I need people to stop banning my lolis. That's all I need! Just let me be with my drawings. Let me enjoy cute happy anime lolis that are so full of love and affection. That let me forget about this horrible world and the shitty people in it. Is that so hard to ask for? Why are people so fucking hell bent on banning lolis? What do they or society gain? I don't like scary slasher movies about people murdering people(illegal BTW). But I don't call for them to be banned nor insult those that enjoy them. One of the few things in life that makes me happy. Little glimmers of joy in my shit life and they fucking ban it because they want to make an extra buck fron ad investors.
Maybe there's a reason why people want these pure, perfect maidens? Could it be that the real world is filled with darwinistic people? Filled with murder, drugs, deasise, genocide, virtue signalling, inequality, false politicians, false ronance, bullies, ect. Where everyone is out to push eachother down to get on top? Yea, no wonder people are so eager to want something better.
Is it really difficult for people to mind their own business? If you don't harm anyone, why ban it?
You know. What about GTA that glorifies crime and actually hurts people in the real world with predatory microtransactions? What about rape fantasies? What about guro? What about furry porn? What if she's canonlly legal age? What about girls that look mature but are underage(Ikkitousen, HSoTD)? What about all that incest porn on pornhub? That's illegal IRL but no one is harping to ban that. What about r/trees? A sub dedicated to glorifying marijuana but one problem...weed has been and still is illegal and classified as a class1 drug in the US. Or the sub that literally shows real kids being killed. Or all those propaganda and ad shilling? But no one bans that!
BUT BAN THE LOLIS!!!!!
IF. PEOPLE. JUST. STOPPED. BANNING. LOLIS. I'LL. BE. HAPPY
Does this Eugene guy just sit on Twitter all day F5'in on trump to always be first to say dumb shit or whatever? Like, even Trump tweet I see he is always first with like ten replies.
he was a general surgeon resident at vandy and got fired for unprofessionalism, which means he can't practice medicine until he gets readmitted and completes a residency program
Wait, fired for unprofessionalism? You mean the type of person who constantly cries about Trump can't hold it together in a professional setting? S h o c k e r
It’s a joke about how often male feminists commit sexual harassment. My fave was the guy who wanted to teach inmates in prison about the sexism in video games
There are two reasons a man would tolerate the "all men are rapists" rhetoric:
He is a remorseful rapist, believes that all men are like him, and hopes that self-flagellation will help him overcome his tendencies (it doesn't usually)
He's an unrepentant sociopathic predator who seeks access to a community full of easily abused women.
Well gee golly thank god "all men are rapists" isn't actually rhetoric feminists as a whole 9 digit movement support, and suggesting that that's the case is sipping coolaid on levels never seen before.
​
Now that you mention it, the only person here applying the rapist label to a huge group of people.... is you.
Well gee golly thank god "all men are rapists" isn't actually rhetoric feminists as a whole 9 digit movement support, and suggesting that that's the case is sipping coolaid on levels never seen before.
What feminists believe and support is highly contextual.
In the exact sort of discussion we are having right now, yes, most feminists would vehemently deny that feminists believe that all men are rapists.
However if I go and say that I feel that "teach men not to rape" posters are problematic because not all men are rapists, a majority of feminists would attack me and no feminists would defend me. You wouldn't defend me. So there's that.
Now that you mention it, the only person here applying the rapist label to a huge group of people.... is you.
Applying the rapist label to a huge group of people by itself isn't wrong, being wrong about it is wrong. Not all men are rapists, all male feminists are rapists or future rapists.
"yeah fair enough, they do not. But they promote education programs about rape hence they think all men are rapists"
​
How pro-rape can you get to think that rape prevention education is equivalent to suggesting all men are rapists? How pro-rape can you get to even oppose such education?
​
If a society has a drunk driving problem and people sponsor drunk driving education, no one is out there "HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE ALL OF US IN ENGAGING IN DRUNK DRIVING".
​
If a society has an opioid problem and people start sponsoring drug prevention, no one is out there saying "HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE MY KID OF BEING A DRUGGIE".
​
You've got an issue with the realization that most men aren't insecure enough to think these posters accuse them of rape, and as opposed to actually thinking critically you're literally accusing all men that disagree with you of being rapists. Exactly what you hate feminists for. Your only justification for any of this is "I'm right because I'm right because I'm right and you're wrong you rapist". The sheer lack of self awareness you are displaying is actual record level even for fucking leddit.
​
I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul, if your NPC (and I mean this unironically, you've literally said "I'm right because I'm right") code even allows for one.
How pro-rape can you get to think that rape prevention education is equivalent to suggesting all men are rapists?
You might have noticed how feminists are really big on the idea that language subtly or less subtly shapes thought.
For example, you shouldn't call some risky choice a "dumb nigger risk" because this reinforces the idea that black people are stupid and take unnecessary risks. If you call lame things "gay", that associates homosexuality with negativity and prejudices you against homosexuals. In fact, you shouldn't call bad things "lame" or even "stupid", because it associates unnecessary extra negativity with invalids and stupid people.
Also, words like "policeman" and "seamstress" reinforce gender stereotypes and should be replaced with gender neutral terms. Also you should say "a person with autism" instead of "autistic person" or even worse "autist": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People-first_language
Person-first language avoids using labels or adjectives to define someone, utilising terms such as "a person with diabetes" or "a person with alcoholism", instead of "a diabetic" or "an alcoholic". The intention is that a person is seen foremost as a person and only secondly as a person with some trait. Advocates of person-first language point to the failure to mentally separate the person from the trait as reinforcing a sense that both the trait and the person are inherently bad or inferior, leading to discrimination whilst also implicitly reinforcing a sense of permanency even regarding issues that are likely to be temporary. For example, a person with a substance use disorder has a fair chance of achieving long-term remission—many years in which he is healthy and productive—but calling him a "substance abuser" reinforces an unspoken sense that he is inherently and permanently tainted and casts doubt on maintenance of remission.
Then there are "people of color", latin@, using "them" instead of "him" and "him/her", and so on, and so on.
However, as soon as I point out that "teach men not to rape" implies that all men are rapists and it would be better to rephrase it in a more sensitive way, I'm literally accused of being "pro-rape" by you here.
If it came from anyone else, I'd just shrug it off. But when it comes from the people who are intimately familiar with the effects of the language on prejudice and spend a huge amount of time identifying problematic turns of phrase, I can no longer think that this is an oversight, this must be on purpose.
you're literally accusing all men that disagree with you of being rapists. Exactly what you hate feminists for.
I don't just accuse them for the sake of it, I have provided a clear justification: there are two main reasons why someone would identify with a group that consistently treats them like shit: either they agree that this is deserved, like Hugo Schwyzer, or they do that to get access to vulnerable women, like Joss Whedon (but also like Hugo Schwyzer). And every time another male feminist is caught being a male feminist, my theory is justified.
You on the other hand has not provided any argument to the contrary. Your only argument is that I can't accuse any group of people of being rapists because that makes me inconsistent because I don't agree that all men are rapists. That's a very silly argument, I already explained that I'm only against wrongfully accusing groups of people of being rapists. If some group does in fact consist mostly of rapists, abusers, and people who are OK with belonging to it despite that, like male feminists, I'm all for calling it out!
How pro-rape can you get to think that rape prevention education is equivalent to suggesting all men are rapists?
You might have noticed how feminists are really big on the idea that language subtly or less subtly shapes thought.
For example, you shouldn't call some risky choice "a dumb nigger risk" because this reinforces the idea that black people are stupid and take unnecessary risks. If you call lame things "gay", that associates homosexuality with negativity and prejudices you against homosexuals. In fact, you shouldn't call bad things "lame" or even "stupid", because it associates unnecessary extra negativity with invalids and stupid people.
Also, words like "policeman" and "seamstress" reinforce gender stereotypes and should be replaced with gender neutral terms. Also you should say "a person with autism" instead of "autistic person" or even worse "autist": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People-first_language
Person-first language avoids using labels or adjectives to define someone, utilising terms such as "a person with diabetes" or "a person with alcoholism", instead of "a diabetic" or "an alcoholic". The intention is that a person is seen foremost as a person and only secondly as a person with some trait. Advocates of person-first language point to the failure to mentally separate the person from the trait as reinforcing a sense that both the trait and the person are inherently bad or inferior, leading to discrimination whilst also implicitly reinforcing a sense of permanency even regarding issues that are likely to be temporary. For example, a person with a substance use disorder has a fair chance of achieving long-term remission—many years in which he is healthy and productive—but calling him a "substance abuser" reinforces an unspoken sense that he is inherently and permanently tainted and casts doubt on maintenance of remission.
Then there are "people of color", latin@, using "them" instead of "him" and "him/her", and so on, and so on.
However, as soon as I point out that "teach men not to rape" implies that all men are rapists and it would be better to rephrase it in a more sensitive way, I'm literally accused of being "pro-rape" by you here.
If it came from anyone else, I'd just shrug it off. But when it comes from the people who are intimately familiar with the effects of language on prejudice and spend a huge amount of time identifying problematic turns of phrase, I can no longer think that this is an oversight, this must be on purpose.
you're literally accusing all men that disagree with you of being rapists. Exactly what you hate feminists for.
I don't just accuse them for the sake of it, I have provided a clear justification: there are two main reasons why someone would identify with a group that consistently treats them like shit: either they agree that this is deserved, like Hugo Schwyzer, or they do that to get access to vulnerable women, like Joss Whedon (but also like Hugo Schwyzer). And every time another male feminist is caught being a male feminist, my theory is justified.
You on the other hand has not provided any argument to the contrary. Your only argument is that I can't accuse any group of people of being rapists because that makes me inconsistent because I don't agree that all men are rapists. That's a very silly argument, I already explained that I'm only against wrongfully accusing groups of people of being rapists. If some group does in fact consist mostly of rapists, abusers, and people who are OK with belonging to it despite that, like male feminists, I'm all for calling it out!
I'm just gonna fast forward this to the big fallacies you'll make, the small ones aren't worth my time
​
You:
"It's rude to suggest that all men are rapists or pro-rape"
​
Also you:
"You're a rapist or pro-rape because you're a member of this group of people of which I give examples that I allege are rapists, and I'm so oblivious that I don't realize that all of those same people are also part of the group that is men. Not only am I retarded enough to think anecdotal evidence followed by Jordan "lobster menstruation" Peterson hypothetical freudian garbage is enough to prove a group is rapist with surety, but I don't think for a second about the fact that litterally all of my logic can apply to men, or men that aren't feminists".
​
I can find examples of men that aren't feminists that have done the rapey thing. In fact, I can find more examples of that than you can find of your thing. I can also drum up a similarly long-fetched "muh guilty conscience" bullshit justification for that. By your logic, men that aren't feminists are thus all rapists.
​
You tried so hard but you're giving me everything I need to debunk your arguments with right now. I think the lesson to learn from this is obvious for you: be like Jontron. Just sip your coolaid in a corner. You can't justify it in an argument with people outside your echo chamber. It'll save you a lot of cope juice.
"It's rude to suggest that all men are rapists or pro-rape"
It's not rude, it's wrong. Do you understand the concept of statements being right or wrong?
You: the sky is green.
Me: no, the sky is not green, the sky blue.
Also me: the grass is green.
You: gotcha! You just said that the sky is not green, why do you say that grass is green, you hypocrite!
followed by Jordan "lobster menstruation" Peterson hypothetical freudian garbage
rent free, lmao
I can also drum up a similarly long-fetched "muh guilty conscience" bullshit justification for that. By your logic, men that aren't feminists are thus all rapists.
You skipped the little part where you do drum up the justification.
Is that like your NPC "hello world" printf test code?
​
> You skipped the little part where you do drum up the justification.
​
Did you just admit that you drummed up your justification? Holy shit man you're miles past rock bottom. I could go some tangent like "if you seriously have an issue with a sign that says teach men not to rape you secretly want rape to happen" or ""fem" in feminist means woman so if you hate feminists you hate women", and both of those tangents are still many degrees less fallacious than your filth, but I really don't have to when you've just admitted you're full of shit. I have no reason to engage in your level of disingenuity.
​
"You can't say what you say because you're wrong and I am right"
​
"Why are you right about all male feminists being rapists?"
​
"Because I gave two examples of male feminists that have committed sexual misconduct and have followed it up with some weird "if you care about rape you must be a rapist" mental gymnastics"
​
"So since they're both also men and literally anyone can come up with mental gymnastics like that, are all men rapists?"
​
"ALL MALE FEMINISTS ARE RAPISTS REEEEEEEEEEEEEE"
​
All 👏🏻 male 👏🏻 non feminists 👏🏻 are 👏🏻 rapists 👏🏻. What can be asserted without proof, can be refuted without proof. Good night. By chanting an assertion to yourself, you just highlight to everyone how in everything except the colour of the teams jersey, you are equivalent to the worst feminist stereotype you can think of.
​
Since at this point you've just resorted to chanting your alt-facts to convince yourself they're true, I'm more or less done here. The only possible circumstances where you'd be unaware how solidly you've lost this is if you are like 12, or mentally ill, and neither of those options are people that are worth anyone's time arguing with.
​
Simply put, you're either consciously or subconsciously in the pigeon-shitting-on-the-board defense mechanism, and as such the only reason I'd stay and chat is to fuck with you some more, however I honestly do not think I can do anything to you significantly worse than the psychological damage your irrational programmed hatred (actually thinking everyone you disagree with is a rapist top kek) inflicts upon you every waking day. I think I'll leave you on the floor now.
Is that like your NPC "hello world" printf test code?
No, I was amused by you bringing absolutely unrelated people you hate into this conversation. You should figure how to tie drumpf in somehow.
Did you just admit that you drummed up your justification?
Are you actually autistic or merely pretending?
I could go some tangent like "if you seriously have an issue with a sign that says teach men not to rape you secretly want rape to happen" or ""fem" in feminist means woman so if you hate feminists you hate women"
"Could", lmao that's literally what you did and what feminists routinely do. No, objecting to misandristic phrasing doesn't mean that I want rape to happen, and no, less than 1 in 5 women in the US identify as feminists, so not identifying as a feminist is not misogyny.
Because I gave two examples of male feminists that have committed sexual misconduct
Dude, the number of male feminist rapists is insane. But of course since most rapes go unreported, a lot of male feminists walk free.
have followed it up with some weird "if you care about rape you must be a rapist" mental gymnastics"
I'll explain my argument again. Any male who identifies as a feminist must somehow deal with the fact that feminists shit on men. I proposed two possibilities (based on how male feminists caught in the act tend to explain themselves): either they agree that men deserve it based on their experience being male abusers themselves, or they don't really care as long as it gives them access to vulnerable women. Maybe you should try to engage with the argument somehow, by proposing some alternative possibilities, explaining how you cope personally for example?
By the way, I've noticed another weird thing, I expected the goto argument for you to be that you're a male feminist but not a rapist, so there, not literally all male feminists are rapists. But you never made it, is it because you personally are a rapist, but believe that there are other male rapists out there who are not, so it's unfair to tar them with the same brush as you?
How can Trump wish someone welll while literally in the same tweet label that person crazy with a bullying nickname? Extremely weird, childish, and unpresidential.
Oh. I don't know. Maybe it's because sander's was able to build up a rabid enough fanbase to damage mommy without ever posing a threat to daddy? I bet daddy is unironically happy to watch the dems fling shit at each other again.
Maybe if the Hillary stans would spend even half the time they spend shivering in their boots from us concentrating on our supposed common enemy this wouldn't have happened.
This Gu character is something. Wikipedia says he got divorced in 2015 and had a restraining order on him. He also allegedly male-feministed his ex-girlfriend, as well.
116 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2019-02-20
I need people to stop banning my lolis. That's all I need! Just let me be with my drawings. Let me enjoy cute happy anime lolis that are so full of love and affection. That let me forget about this horrible world and the shitty people in it. Is that so hard to ask for? Why are people so fucking hell bent on banning lolis? What do they or society gain? I don't like scary slasher movies about people murdering people(illegal BTW). But I don't call for them to be banned nor insult those that enjoy them. One of the few things in life that makes me happy. Little glimmers of joy in my shit life and they fucking ban it because they want to make an extra buck fron ad investors.
Maybe there's a reason why people want these pure, perfect maidens? Could it be that the real world is filled with darwinistic people? Filled with murder, drugs, deasise, genocide, virtue signalling, inequality, false politicians, false ronance, bullies, ect. Where everyone is out to push eachother down to get on top? Yea, no wonder people are so eager to want something better.
Is it really difficult for people to mind their own business? If you don't harm anyone, why ban it?
You know. What about GTA that glorifies crime and actually hurts people in the real world with predatory microtransactions? What about rape fantasies? What about guro? What about furry porn? What if she's canonlly legal age? What about girls that look mature but are underage(Ikkitousen, HSoTD)? What about all that incest porn on pornhub? That's illegal IRL but no one is harping to ban that. What about r/trees? A sub dedicated to glorifying marijuana but one problem...weed has been and still is illegal and classified as a class1 drug in the US. Or the sub that literally shows real kids being killed. Or all those propaganda and ad shilling? But no one bans that!
BUT BAN THE LOLIS!!!!!
IF. PEOPLE. JUST. STOPPED. BANNING. LOLIS. I'LL. BE. HAPPY
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 Wraith_GraveSpell 2019-02-20
FBI OPEN UP
1 Neon_needles 2019-02-20
Does this Eugene guy just sit on Twitter all day F5'in on trump to always be first to say dumb shit or whatever? Like, even Trump tweet I see he is always first with like ten replies.
Pathetic, nigga.
1 WreckingYourHome 2019-02-20
😮😮😮 You shouldn't be so rude. As Melania once famously said: "When they go low, we go high!"
1 Coonass_alt 2019-02-20
well he lost his residency to #resist, its all hes got now
1 corprethar 2019-02-20
Details?
1 Coonass_alt 2019-02-20
he was a general surgeon resident at vandy and got fired for unprofessionalism, which means he can't practice medicine until he gets readmitted and completes a residency program
1 corprethar 2019-02-20
Outstanding, thank you.
1 Matthew94 2019-02-20
Got fired for never shutting up about Trump.
1 Pepperglue 2019-02-20
Samfur Dispray. He blought dishonol to his famiry. Sudoku is his onry way out.
1 TheLordHighExecu 2019-02-20
disgusting southron detected
1 WeeniePops 2019-02-20
Wait, fired for unprofessionalism? You mean the type of person who constantly cries about Trump can't hold it together in a professional setting? S h o c k e r
1 cheers_grills 2019-02-20
Daddy tweeted something when Eugene was doing a surgery and things escalated quickly.
1 cragfar 2019-02-20
https://www.tennessean.com/story/money/industries/health-care/2018/06/08/vanderbilt-doctor-eugene-gu-fired-donald-trump/684562002/
Guy seriously threw away most likely 10s of millions in career earnings fighting Trump
1 FusRoDawg 2019-02-20
The wiki says he's a make feminist too.
1 guac_boi1 2019-02-20
Gasp the horror
1 cheers_grills 2019-02-20
Well excuse me for being anti-rape.
1 guac_boi1 2019-02-20
Virtue signal much? Trying to paint feminism as pro-rape is next level enlightened irony
1 Mrmaxwell135 2019-02-20
It’s a joke about how often male feminists commit sexual harassment. My fave was the guy who wanted to teach inmates in prison about the sexism in video games
1 guac_boi1 2019-02-20
That sounds pretty anecdotal dawg ngl. I doubt that stereotype is statistically founded but w/e
1 White_Dudeness 2019-02-20
There are two reasons a man would tolerate the "all men are rapists" rhetoric:
He is a remorseful rapist, believes that all men are like him, and hopes that self-flagellation will help him overcome his tendencies (it doesn't usually)
He's an unrepentant sociopathic predator who seeks access to a community full of easily abused women.
1 guac_boi1 2019-02-20
Well gee golly thank god "all men are rapists" isn't actually rhetoric feminists as a whole 9 digit movement support, and suggesting that that's the case is sipping coolaid on levels never seen before.
​
Now that you mention it, the only person here applying the rapist label to a huge group of people.... is you.
​
oopsie
1 White_Dudeness 2019-02-20
What feminists believe and support is highly contextual.
In the exact sort of discussion we are having right now, yes, most feminists would vehemently deny that feminists believe that all men are rapists.
However if I go and say that I feel that "teach men not to rape" posters are problematic because not all men are rapists, a majority of feminists would attack me and no feminists would defend me. You wouldn't defend me. So there's that.
Applying the rapist label to a huge group of people by itself isn't wrong, being wrong about it is wrong. Not all men are rapists, all male feminists are rapists or future rapists.
1 guac_boi1 2019-02-20
"Feminists think all men are rapists"
​
"They do not"
​
"yeah fair enough, they do not. But they promote education programs about rape hence they think all men are rapists"
​
How pro-rape can you get to think that rape prevention education is equivalent to suggesting all men are rapists? How pro-rape can you get to even oppose such education?
​
If a society has a drunk driving problem and people sponsor drunk driving education, no one is out there "HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE ALL OF US IN ENGAGING IN DRUNK DRIVING".
​
If a society has an opioid problem and people start sponsoring drug prevention, no one is out there saying "HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE MY KID OF BEING A DRUGGIE".
​
You've got an issue with the realization that most men aren't insecure enough to think these posters accuse them of rape, and as opposed to actually thinking critically you're literally accusing all men that disagree with you of being rapists. Exactly what you hate feminists for. Your only justification for any of this is "I'm right because I'm right because I'm right and you're wrong you rapist". The sheer lack of self awareness you are displaying is actual record level even for fucking leddit.
​
I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul, if your NPC (and I mean this unironically, you've literally said "I'm right because I'm right") code even allows for one.
1 LongPostBot 2019-02-20
Sorry ma'am, looks like his delusions have gotten worse. We'll have to admit him,
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 guac_boi1 2019-02-20
Somehow this bot has more critical thinking than u/whitedudeness
1 zergling_Lester 2019-02-20
You might have noticed how feminists are really big on the idea that language subtly or less subtly shapes thought.
For example, you shouldn't call some risky choice a "dumb nigger risk" because this reinforces the idea that black people are stupid and take unnecessary risks. If you call lame things "gay", that associates homosexuality with negativity and prejudices you against homosexuals. In fact, you shouldn't call bad things "lame" or even "stupid", because it associates unnecessary extra negativity with invalids and stupid people.
Also, words like "policeman" and "seamstress" reinforce gender stereotypes and should be replaced with gender neutral terms. Also you should say "a person with autism" instead of "autistic person" or even worse "autist": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People-first_language
Then there are "people of color", latin@, using "them" instead of "him" and "him/her", and so on, and so on.
However, as soon as I point out that "teach men not to rape" implies that all men are rapists and it would be better to rephrase it in a more sensitive way, I'm literally accused of being "pro-rape" by you here.
If it came from anyone else, I'd just shrug it off. But when it comes from the people who are intimately familiar with the effects of the language on prejudice and spend a huge amount of time identifying problematic turns of phrase, I can no longer think that this is an oversight, this must be on purpose.
I don't just accuse them for the sake of it, I have provided a clear justification: there are two main reasons why someone would identify with a group that consistently treats them like shit: either they agree that this is deserved, like Hugo Schwyzer, or they do that to get access to vulnerable women, like Joss Whedon (but also like Hugo Schwyzer). And every time another male feminist is caught being a male feminist, my theory is justified.
You on the other hand has not provided any argument to the contrary. Your only argument is that I can't accuse any group of people of being rapists because that makes me inconsistent because I don't agree that all men are rapists. That's a very silly argument, I already explained that I'm only against wrongfully accusing groups of people of being rapists. If some group does in fact consist mostly of rapists, abusers, and people who are OK with belonging to it despite that, like male feminists, I'm all for calling it out!
1 LongPostBot 2019-02-20
All them words won't bring your pa back.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 zergling_Lester 2019-02-20
You might have noticed how feminists are really big on the idea that language subtly or less subtly shapes thought.
For example, you shouldn't call some risky choice "a dumb nigger risk" because this reinforces the idea that black people are stupid and take unnecessary risks. If you call lame things "gay", that associates homosexuality with negativity and prejudices you against homosexuals. In fact, you shouldn't call bad things "lame" or even "stupid", because it associates unnecessary extra negativity with invalids and stupid people.
Also, words like "policeman" and "seamstress" reinforce gender stereotypes and should be replaced with gender neutral terms. Also you should say "a person with autism" instead of "autistic person" or even worse "autist": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People-first_language
Then there are "people of color", latin@, using "them" instead of "him" and "him/her", and so on, and so on.
However, as soon as I point out that "teach men not to rape" implies that all men are rapists and it would be better to rephrase it in a more sensitive way, I'm literally accused of being "pro-rape" by you here.
If it came from anyone else, I'd just shrug it off. But when it comes from the people who are intimately familiar with the effects of language on prejudice and spend a huge amount of time identifying problematic turns of phrase, I can no longer think that this is an oversight, this must be on purpose.
I don't just accuse them for the sake of it, I have provided a clear justification: there are two main reasons why someone would identify with a group that consistently treats them like shit: either they agree that this is deserved, like Hugo Schwyzer, or they do that to get access to vulnerable women, like Joss Whedon (but also like Hugo Schwyzer). And every time another male feminist is caught being a male feminist, my theory is justified.
You on the other hand has not provided any argument to the contrary. Your only argument is that I can't accuse any group of people of being rapists because that makes me inconsistent because I don't agree that all men are rapists. That's a very silly argument, I already explained that I'm only against wrongfully accusing groups of people of being rapists. If some group does in fact consist mostly of rapists, abusers, and people who are OK with belonging to it despite that, like male feminists, I'm all for calling it out!
1 LongPostBot 2019-02-20
Have you owned the libs yet?
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 zergling_Lester 2019-02-20
Working on it, my dude.
1 guac_boi1 2019-02-20
Narrator voice: he really isn't
1 zergling_Lester 2019-02-20
I've been owning you left and right in this thread, kiddo 😎
1 guac_boi1 2019-02-20
If only saying it made it so.
​
A great subtitle of a movie about your dookie opinions
1 guac_boi1 2019-02-20
I'm just gonna fast forward this to the big fallacies you'll make, the small ones aren't worth my time
​
You:
"It's rude to suggest that all men are rapists or pro-rape"
​
Also you:
"You're a rapist or pro-rape because you're a member of this group of people of which I give examples that I allege are rapists, and I'm so oblivious that I don't realize that all of those same people are also part of the group that is men. Not only am I retarded enough to think anecdotal evidence followed by Jordan "lobster menstruation" Peterson hypothetical freudian garbage is enough to prove a group is rapist with surety, but I don't think for a second about the fact that litterally all of my logic can apply to men, or men that aren't feminists".
​
I can find examples of men that aren't feminists that have done the rapey thing. In fact, I can find more examples of that than you can find of your thing. I can also drum up a similarly long-fetched "muh guilty conscience" bullshit justification for that. By your logic, men that aren't feminists are thus all rapists.
​
You tried so hard but you're giving me everything I need to debunk your arguments with right now. I think the lesson to learn from this is obvious for you: be like Jontron. Just sip your coolaid in a corner. You can't justify it in an argument with people outside your echo chamber. It'll save you a lot of cope juice.
1 LongPostBot 2019-02-20
You can type 10,000 characters and you decided that these were the one's that you wanted.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 zergling_Lester 2019-02-20
It's not rude, it's wrong. Do you understand the concept of statements being right or wrong?
You: the sky is green.
Me: no, the sky is not green, the sky blue.
Also me: the grass is green.
You: gotcha! You just said that the sky is not green, why do you say that grass is green, you hypocrite!
rent free, lmao
You skipped the little part where you do drum up the justification.
rent free, lmao
1 guac_boi1 2019-02-20
> rent free, lmao
​
Is that like your NPC "hello world" printf test code?
​
> You skipped the little part where you do drum up the justification.
​
Did you just admit that you drummed up your justification? Holy shit man you're miles past rock bottom. I could go some tangent like "if you seriously have an issue with a sign that says teach men not to rape you secretly want rape to happen" or ""fem" in feminist means woman so if you hate feminists you hate women", and both of those tangents are still many degrees less fallacious than your filth, but I really don't have to when you've just admitted you're full of shit. I have no reason to engage in your level of disingenuity.
​
"You can't say what you say because you're wrong and I am right"
​
"Why are you right about all male feminists being rapists?"
​
"Because I gave two examples of male feminists that have committed sexual misconduct and have followed it up with some weird "if you care about rape you must be a rapist" mental gymnastics"
​
"So since they're both also men and literally anyone can come up with mental gymnastics like that, are all men rapists?"
​
"ALL MALE FEMINISTS ARE RAPISTS REEEEEEEEEEEEEE"
​
All 👏🏻 male 👏🏻 non feminists 👏🏻 are 👏🏻 rapists 👏🏻. What can be asserted without proof, can be refuted without proof. Good night. By chanting an assertion to yourself, you just highlight to everyone how in everything except the colour of the teams jersey, you are equivalent to the worst feminist stereotype you can think of.
​
Since at this point you've just resorted to chanting your alt-facts to convince yourself they're true, I'm more or less done here. The only possible circumstances where you'd be unaware how solidly you've lost this is if you are like 12, or mentally ill, and neither of those options are people that are worth anyone's time arguing with.
​
Simply put, you're either consciously or subconsciously in the pigeon-shitting-on-the-board defense mechanism, and as such the only reason I'd stay and chat is to fuck with you some more, however I honestly do not think I can do anything to you significantly worse than the psychological damage your irrational programmed hatred (actually thinking everyone you disagree with is a rapist top kek) inflicts upon you every waking day. I think I'll leave you on the floor now.
1 LongPostBot 2019-02-20
Good job bobby, here's a star
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 guac_boi1 2019-02-20
TY
1 White_Dudeness 2019-02-20
No, I was amused by you bringing absolutely unrelated people you hate into this conversation. You should figure how to tie drumpf in somehow.
Are you actually autistic or merely pretending?
"Could", lmao that's literally what you did and what feminists routinely do. No, objecting to misandristic phrasing doesn't mean that I want rape to happen, and no, less than 1 in 5 women in the US identify as feminists, so not identifying as a feminist is not misogyny.
Dude, the number of male feminist rapists is insane. But of course since most rapes go unreported, a lot of male feminists walk free.
I'll explain my argument again. Any male who identifies as a feminist must somehow deal with the fact that feminists shit on men. I proposed two possibilities (based on how male feminists caught in the act tend to explain themselves): either they agree that men deserve it based on their experience being male abusers themselves, or they don't really care as long as it gives them access to vulnerable women. Maybe you should try to engage with the argument somehow, by proposing some alternative possibilities, explaining how you cope personally for example?
By the way, I've noticed another weird thing, I expected the goto argument for you to be that you're a male feminist but not a rapist, so there, not literally all male feminists are rapists. But you never made it, is it because you personally are a rapist, but believe that there are other male rapists out there who are not, so it's unfair to tar them with the same brush as you?
1 LongPostBot 2019-02-20
look im gunna have 2 ask u 2 keep ur giant dumps in the toilet not in my replys 😷😷😷
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 ExtraSluttyOliveOil 2019-02-20
That's gonna be a yikes from me dawg, your joke probably isn't statistically founded SMH my head
1 guac_boi1 2019-02-20
You're making fun of me for pointing out he has no facts to support his statement? You do you my guy, if you enjoy being wrong by all means.
1 ExtraSluttyOliveOil 2019-02-20
To clarify, I'm making fun of you for the way you type.
1 guac_boi1 2019-02-20
Wow, I type weird, I sure got roasted
​
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s6aNjJRbrA
1 ExtraSluttyOliveOil 2019-02-20
You don't type weird, you type like a woque Twitter activist.
1 guac_boi1 2019-02-20
Is woque the woke way to spell woke?
1 iansmith223 2019-02-20
He’s unemployed. So, yes.
1 MikeStoklasaBackup 2019-02-20
I honestly hate him so much because of how pathetic he is.
1 check_fugazi_bro 2019-02-20
He's on full time cope mode
1 SithisTheDreadFather 2019-02-20
Worse: he prewrites all those tweets and wrote a script to post them the nanosecond Trump hits submit.
Imagine prewriting tweets lmao
1 ManBearFridge 2019-02-20
Gotta give it to Daddy, the man can stir a pot.
1 -6x- 2019-02-20
In less than 140 characters too. Is there anything this man can't do, except for the leadership part?
1 Whaddaulookinat 2019-02-20
Probably touch his toes, read a P/L statement, or read Go-Dog-Go all the way through I'd venture.
1 butwhydoesreddit 2019-02-20
Not an achievement when you're president. You can say anything retarded and people will be pissed coz they expect better from the president
1 cheers_grills 2019-02-20
He did the same even as a republican candidate.
1 THOT-AUDITOR 2019-02-20
Eh, I'm willing to admit I usually find Trump's nicknames funny but Crazy Bernie is weak even by his standards.
1 WreckingYourHome 2019-02-20
Daddy can't come up with a meanie nickname for Granpa, because in his heart, he believes Bernie can still win.
1 freet0 2019-02-20
Or maybe he wanted to call him senile but then remembered theyre the same age
1 ConfuseTheJews 2019-02-20
Bernie has already won. We're just too primitive to see it yet
1 d4ddyd54m4 2019-02-20
It takes time for the conclusion of 27D monopoly game to trickle down to our pleb 3D world
1 ConfuseTheJews 2019-02-20
True, a master Bernsman like him knows truths we might never completely understand
1 PM_ME_YA_TATTAS 2019-02-20
Daddy donated his 27$ already
1 SpiceAndEvNice 2019-02-20
Man I was Trump and I didn't have to answer to the establishment. I'd be publicly donating to Bernie just for the hell of it.
1 Welcome_to_Brotact 2019-02-20
Benign Burnie
1 preserved_fish 2019-02-20
Red Grandpa.
1 Matthew94 2019-02-20
EHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH-posters are as bad as yikesposters.
1 THOT-AUDITOR 2019-02-20
I'll take the L there, the Eh was entirely unnecessary.
1 -6x- 2019-02-20
Fucking pussy.
1 Tobans 2019-02-20
Ehhhh
1 cheers_grills 2019-02-20
dude jussy lmao
1 a-corporate-democrat 2019-02-20
and here I am an AHHH poster
1 I_FART_OUT_MY_BUTT69 2019-02-20
I'm an EH poster only because that's how i moan and i'm constantly being fisted while i'm on this sub so it naturally appears in my comments.
1 -Shank- 2019-02-20
Oof
1 massive_fckwit 2019-02-20
your comment is problematic
i can't believe i'm even in this pathetic subreddit. you're clearly alt-right adjacent.
1 melokobeai 2019-02-20
Should have been Bread Line Bernie
1 RedesignIsShit 2019-02-20
(((Bernie)))
1 Penguinproof1 2019-02-20
Senile Bernie.
Burnout Bernie?
1 a-corporate-democrat 2019-02-20
Big Ballsack Bernie will win. Its DIFFERENT this time, Mom
1 Matues49 2019-02-20
MATCH ME
1 MikeStoklasaBackup 2019-02-20
Weak tbh. Bolshevik Bernie would've been better.
1 Matues49 2019-02-20
Breadline Bernie ☭☭☭
1 AlveolarPressure 2019-02-20
☝️☝️☝️
Daddy should have never moved away from the tried and true alliterative insults
1 HINDBRAIN 2019-02-20
Bernie The Barnacle?
1 foodnaptime 2019-02-20
Hey now, Crooked Hillary and Lyin’ Ted Cruz were masterpieces
1 OfHyenas 2019-02-20
Did he even have one for Rubio? I remember him saying "choke artist" once, but that didn't really stick, I think.
1 foodnaptime 2019-02-20
Little Marco!
1 OfHyenas 2019-02-20
Oh right, Little Marco.
1 DoktorSteven 2019-02-20
“Low Energy Jeb” literally destroyed the Bush dynasty.
1 THOT-AUDITOR 2019-02-20
We can only hope. I wouldn't be surprised if Jeb's son tries to replace Rubio as the token Latino in the next Republican primary.
1 AHealthySenseofDread 2019-02-20
Daddy doesn't know and is utterly incapable of learning what breadlines or Bolsheviks are.
1 TrailerParkBride 2019-02-20
Daddy is a lot of things, but he ain't clever.
1 queerjihad 2019-02-20
I may be a 🤑capitalist🤑 but if I see a fine 😤commie😤 ass🍑my bloodline🥫 is going to become a breadline 🍞☺😋
1 Mayor_of_tittycity 2019-02-20
Oh. I don't know. Maybe it's because sander's was able to build up a rabid enough fanbase to damage mommy without ever posing a threat to daddy? I bet daddy is unironically happy to watch the dems fling shit at each other again.
1 5sharm5 2019-02-20
It’s like he’s incapable of understanding jokes or sarcasm
1 watermark03alt 2019-02-20
Yeah and in a couple of years this is going to look about as stupid as all those people begging Trump to get into the race.
Bernie is the only real threat to Trump the democrats have. The rest of the field is weak weak sauce.
1 watermark03alt 2019-02-20
Maybe if the Hillary stans would spend even half the time they spend shivering in their boots from us concentrating on our supposed common enemy this wouldn't have happened.
1 Mayor_of_tittycity 2019-02-20
🤣🤣🤣 imagine larping this hard unironically.
1 cheers_grills 2019-02-20
COPE
E
E
T
H
E
1 FortniteGamer1337 2019-02-20
Ohposters should be genocided
1 matt123hihat 2019-02-20
Hey is worse than a new, may allah forgive me for uttering the word, he is a u/fortnitegamer1337
1 FortniteGamer1337 2019-02-20
nice attemt at english
1 matt123hihat 2019-02-20
Yikes my autocorrect really dislikes me speaking poorly of the Jewish race
1 FortniteGamer1337 2019-02-20
you must show respect to the jews, they are our masters and billions of them got sacrificed in the second worl war
1 matt123hihat 2019-02-20
1 d4ddyd54m4 2019-02-20
1 FortniteGamer1337 2019-02-20
haha my bad, i have a habit of writing old english
1 THOT-AUDITOR 2019-02-20
lol "attempt" is derived from Old French, the Old English version is "onginnan".
1 FortniteGamer1337 2019-02-20
Sorry hun, but it's from Latin, okay?
1 cragfar 2019-02-20
Trump and Bernie are old war buddies who took down Hillary.
1 jaredschaffer27 2019-02-20
And there's Eugene Gu with a dozen spergs in response. Is there a single person more pathetic in America than him?
1 Pepperglue 2019-02-20
Anthony Burch?
This Gu character is something. Wikipedia says he got divorced in 2015 and had a restraining order on him. He also allegedly male-feministed his ex-girlfriend, as well.
What a guy.
1 PM_ME_YA_TATTAS 2019-02-20
no surprise, literally not a single one of the people who comment on every Daddy tweet isn't guilty or raping someone or commiting frauds
1 Blu605 2019-02-20
1 SaltSchool 2019-02-20
Not "Batshit Bernie"? He really is losing his touch smh