even Something Awful doesn't like radfems now
Lowtax never liked them IIRC.
>>71904580
I wish people would learn third wave and fourth wave funfems are not the same as radical feminists
Pic related: an actual radfem, who's hated by liberals and trannies more than any other human being in the world
didnt that guy get the shit kicked out of him by uwe boll
>>71904648
>I wish people would learn third wave and fourth wave funfems are not the same as radical feminists
Into the cuckshed, lock the door, throw in the Zyklon B canister.
B
>Something Awful
Worse than radfems t.bh
>>71904768
Its on video.
>>71904580
>2016
>still having stairs in your house
Where's my fucking flash tub update?!
Or did Schmorky finally choke on a poopy diaper?
>>71904967
>tfw I get that joke
When I was in middle school I used to read SA just about every day. I'm too afraid to go back and see if photoshop phriday was actually funny or if I was just hoping.
>>71904768
No surprise there, Boll was a prize fighter before he started making shit movies.
Boll wet his pants and ran away when Seanbaby (MMA judo black belt) took up his challenge.
![IAMCOOL[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/uAm0OQX.jpg "IAMCOOL[1].jpg")
Man, the SA forums were the shit back in the early 2000s. Logged in to my old account some years ago and checked it out again. GBS had become over run by SJW and everything had turned to shit. Logged in again last year, it was just shitposting as long as you could see.
SJW ruin everything.
>>71905171
They've only gotten better, if only because not getting better is a bannable offense. It's grown pretty insular, though... much of the humor is references to other stuff from the SA forums, and people visiting for the first time probably won't get any of the jokes.
>>71904580
Should've just told her to get another 10 bux and left it at that
>>71905246
interestingly a staggering amount of currently-'famous' sjws grew up on SA
>>71905246
I'd suck this guy's dick :^)
>>71904818
Yeah, just ignore the only coherent intellectual attack on transgenderism.
Even Trump is dumb enough to fall for the "men are really women" line.
Real radical feminism, the second wave stuff, is not your enemy.
>>71904580
>Something Awful
Why should we care what Reddit's grandad has to say?
>>71905439
Wasn't ShitRedditSays a SA troll attempt that rapidly became overrun by people who thought it was serious?
I think the whole internet SJW movement grew out of SA.
>>71905551
fucking disgusting
>>71905220
Why did Seanbaby have a beef with Uwe Boll?
>>71904580
As if. I bet the forums are still an sjw hugbox and most of the moderators still are.
Glad I never spent money to post at that shit hole.
>>>/v/
>>>/reddit/
>>71905358
>people visiting won't get 90% of the jokes
That's true of pretty much every internet forum.
>>71905685
You haven't seen SJW hugbox till you've seen Metafilter.
Which keeps on chugging, surprisingly enough.
>>71905674
Because he makes terrible movies and Uwe challenged his critics to a boxing match. Seanbaby is a critic.
>>71904768
uwe boll kicked the manliness out of him, which is why he and his forum became feminists.
>>71904580
Mah nigga.
>>71905551
It was created by SA but it wasn't a troll attempt.
>SA joins in on the biting beaver raids (that woman who wrote that famous post about crying over her son trying to view pornography)
>various internet feminists investigate and join SA as a result
>SA literally turns into an sjw insanity fest
Contemptible.
>>71905739
I knew he was a critic but he hasn't been critiquing anything on Cracked for years. In fact, noone of note really has. It's been taken over by former 9gagers and Tumblr cross posters.
I just looked at the banlist for the first time in years
were "racist" and "sexist" posts etc. always banned this often? The mods seem to be triggered by the tiniest things
>>71905919
Well this was over a decade ago so he was still relevant
>>71905827
It isn't like popular forums don't have a history of "raiding" games/forums, completely ruining their community and then after driving it into the ground packing up and leaving to find another.
I feel the same way about SA as I do about Kiwi Farms.
A site for faggots run by a faggot to discuss faggotry.
Fucking faggots.
>>71905827
I distinctly recall those threads. It was a lot of "Look if we accuse people of being misogynist we can get them shut down and kicked off the site".
SJW-ism on Reddit was a troll attack vector before it became serious, but Poe's Law ensured SRS was rapidly dogpiled by IQ 104 feminists.
>>71906063
Why do people go on kiwifarms? It's absurd to what extent they stalk and catalog the lives of "lolcows"
It isn't even funny.
>>71906255
It's basically depressed losers who feel good that they aren't as bad as some people. There was a Tumblr account that profiled them all and it was really sad. They were all depressed and pathetic.
>>71904580
That guy is still around?
Brings back memories.
https://youtu.be/BijChf8ROJU
>>71904648
>I wish people would learn third wave and fourth wave funfems are not the same as radical feminists
>Pic related: an actual radfem, who's hated by liberals and trannies more than any other human being in the world
What you're saying is that because Al Queda isn't ISIS and ISIS isn't Boko Haram, they're not Islamic extremists.
Your logic is that if these insane fucktards fight each other, they must not be on the same side.
Let me guess, you're proud to be The People's Front of Feminism, unlike those Feminist Front radicals?
>>71905519
>Why should we care what Reddit's grandad has to say?
It's literally the genesis of 4chan. If Something Awful hadn't sucked dicks back when this place would not exist.
>>71906873
True feminism is a religion of peace.
>>71907001
I would honestly not be surprised to hear this said by a feminist within 5 years. They're already merging with Islam for some unknown reason.
>>71906064
>IQ 104 feminists
You know 104 is above average right? IQ bell curves are designed so that 100 is always the average.
>>71907138
t. IQ of 105
N A T I O N A L S O R R Y D A Y
>>71907084
More to the point, discarding everything feminists have ever said is pretty fucking dumb. There have been some sharp minds over that side.
In particular, feminists have the only good rejection of tranny-ism. You don't need to agree with everything Germaine Greer said to see why she was speaking the truth about deluded men not being women.
>>71906046
Same thing happened to a forum I run, shitheads raid another forum who follow them back to my site and then think they're in good company and shit the place up.
>>71907170
She only says that out of a hatred of evil men infiltrating womanhood and most modern day feminists love trannies.
>>71907169
Call me dumb all you want but you are literally saying that the average feminist is smarter than the average white male.
>>71907170
>discarding everything feminists have ever said is pretty fucking dumb
>You don't need to agree with everything Germaine Greer said to see why she was speaking the truth about deluded men not being women.
Again, you're using ass backwards logic. It's not that an islamic extremist is wrong when he says having a family is important. But since he came to that conclusion reading a book where a genocidal maniac told him to take women by force and rape them to ensure the success of his religion, it's just not right to put an equal sign between that and someone who bases the same conclusion on reason.
Radical feminists have said things that, if you cut them from all context, and massage the sentences just right, sound reasonable. Yes. You can do that with Charles Manson, Hitler and Mohammed.
It proves fucking nothing and you're an idiot for thinking it's a lucid point to make.
And let's not ignore that the only reason you set your argument up this way is to give legitimacy to people who are the living embodiment of the "stopped clock" being right.
>>71905439
Both 4chan and SJWdom started in SA
>>71905942
>were "racist" and "sexist" posts etc. always banned this often?
No, but back in "da day" it was only enforced if it was not a troll attempt, comedic or shitposting.
>>71904580
SJW turned on radfems because of the trans issue.
>>71907494
SJWdom started a long time before the Internet existed and it's main vector today is universities.
>>71907325
> most modern day feminists
The fact you think "modern day feminists" have anything to do with radical feminists shows you have no idea what you're talking about.
>>71907451
> It's not that an islamic extremist is wrong when he says having a family is important.
What if Islamic extremists were the ONLY PEOPLE IN THE WORLD to have a good explanation of why family was important?
Then they'd be at least worth listening to.
It's like that for radical feminists. Actually, a whole lot of stuff in Greer and Dworkin is at least an interesting read, even if you don't agree.
I bet you can't define a radical feminist properly. They aren't third wave. /pol/ seems to think any feminist is "radical", but that isn't what it means.
Why is /pol/ so aggressively ignorant about this stuff? Know your enemy and all that.
>>71906064
>SJW-ism on Reddit was a troll attack vector
no.
the people on SA are sincere in their Leftism.
they just like having an attitude of neutrality and not caring about anything when really they care more than everyone else.
>>71907597
The fourth wave started definitely way after the internet era. SJW were livejounal fags/students who amazingly took over their third wavers teachers in universities
The most amazing fact of SJWdom is how it positioned itself as respectable in such a record time. Loonies like Valenti, West and the like jumped from empty blogs to take over MSM such as the Guardian
>>71907624
>The fact you think "modern day feminists" have anything to do with radical feminists shows you have no idea what you're talking about.
I didn't say that, they seem to hate each other over "sex positivism" and other issues, but radfems/second wave/whatever is dying out to SJWism/intersectional/whatever feminism in terms of numbers of followers and cultural influence.
Suggesting Dworkin said anything of value would get you shit on on any other website other than tumblr never mind on /pol/ so have fun with your incoming shit storm.
>>71907791
This. I want the whole "SRS was a joke" to end.
They definitely didnt have an structured ideology at the beginning, but they were sincere from day 1. It was more than seeing n opposition in real life/internet to their faggotry only emboldened to go further
>>71907624
>What if Islamic extremists were the ONLY PEOPLE IN THE WORLD to have a good explanation of why family was important?
False dilemma. What if a serial killer was the only one who could stop nuclear war but only if we sacrificed children to him?
Deep shit.
>I bet you can't define a radical feminist properly
You're now appealing to using the feminist definition of radical feminist, instead of the vernacular, as if we were unable to parse what "radical" means.
Let me redefine what "truth" means, and then you have to use my definition in this conversation.
>Why is /pol/ so aggressively ignorant about this stuff? Know your enemy and all that.
/pol/ knows more about this topic than your gender studies buddies, but that doesn't mean everyone who reads the propaganda is so impressed they start believing it, or having to put their criticism of it in the language the propaganda dictates.
Some of this insanity has clearly rubbed off on you, since you're demanding the conversation to be had within the walls of feminist terminology and values. I could again make an analogy to illustrate why this is easily dismissed bullshit, but I don't think you're capable of arguing in good faith.
You want people to concede that feminists have a point, and you haven't addressed any of my counter points, just restated your assertion that they're worth listening to.
Is this slimy liberal way of arguing something you do intentionally or has it just infected your mind like the feminist ideology?
>>71907852
>Suggesting Dworkin said anything of value would get you shit on on any other website other than tumblr
By people who've never read her. Most of the internet doesn't read for shit.
Fact is, being a woman has been pretty shit for most of human history, if you like independence. You should read The Female Eunuch and Woman Hating. Even if you're a redpiller it'll tell you how women are fucked up.
> radfems/second wave/whatever is dying out to SJWism/intersectional/whatever feminism in terms of numbers of followers and cultural influence.
I'm going out on a limb but I believe tranny-ism is too incoherent and divorced from reality to last long term. You can't have a movement that essentially says reality is made up.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/fallen-idol/
>>71908069
>You can't have a movement that essentially says reality is made up.
Someone missed the marxist takeover of academia, despite arguing FOR the sanity of its biggest branch - feminism and critical theory.
And you're the one suggesting we haven't read this material?
>>71908051
>You're now appealing to using the feminist definition of radical feminist, instead of the vernacular
It's the definition used by everyone who knows any of the history of the feminist movement.
If you want to talk about anti-male feminism, or something, go right ahead. But right now you're just being aggressively un-educated.
> /pol/ knows more about this topic than your gender studies buddies
I would be prepared to make a substantial bet I'm the only person browsing /pol/ at this very moment who's read any basic feminist texts.
And BTW, I don't have any gender studies BS background. I have a PhD in hard science. But that means I don't go into arguments without knowing what the terms mean.
>>71908069
Dworkin isnt taken seriously in academia. Like, at all. t guy with a feminist scholar ex
>At least it was like this 7 years ago, who knows now...
>>71904580
Lowtax is a pretty cool guy whenever he can rouse himself out of his ambien and toe-sucking induced stupor.
It's the people around him who took over his site who are the real problem.
>>71907792
>The most amazing fact of SJWdom is how it positioned itself as respectable in such a record time.
/pol/ could do the same if it wasn't filled with wimps that cling to "trolling", frogs and anime as security blankets.
weakness pervades the mentality of so many of the people here.
>>71908236
>Dworkin isnt taken seriously in academia. Like, at all. t guy with a feminist scholar ex
http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/cec66/Dr_Clare_Chambers/Teaching_files/Feminism%20reading%20list.pdf
Andrea Dworkin's in this Cambridge University feminist reading list about a dozen times. She's an important thinker in the history of feminism.
So, yeah, nah, you're a shit cunt.
>>71907624
>The fact you think "modern day feminists" have anything to do with radical feminists shows you have no idea what you're talking about.
That's just pointless semantics and a No True Scottsman fallacy. You're all in it together, you're all ruining the world today.
And why on earth are you here on /pol/? There's this spicy jewess back in Reddit who sounds exactly like you.
>>71908369
No, it's simply using the accepted definition of the words.
Radical feminism is second wave feminism.
> And why on earth are you here on /pol/?
Why do you think? It's somewhere I can talk without being banned for going against groupthink.
>>71908369
>It's somewhere I can talk without being banned for going against groupthink.
Yet all you do is answer questions with questions and keep circling and evading any discussion. That's trolling, which apparently most people don't realize. You're not here to discuss or talk about anything, your only purpose here is to get a rise out of people and you're being very successful for some weird reason (aka people are fucking retards).
>>71908586
And now I'm clicking wrong posts, cool.
Meant for: >>71908469
>>71908586
I would love to discuss feminist history and theories here. But nobody has the first fucking clue about it. You don't even know what a radical feminist is. How can I engage if you can't agree on terms?
I wish /pol/ would wise up and start reading people it thought it disagreed with. Because even if feminists have fucked up ideas about what society should look like, they see it at a very different angle than you do. That's valuable in itself.
>>71908754
Right wingers understand what Left wingers thing but vice versa is not true.
Also gas youself.
>>71908360
You do realize just because Aristotle is taught in colleges, it doesn't mean they are teaching him as fact, right?
>>71908833
>8833
>>71908307
The closest >we have to this are Milo, Cernovich and Roosh and all of them are clowns.
Milo and Cernovich would completely change their speech if they feel they can ride the new fad wave. And Roosh became a new-born Christian of sorts (!)
>>71908622
Stop (you)sing the trolls
>>71908856
> philosophy
> fact
I kind of wish we could force people like you to do at least one humanities course at gunpoint.
It's not about facts. It's about different views of the world and understanding how different influential thinkers saw fundamental problems.
>>71908965
You do realize feminism is a philosophy, right?
>>71905741
So what happened to the UK?
>>71909060
No. It's a number of different political movements for the emancipation of women.
Feminist philosophy is not the same as feminism.
>>71908754
Most feminist terms are only sophistry and self-invented by the movement to make them appear more intellectual and used to paint a nicer picture of them. If you really wanted to have discussion about something you can easily talk about the things without knowing the "right terms".
Humanities in general aren't so tied to terms and fancy concepts, like hard sciences, which you should know. For example if someone doesn't know what 'quantum chaos' means in physics there's really no point trying to talk about it. This isn't true for things like feminism where it's 99% fluff and fancy words used to describe easy concepts.
>>71909107
>Hey guys, this discredited philosopher who was wrong about basically everything is being taught in colleges!
>No no, they're just teaching the history of thought
>Hey guys, this other discredited philosopher who was wrong about basically everything is being taught in colleges!
>How dare they! They are trying to force those incorrect beliefs on to poor, unsuspecting college students in order to take over the world!
>>71908307
Bullshit. Look at Vox Day, who is utterly that - and the best he can manage is throwing a spanner in the Hugo awards. Which will soon end, as the circlejerk is preparing to set aside nomination slots for certain publishers (Tor) for each category, circumventing even that minor feat. We have not, therefore, seen the end of gay dinosaurs.
>>71908902
>Milo and Cernovich would completely change their speech if they feel they can ride the new fad wave.
I doubt.
Holding them to extremely high standards is dumb when you look at the other side and what they run with.
/pol/ is filled with cowardly trolls and those guys are some of the few that aren't.
>>71908965
>It's not about facts.
We all know humanities doesn't deal in fact.
>>71909107
>No. It's a number of different political movements for the emancipation of women.
>Feminist philosophy is not the same as feminism.
Is that a fact?
See, you are in this thread again and again demanding we discuss feminism within the definitions of feminism. But that's a pointless rhetorical trick.
Nobody is fooled by an Islamist who wants to discuss the truth of the Quran but only after you accept his terminology and declare Mohammed the prophet of God.
For some reason you think you're being clever when you say we can't discuss feminism from without the walls it constructs. You declare all criticism invalid, unless we first accept the definitions and jargon of feminism as true.
It's a cheap and common lefty trick and you think we should be impressed.
>>71909284
>the best he can manage is throwing a spanner in the Hugo awards
Which is something different from the endless hamster wheel that goes on here.
>>71909231
> attacks strawman of "radical feminism"
> someone who has a clue points out feminism has several historical waves, radical feminism being one of them, and not a recent one
> HURR WHY DO I NEED TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT FEMINISM
This isn't about inventing bullshit terminology. It's simply about knowing whose ideas you are arguing against and what intellectual movement they were associated with. Dworkin? Butler? Foucault? MacKinnon?
Would you go and attack Aristotelian ethics by saying "philosophy is all shit"? If you did, people with a clue would attack you in the same way.
>>71909360
>demanding we discuss feminism within the definitions of feminism.
You don't have to accept any feminist claims as being true. Just have a basic understanding of WHICH feminism you're attacking.
Otherwise you just come off as a retard quite frankly.
> Nobody is fooled by an Islamist who wants to discuss the truth of the Quran but only after you accept his terminology and declare Mohammed the prophet of God.
But you probably should accept Islamic terminology if you want to discuss Islam. It doesn't follow you accept any claims Muslims are making as true.
You don't have to accept the truth of God but if the terminology allows you to discuss concepts in a cohesive way you should accept it.
Otherwise you'll get your hadiths and suras all mixed up and anyone who has knowledge will realize you're retarded.
>>71908965
Everyone in america has to take humanities course
>>71908965
>It's not about facts. It's about different views of the world
>>71909508
Yet you could explain all those fancy terms and things with a few short sentences.
So yeah, go you?
>>71909369
And something about which a vanishingly small number of people know and/or care about. I noted him in contrast to the hack bloggers who have taken over MSM.
>>71909508
>Would you go and attack Aristotelian ethics by saying "philosophy is all shit"? If you did, people with a clue would attack you in the same way.
But this isn't what we're saying about feminism. We're saying it's deceptive, the fruits are poisonous and it's constructed as an extension of marxism to further that agenda with critical theory designed (explicitly) to break down traditional society.
It's also ironic that you defend feminism, a project that dismisses all other theories without knowing jack shit about them other than just not liking the implications of reality being right.
> But you probably should accept Islamic terminology if you want to discuss Islam. It doesn't follow you accept any claims Muslims are making as true.
This is where you admit you only want to discuss feminism within the walls of feminism being accepted as true, what I said all along.
What you want then is a feminist forum where people share this premise. What the fuck is the value of looking for an honest debate about feminism if you declare the foundations of feminism to be beyond reproach?
As an islamist you don't want to discuss Islam with atheists, you want to preach and convert them. You'll never accept any criticism that says your belief is just wrong. You don't accept a debate where the foundation can be questioned.
This is the premise you have when you're looking to "discuss" feminism. You want to convert, or have an Nicene Council on what points to lift up and what to ignore.
Something awful posters are fucked up. They actually put SA in their names on Twitter and shut just to prove they are part of the club.
>>71904967
I'm well protected
>>71909704
>But you probably should accept Islamic terminology if you want to discuss Islam. It doesn't follow you accept any claims Muslims are making as true.
>You don't have to accept the truth of God but if the terminology allows you to discuss concepts in a cohesive way you should accept it.
Here's an analogy to what you're doing.
Imagine a stormfag shows up. He declares the jews to be running the world and wants to "discuss" this.
Someone interjects that they don't, and he's wrong.
He then starts arguing for hours about how Hitler was right about many things and that he wants a debate only on his terms, if people agree to use nazi philosophy and refer to influential eugenics thinkers, otherwise he'll call them retarded and act as if they don't want a debate.
He's declared the premise off-limits, and wants to "debate" only within his own sources, jargon and accepted truths.
That's what you're doing. And the sad thing is that most stormfags are more than willing to start rambling off independent sources for their claims and talk for hours even when you attack their premises.
But feminists aren't. Because, as you said yourself
>>71908965
>It's not about facts. It's about different views of the world
Feminists have abandoned the idea that objective reality can support their claims. Everything they say is objective morality wankery.
You can't defend your premises, so you start the "debate" by saying "let's assume monkeys can fly". And then you get upset when people don't accept your false premise or inability to prove the foundations of your claims.
>>71906255
>>71906482
That's what people used to say about 4chan all the time before Chanology happened.
>>71910189
>This is where you admit you only want to discuss feminism within the walls of feminism being accepted as true, what I said all along.
>What you want then is a feminist forum where people share this premise.
No, read what I said again.
How are you going to identify the precise you are attacking without using intelligible language?
You don't have to accept a single thing feminists have ever said is true in order to identify the intellectual movement within feminism you're attacking and who came up with the idea.
If you want to attack Islam and come up with "Islam says X" without understanding it, you are going to be BTFO by someone who actually knows the difference between hadiths and suras, etc.
This has turned into a huge fagdance about your lack of understanding of what feminists have actually said because of course you've never read any.
Just go read some. See the reading list above.
>>71907169
NORMIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES
>>71910691
> Here's an analogy to what you're doing.
> Imagine a stormfag shows up. He declares the jews to be running the world and wants to "discuss" this.
> Someone interjects that they don't, and he's wrong.
This is false.
What I'm doing is pointing out that people are attacking "feminism" without being at all clear on what they actually disagree with, and using "radical feminism" in the wrong way.
In your analogy, a Stormfag has showed up and is attacking "Jewish communism" without realizing there are a bunch of different kinds of Jews, only some of them are leftwing, without realizing the complex history of Jewish marxism as a reaction to religious messianism, etc.
This is in fact what stormfags do all the time. There's a real aversion to facts.
You do not have to have any position on the stormfag's claims to be clear on the basic facts at hand. Feminism is a set of movements, and "radical feminism" probably is not the movement the OP wanted to talk about.
In fact /pol/ would probably agree with a lot of what the REAL radfems say. Such as the fact femininity makes women useless parasites and trannies are mentally ill predators.
>>71910748
>This has turned into a huge fagdance about your lack of understanding of what feminists have actually said because of course you've never read any.
>Just go read some. See the reading list above.
Look at the "you can't criticise marxism as it exists, you have to read Karl Marx as if he was setting the reality of marxism today" gambit.
You're doing the "communism was never tried" dance trying to act like what specific feminists have said is relevant to feminism as it exists today.
Once again this is indistinguishable from talking to an Islamist who demands you have to read the Quran in the original arabic to be able to have an opinion on it. And then he asserts a bunch of "no true scotsman" fallacies about Islam as it exists.
Here's a topic for discussion; why is feminism and feminist debating tactics so parallell to Islam?
>>71904648
K-Karl is that you?
>>71911058
Which well known feminist texts have you actually read?
> Look at the "you can't criticise marxism as it exists, you have to read Karl Marx as if he was setting the reality of marxism today" gambit.
But what's "marxism as it exists"? There's no one marxism, and large states calling themselves marxist no longer exist.
Marx actually had very little to say about marxism - but you've never read him of course, so you wouldn't know.
It's kind of similar. Your basic lack of understanding of your opponents means only a retard would get into this discussion. Enjoy your circle jerk.
>>71904580
Is that real? That's a damn satisfying verbal beatdown.
>>71910992
>In your analogy, a Stormfag has showed up and is attacking "Jewish communism" without realizing there are a bunch of different kinds of Jews, only some of them are leftwing, without realizing the complex history of Jewish marxism as a reaction to religious messianism, etc.
>This is in fact what stormfags do all the time. There's a real aversion to facts.
Wait did you just lecture on having to appreciate the subtlety of a subject before criticising it, and then you use the label "stormfags" unironically?
But there are LOTS of nazi-groups anon.
There's white nationalists, neo-nazis, ultra-conservatives, alt-right, fascists, neofascists, nationalists, ultra-nationalists..
In fact if you can't name the significant philosophical thinkers in each of these branches you can't say anything about "Stormfags". They're all special snowflakes and can't be talked about as a collective.
>Feminism is a set of movements, and "radical feminism" probably is not the movement the OP wanted to talk about.
Do you even begin to understand now the point I made about vernacular use? OP knew what he was saying.
Just as we know what you're trying to say with "stormfags" even though - using your own debate tactics - they're not a cohesive group.
We all know you don't know jack shit about ultra right thinkers. You haven't read them. By your rules you can't say jack shit about them or attack their premises.
But we also know you abide by "one rule for me, one rule for thee". You break your own discussion parameters because it suits you.
I think my point is firmly proven by now and with this latest gambit you've undone your own standing.
>>71910471
am I the only one here who puts 4 of clubs in my twitter handle?
>>71911431
Yes, I would hope you take that off as soon as possible.
>>71907624
>Why is /pol/ so aggressively ignorant about this stuff? Know your enemy and all that
Good point senpai. I read one of Greer's books. It was worth it.
Are feminists cucked by transgenders?
>>71911392
> In fact if you can't name the significant philosophical thinkers in each of these branches you can't say anything about "Stormfags". They're all special snowflakes and can't be talked about as a collective.
You introduced that term not me.
But actually, you're right. If the terminology is useful to the argument you should use it. There's no point calling a white nationalist a genocidal nazi if they just want a state for white people and don't want to kill all the jews.
So, no, your "hypocrite" claim is BTFO and it really supports my point not yours.
>>71911925
Feminists are the only people in the world at the current time making coherent points about how mad transgenders are.
Take a look at the gendertrender blog.
>>71904648
is this about circumcision?
>>71912263
No, it's about telling male trannies they aren't lesbians and should stop trying to fuck them.
>>71909369
b-but the meme magic is real, Anon! You can see the influence in US politics!
>>71912083
>You introduced that term not me.
I trapped you.
>So, no, your "hypocrite" claim is BTFO and it really supports my point not yours.
You just admitted that everything you've been arguing in this thread is bullshit. You showed the uselessness of your own argument, and that you won't stick to it.
Now you want to backpedal aggressively to maintain cohesion with what you've said earlier, but it's too late. Because if you stuck to your premise you can't debate anything. Like I said you don't know enough to dismiss the right. So you must debate on their terms and assume they're right. By your own rules, they might have a point, so you need to read their influential thinkers before coming to a conclusion.
But there's no end to insanity and nutty ideas. You can't dismiss Ancient Aliens because you never read Däniken. You can't dismiss the hollow earth. In fact you'll never have time to read enough to by /your/ standard dismiss anything.
This is what your fact-less reality brings you.
This is what abandoning reason for moral relativism gives you.
In truth you are a feminist. You accepted their most poisonous core tenet; that reality is subjective.
But you also fight this every time you open your mouth to try and make a point. Because somewhere deep inside you, you realize that actually holding this belief is a cognitive dissonance you can't handle. You would be unable to do or say anything.
THIS is the reason feminism must be attacked at its foundation, and not gargled about from within its walls. The point of feminism isn't anything they say, it's just as a branch of the ideology that's aiming to destroy western civilization from within.
>>71904768
im pretty sure that was supposed to be a friendly thing for some event and uwe decided to go full asshole and just rain on the guy
>>71912591
they lured lowtax there by pretending it was a friendly thing but uwe had always intended it to be a legal way for him to beat the shit out of people who made fun of him, which is why he shit himself as soon as he realized that seanbaby is literally abobo from double dragon
>>71907624
>What if Islamic extremists were the ONLY PEOPLE IN THE WORLD to have a good explanation of why family was important?
>Then they'd be at least worth listening to
no. then it would not be true that family is important.
>>71912580
> I trapped you.
Keep dreaming mate. If we were having a discussion about white nationalists, then probably we would start getting fine grained enough to talk about nazis versus white nationalists. I do know enough about the extreme right to argue their points not a strawman. You don't know enough about feminism to do this and it shows.
This is also why your opponents will never take you seriously. Being dumb doesn't win you points.
> In truth you are a feminist. You accepted their most poisonous core tenet; that reality is subjective.
Nope. I'm saying is that you don't even know which feminism you're attacking.
And that comment shows how dumb you are. You think Foucault and the crappy US interpretation of the Continental School (Judith Butler, I'm looking at you) is "feminism". Your mind's controlled by writers and thinkers you've never even heard of. The first and second wave couched female emancipation in materialist terms without po-mo bullshit.
That was the great thing about Dworkin actually. Very simple ideas. Women are oppressed by men; don't consort with the oppressors; heterosexual sex is rape; kill the oppressors.
> You can't dismiss Ancient Aliens because you never read Däniken.
I have actually, but that isn't necessary. We know what you mean by Ancient Aliens. Nobody knows what you mean if you say "feminism". You don't have a clue what you're talking about.
>>71912580
This post needs a trigger warning due to all the rape.
>>71913023
>I do know enough about the extreme right to argue their points not a strawman.
How can you qualify this subjective statement? How do you know you actually capture "true" meaning and understanding of the positions from the outside looking in?
>>71913580
That is really some freshman stoner garbage. For being so dismissive of humanities there sure are a lot of people here who'd benefit from a short course.
How do you know anyone's position on anything? We can't read minds, but we know what the words people say mean.
>>71913023
>I have actually, but that isn't necessary. We know what you mean by Ancient Aliens. Nobody knows what you mean if you say "feminism". You don't have a clue what you're talking about.
You've read Däniken and think you know Ancient Aliens?
But Däniken isn't Icke. Hoagland isn't Däniken either. That's just the tip of the iceberg on a nonsense subject. Does Ancient Aliens mean greys? Do you have to distinguish between Sirians, and are reptilians linked to Atlantis or not?
Once again you're special pleading for feminism as if it were exceptionally complicated or didn't apply to the same rules.
> And that comment shows how dumb you are. You think Foucault and the crappy US interpretation of the Continental School (Judith Butler, I'm looking at you) is "feminism". Your mind's controlled by writers and thinkers you've never even heard of.
No, anon. I am still attacking the premises of feminism as it exists. I live in a nation where there are no non-feminists. Your appeal to authority is meaningless to a Swede. I know feminism better than anyone with a gender studies course because I see what it actually means, not what certain writers said it means.
And this is the fallacy you keep returning to; asserting that reality is meaningless because you read in a book that feminism doesn't mean what it is. You think you can have an ivory tower conversation and reject what feminism does. This is why you don't want a discussion with people about the premises or reality of what it is, only a internal debate within the religion about which branch is true.
You're reeling from being attacked on the premises because like a fundamentalist you can't understand a non-religious perspective. You need to have the debate within your framework, or else the debate is wrongheaded and stupid.
>>71913023
You may talk about how there are these differences between the waves of feminism and how people on this board are unqualified to comment on feminism in general if they don't have an academic understanding of the topic. But based on my personal experiences, people who identify as feminists tend to be just pretty annoying. They're okay enough if they're just "sure, I believe in the equality of sexes" type that doesn't actually think about gender issues at all, let alone talk about it. But the more passionate they are about being feminists, the more unlikable I tend to find them and their political opinions. Regardless of which school of feminist thought they belong to. The only ones I can tolerate are the ones campaigning for gender equality in the Middle-east and risking their lives for their beliefs.
>>71913023
>Nobody knows what you mean if you say "feminism". You don't have a clue what you're talking about.
not true. if the audience doesn't object, then they are okay with it. you are the only one here who has this urge to desperately prove to us that unless one has a definition ACCEPTABLE BY FEMINISTS (which you are trying to impose by insisting on using feminist newspeak) then the term is meaningless.
But anyhow, here it is: a feminist is someone who falsely claims women aren't formally equal to men in western societies and attacks people based on this delusion. Now go ahead and tell me this is not the dictionary definition, thereby proving that only the self-aggrandizing feminist definition is acceptable to you.
>>71914525
>a feminist is someone who falsely claims women aren't formally equal to men in western societies
What does that even mean? Look at the composition of governments, financial workers, CEOs, etc. Look at who gets arrested for rape. Look at who works for preschools and software engineering. Look at body strength. It's clear men and women aren't equal. That's not a delusion, it's just a fact.
I don't know of any feminists who demand men should be giving birth, which is what genuine equality would be.
>>71913732
>That is really some freshman stoner garbage. For being so dismissive of humanities there sure are a lot of people here who'd benefit from a short course.
I never dismissed the humanities, and one of my degrees is in the liberal arts. You can argumentum ad verecundiam and ad hominem until the cows come home, but it won't work. The deflection with personal attack is obvious enough for all to see.
>How do you know anyone's position on anything? We can't read minds, but we know what the words people say mean.
Do we though?
>I do know enough about the extreme right to argue their points not a strawman.
>This is in fact what stormfags do all the time.
These are both statements made by you. I asked how you can qualify understanding potential nuance of positions within a community that you seem to have little interaction with.
How do you square your claim of fair dealing and topical knowledge with your use of broad brush generalization?
>>71914868
>What does that even mean? Look at the composition of governments, financial workers, CEOs, etc. Look at who gets arrested for rape. Look at who works for preschools and software engineering. Look at body strength. It's clear men and women aren't equal. That's not a delusion, it's just a fact.
You can't read. I said formally equal. I did not say anything about equality of outcomes, which is a despicable thing anyway.
>>71904580
SA had actual liberal Democrat government employees modding the site for years
I got banned for calling Islam a death cult
I was on semi familiar term with the guy who banned me so I IMed him, "keep sucking muslim cock and being an apologist, when muslims are cutting your kaffir head off I will be laughing"
Then when he was actually killed in Benghazi I felt kind of bad for a minute
>>71913929
what in the holy fuck is that picture
>>71915758
>Then when he was actually killed in Benghazi I felt kind of bad for a minute
>>71909704
I can see where you're coming from. The first-wave feminists that fought for equal voting rights, the second-wave radical feminists that fought for hedonism and further emancipation and now the SJWs and Tumblrites who form the third-wave and are even more radical and retarded than the second, just not called the same.
Radicality refers to the stubbornness and blind dedication to a cause as I'm sure you know, which is why we so eagerly put all the crybullies in the same cradle. This is objective reality, a fact that throughout centuries of development has been accepted by people from all walks of life.
Surely you can accept that as well?
The feminism that currently is killing our civilisations is the most radical one and the most destructive one. There's no arguing with Tumblrites, as soon as they face resistance they resort to insults, doxxing, crybullying, etc.
What's more, they only want to spread their arguments on their terms, with their language, in their safe space, probably because they don't understand them well enough to use their own words.
That alone makes me and many others quite unwilling to play their game. If they cannot meet us in the middle, why should we?
>>71913023
>gets assblasted
>suddenly every word is an ad hominem and assault on intellect
>doubling down using the same lines as before, but now "really" meaning them
This is what true entertainment is all about.
>>71913023
You're still having a semantic discussion, and most of /pol/ isn't going to accept a definition of "feminism" that isn't "the Jewish illuminati plot to sap and impurify our bodily fluids". They won't engage in any detailed conversation because it's easier for them to dismiss it summarily with vague overtures to a global NWO plot.
>>71916525
Like always, someone gets completely BTFO then they float off into the aether. That is until the next time they start or contribute to a new thread with the exact same responses. The cycle continues.
>>71917775
>and most of /pol/ isn't going to accept a definition of "feminism" that isn't "the Jewish illuminati plot to sap and impurify our bodily fluids"
Considering quite a bit of discussion in this thread dealt with the use of blanket generalization to misconstrue individual arguments or act as strawman, this post provides a perfect example of such thinking. You do yourself a disservice with this line of argumentation.
>>71917775
By feminists we mean those who think women's equality is something still worth harping on about, regardless of the total equality that has been achieved a long time ago.
By radical we mean radical. You know, the type who centers her life around a marginal cause, can't change her views and won't change the subject. The type who thinks gender quotas solve anything that's not a made-up problem.
>>71917775
>They won't engage in any detailed conversation because it's easier for them to dismiss it summarily with vague overtures to a global NWO plot.
Assert something that wasn't argued to summarily dismiss critics, while also berating your opponents for misrepresenting you and not arguing on your terms.
The self-implosion is perfect anon.
Most of this thread can be sidestepped by the feminist apologists if they just start by admitting they're not interested in discussing the truth of feminism, and that they only want a discussion within feminism.
But that begs the question of why they're here, since there are so many feminist forums where they could engage in a sectarian conflict with their ideological brothers.
Instead of further deflection or restating your own abdication of the topic, can you actually engage this point?
>>71905551
'play the part of idiot and you soon find yourself in company of them'
I'm amazed at the sheer fucks everyone in this thread gives about angry females.
>>71920941
Let's not pretend they aren't a serious cancer, mmkay?
>>71907348
women have a higher average then men, so yes it is true. but men have higher deviation.
basically women all lie in the 110. while men is a mix of 80 and 140
somethingawful will never be as good as thefriendsociety, cookiethievery, or mypostingcareer.
whoops
>>71920941
the white birthrate has collapsed due to feminism.
whites will become minorities in their own countries soon.
>>71918542
It's literally how Obama won all his debates, and how millennials were raised to "win" any argument.
>>71904580
>crud
>>71914868
Since when everyone has to be autistically equal in every kind of conceivable detail? Unless we become formless blobs of equal mass and density that won't happen. And then they say they want more diversity? the fuck?
I think it's mostly a power-play using a victim role, and massive self-steem issues
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karpman_drama_triangle
>>71924954
and? then you get to be the oppressed and rise up again and cuck the other races.
