🔥 | Latest

Crazy, Melania Trump, and Rand Paul: Melania Trump Wore a Jacket With the Words "I Really Dont Care" Written on It to Visit Kids at the Border (slate.com) submitted 1 day ago by ↑ Slate 4027 share save hide give gold report crosspost hide all child comments sorted by: best you are viewing a single comment's thread. view the rest of the comments deleted/removed source Socratipede 1 point 11 hours ago Peter Fonda tweeted to all his followers that Barron Trump should get kidnapped and raped in a cage by pedophiles. How do you think a mother is going to take that? The alternate reality is yours, I'm afraid. permalink source embed save save-RES save-RES edit disable inbox replies delete REPLY 1 point 11 hours ago You don't get that he was making a point with an extreme comment and not being literal? That's why you're living in la-la land. In reality we all know you get he wasn't being literal, but snowflakes like to be victims so here you are, pretending to be oblivious to reality. Or you're just a crazy person. Entirely possible I guess. Edit: just realized you have pede in your name. We can add Russian troll to the list of possibilities. permalink source embed save save-RES parent report give gold REPLY Socratipede 1 point 11 hours ago I am a pede, yes, but I'm an American first. How is it that Trump gets blasted for his "secret dog whistles" which will "obviously" lead to violence against people, but then someone like Fonda explicitly calls for it and gets thousands of likes/social media interactions, but then you're all "its just a joke." And within just the last year or so, sitting federal Republican politicians have been violently attacked on two separate occasions (Rand Paul, Steve Scalise), and could have easily died. I perfectly well understand how to look at things from an unbiased perspective and weigh them against my moral compass. Leftists don't appear to have any standards of behavior though, while simultaneously preaching about how everyone should behave. permalink source embed save save-RES parent edit disable inbox replies delete REPLY
Crazy, Melania Trump, and Rand Paul: Melania Trump Wore a Jacket With the Words "I Really Dont Care" Written on It to Visit Kids at the
 Border (slate.com)
 submitted 1 day ago by
 ↑
 Slate
 4027
 share save hide give gold report crosspost hide all child comments
 sorted by: best
 you are viewing a single comment's thread.
 view the rest of the comments
 deleted/removed
 source
 Socratipede 1 point 11 hours ago
 Peter Fonda tweeted to all his followers that Barron Trump should get kidnapped and raped in a cage by pedophiles.
 How do you think a mother is going to take that?
 The alternate reality is yours, I'm afraid.
 permalink source embed save save-RES save-RES edit disable inbox replies delete REPLY
 1 point 11 hours ago
 You don't get that he was making a point with an extreme comment and not being literal? That's why you're
 living in la-la land. In reality we all know you get he wasn't being literal, but snowflakes like to be victims so
 here you are, pretending to be oblivious to reality. Or you're just a crazy person. Entirely possible I guess.
 Edit: just realized you have pede in your name. We can add Russian troll to the list of possibilities.
 permalink source embed save save-RES parent report give gold REPLY
 Socratipede 1 point 11 hours ago
 I am a pede, yes, but I'm an American first.
 How is it that Trump gets blasted for his "secret dog whistles" which will "obviously" lead to violence
 against people, but then someone like Fonda explicitly calls for it and gets thousands of likes/social
 media interactions, but then you're all "its just a joke."
 And within just the last year or so, sitting federal Republican politicians have been violently attacked on
 two separate occasions (Rand Paul, Steve Scalise), and could have easily died.
 I perfectly well understand how to look at things from an unbiased perspective and weigh them against
 my moral compass. Leftists don't appear to have any standards of behavior though, while
 simultaneously preaching about how everyone should behave.
 permalink source embed save save-RES parent edit disable inbox replies delete REPLY
Anaconda, Comfortable, and Complex: John Hayward @Doc 0.9h As you've seen over the past week if you were paying attention at all, the Left is now VERY comfortable with political violence. And I mean the mainstream Left, not just the kook fringe. The "mainstream" Left indulges kook fringe violence if they think the cause is "righteous." John Hayward @Doc0.9h The mainstream Left cannot be bothered to even half-heartedly condemn violence and threats of violence against their hated enemies, and nobody in the DNC Media requires them to. This is an incredibly dangerous environment born of the notion that opposition to the Left is evil. 140 John Hayward @Doc 0 9h Is this massive, fraudulent, tightly coordinated DNC Media hit over child detention starting to give NeverTrumpers an inkling of what the Democrats wil do to them if NeverTrump gets its wish and the Dems are restored to power? John Hayward @Doc 0 9h The Left is not going to magnanimously decide that a "little opposition from docile "conservatives" who mostly talk to each other in symposiums is acceptable if they regain power. Instead they'll conclude their all-out-war approach was vindicated by victory and double down. 29 John Hayward @Doc 0.9h The core fantasy of NeverTrump is that screwing over the Republicans and putting Democrats back in power will win them a dash of respect from the Left and set up a return of "respectable, harmless conservatism in 2024 or 2028 or whatever John Hayward @Doc0.9h Remember, the Left believes dissent is subversive and counterculture is powerful - that's how THEY came to power decades ago. They will not allow dangerous ideas to percolate in safe walled-off game preserves where old conservatives can graze and fondly remember Ronald Reagan. John Hayward @Doc 0.9h They thought helping Hillary win would have set that up for 2020 or 2024. The more realistic members of the tribe at least understand it probably would have taken much longer than that, or they know a GOP denuded of icky "populism would never win again, but they didn't care. 107 John Hayward @Doc o 9h For God's sake, the ACLU is debating the idea of abandoning defense of free speech in order to advance "social justice" causes. if that doesn't give you a clue about what's coming your way from the totalitarian Left if Democrats regain power, I don't know what will. John Hayward @Doc 0 9h Well, kids, here's your sneak preview of what's actually going to happen to you if the Democrats take power again: scorched earth, no holds barred, no prisoners taken. The Left will lie as long and hard as needed to paint EVERYONE outside their tribe as a monster 96 182 John Hayward @Doc 0.9h The Left got this way because it reached the limits of what it could accomplish through persuasion and healthy democracy. It can't win arguments anymore, but it can use raw power to silence dissent. It can subvert the law and use bureaucratic muscle to make elections irrelevant. John Hayward @Doc0.9h The Left won't respect NeverTrumpers or fondly remember how you were useful to them during the Trump era. They'll tell you to burn in hell because you dont agree with them 100% on every issue. They won't applaud the return of docile, harmless, theoretical conservatism. t 65 143 John Hayward @Doc 0.9h Every time the Left gains power, the number of things Americans are allowed to vote on, or choose for ourselves outside the realm of politics, dwindles. We lost control of our own health insurance last time. Next time it will be medicine itself 107 John Hayward @Doc o The Left has become feral and savage in Nineties or wistfully remember a John Hayward @Doc0.8h The Left is not interested in resetting a genteel playing field for electoral jousts with "principled conservatives," as they present themselves. It wants to win permanent victories, not elections. It is attacking the rule of law and forcibly changing electoral demographics. a way NeverTrumpers stuck in the mythologized Eighties don't grasp They're totalitarians now: All politics everywhere, all the time, in every movie and song, every job and school, even John Hayward @Doc 0 8h Left-wingers are drunk on the moralistic rush of their hate-feedback loops. The more over the top they go, the more their fans urge them on. It's the delirious, intoxicating rush of the mob. It has absolutely nothing to do with reasoned discourse or democratic compromise. your choice of food. John Hayward @Doc 0 8h If you put Democrats back in power, NeverTrumpers, you're not making a small tactical concession to honorable political adversaries. You're laying America's throat bare to something wild, ravenous, and hateful that "wins arguments" by crushing dissent. That means you, too. 155 John Hayward @Doc0.8h And the lesson you should take from the past week is that the Left is not interested in "fairness," compromise, or honest discussion of complex issues. What they do to you if they win will be brutally unfair, NeverTrump, and there wil be no one to hear your complaints. /end 155
Anaconda, Comfortable, and Complex: John Hayward @Doc 0.9h
 As you've seen over the past week if you were paying attention at all, the Left is
 now VERY comfortable with political violence. And I mean the mainstream Left,
 not just the kook fringe. The "mainstream" Left indulges kook fringe violence if
 they think the cause is "righteous."
 John Hayward @Doc0.9h
 The mainstream Left cannot be bothered to even half-heartedly condemn
 violence and threats of violence against their hated enemies, and nobody in the
 DNC Media requires them to. This is an incredibly dangerous environment born
 of the notion that opposition to the Left is evil.
 140
 John Hayward @Doc 0 9h
 Is this massive, fraudulent, tightly coordinated DNC Media hit over child
 detention starting to give NeverTrumpers an inkling of what the Democrats wil
 do to them if NeverTrump gets its wish and the Dems are restored to power?
 John Hayward @Doc 0 9h
 The Left is not going to magnanimously decide that a "little opposition from
 docile "conservatives" who mostly talk to each other in symposiums is acceptable
 if they regain power. Instead they'll conclude their all-out-war approach was
 vindicated by victory and double down.
 29
 John Hayward @Doc 0.9h
 The core fantasy of NeverTrump is that screwing over the Republicans and
 putting Democrats back in power will win them a dash of respect from the Left
 and set up a return of "respectable, harmless conservatism in 2024 or 2028 or
 whatever
 John Hayward @Doc0.9h
 Remember, the Left believes dissent is subversive and counterculture is powerful
 - that's how THEY came to power decades ago. They will not allow dangerous
 ideas to percolate in safe walled-off game preserves where old conservatives can
 graze and fondly remember Ronald Reagan.
 John Hayward @Doc 0.9h
 They thought helping Hillary win would have set that up for 2020 or 2024. The
 more realistic members of the tribe at least understand it probably would have
 taken much longer than that, or they know a GOP denuded of icky "populism
 would never win again, but they didn't care.
 107
 John Hayward @Doc o 9h
 For God's sake, the ACLU is debating the idea of abandoning defense of free
 speech in order to advance "social justice" causes. if that doesn't give you a clue
 about what's coming your way from the totalitarian Left if Democrats regain
 power, I don't know what will.
 John Hayward @Doc 0 9h
 Well, kids, here's your sneak preview of what's actually going to happen to you if
 the Democrats take power again: scorched earth, no holds barred, no prisoners
 taken. The Left will lie as long and hard as needed to paint EVERYONE outside
 their tribe as a monster
 96
 182
 John Hayward @Doc 0.9h
 The Left got this way because it reached the limits of what it could accomplish
 through persuasion and healthy democracy. It can't win arguments anymore, but
 it can use raw power to silence dissent. It can subvert the law and use
 bureaucratic muscle to make elections irrelevant.
 John Hayward @Doc0.9h
 The Left won't respect NeverTrumpers or fondly remember how you were useful
 to them during the Trump era. They'll tell you to burn in hell because you dont
 agree with them 100% on every issue. They won't applaud the return of docile,
 harmless, theoretical conservatism.
 t 65 143
 John Hayward @Doc 0.9h
 Every time the Left gains power, the number of things Americans are allowed to
 vote on, or choose for ourselves outside the realm of politics, dwindles. We lost
 control of our own health insurance last time. Next time it will be medicine itself
 107
 John Hayward
 @Doc o
 The Left has become feral and savage in
 Nineties or wistfully remember a
 John Hayward @Doc0.8h
 The Left is not interested in resetting a genteel playing field for electoral jousts
 with "principled conservatives," as they present themselves. It wants to win
 permanent victories, not elections. It is attacking the rule of law and forcibly
 changing electoral demographics.
 a way NeverTrumpers stuck in the
 mythologized Eighties don't grasp
 They're totalitarians now: All politics
 everywhere, all the time, in every movie
 and song, every job and school, even
 John Hayward @Doc 0 8h
 Left-wingers are drunk on the moralistic rush of their hate-feedback loops. The
 more over the top they go, the more their fans urge them on. It's the delirious,
 intoxicating rush of the mob. It has absolutely nothing to do with reasoned
 discourse or democratic compromise.
 your choice of food.
 John Hayward @Doc 0 8h
 If you put Democrats back in power, NeverTrumpers, you're not making a small
 tactical concession to honorable political adversaries. You're laying America's
 throat bare to something wild, ravenous, and hateful that "wins arguments" by
 crushing dissent. That means you, too.
 155
 John Hayward @Doc0.8h
 And the lesson you should take from the past week is that the Left is not
 interested in "fairness," compromise, or honest discussion of complex issues.
 What they do to you if they win will be brutally unfair, NeverTrump, and there wil
 be no one to hear your complaints. /end
 155
Life, Respect, and The Game: resist you To some people the notion of consciously playing powe ter how indirect-seems evil, asocial, a relic of the can opt out of the game by behaving in ways that have nothing to d power. You must beware of such people, for while the ions outwardly, they are often among the most adept players at They utilize strategies that cleverly disguise the nature of the man involved. These types, for example, will often display their weake lack of power as a kind of moral virtue. But true powerlessness w any motive of self-interest, would not publicize its weakness to gain thy or respect. Making a show of one's weakness is actually a ve strategy, subtle and deceptive, in the game of power (see Law 22, the Sun render Tactic) games no mat express Such opin- ers at power. ess pa ry efecive Another strategy of the supposed nonplayer is to demand equality every area of life. Everyone must be treated alike, whatever their stahus and strength. But if, to avoid the taint of power, you attempt to treat everyone equally and fairly, you will confront the problem that some people do cer tain things better than others. Treating everyone equally means ignoring their differences, elevating the less skillful and suppressing those who excel. Again, many of those who behave this way are actually deploying another power strategy, redistributing people's rewards in a way that bhey determine. Yet another way of avoiding the game would be perfect honesy an straightforwardness, since one of the main techniques of those power is deceit and secrecy. But being perfectly honest will inevi and insult a great many people, some of whom will choose to hn return. No one will see your honest statement as completely ob free of some personal motivation. And they will be right who see injure completely objective and In truth, the use of honesty is indeed a power strategy, intended to convn noble, good-hearted, selfless character. It is a form or p subtle form of coercion f persuasion, e ect an air of naivel hat they are after pove mears Bew Finally, those who claim to be nonplayers may tion that they are Robert Greene, *48 Laws of Power* : "[Liberals] will display their weakness and lack of power as a moral virtue... Demanding equality in every area of life... Suppressing those who excel."
Life, Respect, and The Game: resist you
 To some people the notion of consciously playing powe
 ter how indirect-seems evil, asocial, a relic of the
 can opt out of the game by behaving in ways that have nothing to d
 power. You must beware of such people, for while the
 ions outwardly, they are often among the most adept players at
 They utilize strategies that cleverly disguise the nature of the man
 involved. These types, for example, will often display their weake
 lack of power as a kind of moral virtue. But true powerlessness w
 any motive of self-interest, would not publicize its weakness to gain
 thy or respect. Making a show of one's weakness is actually a ve
 strategy, subtle and deceptive, in the game of power (see Law 22, the Sun
 render Tactic)
 games no mat
 express Such opin-
 ers at power.
 ess
 pa
 ry efecive
 Another strategy of the supposed nonplayer is to demand equality
 every area of life. Everyone must be treated alike, whatever their stahus and
 strength. But if, to avoid the taint of power, you attempt to treat everyone
 equally and fairly, you will confront the problem that some people do cer
 tain things better than others. Treating everyone equally means ignoring
 their differences, elevating the less skillful and suppressing those who
 excel. Again, many of those who behave this way are actually deploying
 another power strategy, redistributing people's rewards in a way that bhey
 determine.
 Yet another way of avoiding the game would be perfect honesy an
 straightforwardness, since one of the main techniques of those
 power is deceit and secrecy. But being perfectly honest will inevi
 and insult a great many people, some of whom will choose to hn
 return. No one will see your honest statement as completely ob
 free of some personal motivation. And they will be right
 who see
 injure
 completely objective and
 In truth, the use
 of honesty is indeed a power strategy, intended to convn
 noble, good-hearted, selfless character. It is a form or p
 subtle form of coercion
 f persuasion, e
 ect an air of naivel
 hat they are after pove mears
 Bew
 Finally, those who claim to be nonplayers may
 tion that they are
Robert Greene, *48 Laws of Power* : "[Liberals] will display their weakness and lack of power as a moral virtue... Demanding equality in every area of life... Suppressing those who excel."

Robert Greene, *48 Laws of Power* : "[Liberals] will display their weakness and lack of power as a moral virtue... Demanding equality in eve...

Being Alone, Children, and Family: Today 7:47 AM REPORTER: These images that Cecilia was talking about and the sounds that we've seen from the big box stores, the Walmarts and the other stores. When you see this, how is this not specifically child abuse for these innocent children who are indeed being separated from their parents? NIELSEN: So I want to be clear on a couple of other things. The vast majority, vast, vast majority of children who are in the care of H.H.S. right now 1o,o0o of the 12,000-were sent here alone by their parents. That is when they were separated So somehow we've conflated everything. But there is two separate issues. 10,000 of those currently in custody were sent by their parents with strangers to undertake a completely dangerous and deadly travel alone. We now care for them. We have high standards. We give them meals, we give them education, we give them medical care. There is videos, there is TVs, I visited the detention centers myself - that would be my answer to that question This is from the transcript from the press briefing the other day. Nielsen is the director of homeland security. She answered a lot of other questions and made a very informative statement I can send you the link to, but this is what I was talking about this morning and why it pisses me off to no end that the left and mainstream media are making a crisis out of this when it's been happening for decades. Trump evern signed an executive order to fix the family separation portion of it Delivered
Being Alone, Children, and Family: Today 7:47 AM
 REPORTER: These images that Cecilia was talking about and the sounds that we've
 seen from the big box stores, the Walmarts and the other stores. When you see this,
 how is this not specifically child abuse for these innocent children who are indeed
 being separated from their parents?
 NIELSEN: So I want to be clear on a couple of other things. The vast majority, vast,
 vast majority of children who are in the care of H.H.S. right now 1o,o0o of the
 12,000-were sent here alone by their parents. That is when they were separated
 So somehow we've conflated everything. But there is two separate issues. 10,000 of
 those currently in custody were sent by their parents with strangers to undertake a
 completely dangerous and deadly travel alone. We now care for them. We have high
 standards. We give them meals, we give them education, we give them medical care.
 There is videos, there is TVs, I visited the detention centers myself - that would be
 my answer to that question
 This is from the transcript from the
 press briefing the other day. Nielsen
 is the director of homeland security.
 She answered a lot of other
 questions and made a very
 informative statement I can send you
 the link to, but this is what I was
 talking about this morning and why it
 pisses me off to no end that the left
 and mainstream media are making a
 crisis out of this when it's been
 happening for decades. Trump evern
 signed an executive order to fix the
 family separation portion of it
 Delivered
Bad, Bodies , and Boobies: Imaginary Feminism 101. I was reading the blog Manboobz, which is fascinating in a sort of constantly infuriating way, and has, er, "lively" debate in most of the comments sections, and realized that there was a fundamental disconnect there between the Men's Rights types (MRA, Men's Rights Activists) and the feminists. The feminists were arguing in favor of feminism, but the Men's Rights fellas were arguing against Imaginary Feminism, or IF. And they were right to do sol This is a truly toxic movementl Let's explore IF in detail. Trnag nary emunsm is monolithic This is very important. Anything said by anyone calling themselves a feminist can be assumed to be true of anyone else calling themselves a feminist. Some random thing Andrea Dworkin said in 1973 is tattooed on all IF's chests backward so they can read it in the mirror. All IFs simultaneously subscribe to the beliefs of Valerie Solanas, Catharine McKinnon, Betty Dodson, Phyllis Schlafly, Twisty Faster, and that person who wrote those weird articles about Frefy Or, I mean, all the beliefs you know about. Don't feel over-pressured to actually learn anything about these people If an IF tells you she does not hold a particular belief, there are two possibilities, and only two: 1. She's lying She's got the SCUM Mamifesto printed on her ceiling so it's the first thing she sees when she wakes up, and you know it. 2. She's not really a feminist at all And she didn't know it, poor thing! She's been suckeredl Pat her on the head for being "one of the good ones" and welcome her into the MRA fold. lently opposed to sex. Imaginary Feminism is viru IFs hate porn because it's sexy. IFs hate sex work because it involves sex. IFs hate pick-up Game because it gets men laid IFs hate women being sexy because, you know, sexy. IFs are sticklers about consensual sex because asking for consent is never sexy, and because they know that if men have to ask for consent they won't get laid. IFs favor a world of gray coveralls where women are never troubled by men's baser needs There are three possible explanations for this, which aren't contradictory in the slightest: 1. IFs are uggos who can't get laid, so they want to ruin the fun for everybody else. 2. IFs are actually very traditional ladies who want people to only have sex after making a major chocolate-and-diamonds commitment, and they're pissed that men are getting away with having casual sex. 3. IFs, like all women, have no sex drives of their own But unlike other women, they don't understand that they're supposed to sell their sex to men for money or ego boosts or to award a particularly deserving man Feminism is recklessly sexual. magnary Forget everything I just said. IF is all about letting sluts be sluts. IF believes that women should walk down the streets with their boobies out, fuck tons of men and run away without any consequences. IF just wants to enable hypergamy, which is women's desire to fuck successful, confident, and attractive men, which is horrible of women. So maybe it's most correct to say that IFs want to deprive nice decent guys of the sex they deserve, but bed-hop relentlessly between aggressive hyper masculine Alpha Males. That's the real meaning of "sexual empowerment"-chasing their biological urge toward hypergamy IFs also want to tease men with their bodies, put themselves in compromising positions with men, and then get out of having sex. This doesn't accomplish any basic female goals, it's just fiunny Imaginary Feminism is playing a zero-sum game against men. Women's rights" are entirely obtained by reducing men's rights. For example, when women got the vote, men saw the value of their votes decrease by halfl There's no justice in this world. And they want to push it further. The ultimate goal of IF is for women to have all of the rights and men to have none of the rights, and the only way to oppose them is to advocate the opposite. "Feminism helps men too" is a meaningless statement, because the very definition of feminism is opposition to men. This can be applied to just about every issue, although you will have to sorta squint at times. For example, when IFs ask for reproductive rights, that's their way of evilly killing men's babies... or evilly bearing men's babies and then having the gall to want child support. Or when IFs ask to be protected from sexual harassment and assault, that's their way of setting up men for false accusations! You may be noticing at this point that everything IFs do is really about men. This is correct. For example, when IFs set up women's shelters, they're doing that specifically to exclude men-the whole "sheltering women" thing is kind of a side effect. When IFs advocate for more representation of women in media and govenment, this really means less men. The actual impacts of these things on women are secondary. IF has no real grievances Women got the vote in 1920, and since then, IF has been totally irrelevant. The truth is that our current society is totally ruled by women. For example, IFs claim that women earn less than men, but the truth is that men do all their work to support women--every woman has a supporting man and spends her spare time on the couch eating bon-bons. [What even is a bon bon? Is it a chocolate thing? I've seriously never had one] Or IFs claim that women are kept out of high-status professions, when really women just don't like being powerful or successful and don't choose those paths Worst of all, IFs claim that women are subject to harassment, intimidation, and violence, when a cursory glance at crime statistics will show you that men are also victims of violence. This makes violence against women okay, because as long as violence is something that happens to everyone, it's kind of a non-issue and we should all just suck it up. Plus, the fact that women sometimes abuse men proves that women are evil anyway IFs love to shame men into silence. Any time an IF calls you a "sexist," "misogynist," "chauvinist," or anything along those lines, she is merely trying to shame you into silence, and you shouldn't fall for that old trick. In fact, the shaming language just got you out of listening to anything else in her argumentl Anything an IF says is invalid in toto if she failed you to address you as "Gentle Scholar." Particularly note the old IF trick of acting "angry." She does this to shut you up and intimidate you. Women never actually experience anger. Feel free to test this by needling and insulting her repeatedly, and watch how her facade of reasonable answers to your questions quickly crumbles as she gives in to acting "angry," an IF's last and basest resort. Remember if anything, ever, makes you feel bad about yourself and your actions, it's because people are evilly trying to make you feel bad! Don't fall for it. Any time a man does something good or a woman does something bad, this disproves Imaginary Feminism. Wel, duh. The entire thesis of IF is "women are better than men.. just better," so this is a direct contradiction. IFs are just old-fashioned proper ladies at heart. You know what an IF really wants? She wants a man to commit to her and take care of her, kill mastodons for her and give her lots of babies. She's just going about it all wrong This Sub's Idea Of Feminism
Bad, Bodies , and Boobies: Imaginary Feminism 101.
 I was reading the blog Manboobz, which is fascinating in a sort of constantly infuriating way, and has, er, "lively" debate in
 most of the comments sections, and realized that there was a fundamental disconnect there between the Men's Rights types
 (MRA, Men's Rights Activists) and the feminists. The feminists were arguing in favor of feminism, but the Men's Rights
 fellas were arguing against Imaginary Feminism, or IF. And they were right to do sol This is a truly toxic movementl Let's
 explore IF in detail.
 Trnag nary emunsm is monolithic
 This is very important. Anything said by anyone calling themselves a feminist can be assumed to be true of anyone else calling
 themselves a feminist. Some random thing Andrea Dworkin said in 1973 is tattooed on all IF's chests backward so they can
 read it in the mirror. All IFs simultaneously subscribe to the beliefs of Valerie Solanas, Catharine McKinnon, Betty Dodson,
 Phyllis Schlafly, Twisty Faster, and that person who wrote those weird articles about Frefy Or, I mean, all the beliefs you
 know about. Don't feel over-pressured to actually learn anything about these people
 If an IF tells you she does not hold a particular belief, there are two possibilities, and only two:
 1. She's lying She's got the SCUM Mamifesto printed on her ceiling so it's the first thing she sees when she wakes up, and
 you know it.
 2. She's not really a feminist at all And she didn't know it, poor thing! She's been suckeredl Pat her on the head for being
 "one of the good ones" and welcome her into the MRA fold.

 lently opposed to sex.
 Imaginary Feminism is viru
 IFs hate porn because it's sexy. IFs hate sex work because it involves sex. IFs hate pick-up Game because it gets men laid
 IFs hate women being sexy because, you know, sexy. IFs are sticklers about consensual sex because asking for consent is
 never sexy, and because they know that if men have to ask for consent they won't get laid. IFs favor a world of gray
 coveralls where women are never troubled by men's baser needs
 There are three possible explanations for this, which aren't contradictory in the slightest:
 1. IFs are uggos who can't get laid, so they want to ruin the fun for everybody else.
 2. IFs are actually very traditional ladies who want people to only have sex after making a major chocolate-and-diamonds
 commitment, and they're pissed that men are getting away with having casual sex.
 3. IFs, like all women, have no sex drives of their own But unlike other women, they don't understand that they're supposed
 to sell their sex to men for money or ego boosts or to award a particularly deserving man
 Feminism is recklessly sexual.
 magnary
 Forget everything I just said. IF is all about letting sluts be sluts. IF believes that women should walk down the streets with
 their boobies out, fuck tons of men and run away without any consequences. IF just wants to enable hypergamy, which is
 women's desire to fuck successful, confident, and attractive men, which is horrible of women. So maybe it's most correct to
 say that IFs want to deprive nice decent guys of the sex they deserve, but bed-hop relentlessly between aggressive hyper
 masculine Alpha Males. That's the real meaning of "sexual empowerment"-chasing their biological urge toward hypergamy
 IFs also want to tease men with their bodies, put themselves in compromising positions with men, and then get out of having
 sex. This doesn't accomplish any basic female goals, it's just fiunny

 Imaginary Feminism is playing a zero-sum game against men.
 Women's rights" are entirely obtained by reducing men's rights. For example, when women got the vote, men saw the value
 of their votes decrease by halfl There's no justice in this world. And they want to push it further. The ultimate goal of IF is
 for women to have all of the rights and men to have none of the rights, and the only way to oppose them is to advocate the
 opposite. "Feminism helps men too" is a meaningless statement, because the very definition of feminism is opposition to men.
 This can be applied to just about every issue, although you will have to sorta squint at times. For example, when IFs ask for
 reproductive rights, that's their way of evilly killing men's babies... or evilly bearing men's babies and then having the gall to
 want child support. Or when IFs ask to be protected from sexual harassment and assault, that's their way of setting up men
 for false accusations!
 You may be noticing at this point that everything IFs do is really about men. This is correct. For example, when IFs set up
 women's shelters, they're doing that specifically to exclude men-the whole "sheltering women" thing is kind of a side effect.
 When IFs advocate for more representation of women in media and govenment, this really means less men. The actual
 impacts of these things on women are secondary.
 IF has no real grievances
 Women got the vote in 1920, and since then, IF has been totally irrelevant. The truth is that our current society is totally ruled
 by women. For example, IFs claim that women earn less than men, but the truth is that men do all their work to support
 women--every woman has a supporting man and spends her spare time on the couch eating bon-bons. [What even is a bon
 bon? Is it a chocolate thing? I've seriously never had one] Or IFs claim that women are kept out of high-status professions,
 when really women just don't like being powerful or successful and don't choose those paths
 Worst of all, IFs claim that women are subject to harassment, intimidation, and violence, when a cursory glance at crime
 statistics will show you that men are also victims of violence. This makes violence against women okay, because as long as
 violence is something that happens to everyone, it's kind of a non-issue and we should all just suck it up. Plus, the fact that
 women sometimes abuse men proves that women are evil anyway

 IFs love to shame men into silence.
 Any time an IF calls you a "sexist," "misogynist," "chauvinist," or anything along those lines, she is merely trying to shame
 you into silence, and you shouldn't fall for that old trick. In fact, the shaming language just got you out of listening to
 anything else in her argumentl Anything an IF says is invalid in toto if she failed you to address you as "Gentle Scholar."
 Particularly note the old IF trick of acting "angry." She does this to shut you up and intimidate you. Women never actually
 experience anger. Feel free to test this by needling and insulting her repeatedly, and watch how her facade of reasonable
 answers to your questions quickly crumbles as she gives in to acting "angry," an IF's last and basest resort.
 Remember if anything, ever, makes you feel bad about yourself and your actions, it's because people are evilly trying to make
 you feel bad! Don't fall for it.
 Any time a man does something good or a woman does something bad, this disproves Imaginary Feminism.
 Wel, duh. The entire thesis of IF is "women are better than men.. just better," so this is a direct contradiction.
 IFs are just old-fashioned proper ladies at heart.
 You know what an IF really wants? She wants a man to commit to her and take care of her, kill mastodons for her and give
 her lots of babies. She's just going about it all wrong
This Sub's Idea Of Feminism

This Sub's Idea Of Feminism

Blade, Energy, and Facebook: cBcnewS ITechnology & Science Home World Canada Politics Business Health Arts & Entertainment Technology&Science Trending Video Technology & Science Quirks & Quarks Blog Spark Photo Galleries King Tut's dagger blade made from meteorite, study confirms Weapon was made by hammering in 14th century BC, 600 years before iron smelting developed in Egypt By Emily Chung, CBC News Posted: Jun 01, 2016 11:38 AMET Last Updated: Jun 01, 2016 3:22 PMET ROVERTISEMENT Stay Connected with CBC News Mobile Facebook Podcasts Twitter Alerts Newsletter Top News Headlines Al Her fish died, her house stinks but this Fort McMurray woman is smiling Lockdown lifted at UCLA after 2 dead in apparent murder-suicide The gold mask of King Tutankhamun is seen alongside a dagger found in the wrapping of his mummy in a composite image The dagger is now confirmed to be made of iron from a meteorite. (Associated Press/Daniela Comelli) Dylan Armstrong caught in ultimate irony after wife's failed doping test 9 high-profile cabinet resignations before Hunter Tootoo's sudden exit A famous dagger found in the wrapping of Egyptian King Tutankhamun's mummy was made with iron from a meteorite, a Related Stories Chinese foreign minister berates Canadian reporter fo asking about human rights Archeologistsclash over King Tut tomb study confirms. An analysis of the dagger's blade led by Daniela Comelli, a professor of materials science at the Polytechnic University of Milan in Italy, showed that it contains 10 per cent nickel and 0.6 per cent cobalt, the researchers report in the journal Meteoritics and Planetary Science. Must Watch King Tut's burial tomb scan shows hidden rooms, Egypt says Ancient Egyptian coffin found to contain fetus of 16- 18 weeks gestationT King Tut's wet nurse might have been his which identifies different elements from the characteristic colours o King Tut's burial tomb scan shows hidden rooms, Egypt says King Tut mask returns to display in Cairo after botched epoxy fix Latest Technology & Science News Headlines Emissions detected from space reveal big polluters The analysis was conducted using a technique called X-ray fluorescence, ray light they give off when hit with higher-energy X-rays. Then they compared the composition of the dagger's blade with that of 11 metallic King Tut is back after botched epoxy meteorites and found it to be very similar King Tut's dagger blade made from meteorite, study confirms iX Amazon's Jeff Bezos: 'Golden era' of technology is com External Links The world's longest train tunnel opens under Swiss Full paper in Meteoritics and Planetary Science News release from Lost your phone? Googling yourself? Google offers new help University of Milan Quirks & Quarks Note: CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external links This Week: Making a Cardboard House Quirks & Quarks for May 28, 2016 The dagger has an iron blade and a gold handle and sheath. A new analysis of the iron shows that it has a similar composition to known metallic meteorites. (Daniela Comelli/Polytechnic University of Milan) Survival of the fattest, Climate change shrinks birds, and more The dagger was found by archeologist Howard Carter in 1925, three ye after he discovered King Tut's tomb. The dagger was in the wrapping surrounding the right thigh of the boy king's mummy. It had a decorated gold handle with a pom protected with a gold sheath decorated with a pattern of lilies on one side feathers on the other, and a jackal's head, the researchers reported. mel of rock crystal, and the iron blade was Most Viewed King Tut's dagger blade made from meteorite, study confirms The dagger dates back to the 14th century BC and is one of very few iron mi detected from s rey When you knew all along, but no one believed you
Blade, Energy, and Facebook: cBcnewS ITechnology & Science
 Home World Canada Politics Business Health Arts & Entertainment Technology&Science Trending Video
 Technology & Science
 Quirks & Quarks Blog
 Spark
 Photo Galleries
 King Tut's dagger blade made from meteorite, study confirms
 Weapon was made by hammering in 14th century BC, 600 years before iron smelting developed in Egypt
 By Emily Chung, CBC News Posted: Jun 01, 2016 11:38 AMET Last Updated: Jun 01, 2016 3:22 PMET
 ROVERTISEMENT
 Stay Connected with CBC News
 Mobile Facebook Podcasts Twitter
 Alerts Newsletter
 Top News Headlines
 Al
 Her fish died, her house
 stinks but this Fort
 McMurray woman is
 smiling
 Lockdown lifted at UCLA after 2 dead in apparent
 murder-suicide
 The gold mask of King Tutankhamun is seen alongside a dagger found in the wrapping of his mummy in a composite image
 The dagger is now confirmed to be made of iron from a meteorite. (Associated Press/Daniela Comelli)
 Dylan Armstrong caught in ultimate irony after wife's
 failed doping test
 9 high-profile cabinet resignations before Hunter
 Tootoo's sudden exit
 A famous dagger found in the wrapping of Egyptian
 King Tutankhamun's mummy was made with iron from a meteorite, a
 Related Stories
 Chinese foreign minister berates Canadian reporter fo
 asking about human rights
 Archeologistsclash
 over King Tut tomb
 study confirms.
 An analysis of the dagger's blade led by Daniela Comelli, a professor of
 materials science at the Polytechnic University of Milan in Italy, showed
 that it contains 10 per cent nickel and 0.6 per cent cobalt, the researchers
 report in the journal Meteoritics and Planetary Science.
 Must Watch
 King Tut's burial
 tomb scan shows
 hidden rooms, Egypt
 says
 Ancient Egyptian
 coffin found to
 contain fetus of 16-
 18 weeks gestationT
 King Tut's wet nurse
 might have been his which identifies different elements from the characteristic colours o
 King Tut's burial tomb scan shows hidden rooms, Egypt says
 King Tut mask returns to display in Cairo after botched epoxy fix
 Latest Technology & Science News Headlines
 Emissions detected from
 space reveal big polluters
 The analysis was conducted using a technique called X-ray fluorescence,
 ray light they give off when hit with higher-energy X-rays. Then they
 compared the composition of the dagger's blade with that of 11 metallic
 King Tut is back
 after botched epoxy meteorites and found it to be very similar
 King Tut's dagger blade made from meteorite, study
 confirms
 iX
 Amazon's Jeff Bezos: 'Golden era' of technology is
 com
 External Links
 The world's longest train tunnel opens under Swiss
 Full paper in
 Meteoritics and
 Planetary Science
 News release from
 Lost your phone? Googling yourself? Google offers
 new help
 University of Milan
 Quirks & Quarks
 Note: CBC does not
 endorse and is not
 responsible for the
 content of external links
 This Week: Making a
 Cardboard House
 Quirks & Quarks for May
 28, 2016
 The dagger has an iron blade and a gold handle and sheath. A new analysis of the iron shows
 that it has a similar composition to known metallic meteorites. (Daniela Comelli/Polytechnic
 University of Milan)
 Survival of the fattest,
 Climate change shrinks
 birds, and more
 The dagger was found by archeologist Howard Carter in 1925, three ye
 after he discovered King Tut's tomb. The dagger was in the wrapping
 surrounding the right thigh of the boy king's mummy. It had a decorated
 gold handle with a pom
 protected with a gold sheath decorated with a pattern of lilies on one side
 feathers on the other, and a jackal's head, the researchers reported.
 mel of rock crystal, and the iron blade was
 Most Viewed
 King Tut's dagger blade made from meteorite, study
 confirms
 The dagger dates back to the 14th century BC and is one of very few iron
 mi
 detected from s
 rey
When you knew all along, but no one believed you

When you knew all along, but no one believed you