check", which typically refers to when someone is being unreasonably stringent. It's not a "purity check" to reject violent misogyny. It's basic human compassion.

Alright, so I watch, for example, Tate's most controversial clips (there are a couple of compilations on YT) and I can quickly come up with four categories 1) violent misogyny like the punch and choke clip (very bad) 2) crass disregard of women's autonomy (very bad too) 3) sexist double standards (controversial; sexism is extremely common) and 4) normal talking points that have been repeated ad nauseum in "manosphere" spaces for the last ten years (some are controversial, some are not). Now if I defend -- not even endorse, just saying that there are points for discussion because feminism is unable to deal with them -- 3 and 4 in some other context (which I've done on these forums many times, for example) is dismissal because of the association with 1 and 2 done in good faith? Obviously not. Do you think Andrew Tate's bad influence has tainted all talk that opposes the feminist status quo? Y'know, RP, "manosphere", the 3 and 4 I listed here. Or were they always bullshit and Tate only made it clear we should silence more of it?

Your views are shit

Yet they are the best around. Doesn't say much good about the world.

 

[Silvanus]

Alright, so I watch, for example, Tate's most controversial clips (there are a couple of compilations on YT) and I can quickly come up with four categories 1) violent misogyny like the punch and choke clip (very bad) 2) crass disregard of women's autonomy (very bad too) 3) sexist double standards (controversial; sexism is extremely common) and 4) normal talking points that have been repeated ad nauseum in "manosphere" spaces for the last ten years (some are controversial, some are not). Now if I defend -- not even endorse, just saying that there are points for discussion because feminism is unable to deal with them -- 3 and 4 in some other context (which I've done on these forums many times, for example) is dismissal because of the association with 1 and 2 done in good faith? Obviously not. Do you think Andrew Tate's bad influence has tainted all talk that opposes the feminist status quo? Y'know, RP, "manosphere", the 3 and 4 I listed here. Or were they always bullshit and Tate only made it clear we should silence more of it?

If you have talking points that have legitimacy, then they can stand on their own feet without having to lean on violent misogynists who also came out with them.

And if they are only being discussed with reference to how this violent misogynist is making some good points, then that's a strong indication that the speaker doesn't actually have others' best interests at heart.

((On a side-note, most talking points that involve "opposing the feminist status quo" were indeed always bullshit, regardless of Tate)).

 

[McElroy]

If you have talking points that have legitimacy, then they can stand on their own feet without having to lean on violent misogynists who also came out with them.

And if they are only being discussed with reference to how this violent misogynist is making some good points, then that's a strong indication that the speaker doesn't actually have others' best interests at heart.

No legit discussion can ever be had if one side dismisses the other through an association with Tate (like, "aren't these RP talking points? holy shit you must like that Tate guy! oh man, he's the worst. that's what the red pill stands for, y'know, violent misogyny"). It's like a new Godwin's law. But honestly, it'll die down eventually. It's just bemusing to see it. Tate doesn't even have any good points, on top of the heaps of garbage he's only got some funny exacerbations and the banal stuff any guy can pick up, but I've only seen clip compilations.

((Lmao, whatever. Some other time and thread.))

 

[Silvanus]

No legit discussion can ever be had if one side dismisses the other through an association with Tate (like, "aren't these RP talking points? holy shit you must like that Tate guy! oh man, he's the worst. that's what the red pill stands for, y'know, violent misogyny"). It's like a new Godwin's law. But honestly, it'll die down eventually. It's just bemusing to see it. Tate doesn't even have any good points, on top of the heaps of garbage he's only got some funny exacerbations and the banal stuff any guy can pick up, but I've only seen clip compilations.

But we were explicitly talking about people who follow Andrew Tate. Those were the people under discussion. So yes, if they're following him, then they've chosen to associate and can be judged on their choice of association. Nobody is making unfair connections here.

 

[Gergar12]

Hot take both the left and right’s take on sweat shops is trash. The left wants to bring factory jobs back, and the right says it’s fine as it’s better than subsistence farming.

My message to the left is what is your answer to developing countries not getting foreign direct investment. Is it to guilt trip westerners into creating countries funded solely by foreign aid where as soon as the west gets a recession those countries are screwed over or le imperialism in a sick the sins of the father matter sort of way.

My message to the right is this. Just because things are better doesn’t mean they can’t improve as you could make arguments that slavery is better the homeless. Horrific.

The correct answer is the left funds non-bad faith journalist in developing countries instead of policing people on Twitter over language such Genshin Twitter where everyone is scared shitless in saying Tignari’s name incorrectly for example.

The center right could adopt stakeholder ethics in the c-suite.

but instead both sides will continue to grift.

 

[McElroy]

But we were explicitly talking about people who follow Andrew Tate. Those were the people under discussion. So yes, if they're following him, then they've chosen to associate and can be judged on their choice of association. Nobody is making unfair connections here.

My first reply to Cheetodust made the distinction between Tate followers and guys who get associated with misogyny because the rhetoric is oh so obviously hateful. That's where I got the purity accusation (but as seen a bit later, it's not about purity that much but rather a narrow idea of why anybody would think differently). You reframed it.

 

[Seanchaidh]

My message to the left is what is your answer to developing countries not getting foreign direct investment.

Stop sending in the marines whenever they nationalize something or disobey the IMF. They wouldn't "need" FDI if their resources weren't stolen from them. So let 'em "steal" those resources back; the global south is not underdeveloped, it is over-exploited.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Bannon tears in stock and on tap for the coming weeks, comrades.

Steve Bannon to be indicted on fresh fraud charges over border wall – sources

Former Trump strategist to face state charges over fundraising for the wall that likely mirror a federal case in which he was pardoned

www.theguardian.com

Top former Trump strategist Steve Bannon is expected to be indicted on Thursday on state fraud charges connected to his role in a fundraising scheme to build a border wall, according to two sources familiar with the matter, years after he received a presidential pardon in the federal case.

The expected move by the Manhattan district attorney’s office was quietly communicated to Bannon in recent days, the sources said of the sealed indictment, and indicated the state charges will likely mirror the federal case in which he was pardoned.


Bannon and three others were charged in that case by federal prosecutors in Manhattan with falsely claiming that they would not take compensation in the private “We Build the Wall” fundraising effort to underwrite part of the construction of the wall on the US-Mexico border.


The architect of Trump’s 2016 election campaign and later White House adviser was accused of personally taking more than $1m from what people had donated to the fundraising push that promised to secure funding in order to ensure the completion of the border wall.

Bannon – alongside disabled veteran Brian Kolfage, Andrew Badolato and Timothy Shea – raised more than $25m in the online crowdfunding effort, which also promised donors that all of the proceeds would go towards constructing the wall.

Though Bannon pleaded not guilty to the federal charges in August 2020, two others, Kolfage and Badolato, pleaded guilty to siphoning off money from the scheme and defrauding others for their own gain.

Bannon received a last-minute pardon in the final days of the Trump administration that expunged the federal indictment. But presidential pardons do not apply to state-level charges.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office started examining whether to pursue a case against Bannon almost immediately after he received the pardon, one source with knowledge of the matter said, and several close Bannon allies were subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury in recent months.

In a statement, Bannon decried the expected indictment as a partisan prosecution that was aimed to hurt Trump politically by going after a political operative involved in uniting the former president’s base months before the 2022 midterm elections.

“The Soros-backed DA has now decided to pursue phoney charges against me 60 days before the midterm election because WarRoom is the major source of the Maga grassroots movement,” Bannon said, referring to his far-right conservative show War Room.

“The SDNY did the exact same thing in August 2020 to try to take me out of the election. It didn’t work then, it certainly won’t work now. This is nothing more than a partisan political weaponization of the criminal justice system.”

“I am proud to be a leading voice on protecting our borders and building a wall to keep our country safe from drugs and violent criminals,” Bannon said. “They are coming after all of us, not only President Trump and myself. I am never going to stop fighting.”

The expected indictment by the Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg, earlier reported by the Washington Post, comes weeks after Bannon was convicted on two counts of criminal contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack.

Tho am unsure why they didn't keep the last line of his quote in the article.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

US Christians are a death cult

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?