SJWs eat their own alive
CC99
Say yes to the sex industry!
Thursday, December 19, 2019 2:53 PM
Why anybody would choose to support this group of people is beyond me. Now the Twitter mob is going after J.K Rowling. You know, the woman who decides on a whim that characters like Albus Dumbledore are gay despite their being absolutely nothing in the books to indicate as such. Or that Hermione was black despite everyone being used to a white girl in the movies. All in order to pander to these very same people. Well now, those same SJWs she tried to pander to are now eating her alive for "transphobia!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze9fhRNW…
Now how many times have Democratic candidates launched accusations of racism or sexism, towards each other! It seems every week I hear about AOC and her gang accusing another person of racism. And yet people continue to try and support this ideology that eats its own. Unbelievable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze9fhRNW…
Now how many times have Democratic candidates launched accusations of racism or sexism, towards each other! It seems every week I hear about AOC and her gang accusing another person of racism. And yet people continue to try and support this ideology that eats its own. Unbelievable.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
40 comments
This idea you have of SJW's is just wrong.
And AOC is one of the brightest signs on the political horizon.
SJG
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVcD7c-_…
And doing a very good job attacking the Right and the Stock Market types over the economy.
SJG
Whatever VH_SucksDicks says.
I have to say that that is more than you or I have ever done.
SJG
TJ School Girls
https://tuscl.net/photo.php?id=3513
So the idea then is that these are people making too much of too little, and over things which don't really effect them and which they probably don't understand?
But who is more ridiculous, the "SJW" or the Anit-SJW who spends his time reading right wing internet sites which tell him all about these "SJW's"?
SJG
Electric Blues
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0iGSUCK…
https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/ter…
SJG
Oh boy, you've been really out of the loop then.
SJG
The thing is that even you seem to subconsciously agree that the conclusions I have come to on the world are correct in many ways. But you don't want to accept that because it goes against your deeply held beliefs.
The thing is, I can legitimately say I challenge my deeply held beliefs all the time. Almost every belief I have, there was a time in my life I thought the exact opposite or something in the middle. That includes not thinking SJWs were bad. In high school nobody I knew advocated for promiscuity more strongly than I did. I decided rampant promiscuity is largely unhealthy for society after seeing the impact it had on my college community.
That's why I'm such an inconsistent member. My views change fast and very rapidly when I have good evidence to believe differently.
I pointed out the way the left censors people. Neither you nor VH kicks was able to deny this. I brought up how progressive ideology actually kills our sex lives instead of enriching them and in a strange way, I could tell you agreed.
That article clearly was designed to mislead readers and straight up lied about social media companies not having political bias.
Corporate censorship at this point is almost as dangerous as the prospect of government censorship. But in the US specifically the government is restrained while corporations are free to act tyrannically using the mob.
This says that websites break the good faith clause if they act in a manner that suppresses their own users for their views.
Trump is actually trying to do something about the way the Twitter mob lynches people and ruins their lives which is good because it's about time somebody do something about it. The left just wants to continue censoring people on social media and be able to act with impunity so I'm not surprised they are trying to twist the interpretation of this executive order.
That is, they don't speak to people, and about what they are saying to people, they instead try to launch a negative meta-narrative at people, a conversation about the conversation, and attacking the poster. They make it hard to have any serious conversations. They insist on bringing everything down to their level.
And then of course since most of the people here are subservient to herd think, if one person jumps on someone with non-sense, then lots of others will follow and believe what is being said.
Most of the people here have spines made of silly putty.
There should be no reason for argumentation with anyone.
Now true, I am not a recreational tourist in life. I do not live to spend money on escapism and services. I have far bigger things in mind such as pegging and changing the political landscape.
One may not need strip clubs in their home metro. Easy to take the longer time needed to court civvie men.
So I am not someone restricted to P4P.
Long time ago, when I was cheating on a spouse, yes, P4P pegging was the only way I thought safe enough.
But I dismantled that death trap marriage. So now P4P pegging will be more for going into new metros. I will be doing that.
Maybe just because I am not desperate I pose a threat to some people. But there should not be senseless argumentation.
SJG
That is, they don't speak to people, and about what they are saying to people, they instead try to launch a negative meta-narrative at people, a conversation about the conversation, and attacking the poster. They make it hard to have any serious conversations. They insist on bringing everything down to their level.
And then of course since most of the people here are subservient to herd think, if one person jumps on someone with non-sense, then lots of others will follow and believe what is being said.
Most of the people here have spines made of silly putty."
You're not wrong about that, this seems to be a pretty accurate observation.
SJG
Meanwhile, liberals are counting on Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden to stop Trump. Worried much ?
Women will always want marriage, but this does not mean that it will work or that it is a good thing, for them or for you. It is not just that it is a major and life long commitment, it is that it subjects you to all sorts of normative gender rigid expectations. Giving a woman what she wants is often the absolute worst thing a guy could ever do, to her or to himself.
I believe that many of the behaviors of my ex could be classified as mental illness. But really what it is is just that she was not willing to allow partnership and instead wanted only manipulation and control. She was always under the influence of her problematic friends, and of some people even worse.
In the end all I really wanted was an equal partnership and equivalent penetration. But if she is not willing to try pegging it definitely can not be said that there is any equality.
The marriages of my parents and grand parents were death traps and they also depended upon being able to use children to give themselves a social identity.
May God strike me dead if I ever did anything that.
But most people I would say, even in my generation and forward, are still getting married out of pressure to comply with normative social expectations. In my own case there was more going on. But I was 100% willing to be patient, tolerant, and forgiving, and to live with the downsides of the decision I had made. But my spouse was not, she was under the influence of some very problematic friends and she did everything by manipulation and control. She was not willing to experiment, no pegging, no crossdressing. Where as I learned that it was grow or die.
The only reason I ended up being subjected to this kind of a negative marriage was that I grew up in such an environment. So beyond a point I saw that unless my wife was really willing to change an experiment, the marriage had to be dissolved.
But I do not see either of these movements as a big problem. I do see this Anti-Feminist and Anti-SJW movement as total non-sense.
And I don't think SJW's or Feminists are trying to impose unwarranted restrictions on conduct.
Women should be free from harassment in the work place.
I like to see women in high heels, makeup, and short skirts. But I would never say anything like this in a more neutral setting, because otherwise making such a statement would be improper and demeaning to women.
Feminism has never meant women banding together to enforce social norms. Rather, Feminism has always been based on breaking down the categories and restrictions which women have been put into. It is like this in de Beauvior's Second Sex, and it is like this in Betty Friedan's Feminine Mystique, and these are the closest things you will find to post suffrage Feminist Scripture.
I like strip clubs and I want them to be hands off. I want decriminalization of prostitution.
But especially with the latter I do want there to be some protections. And I want a very robust social and economic safety net for all, UBI being the best approach yet. Generally this is what Feminists also want.
Patriarchy on the other hand will want strip clubs, but it is to be based on women who have had their social and civil standing rescinded, and the same with hteir approach to liberalizing prostitution laws.
So no CC99, I do not agree with your Anti-SJW and Anti-Feminist stances. Post an example if you think I do.
And Skibum, marriage is hard to make work. And I am one who put in my time in good faith. Beyond a point though, one sometimes will have to admit that it is destructive beyond the point of redemption.
And Skibum, if you are going to call me names, bring your preferred coffin, because that is how you will be leaving the encounter.
I agree with you CC99 about your accessment of our trolls and how they only seek to start meta-narratives and to make civil discourse impossible.
SJG
SJG
SJG
And banter with an imbecile I have on ignore is not going to give you any protection.
SJG
SJG
SJG
SJG
People like Meat72 are always scraping their knuckles on the ground.
SJG
SJG