Pakis are some of the most annoying ppl

— 🇮🇶🇱🇧علي (@incheb212841) April 24, 2024

Well he said men not boys

>Neckbeard

@ThatHoeOverThere @ReKonger0 thots

I'll never hold civilian protester chants to the same degree of seriousness as Israeli state officials statements on international television. Somehow I'm less phased by college kids and moms chanting “burn Tel Aviv” than I am Israeli government representatives telling world organizations that they're “proud of the ruins in Gaza”.

Kind of seems like trying to compare civilian protest to one of the most well funded militaries in the world, and that's just a flat out silly thing to try to do.

That might be the case but shouldn't we be concerned about people making these chants? They might not represent everyone's beliefs on the pro Palestinian side but it would be dumb to just shrug it off like it's nothing. [-52]

https://old.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1cdiz2p/protestors_shout_burn_tel_aviv_to_the_ground/l1ct4f5/?context=8&sort=controversial

https://old.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1cdiz2p/protestors_shout_burn_tel_aviv_to_the_ground/l1cu7x4/?context=8&sort=controversial

These are not Columbia university students. They're outside of the campus

https://old.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1cdiz2p/protestors_shout_burn_tel_aviv_to_the_ground/l1c5juw/?context=8&sort=controversial

The people shouting that are terrorists and should be as such. [-9]

https://old.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1cdiz2p/protestors_shout_burn_tel_aviv_to_the_ground/l1c9g6w/?context=8&sort=controversial

this is hate speech not free speech [-10, deletemaxxxed]

https://undelete.pullpush.io/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1cdiz2p/_/l1cdwyp/#comment-info

https://old.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1cdiz2p/_/l1cdwyp/?context=8&sort=controversial

ah yess freedom is measured by laws on your sexuality🤡having laws on your sexuality&having to show it off is whats actually oppressive💀.No one care about your sexuality. Just keep it private cause its intimate. u can be gay just dont start being a sponsor n a woke preacher.

— Hamza (@Hamzah96AJ) April 26, 2024

This may have been too far lol

Screenshots of the entire thread in case I get ban hammered

Malding here:

https://old.reddit.com/r/HolUp/comments/1cdjt9u/what_in_the_actual_f_did_he_just_do/?sort=controversial

https://old.reddit.com/r/h3h3productions/comments/1cde829/felt_like_sharing_this_here_creepy_guyparent/?sort=controversial

- 4 votes

- 0 votes

Codecels are

To fully grasp the current situation in San Francisco, where venture capitalists are trying to take control of City Hall, you must listen to Balaji Srinivasan. Before you do, steel yourself for what's to come: A normal person could easily mistake his rambling train wrecks of thought for a crackpot's ravings, but influential Silicon Valley billionaires regard him as a genius.

“Balaji has the highest rate of output per minute of good new ideas of anybody I've ever met,” wrote Marc Andreessen, co-founder of the V.C. firm Andreessen-Horowitz, in a blurb for Balaji's 2022 book, The Network State: How to Start a New Country. The book outlines a plan for tech plutocrats to exit democracy and establish new sovereign territories. I mentioned Balaji's ideas in two previous stories about Network State–related efforts in California—a proposed tech colony called California Forever and the tech-funded campaign to capture San Francisco's government.

Balaji, a 43-year-old Long Island native who goes by his first name, has a solid Valley pedigree: He earned multiple degrees from Stanford University, founded multiple startups, became a partner at Andreessen-Horowitz and then served as chief technology officer at Coinbase. He is also the leader of a cultish and increasingly strident neo-reactionary tech political movement that sees American democracy as an enemy. In 2013, a New York Times story headlined “Silicon Valley Roused by Secession Call” described a speech in which he “told a group of young entrepreneurs that the United States had become ‘the Microsoft of nations': outdated and obsolescent.”

“The speech won roars from the audience at Y Combinator, a leading start-up incubator,” reported the Times. Balaji paints a bleak picture of a dystopian future in a U.S. in chaos and decline, but his prophecies sometimes fall short. Last year, he lost $1 million in a public bet after wrongly predicting a massive surge in the price of Bitcoin.

Still, his appetite for autocracy is bottomless. Last October, Balaji hosted the first-ever Network State Conference. Garry Tan—the current Y Combinator CEO who's attempting to spearhead a political takeover of San Francisco—participated in an interview with Balaji and cast the effort as part of the Network State movement. Tan, who made headlines in January after tweeting “die slow motherlovers” at local progressive politicians, frames his campaign as an experiment in “moderate” politics. But in a podcast interview one month before the conference, Balaji laid out a more disturbing and extreme vision.

“What I'm really calling for is something like tech Zionism,” he said, after comparing his movement to those started by the biblical Abraham, Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith (founder of Mormonism), Theodor Herzl (“spiritual father” of the state of Israel), and Lee Kuan Yew (former authoritarian ruler of Singapore). Balaji then revealed his shocking ideas for a tech-governed city where citizens loyal to tech companies would form a new political tribe clad in gray t-shirts. “And if you see another Gray on the street … you do the nod,” he said, during a four-hour talk on the Moment of Zen podcast. “You're a fellow Gray.”

The Grays' shirts would feature “Bitcoin or Elon or other kinds of logos … Y Combinator is a good one for the city of San Francisco in particular.” Grays would also receive special ID cards providing access to exclusive, Gray-controlled sectors of the city. In addition, the Grays would make an alliance with the police department, funding weekly “policeman's banquets” to win them over.

“Grays should embrace the police, okay? All-in on the police,” said Srinivasan. “What does that mean? That's, as I said, banquets. That means every policeman's son, daughter, wife, cousin, you know, sibling, whatever, should get a job at a tech company in security.”

In exchange for extra food and jobs, cops would pledge loyalty to the Grays. Srinivasan recommends asking officers a series of questions to ascertain their political leanings. For example: “Did you want to take the sign off of Elon's building?”

This refers to the August 2023 incident in which Elon Musk illegally installed a large flashing X logo atop Twitter headquarters, in violation of building safety codes. City inspectors forced him to remove it. This was the second time Musk had run afoul of the city in his desire to refurbish his headquarters: In July, police briefly halted his attempt to pry the “Twitter” signage from the building's exterior. But in Balaji's dystopia, he implies that officers loyal to the Grays would let Musk do as he pleases (democratically inclined officers, he suggests, can be paid to retire).

Simply put, there is a ton of fascist-chic cosplay involved. Once an officer joins the Grays, they get a special uniform designed by their tech overlords. The Grays will also donate heavily to police charities and “merge the Gray and police social networks.” Then, in a show of force, they'll march through the city together.

!clinklickers MOAR WORDS...

‘CHALLENGERS’ releases in theaters today! pic.twitter.com/mMvoBGdVmn

— Films to Films (@filmstofilms_) April 26, 2024

Archaeopteryxes are about the size of a blackbird and are flying creatures that are considered the evolutionary ancestor of modern birds. They have two wide wings they use to fly and glide. However, unlike modern birds, archaeopteryxes have bony tails. They have beaks with sharp teeth which they use to tear flesh, for they are carnivorous. Prey is killed using their hyperextended second toes that hold a large claw.

We're not going to be talking about this extinct species. Instead, I'll be talking about three public freakouts. Your job is to decide if it is justified or not.

Who will clean your pottys?

This is a favorite of mine. It takes place om The View during a fierce debate surrounding Trump's anti-immigrant stance. In a bid to prove Trump's racism, kelly osborne makes a racist statement herself. She asks "if you kick every latinx out of this country, then who will be cleaning your potty Donald Trump?!" Her comment immediately elicits gasps and the camera hilariously pans to one of the latinx hosts who admonishes her.

Do you think she was being racist, or was she making a good point?

father spanks children for stealing

In this video we see a father whip the shit out of his kids for stealing. This is an ineffective form of parenting. As wikipedia tells us:

>Numerous studies have found increased risk of impaired child development from the use of corporal punishment. Corporal punishment by parents has been linked to increased aggression, mental health problems, impaired cognitive development, and drug and alcohol abuse.

It looks really sore and I'm sure those kids will never forget it. Imagine the damage that's been done between parent and child when violence is introduced.

Do you think the father did the right thing?

Look who's leaving

There's some sort of awards ceremony going on at a high school. It's clearly been going on for too long and some parents are leaving. The principle says "look who's leaving, all the black people!". This causes an uproar which then does cause all the black people to leave. In a subsequent interview, the principle blamed the ordeal on Satan.

Do you think she was making a fair observation, or was she being racist?

Conclusion

I think I got rejected by the same person twice. I'll write a long-winded post about it soon. Oh well, I think I need to learn to get over it. She doesn't have feelings for me, and that's the deal. Tune in next time when we discuss the DC Snipers.

I been waiting till I had a few of these built up to do a drop !birdposters !furries

seeing as I might become employed soon I'll no I'll never stop I'm on that grndset fr fr

posting in the marsey hole idk where else these'd go I can't post in furry bc i'm facing housing difficulties

you'll find a selection inspired by some of my favorite marseys as well as some originals

I have assimilated into the marsey artstyle

I need to do more albeit

Most Based Comments

Basedness: 🔥🔘🔘🔘🔘

He is definitely having s*x with these women. He's telling you otherwise so that you won't have s*x with others. (5629)

1000% (80)

Basedness: 🔥🔘🔘🔘🔘

I mean he is 6'3 (38)

And blue-eyed (37)

Basedness: 🔘🔘🔘🔘🔘

The open marriage fad has really gotten out of hand. (47)

I think a lot of people are trying it because they think it's way more common than it actually is. It's.....not. at least not for married couples. (9)

Angriest Comments

Angriness: 😡😡😡😡😡

From a man's perspective, he is definitely sleeping with those women. He's not giving you his full attention when he is around, and he's abusing your trust. It sounds like when people date and "take a break" just to hookup with someone else. I'm not perfect and my other head has tried to lead me astray multiple times but I never commit to it, because her seeing someone else or talking to someone would destroy me and she doesn't deserve that disrespect. I don't care about the people condoning this. He doesn't want to wait to have s*x with you, which is why he keeps asking to open up the marriage on business trips. I'm sorry, but in my opinion, he is cheating on you but manipulating you into thinking he is not. It will only get worse. (4)

Angriness: 😡😡😡😡😡

Cut him loose immediately! He is for the streets. Especially since you are going to be and MD, he will end up cheating and you will end up having to pay this scrub alimony. He will be having s*x with these women AND even if he is not, it is still cheating. He wants to eat his cake and have it too. If you get pregnant, it will get worse. He will be living off of your money and cheating with broke women on YOUR dime.. (1)

Angriness: 😡😡😡😡😡

[deleted] (1718)

Was married from 2015 to 2022. She passed. Lesson I learned is this. Things amplify in relationships. If he is very messy probability later on in life he's gonna be a disaster area guy. If he's already in an "open" relationship your doomed. End it and leave. Batter to lose this guy now and only waste 8 years then wait and waste 8 years an one minute. (5)

Biggest Lolcow: /u/Elegant-Channel351

Score: 🐮🐮🔘🔘🔘

Number of comments: 3

Average angriness: 🔘🔘🔘🔘🔘

Maximum angriness: 😡😡😡😡🔘

Minimum angriness: 😡🔘🔘🔘🔘

NEW: Subscribe to /h/miners to see untapped drama veins, ripe for mining!

autodrama: automating away the jobs of dramautists. Ping HeyMoon if there are any problems or you have a suggestion

!anticommunists

>A day of the life of a DEI program manager

>11:00 am - Wake up. Early birds are racist.

>11:30 am - Attend a sync up meeting. Standup is not inclusive. Everyone needs to come up with 5 words to remove from our dictionary.

>12:00 pm - Have lunch at a black-female-owned Chinese restaurant. Scold the owner for cultural appropriation.

>1:00 pm - Meet with one of my program sponsors. Discuss what protest we need to fund next.

>2:00 pm - Check internal Slack messages and mark those who used non inclusive language

>3:00 pm - Have s*x with a queer peer

>4:00 pm - Go back home. Work is racist

>10:00 pm - Attack random people online

A growing number of individuals and groups on the right are turning their back on conservatism without giving up the label. They have abandoned the three-legged stool of fiscal conservatism, traditional values, and a foreign policy approach of peace through strength. Instead,… pic.twitter.com/Ddv6i7vKxG

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) April 23, 2024

https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/1782847806090146234

A growing number of individuals and groups on the right are turning their back on conservatism without giving up the label. They have abandoned the three-legged stool of fiscal conservatism, traditional values, and a foreign policy approach of peace through strength. Instead, they want to harness the power of the federal government to punish the left and implement their preferred policy agenda. They give no credence to the guiding principles of limited government and instead are happy to use big government in order to win. I wrote about this in National Review here:

"Holy zoinks! I can't believe conservatives no longer believe in free markets and small government! When did this happen????"

https://twitter.com/russian_cosmist/status/1783536916421386515

You're a fat r-slur and addicted to losing.

https://twitter.com/Sargon_of_Akkad/status/1783545212851151323

Crushing the left and adopting a positive traditional framework of rules and norms is good, actually.

Why the frick is Sargon of Asskad talking like a soy redditor? "Ummmm being based is good, actually, sweaty."

https://twitter.com/everymanreport/status/1783082047679987980

Please keep in mind your approach failed to conserve the women's bathroom.

https://twitter.com/TheWorthyHouse/status/1783536829632811100

You make me want to puke. For thirty years I've listened to this kind of cretinous garbage. STFU.

https://twitter.com/DougSides/status/1782893688101711972

Unfortunately you are not a conservative…

its so OVER for conservativecels

https://twitter.com/TrevorsCrucifix/status/1783516425480454472

Conservativism is dead. It failed to conserve. We are nationalists now. We Will build the future with the best of the past and it's traditions. Christ is King!

GET READY CUCKS. WE ARE GONNA BUILD THE FUTURE BEHIND OUR COMPUTERS. CHRIST IS KING!!!!

https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1783535650861715585

This fat pig is beyond parody. He claims that if Republicans use power, then watch out! Democrats will retaliate. Hello? Where has this guy been for the last 10 years? Other than camping out at the all you can eat Chinese Buffett.

"Yes I'm a lispy male feminist lolcow....but at least im not a.....CUCKSERVATIVE!!!"

!nonchuds

It feels like we have a rightoid struggle session every other week. We last had one over a calendar not being based and conservativepilled.

https://rdrama.net/post/232787/some-rightoid-grift-company-released-the

Choice quotes from the article itself

The “feminists are man-haters” trope is getting old.

Until recently, refuting these claims has proven difficult. After all, every feminist-hating man has an anecdotal story of “that one feminist” he knows who definitively hates men. Thankfully, contemporary research has finally given us real, irrefutable evidence that feminists do not, in fact, despise men.

Feminists Won't Coddle Men's Egos

Whereas non-feminist women are likely to excuse or ignore men's bad behavior toward women, feminist women will, more often than not, call it out. They will not pull their punches to spare men's egos. They expect much from men, and will hold them accountable to the behavior they know men are capable of.

And it appears that this is where the man-hating feminist trope has its roots.

Yes, there is ample anecdotal evidence that some feminist women hate men. Following the #MeToo movement, many feminists began actively self-identifying as misandrists (man-haters) in response to the sheer volume of abusive, dangerous men who were exposed during that time. Many feminists and non-feminists alike saw their attitudes toward men evolve as they saw prominent male celebrities, political correspondents and politicians they trusted and admired be called out for their sexual misconduct and attempted cover-ups. For a lot of us, it was a time that eroded our trust in men. For some of us, that trust was never regained.

lmao

But the existence of some feminists who hate men does not prove that all feminists hate men. In fact, although feminism is a movement that seeks to center women's equality and liberation, it has also done much for the liberation of men. After all, men are harmed by patriarchy, too, and feminists seek to abolish all forms of gender-based discrimination that are propped up by patriarchy.

lol

Now we get into the comments

Moid does everything to please feminists but only gets shit on, continues being a feminist because it's called being a decent person chud.

I mean, to say that feminism hates men is nonsensical because feminism is a broad and diverse ideology that itself can neither hate nor love.

I've done everything that my feminist gender studies professors told me to do as a man. I am gentle, communicate my emotions, try not to be arrogant and speak over people, etc etc etc, and I am a better, more fulfilled man for it.

But... once in awhile I'd like my side to actually advocate for me, and recognize that we still live in a society that excludes men from many things. I'd like my side to recognize that sometimes WOMEN unfairly exclude and hurt men. The advice everyone gave me as a man and as a father, including the school principal and family lawyer? Get a female family member to take my kids to the doctor, because if it had been a woman doing it, this probably wouldn't have happened.

This was extremely depressing for me. Despite being the best man and father and husband I could--- and live up to the feminist ideal of what a man should be--- I was still treated like a predator and abuser by default. So who was advocating for me as a man on this issue? Who was calling this out and calling it unfair??

The only voices I hear are right wing ones, but I am not interested in being the kind of man they want me to be.

Let's be honest... if I went to a feminist sub on Reddit and brought up my woes, would people in that sub be sympathetic? Or would I promptly get banned?

Other men like you are supposed to be advocating for it. But men have been so reliant upon other people, usually women, organizing and structuring neutral gatherings and a lot of existing men's spaces being incredibly toxic means men have to start creating their own communities.

Only right wingers are dishonest and the reason why young people support palestine is because zoomers can just fact check who is more just on the internet

Something I've noticed over the decades is that conservatives tend to think that everyone knows and believes what they know and believe. Therefore, in their mind, anyone who professes to know/believe something different is just lying in order to gain an advantage over the conservative.

Which fits this situation. Since they believe feminist beliefs are wrong and trying to assert power over men, they hate feminists and assume feminists must hate them just as much (if not more). They cannot imagine a world where people just ... believe differently, everyone must be trying to pull a fast one on them.

I mean, that's what THEY do. Conservatives lie all the time about everything, so they assume everyone else does too.

I'm good

They're bad

If I do something bad, they must be doing the same thing, but even worse.

I think the reason this tends to be more prevalent on the right is that they believe in good and bad people, while the left tends to believe in good and bad actions.

Hot take. The rise of leftist thinking among the youth populations is directly correlated to how much easier it has become to actually check whether actions have good and bad consequences. Boomers cannot imagine being able to just gather data on what is and is not helpful for people and society. They favor divine command ethics and virtue ethics because these are much easier to use in low-information ecosystems.

Menslibber calls out the phd article writer for purposely misinterpreting a study

She also links to another article she wrote about the same topic, which interprets the lower benevolence result as:

Meaning, feminists are less likely to coddle, mollify, or excuse men who behave poorly.

These interpretations do not seem to have any basis in the actual study. If you read the study that she cites, the scores for benevolence are measures of benevolent sexism specifically, taken from the 1999 AMI inventory, which measures responses to statements like “Every woman needs a male partner who will cherish her” and “Men are more willing to take risks than women.” A footnote in the study explains, "Conceptually benevolence to men and hostility to men are not indices of positivity–negativity, but rather they measure stereotyped attitudes to men."

In other words, she is citing a study that found lower benevolence and then is explaining what lower benevolence means, but her explanations are baseless and not supported by the actual study. It is ironic that she is even trying to (baselessly) defend feminists' lower benevolence, because this finding actually signifies that feminists have less stereotyped attitudes towards men.

Menslibber used to be a chud but then he realized that feminists couldn't be misandrists because feminists believe in equality... just like how the DPRK is a true democracy

I used to be skeptical of feminists as well, when I was a teen. I thought many of them were just misandrists. Then I was reminded of the word "misandrist" and realized that was stupid - feminists believe in equality, misandrists "hate men."

Can someone who calls themselves a "feminist" act misandrist, or even be a misandrist? Sure. But they are different things, so that's important to know.

Menslibber volunteers for charity and notices how it somehow turned around to being about women

I volunteered for a men's charity for a while that said it was about challenging what it means to be a man, but all they really did was challenge how being a man affects women, they did talks like "here's how to talk to your friends about sexism and consent" which is very valuable, but when that's ALL hat you do I can understand why some men feel like it paints them as the problem.

Every single press snippet on their website was about the safety of women (which is incredibly important). But when your challenging masculinity charity is more only focused on demonising the behaviour of men towards women, it's like putting a plaster over a wound that needs stitches. It would be more fruitful to help them to understand themselves and express themselves in a healthy way that sends a message that these men are valued as people.

Can you understand why women and feminists main priority may be lowering the rates of sexual violence? And they do that by teaching about consent? I do not understand how you can experience a talk about consent as demonizing men

Menslibber says its only moid foid on social media

This is especially clear on social media spaces like Instagram where men LOVE complaining about women and seem to just genuinely hate women that aren't super submissive "trad-wives"

Menslibber/vaush fan explains that it doesn't make sense for men to ignore what women's expectations for dating purposes because another menslibber told them to, gets btfoed by a janny

One of the most demoralizing things I sometimes read on this subreddit is someone saying that men can't change because women still have expectations of them that fit traditional gender roles.

How true that perception of expectations are is pointless to argue because it differs from place to place and most people talk about their personal experiences anyway... but even if it was 100% true, always - so what? If it's a necessary step for the better, don't play into those expectations. Women don't want to date you because of that? Okay.

"but even if it was 100% true, always - so what? If it's a necessary step for the better, don't play into those expectations. Women don't want to date you because of that? Okay. "

I dont know man.This just feels like a bad concession .Part of appealing to a demographic means addressing issues that said demograpic actually cares about.For alot of guys,especially young guys,thats dating.How to be percieved as attactive to women around me.

Its counter productive and a bit delusional to expect men to ingore what the women they actually come across becasuse some online social tell them so. (entire comment removed)

FOH with that.

Finally we have the removed comments

https://undelete.pullpush.io/r/MensLib/comments/1ccxkhm/_/l194lda/#comment-info

Other men like you are supposed to be advocating for it. But men have been so reliant upon other people, usually women, organizing and structuring neutral gatherings and a lot of existing men's spaces being incredibly toxic means men have to start creating their own communities.

Men have organized movements for millenia, how could you possibly suggest that they simply are too lazy to organize? Men organize on this issue all the time on the right. So why not on the left? Because it is a hostile workplace environment, as evidenced by the very comments you made up above.

I know, because I've tried and I've experienced the phenomenon myself. I have attempted to organize, and I have been met with hostility from people that should be allies. For example: when my wife and I dealt with infertility, I was involved in numerous infertility support groups and ran my own. There were no men, and I wondered why. So I started a subgroup myself and encouraged the women to bring their husbands so that we could get things going.

In doing this, I realized I'd revealed my gender, and I was verbally abused by many of the women there. A few were right winger Bible thumper types who thought I wasn't adhering to God's plan of what a husband/father to be, but even more were self identifying feminists who said I was "invading the sacred space of women" and "just trying to get off on pregnant women." I would have perhaps started an exclusive men's group, but it would have taken years and years to get it up and running and I needed support at that moment, not in 10 years. It's hard to get a men's liberation movement going when the people who are supposed to be your allies are actively tearing you down. The attitude was generally. Their attitude was the same as yours: "You are wrong for expressing your pain when so many others are suffering more."

I had the same issue as a parent of a micro preemie. At the moment of my deepest depression and grief when I needed support, I went to pre-existing support groups. I was met with the same treatment. So I started my own blog and tried to organize. While working. While raising a kid with special needs. But yeah, I get it, I'm a man so I just have to do it all myself with no help, and if I fail, it's all on me.

Do you know how hard it is to try to create a movement from scratch in a busy life? It's like telling a woman in the 19th century to--- if she wanted to be a scientist--- simply to reinvent the entire university system and scientific literature system from scratch.

And yeah, it's nice that you can find a few people in the halls of academia who might actually be earnest advocates, but that doesn't mean much when the actual people in the real world who are supposed to be allies are tearing you down.

Your lecturing me without knowing my experiences is a bit hypocritical when you talk about being patronizing. You think you are the only man who has experienced that kind of pain with a loved one and struggled in a typically non-male space?

I appreciate and commiserate with your story and I am well aware of how hard it is for men to organize these kinds of groups. Yet feminists had to do it in much harsher conditions in the late 19th century to now. Again - those men didn't join the one you tried to create because to a lot of men, it isn't our responsibility. I don't see how your story contradicts my overview. I know a few good men are trying.

It's just the majority of men benefit from our patriarchal society or just don't care.

foid try to not make anything about themselves challenge impossible

https://undelete.pullpush.io/r/MensLib/comments/1ccxkhm/_/l18csfk/#comment-info

It's a lot easier to justify oppressing people who you can convince yourself you hate - and it's easier to hate someone who you can convince yourself hates you.

And unfortunately the whole conservative movement & mediaaphere is a giant machine for manufacturing hate. Hence why, and how, patriarchy gets reproduced.

Do you have any evidence that this is what anti-feminist men are trying to do? It's a common trope, but I only ever see it bandied around in feminist spaces.

When I myself was antifeminist, and when I talked to other antifeminists, our antifeminism was not about trying to justify oppressing women. Rather, it was about trying to stop stereotyping and prejudice towards men. So it is quite ironic that you describe antifeminism as an attempt to justify the oppression of women.

They regularly believe women's place is in the kitchen; that men are physically and mentally superior to women; that men deserve a well-mannered, subservient wife; that female promiscuity is a problem, and that reproductive health should be out of their control; that no-fault divorce shouldn't exist and marital rape is impossible; that sexual harassment and assault isn't a widespread issue;

islam is right about women

https://undelete.pullpush.io/r/MensLib/comments/1ccxkhm/_/l19b8lf/#comment-info

The real perception paradox: reading an article about men who hate feminists that makes feminist men question their stance. /s

Seriously though, there is something very wrong with the tone of the article.

The "all men are responsible for patriarchy" trope is getting old.

https://undelete.pullpush.io/r/MensLib/comments/1ccxkhm/_/l18vo21/#comment-info

Mods, are y'all going too hard on some of the comments? There was one that I wanted to respond to that's now deleted, and the person said they were once antifeminist but now they weren't. These are people who have learned that what they thought was wrong, and grew from it. Or they're explaining how they came to believe what they did believe. These things can and should absolutely be included in discourse about those who aren't feminist. Who knows what would work better to change someone than someone who has changed?

Most Based Comments

Basedness: 🔥🔥🔘🔘🔘

That has never ever been stated. Genjutsu works on ANYONE. Even itachi and sasuke. It's a matter of SKILL in genjutsu that determines if you're not affected by one. Not by just having a dojutsu. It's why Danzo can still gett affected even though he has shishui's eyes. Why sasuke and itachi can still affect each other with genjutsu as well, even though they will quickly see through it.Izanami doesn't need help from another person. What are you talking about?Bro there's so much wrong in your post, I don't know where to start. (1)

Genjutsus can work on another sharingan depending on the strength of the users, but the rinnegan has the ability to negate all visual genjutsus.It is stated when madara does the infinite tsukuyomi (probably the strongest genjutsu ever) but sasuke doesnt get affected by it, and black zetsu says something along the lines of: "his rinnegan... can even negate this technique". So if the rinnegan can negate the effects of the infinite tsukuyomi it can surely resist any of itachis genjutsus. (-4)

Basedness: 🔥🔥🔘🔘🔘

Wtf are you on. The whole shinden shows how itachi played obito.And please tell me how obito wasnt threatened when flowing teen itachi after getting dewth threats or admitted in his inner monologue he would die. No the closest was when a kid threatened him and followed his ultimatum while admittong he cant kill him and if he would even find out he isnt madara and thete isnt w secret about his " immortality " he would.be dead already lmaoAnd again kishimoto himself stated itachi is the strongest in akatsuki in thr authors note.Itachi >teen itachi >/= om obitoCanon shinden, manga facts and atate dby KISHIMOTO himself.You , nah bro its not true, source: trust my headcanon Obito snd madara fanboys are thr most delusional clowns. You literally atgue against a clear statement by kishimoto himself lmao (3)

And the canon manga shows how Obito played Itachi like a fiddle. The manga is the primary source of canon.Post the page in question. (-4)

Basedness: 🔥🔥🔘🔘🔘

Pain wins in any case:Genjutsus dont work on painAmaterasu has counters from 2 of 6 pains, and they can help the rest.Itachi has not large amounts of chakra and cant mantain susanoo for long.Izanami needs help from another person so he cant do it.Pain can always use chibaku tensei and thats a KO for itachi. (4)

1: Genjutsu does work on Pein, as shown with Jiraiya's Frog Song genjutsu.4: Izanami only needs a set of events to happen multiple times to set up. (-3)

Angriest Comments

Angriness: 😡😡😡😡😡

Not a single person in Naruto fights to lose. Except maybe hiding, cause that's also his wincon. (-1)

.... Are you reading with your eyes closed? People fight for different reasons. Abilities have drawbacks.Gai can fight Kisame and want to kill him, but not go to 7 gate or 8 gate because it will hurt him significantly or kill him.In character - Means they fight how they would in manga. Some people don't go straight to their strongest attack and abilities. Eg Orochimaru - They fight based on how pressured they are.Others do.This is a KNOWN vs debate condition - https://www.reddit.com/r/whowouldwin/comments/1srxxd/questionwhat_exactly_does_bloodlusted_mean/Arguing that Gai would go 7 and 8 gate immediately , Literally at the START of any fight, is stupid and no incharacter for his personality. The fact that you don't know this and are arguing this point so adamantly, I have no idea why you're in a powerscaling community reddit. (5)

Angriness: 😡😡😡😡😡

I literally just linked you the manga scans of it growing to protect against attacks. In the manga Itachi doesn't move in any capacity. He just slices the hydra. You are watching the anime, which isn't canon. Go look at the thread I just linked and get back to me (0)

There is a difference between it can and it does. Basically like any susanno armor or chakra cloak, Itachi can modify the shield to cover different parts of himself, as in the manga, his sides. Can, but it's probably not automatic given that Itachi has to manifest it with his Susanno and how it began relatively small. He has to consciously grow and control it. The ability to change the shape or defense properties of a shield doesn't take away the fact it isn't an 360 degree aura. It's still a shield. An ethereal and stretchy shield, but a shield nonetheless. But let's assume Itachi starts the fight with some perfect 360 yata aura shield that he extends through his chakra/will to cover his entire body, including the ground beneath him. He's invulnerable to physical and chakra attacks, though it remains unseen what percent of an attack the shield nullifies, absorbs, or reflects. He used the blade to kill the hydra snake/orochimaru so the shield didn't send the snake repelling back whe... (2)

Angriness: 😡😡😡😡😡

I don't think Itachi beats Pain, mainly due to matchup advantage but I don't think that Idea is that ridiculous really...“Like... Pain had a pretty long fight against a sannin and even ends up praising him and says that Jiraiya could've killed him if he had intel. 14 year old Itachi beat a sannin by looking at him once.”Pain was nerfed in his own village not to mention you're trying to use ABC logic.Pain was running away from a version 2 Jinchuriki. Edo Itachi was actively coaching Killer Bee (Perfect Jinchuriki) to make sure he doesn't get folded instantly when he fights Itachi.Pain had Naruto beat beforehand and wasn't allowed to kill him. Bee didn't need itachi's help he broke out of his genjutsu and kept him on the defensive. (1)

Biggest Lolcow: /u/hi-polymer5

Score: 🐮🐮🐮🔘🔘

Number of comments: 6

Average angriness: 🔘🔘🔘🔘🔘

Maximum angriness: 😡😡🔘🔘🔘

Minimum angriness: 🔘🔘🔘🔘🔘

NEW: Subscribe to /h/miners to see untapped drama veins, ripe for mining!

autodrama: automating away the jobs of dramautists. Ping HeyMoon if there are any problems or you have a suggestion