All you have to do to be considered a cuckold now? Have a job....

[WolfThomas]

Original: Man who gets excited watching his wife whore around with other men.

That's the modern fetish version. There's the original "Husband of an adultress" version from the middle ages.

 

[Delicious Anathema]

That's strange, usually the SJW stereotype is the person with gender studies degrees and no job, not the actually working people.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

That's strange, usually the SJW stereotype is the person with gender studies degrees and no job, not the actually working people.

Like I said, it's tough to keep up with actually being an acceptable member of the human race these days.

 

[Jarrito3002]

OP needs to chill with the paranoia.

Yeah my good man or woman here is taking internet dumbfuckery and taking it way to seriously. Like one video had a laugh track like it is just a very concentrated shit post and nothing more. Better to just laugh at the lunacy than expect something more of it.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

I'm more and more of the opinion expressed earlier; it's time to pull the plug on the internet.

The culture it's created is beyond vile, openly celebrates being useless if not outright hostile and destructive, and on top of it all impossible to live up to it's standards.

If only I knew how to tear it all down and burn it...

 

[Reasonable Atheist]

Someone catch me up, I thought cucking was adultery or something

 

[Michael Legault]

I swear I never heard of that stupid word "Cuck," before this idiotic election took place. Now its everywhere on the web.

I had initially assumed people were just misspelling "cock".

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

And then all these sadistic elites who decide they get to determine who is acceptable. Then if you aren't "acceptable" they advocate punching you, getting you fired, or CULLING you. Yet they aren't fascist at all somehow. Seems like some people just want to justify horrible sadistic actions because it is ok because they are "acceptable." Some of us don't "accept" that hypocrisy.

Religious freedom, yo. Your boss should totally be able to fire your arse solely for being gay or trans like they do in 31 states in the U.S. ... Oh, I'm sorry-- Wrong topic. SJWs are totally the problem.

After all... the case of a neo-Nazi getting punched in a city of millions advocating for murdering unacceptable people is is now acceptably unacceptably acceptable? After all ... anti-fascism is the same as fascism now! Rather than, you know ... saying that punching prople is wrong, but not pretending as if it's always unacceptable the use of force. After all... hard to say punching people is uncalled for when you have a government mass killing huge swathes of benign, unacceptable people.

Bit more grey scale, then.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I'm loathe to reply since you have vociferously attacked me before in a hurtful and disingenuous way but lets be optimistic for now and hope you can be civil to me.

People getting fired for being gay does not negate the sadistic mob doxxings firings that many sjws encourage.
The other side doing horrible stuff doesn't excuse the sadistic practices of your side.

I had an issue when the drupal community recently mobbed a bdsm friendly member and got them fired for their sexuality. This was done at the behest of an SJW who disliked this drupal members sexuality. I don't think people getting people fired for legal stuff they do outside of work is right.
NO. MATTER. WHAT. SIDE. DOES. IT.
Part of that is because I have issues with how much of our personal life current jobs are able to have control over. Part of that is because trying to get someone fired increases the chances of them dying or their family falling into poverty. Getting someone fired for saying something offensive is disgusting and inhumane, much more so than saying despicable things online (that aren't legally threats.)


I can dislike both tactics 100% and take issue with the side that says they have empathy then using tactics devoid of empathy. Firing mobs activated for saying something mean online are no better or worse than firing mobs for someone's expressed sexuality. People shouldn't be fired for things outside of their job. Your sexuality and private life shouldn't affect your job. Now if you indicate that you are unprofessional because you do something as disgusting as recommending kids who aren't pro-refugee to be psychologically evaluated (as someone here has done - indicating that they are in fact unprofessional and bad at their job) or sticking someone with needles extra times because you don't like their politics (as a member of another forum indicated they did to conservatives- they should be prosecuted and fired for that btw) or being rude to or giving unprofessional service to someone based on their sexuality or identity (sick and just as wrong) then firing is reasonable.
Conservative and liberal firing mobs for voicing opinions or saying mean things online is just plain bs. I hate Manveer Heir's anti-white racism. It is disgusting. I think he is a disgusting, hypocritical person who I would never wish to talk to irl. I don't like anyone advocating to get him fired for those tweets. The mobs to get Manveer fired are just as bad as the mobs trying to get a shitlord fired for saying something controversial online.

Telling someone you dislike what they say, no problem. Trying to get someone fired or harmed for what they say? You are a horrible intolerant sadistic hypocrite who doesn't care about eliminating ideological opponents and thus has no scruples.
Trying to get someone fired for their sexuality? It is horrible too. I hated it when it happened decades ago to lgbt members, I hate it today when it happens today lgbt and to anyone with a non-vanilla sexuality.

Edit: since you added:

After all... the case of a neo-Nazi getting punched in a city of millions advocating for murdering unacceptable people is is now acceptably unacceptably acceptable? After all ... anti-fascism is the same as fascism now! Rather than, you know ... saying that punching prople is wrong, but not pretending as if it's always unacceptable the use of force. After all... hard to say punching people is uncalled for when you have a government mass killing huge swathes of benign, unacceptable people.

Bit more grey scale, then.

This argument is gibberish. The grey scale jibe is utter bs. Sorry if you are trying to advocate punching people as being grey. Punching people not trying to attack you is wrong. Even if they say something you find offensive or endangering to others. If it is actually harming others then involve the police. You do not have the right to inflict physical harm on someone as a vigilante would. It isn't grey, it is using violence in response to offensive terms which is what a fascist would do.

Anti-fa is truly fascist since they adopted violent silencing tactics. doing it for a "good cause" doesn't negate their fascist inclinations and violent tactics. If you don't get how antifascists utilizing fascist and draconian rules and countermeasures doesn't make them fascist vigilantes then we won't come to an agreement on this. you can say the use of violence in response to speech is grey, I say the argument of violence in response to words is a coward's justification for harming those they dislike. If you want to ignore my points and misrepresent them then don't be surprised if I just begin ignoring any "point" which carries no weight and respond with the nothing the point deserved.
Justifying violence in response to offensive speech isn't grey. It is wrong. Why justify sadistic and violent tactics when other tactics are readily available and won't turn you into a hypocrite and a monster by engaging in them?

Many of the people trying to justify punching people are just sadists who want to see people punched. Their supporting reasons are just trying to make their violence seem ok but don't miss the truth that they are just sadistic monsters who wish to see others hurt.

Oh sweetheart, vociferously attacked you? Is this the time I asked you to cite your sources or when I challenged your rhetoric? Given that 3/4s of this post is how I'm a horrible person I'll address the primary points of your post.

The difference is that one is embraced by law. That is part of actual acceptable legal defence that you can void a workplace agreement for things people have not right or rightly demands or credulity in the merit of sale. Outlirrs does not an acceptable legal defence of religious sensinilities in the marketplace make.

If one party is more guilty of this then why have I never seen you defend them? I might be in the wrong here, but the solution I put forward (enforcing equitable exchange and strong defence of the written contract to the exclusion of arbitrary nonsense). As I said before, one neo-Nazi in a city of millions getting punched is little compared to people who are beaten by police and murdered for conditions they have no means to acceptably relinquish or can do to begin with. The difference is that it still comes down to a freedom of expression. The bearing being that I am advocating that freedom of expression, at us core, is the capacity of self expression and its moral right is in the pursuit of self-construction as per an existential authenticity of self as put forward by philosophers like Sartre and Beauvoir.

The importance is profound, that person punching a neo-Nazi will be charged with assault. An employer who fires an LGBTQ person who comes out about it will get defended by government saying that's okay. Also... when you speak of misrepresentation, how about not doing so right here... eh? My argument is that the reason for striking the neo-Nazi comes from a different place than a government that caters to the special snowflakes in 31 U.S. ... states (argh... I refuse to just say 'American' because that's equally weird) ... who seem to think the marketplace should be a church.

 

[Silvanus]

I'm loathe to reply since you have vociferously attacked me before in a hurtful and disingenuous way but lets be optimistic for now and hope you can be civil to me.

Ahh, maybe this is an attempt to discuss the issue with some civility. Let's see--

People getting fired for being gay does not negate the sadistic mob doxxings firings that many sjws encourage.
The other side doing horrible stuff doesn't excuse the sadistic practices of your side.

...Ah.

If you were genuinely interested in discussing this like an adult, you wouldn't be resorting quite so immediately to the same tired old political insults and guilt-by-association ("your side").

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Oh sweetheart, vociferously attacked you? Is this the time I asked you to cite your sources or when I challenged your rhetoric? Given that 3/4s of this post is how I'm a horrible person I'll address the primary points of your post.

So you ignored the times you been directly hurtful and abusive and instead try and put up other times when you were merely rude and disingenuous but we still engaged each others points.
I do refer to the times you kept referring to me as stupid for disagreeing with your wholehearted embrace of utilitarianism. I refer to the times you have been directly abusive to me and directly insulted me. As soemoen that tries to mock my "rhetoric" you sure do use the ad hominem fallacy and employ an insulting rhetorical tone to your "arguments."

Since you refuse to engage with civility and are mocking me then I will interpret the "points" you made as being as much of a joke as that rude response and thus are not in need of a reply since they lack any logical support. If gambling were legal here I'd bet you would reply with another stream of abuse, mockery, or hateful invective. Seems to be your m.o.

Wow... see ... here you do it again. Shots fired, ignore the rest of the post when I said that I was over it. How about addressing the rest of the post where I said I wasn't interested in playing this game? You spent three paragraphs calling me out, I spent 1 saying I wasn't interested. Do you have an argument or is this all you are going to do? I'm getting pretty fucking tired with the emotionality when it has nothing to do with the topics around this place.

I mean this is a perfect example of what you did in the other post as well.

Deflection, sophistry, rhetoric.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Hmm, that doesn't make sense, because if you are working for someone you're the one getting screwed.