#Gamergate, the war on nerds, and the corruption of the left and the free press

[jackstar7]

[contributes link after link of pertinent info, interspersed with the occasional response to a direct question]

"You bring nothing to the discussion"...

:|

Pertinent is a matter of opinion at this point. Several of us are having a worthwhile discussion and his daily drivel adds nothing of value to it.

But I understand your need to stick up for a brother-in-arms. Keep those rage fires burning.

 

[Aikouka]

The Closet Otaku: The embedded misogyny of Sword Art Online - The George Town Voice
https://archive.is/B88Rp

Since I've seen Sword Art Online, and unfortunately seen the second season (GGO + Mother's Rosario), I figured I'd give this a read. What bugs me about the remarks in the article is that they're essentially saying, "You can't put women in any state that makes them weaker than men or controlled by men." He states that one female felt safe around the main character and two others fell in love with him. To note, he also erroneously states that the main character got the first girl killed; however, that isn't correct. While the main character was leading them on their expedition, it was one of the other party members that went into the room and triggered the trap.

I thought this was more of an interesting moment in the series, because it was a moment that really hit the main character. The girl felt safe with the main character around, and he enjoyed hiding his true strength (he was far above their level), which let him just be the same as others. His "sister" is actually his cousin, and relations with your cousin are legal in Japan.

Yes, the bad guy in the second cour (last 13 episodes) of the first season is creepy as hell, and he's supposed to be. Although, in my opinion, everything after the first cour (first 13 episodes) is a waste of time and far inferior to the beginning.

I also found it strange that he complained about one of the side episodes where the main character gets a rare ingredient and the main female is the only one capable of cooking it. I took it as a way to get the two characters -- who didn't interact much "outside of the game" -- to interact on a more personal level.

As for the comments about the main female character and her life choices, the language used (e.g. "condemned") shows an existing predisposition toward certain life choices. He completely ignores that the two characters consider themselves to be married in the game (of course, that doesn't count in the real world).

 

[Spungo]

the nazi comparison and sub-human talk both come off as the equivalent of yelling at me which makes me tune out whatever salient points you might try to make.

How is my comparison flawed?
Play along with Sargon: Stormfront or SJW
I want you to watch that video and pause the video after each example, before he reveals the answer. Actually do this. Write down if you think the example given was written by a Nazi (Stormfront) or a feminist. If what you're saying is true, and feminists are nothing like Nazis, you should be able to nail this test and get 100% right. I tried playing along and I couldn't do better than random guessing. There's literally no difference between the two. Both call for genocide and androcide on a regular basis.

Also... and this is more general, why is just about every video from Canada?

More specifically, Toronto. It's the feminist center of Canada, so it has a reputation for having the worst women in Canada.

 

[jhbball]

More examples of the new "liberal" discourse.

Jackstar, are you starting to understand?

haha, that's a yes.

PS, you perpetuate the same discourse.

 

[jackstar7]

How is my comparison flawed?
Play along with Sargon: Stormfront or SJW
I want you to watch that video and pause the video after each example, before he reveals the answer. Actually do this. Write down if you think the example given was written by a Nazi (Stormfront) or a feminist. If what you're saying is true, and feminists are nothing like Nazis, you should be able to nail this test and get 100% right. I tried playing along and I couldn't do better than random guessing. There's literally no difference between the two. Both call for genocide and androcide on a regular basis.

More specifically, Toronto. It's the feminist center of Canada, so it has a reputation for having the worst women in Canada.

See, but you're telling me what my opinion is already. I didn't say nothing like. I didn't say anything other than the reaction you get from me with the comparison.

If making a point and influencing my thinking is a goal, then please consider my perspective as your audience as someone who is not compelled by nazi comparisons, regardless of their validity.

Please appreciate that were I not interested in the discussion, I would not offer this feedback. I would just leave the conversation. I'd like to understand more, but this avenue of discourse has no interest to me. Do feminists have access to the same terrible rhetoric? Sure. Do they have a standing army or political control of a country? Nope.

 

[Blue_Max]

Do feminists have access to the same terrible rhetoric? Sure. Do they have a standing army or political control of a country? Nope.

Standing army? Yes, if you count DROVES of screaming women all wanting more for themselves. (Just watch those Sarkeesian videos on stage where she says, 'Gosh, where is that feminist army?' and the whole audience squeals like stuck pigs.)
Political control? HELL yes, they do! They control the majority voting power and will vote in the officials who will give them more goodies, social programs, and control. They very much influence law in ways that benefit themselves at the great expense of others, like those social programs, family courts, and the penal system. In every aspect of law, women have a distinctly unfair advantage across the board - from divorce and custody, to FAR lighter punishment for punishable crimes.

There is a HUGE amount of political control you're completely overlooking when when you repeat their mantra; "Women don't have authority - we're powerless victims at the hands of those all-powerful evil men!" -- all the while, they tug on the strings behind the stage to make the puppets dance.

It's the regularly-told lies that gall me so much about the SJW side of all this.

 

[jackstar7]

Standing army? Yes, if you count DROVES of screaming women all wanting more for themselves. (Just watch those Sarkeesian videos on stage where she says, 'Gosh, where is that feminist army?' and the whole audience squeals like stuck pigs.)
Political control? HELL yes, they do! They control the majority voting power and will vote in the officials who will give them more goodies, social programs, and control. They very much influence law in ways that benefit themselves at the great expense of others, like those social programs, family courts, and the penal system. In every aspect of law, women have a distinctly unfair advantage across the board - from divorce and custody, to FAR lighter punishment for punishable crimes.

There is a HUGE amount of political control you're completely overlooking when when you repeat their mantra; "Women don't have authority - we're powerless victims at the hands of those all-powerful evil men!" -- all the while, they tug on the strings behind the stage to make the puppets dance.

It's the regularly-told lies that gall me so much about the SJW side of all this.

Firstly, I do not. Do you? Really?

Why or why not?

 

[Spungo]

Do they have a standing army or political control of a country? Nope.

Actually they do. Feminists have an unbelievable amount of power in western countries.

It starts to get really spooky when you compare the things done by fascists to things done or proposed by feminists. Just replace the word "men" with "Jews" and see if the sentence looks reasonable or scary.

Too many corporations are lead by Jews. We need the government to step in and change that.

That doesn't seem fair at all. Instead of asking women to start their own businesses and hire women, feminists think control and ownership should be stolen and redistributed by the government. Norway actually has laws enforcing a minimum percentage of women on boards of directors. Since there is a shortage of qualified women in high positions, for obvious reasons, this leads to women being members of multiple boards at the same time. These women are called "golden skirts" if you want to google it. That's exactly the kind of crap one would expect the Nazis to do. You're a respected Jewish judge? Sorry, not anymore. You're too Jewish, so we replaced you with a whiter German. You're a male board member of company ABC? Not anymore, government regulations say we need to replace you with a woman. You Jews men are over-represented in these meetings, so it's the government's job to "fix" this problem. You want your personal friends to run a private company with you? Nope, can't do that. You're being sexist. And racist. And transphobic. You need to hire at least 3 women, a tranny, and a midget, or we'll shut your business down.

This isn't some hypothetical scenario I'm throwing out there. This is already the law in Germany, Norway, France, and Spain. link.

Jews dominate science and engineering. We should force universities to reject Jews and allow more Aryans into those fields even when they are less qualified.

This one goes way back. Jewish quotas. Now men are experiencing that same thing. Maybe 90% of the applicants for a job are men, but men only get 50% of the jobs due to political correctness. This also applies to whites. There have been multiple instances where police and fire departments would take lesser qualified women and minorities just to fill quotas (see that video I posted where a female firefighter couldn't even knock down a door).

This is blatant sexism and racism, and it's fully supported by feminists and social justice warriors. These people don't care about merit or safety. They only see things in terms of race and gender. If we were in 1930s Germany, these social justice warriors would be advocating the removal of Jews from positions of power because there are already too many Jews in positions of power (we tend to dominate banking, law, engineering, and science). Of course, they would claim they are only doing this to be fair. It's never because they're racist assholes. It's always for some vague Greater Good and pushing society into a mold of what they think society should be. That's what defines fascism. It's the exact opposite of liberty. Rather than backing off and letting society assemble itself (lots of Jewish bankers, male construction workers, female nurses), they impose strict rules to create a completely fake society, and those fake societies invariably fall apart over time.

We shouldn't tolerate racism or sexism on any level. As a comedian (Joe Rogan?) once said, humans always want to take things to the next level. This girl will kiss me, but maybe I can grab her tit. She lets me grab her tit, so let me see if I can get her pants off. She lets me take her pants off, so maybe I can sleep with her. She lets me sleep with her, so let me see if I can put it in her butt. She lets me put it in her butt, so let me see if she'll do ass to mouth, etc. Something simple like removing Jews from positions of power for reasons of fairness gets progressively worse. We took their job away, maybe we can take their land away. We took their land away, maybe we can also take their money and gold. We took their gold away, but maybe we can also take their freedom away and force them to work for free. We can force them to work for free, but maybe we can do weird medical tests on them. We can do weird medical tests on them, but maybe we can ____, and it goes on. We see this in everything humans do. First we made it illegal to smoke inside buildings. Then we made it illegal to smoke outside the entrances of building. Now people are seriously talking about making it illegal to smoke inside a house or car in which children are present. If we give an inch on anything, someone will always try taking a mile. I'm obviously not saying feminists will lead to death camps or the biggest war in human history, but it could still have serious negative consequences. Consequences like plunging marriage rates, soaring rates of single parent families, soaring poverty rates (being or having a single parent is one of the strongest factors of poverty). Thing that seem like good ideas can turn into horrible ideas, and nobody sees them coming because they slowly build up over time.

 

[jackstar7]

Feminists are akin to nazis and ass-to-mouth. This thread is next level.

To respond though, please stop doubling down on the tactic that I already said makes me tune out. I'm trying to remain pleasant in this discourse, but it is getting frustrating.

 

[Spungo]

Fair enough. My argument is that feminists act similar to the way Romans treated the Visigoths. Does that make it easier to understand?

 

[Blue_Max]

To respond though, please stop doubling down on the tactic that I already said makes me tune out. I'm trying to remain pleasant in this discourse, but it is getting frustrating.

1) "doubling down" is reserved for trying to avoid having to account for a lie by attacking even harder (by any means necessary.) He's not doing that. If simple FACTS make you tune out just because you don't like them... well... what can I say?

2) I question your "pleasantness" throughout this conversation.

Feminists are akin to nazis and ass-to-mouth.

You heard it here first, kids.

(I know that's not what you meant... phrasing is everything, eh?) *nudge* :biggrin:

 

[Blue_Max]

Oh, and here's your typical feminist "army". THOUSANDS of feminists frothing with rage - each ineffectual on her own (flailing her purse at thin air) but the crowd combined would have clawed him to death if they caught him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3CNTO6LG4g

Purely rational-thinking folks there. Not emotionally-driven at all. Nope.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Purely rational-thinking folks there. Not emotionally-driven at all. Nope.

Says the person who is overly emotional when it comes to feminist. LMAO!!!!

 

[Blue_Max]

Says the person who is overly emotional when it comes to feminist. LMAO!!!!

Pretty weak rebuttal, there... I at least come forward with some data and links and purposely avoid the pure-emotion & dogma argument.

Just because I refuse to let you win by walking away from the unending argument doesn't mean I'm ruled by emotion. That's YOUR feelings being projected onto me. Just like when you think your pet turtle loves you as much as you love it.

So unless you can disprove any of the proven facts posted by ooroo and others, well... I'll let the fella' from the video say it:

 

[Londo_Jowo]

No, you blather on and on and on about those evil feminist, it not difficult to see you wear your emotions on your sleeve. So for you to speak about others being emotionally driven is pure comedy.

 

[MrPickins]

Oh, and here's your typical feminist "army". THOUSANDS of feminists frothing with rage - each ineffectual on her own (flailing her purse at thin air) but the crowd combined would have clawed him to death if they caught him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3CNTO6LG4g

Purely rational-thinking folks there. Not emotionally-driven at all. Nope.

He was trolling them and you're surprised they reacted negatively?

 

[MrPickins]

There's a really broad realm that can cover. I think a lot of it is a bunch of shit too. But the popular narrative is that it's about hating women and trying to keep them out of games which I don't think can be supported rationally by looking into it, at least not without some really strained and biased logic.

Have you even read the last few pages of this thread?

Seriously....

 

[jackstar7]

1) "doubling down" is reserved for trying to avoid having to account for a lie by attacking even harder (by any means necessary.) He's not doing that. If simple FACTS make you tune out just because you don't like them... well... what can I say?

2) I question your "pleasantness" throughout this conversation.

1) I've played Blackjack. Have you?

2) Just as you have said: give examples. be specific.

 

[jackstar7]

Fair enough. My argument is that feminists act similar to the way Romans treated the Visigoths. Does that make it easier to understand?

I apologize if I didn't make this clear. The nazis were not just a poor comparison due to the reaction they generate, it's also just pointless to compare feminism to these other governmental/national groups. Feminism may have a rabid branch of its following, but it is hardly demonstrating much power. They certainly have inspired a lot of fear though... so I suppose that's a kind of power.

I guess I haven't made it clear that I regard all zealots much the same I do members of the WBC: not much.

In my younger days I visited Smith College, a known bastion of feminism. Except that it was also just a peaceful and sleepy campus covered in snow and populated by nice people.

I feel like you're trying to convince me that mobs are bad... but I know that. You're trying to say this is a special and extra dangerous mob. I'm not convinced.

So comparisons to nazis, Romans, etc. aren't compelling me to see more of your side of things. They're just making me tune out. I'm trying to be receptive and am open to being sympathetic to your perspective, but thus far I am have not been persuaded.

So bringing up the Roman v Visigoths is a re-doubling down and I continue to glaze over and roll my eyes. Is there no other means of discussing this than good vs evil and us vs them? The team sports of this annoy me.

 

[BoberFett]

Please appreciate that were I not interested in the discussion, I would not offer this feedback. I would just leave the conversation. I'd like to understand more, but this avenue of discourse has no interest to me. Do feminists have access to the same terrible rhetoric? Sure. Do they have a standing army or political control of a country? Nope.

Ah, here we're getting to the heart of it. The "power" angle. Only men can be sexist because they have power.

As if there's secret brotherhood, something like a Patriarchy, where all men are part of a cohesive group with a standing army ready to wipe out the females of the world.

Sorry, but your average guy has no more power than a feminist. That there are more men in positions of power and wealth does NOTHING for the other 99.9% of men. Modern feminist theory is entirely based around the Patriarchy, an imaginary enemy that useless college graduates can attack. Don Quixote would be proud.

 

[jackstar7]

Nope. Again, I basically agree that the average guy has no more power. The point is that this is just another distraction from the actual bullshit being perpetuated against the lower classes, to keep pitting them against each other. Everyone that's invested real time into this has, by my count, wasted all of it on this bullshit.

The beatings will continue until morale improves...

 

[Spungo]

I apologize if I didn't make this clear. The nazis were not just a poor comparison due to the reaction they generate, it's also just pointless to compare feminism to these other governmental/national groups. Feminism may have a rabid branch of its following, but it is hardly demonstrating much power. They certainly have inspired a lot of fear though... so I suppose that's a kind of power.

How do they not have power? I just gave you a link saying businesses are forced by law to fire qualified men and hire women. Collectively, France, Germany, Norway, and Spain have a population of 199 million people, so we're dealing with systematic discrimination against roughly 100 million people. Sweden has gone full retard by saying it will have a "feminist foreign policy" to fight against Russian aggression. I don't even think god knows what that means, but I'm guessing it will involve pretending to be a victim and asking Russia for free stuff. feminist foreign policy.

Some examples of feminists abusing power, creating weird laws, and twisting public perception in a way similar to the "cocaine crazed negro" and "greedy jew" strategies:

-being a tall man on the subway is illegal (something you can't change), but putting bags on the seats or taking 2 seats due to obesity (things you can change) are not illegal. That's a campaign specifically to target men and turn them into criminals. Feminists would never suggest this kind of law against obesity because that would involve issuing fines to women and men in roughly equal numbers. If there's one thing feminists are against, it's equality. Men must pay the penis tax. It's to make up for what they call the "vagina tax" (getting paid less because women usually take easier jobs with more comfortable working conditions and family-friendly hours).

-Confiscation of assets because you're a man. I don't know a single man who supports this law - paying child support for kids that are not yours. This one really bothers me because my cousin was nailed by this. He wasn't even married. All he did was live with a single mother for a year, and that counts as common law marriage in that particular Canadian province (I think it was British Columbia). He's a surgeon, so you can guess how many tens of thousands of dollars have been stolen from him through feminist laws.
This applies to alimony as well. The number of men who support alimony laws is close to zero. It's only feminists who support these laws, and that's why they still exist. Feminists have power, so feminists dictate the laws. If you're a man, you need to pay the penis tax. It doesn't matter if a divorce is mutual or if the woman was physically abusive, you still need to pay alimony and child support for a kid that isn't yours. In France, it's illegal to verify paternity. Feminism is so deep in France that you're literally not allowed to know if a child is yours. You have a dick and you have money, so it's your financial responsibility. Period. The law doesn't see you as a human being. You're just a source of cash, and all men are interchangeable. It doesn't matter if someone is actually related to the child in question since it's assumed all men are terrible parents who don't care for their own.

-In Australia, all men are pedophiles until proven otherwise. This comes from the same line of reasoning that you should never let a black man sit next to a white woman. You never know when those coloreds will try to rape a white woman.

I feel like you're trying to convince me that mobs are bad... but I know that. You're trying to say this is a special and extra dangerous mob. I'm not convinced.

Nobody seeing them as dangerous is what makes them dangerous. That's always the way it works. Nazis didn't rise to power because they promised genocide. Nobody thought communism would lead to tens of millions of deaths. They promised good things, they had good intentions, and they made good on a lot of those promises. The evil went on behind the scenes, and people who worried about the end result were dismissed as being irrational. "We're only confiscating the wealth they (Jews) stole from us," they said. If only. It starts with stealing wealth (or jobs or admission to college or alimony or child support), and it ends with ass-to-mouth and gas chambers. Sometimes literally. If you don't pay child support for that child that isn't yours, guess where you end up. Prison. What do they do there? Yep, ass-to-mouth. That could be you or someone you love. Want to complain about being raped in prison? Sorry, feminists protested the meetings and called in bomb threats when men tried to bring light to this problem.

So comparisons to nazis, Romans, etc. aren't compelling me to see more of your side of things. They're just making me tune out. I'm trying to be receptive and am open to being sympathetic to your perspective, but thus far I am have not been persuaded.

So you're saying you want to understand what the future will look like, but you refuse to look at the past? I'm not sure what to say. People who don't study in history class are doomed to repeat it. Jews like Einstein saw the writing on the wall got the hell out of Germany as quickly as possible. Most people refused to believe it was really happening. "They'll eventually leave us alone if we give them our possessions without a fight." As anyone who studies history would say, that never works. It never ends. Today they want your job because you're a man, tomorrow they want your money because you're a man, and next week will be Ass To Mouth Monday because you're a man who didn't pay child support for some other guy's kid, or because a judge ruled that you need to pay 3x your yearly income in child support.

So bringing up the Roman v Visigoths is a re-doubling down and I continue to glaze over and roll my eyes. Is there no other means of discussing this than good vs evil and us vs them? The team sports of this annoy me.

You keep using the no true scotsman argument.
Feminism is not a hate group because not all feminists are hateful, but most of them are.
The KKK is not a hate group because not all klan members are hateful, but most of them are.
The national socialist party is not a hate group because not all members are hateful, but most of them are.
The communist part is not a hate group because not all members are hateful, but most of them are.

Do you see the problem with that line of reasoning? You're letting an overwhelming majority of hate filled people get a pass just because a tiny number of people are decent human beings. In a group of 100 feminists, 99 of them absolutely hate men. You'll point to the 1 feminist who actually wants equality and say that woman represents the entire movement. The other 99 are not true Scotsmen.

 

[Spungo]

As if there's secret brotherhood, something like a Patriarchy, where all men are part of a cohesive group with a standing army ready to wipe out the females of the world.

I'm convinced some people literally believe this. They're the same people who think Jews like myself are some kind of secret organization plotting to control the world. Yes, we control the world. No, it's not a conspiracy. I'm an engineer because I went to university and I worked my ass off. It's not because some secret Grand Jew Wizard appointed me as an engineer. It's the same story with banking and law. Jewish culture, like Asian culture, puts a very strong emphasis on education. Like Asians, Jews have unusually high levels of education and power, and unusually low levels of crime. It's not a conspiracy. It's just hard work. It's not my fault Billy Joe Bob in the trailer park dropped out of high school and got a job that barely pays the rent.

Just replace "Jew" with "man" and it's basically the same story. Yes men are the majority of bankers, lawyers, and engineers. Is there some secret organization that only gives degrees to men? I have an engineering degree, and I know a few other women who have engineering degrees, so I'm guessing the answer is no. They give those out to anyone who wants one and is willing to work for it.

 

[jackstar7]

How do they not have power? I just gave you a link saying businesses are forced by law to fire qualified men and hire women. Collectively, France, Germany, Norway, and Spain have a population of 199 million people, so we're dealing with systematic discrimination against roughly 100 million people. Sweden has gone full retard by saying it will have a "feminist foreign policy" to fight against Russian aggression. I don't even think god knows what that means, but I'm guessing it will involve pretending to be a victim and asking Russia for free stuff. feminist foreign policy.

Some examples of feminists abusing power, creating weird laws, and twisting public perception in a way similar to the "cocaine crazed negro" and "greedy jew" strategies:

-being a tall man on the subway is illegal (something you can't change), but putting bags on the seats or taking 2 seats due to obesity (things you can change) are not illegal. That's a campaign specifically to target men and turn them into criminals. Feminists would never suggest this kind of law against obesity because that would involve issuing fines to women and men in roughly equal numbers. If there's one thing feminists are against, it's equality. Men must pay the penis tax. It's to make up for what they call the "vagina tax" (getting paid less because women usually take easier jobs with more comfortable working conditions and family-friendly hours).

-Confiscation of assets because you're a man. I don't know a single man who supports this law - paying child support for kids that are not yours. This one really bothers me because my cousin was nailed by this. He wasn't even married. All he did was live with a single mother for a year, and that counts as common law marriage in that particular Canadian province (I think it was British Columbia). He's a surgeon, so you can guess how many tens of thousands of dollars have been stolen from him through feminist laws.
This applies to alimony as well. The number of men who support alimony laws is close to zero. It's only feminists who support these laws, and that's why they still exist. Feminists have power, so feminists dictate the laws. If you're a man, you need to pay the penis tax. It doesn't matter if a divorce is mutual or if the woman was physically abusive, you still need to pay alimony and child support for a kid that isn't yours. In France, it's illegal to verify paternity. Feminism is so deep in France that you're literally not allowed to know if a child is yours. You have a dick and you have money, so it's your financial responsibility. Period. The law doesn't see you as a human being. You're just a source of cash, and all men are interchangeable. It doesn't matter if someone is actually related to the child in question since it's assumed all men are terrible parents who don't care for their own.

-In Australia, all men are pedophiles until proven otherwise. This comes from the same line of reasoning that you should never let a black man sit next to a white woman. You never know when those coloreds will try to rape a white woman.



Nobody seeing them as dangerous is what makes them dangerous. That's always the way it works. Nazis didn't rise to power because they promised genocide. Nobody thought communism would lead to tens of millions of deaths. They promised good things, they had good intentions, and they made good on a lot of those promises. The evil went on behind the scenes, and people who worried about the end result were dismissed as being irrational. "We're only confiscating the wealth they (Jews) stole from us," they said. If only. It starts with stealing wealth (or jobs or admission to college or alimony or child support), and it ends with ass-to-mouth and gas chambers. Sometimes literally. If you don't pay child support for that child that isn't yours, guess where you end up. Prison. What do they do there? Yep, ass-to-mouth. That could be you or someone you love. Want to complain about being raped in prison? Sorry, feminists protested the meetings and called in bomb threats when men tried to bring light to this problem.



So you're saying you want to understand what the future will look like, but you refuse to look at the past? I'm not sure what to say. People who don't study in history class are doomed to repeat it. Jews like Einstein saw the writing on the wall got the hell out of Germany as quickly as possible. Most people refused to believe it was really happening. "They'll eventually leave us alone if we give them our possessions without a fight." As anyone who studies history would say, that never works. It never ends. Today they want your job because you're a man, tomorrow they want your money because you're a man, and next week will be Ass To Mouth Monday because you're a man who didn't pay child support for some other guy's kid, or because a judge ruled that you need to pay 3x your yearly income in child support.



You keep using the no true scotsman argument.
Feminism is not a hate group because not all feminists are hateful, but most of them are.
The KKK is not a hate group because not all klan members are hateful, but most of them are.
The national socialist party is not a hate group because not all members are hateful, but most of them are.
The communist part is not a hate group because not all members are hateful, but most of them are.

Do you see the problem with that line of reasoning? You're letting an overwhelming majority of hate filled people get a pass just because a tiny number of people are decent human beings. In a group of 100 feminists, 99 of them absolutely hate men. You'll point to the 1 feminist who actually wants equality and say that woman represents the entire movement. The other 99 are not true Scotsmen.

Sorry, where is the 99% of feminists are hate-filled radical monsters data? Because right now, yes, I have a problem with your line of reasoning.

Hyperbole does not make your argument stronger. I understand that you see this threat as worthy of real action. But here's a question... what action?

And, yes, I understand history and repetition.

 

[Chiropteran]

No, you blather on and on and on about those evil feminist, it not difficult to see you wear your emotions on your sleeve. So for you to speak about others being emotionally driven is pure comedy.

Wait a second. So now if you provide examples and detailed arguments for something, it means you are being driven by emotions? I assume this means that knee-jerk reaction one-liner posts are driving by pure logic.

What is this bizarre backwards-land in which your mind resides?