Cultural Marxism, Regressive Left, SJWs, Third Wave Feminism

>Obviously the gap exists

No it doesn't.

>they don't realize how deep upbringing, social expectations etc impact a person's mind.

Genes matter more. Evolution did not stop from the neck up, nor are women physically equal to men. If you're trying to argue some asinine bullshit about how women make equally good firefighters and marines etc. you should take it to tumblr where someone might fall for it.

No no no no, that is fear mongering.

The strategy feminism uses is to simply SHOW young females that they can too get into leader positions, STEM fields etc.

The typical argument comes from meritocracy.
Judging each person based on his own skills.
While that is absolutely a good strategy, you have FIRST to SHOW young females that they can, so you CREATE artificial positions, equity.

It's not fair for those individuals who miss the positions due to quotas, but it will break the mental, cultural barriers women face, in the long run it will solve the problem.

The sacrifices are too small compared to the benefits, of having a true equal society.
Sure, in western civilization everyone is technically under the same fair law but these people have no clue or completely underplay the cultural aspects of it.
Gender roles, expectation, etc
They all play HUGE role in your life decisions.

That is simply being superficial.
Read this

The problem is that you're on Veeky Forums. This place needs time to redeem a long sought quality.

>It's not fair for those individuals who miss the positions due to quotas, but it will break the mental, cultural barriers women face, in the long run it will solve the problem.
What was the problem exactly and what are you making better?

Dude, I know it's Friday afternoon, but that was just such a sorry, half-assed, lazy attempt at bait. Put a little elbow grease into it next time.

Veeky Forums is basically tumblr
i really wouldnt bother discussing this kind of thing seriously here, its mostly undergrad libarts students browsing

>make the workplace more equitable
>women are less happy than they were before
>"Yay we fixed it! Onwards!"

>as I read more continental philosophy, post-structuralism, lacan and generally post-modernist works

The vast majority of these works totally contradict the tenants of mainstream Social Justice presuppositions though, you see the problem is that SJWs are entirely structuralist, they believe in race gender and sexuality as some all important categories for which identifiers have to be reified and constituted into legal force.

Rather than as Derrida aimed towards to deconstruct narratives of violent hierarchy they aim to adjust the narratives.

Or alternatively, our whole economic system is absurd and most people of either gender are trapped in objecively pointless jobs that they hate. The only thing liberal feminism does is whitewash an inherently exploitative system by placing token minorities on positions of power. Lionizing female business executives does much more to legitimize corrupt executives than for the status of the average woman. Or look at Hillary Clinton's campaign for example, full of empty pop feminist signifiers.

Women not even considering STEM/leadership/etc positions due to preconceived, millenia old notions of gender roles.

Sure there are biological differences between women and men but they hold almost no relevancy when it comes to mental competency, unless you believe a macho tall man is smarter than you just by being bigger.

>b-but it's biology
That is a naturalistic fallacy, if we consistently applied it we'd still live in caves and men would still grunt and eat mud.

But look where are we, look what we achieved, absolutely unbelievable societies, science, culture etc.
Just by changing minds.

Imagine living in 5000BC
Lets assume you were immortal and lived for 2000 freaking years, you'd see almost no change in gender roles, no real difference in behavior in society etc.
But in just couple of centuries we saw almost impossible changes in societal and mental structures, how we behave now is NOTHING to what is expected by 'biological standards'.

This. The corporate workplace and political spheres are antithetical to satisfaction in the great majority of both genders. Re-organizing people by genitals and color within those spheres is just denying the root cause of the dissatisfaction that lead to the reforms.

You miss the point. Progressives always assume that """creating equality""" is a virtue everyone else shares. I don't.

The reality is that for every job slot A that any given women could fill, there is always a male that is better at it. That's just the way sexual distributions work. I'm not concerned with creating opportunities for women because I don't even think they should be working anyway, they should be making babies, and it's funny that progressives who are supposedly academically educated such as yourself never question the capitalist pressures that brought about women entering the job market in the first place.

Furthermore, the entire history of biological life has been a massive thresher of pain and misery, countless individuals being culled from the gene pool to make what we are now enjoying. Civilization actually arrests this process. The progressive notion of equality, of humanity as a gray mass, ends with Nietzsche's Last Man and is in any case completely at odds with the system of capitalism in which you would like to """create opportunities for""" these women, minorities etc.

tldr long hair don't care

Another fallacy.
Why are you so blind to this?
RIGHT NOW, we have the most comfortable life in history, greatest justice, meritocracy, life expectancy etc, but depression rates skyrocket and rise.

Does that mean we should go back to the caves or throw away the civil rights we fought over?
That is insane, it shows you really haven't bothered with it at all.
You dismiss it because you watched some guy ranting on it, picking on naive teens and shitting on them on video.

Oh dear...

>Women not even considering STEM/leadership/etc positions due to preconceived, millenia old notions of gender roles.
Why do this? Are women more satisfied in the new roles? If not, would you even consider not pushing more of them into those roles?

>Sure there are biological differences between women and men but they hold almost no relevancy when it comes to mental competency, unless you believe a macho tall man is smarter than you just by being bigger.
There are ways to determine who's smart besides eyeballing them, you goober. Why not use those? Have you already decided that anything that shows a disparity in capability is to be discarded?
>b-but it's biology
>That is a naturalistic fallacy, if we consistently applied it we'd still live in caves and men would still grunt and eat mud.
Saying biology contributes to someone not wanting to do something or having inordinate difficulty doing it is only a naturalistic fallacy if you attach an ought to that is. You still need to justify any ought you assert.

>But look where are we, look what we achieved, absolutely unbelievable societies, science, culture etc.
>Just by changing minds.
Possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read here. History is a constant question of "chicken and egg."

>Lets assume you were immortal and lived for 2000 freaking years, you'd see almost no change in gender roles, no real difference in behavior in society etc.
>But in just couple of centuries we saw almost impossible changes in societal and mental structures, how we behave now is NOTHING to what is expected by 'biological standards'.
But that's not true if you account for the material conditions and adaptive pressures acting on us. We have our current attitudes about work and gender roles because of the current state of technology and the economy, not because humanity has been teleologically striving after some "ultimate society."

>Sure there are biological differences between women and men but they hold almost no relevancy when it comes to mental competency, unless you believe a macho tall man is smarter than you just by being bigger.

Stop posting and read up on sex IQ curves.

>Does that mean we should go back to the caves or throw away the civil rights we fought over?
Why not? You threw in some cute hyperbole about living in caves, but why not sacrifice wealth and certain societal structures for a compromise between old and new that will allow us to live well? Surely that's a choice we get to make. There's no such thing as Progress with a capital P that makes us do things a certain way.

>Women not even considering STEM/leadership/etc positions due to preconceived, millenia old notions of gender roles.
They are, in a very large degree. The more conservative the country, the more women are in STEM fields, ironically. I'd say that at least 40% of all STEM students here are women and have been for over half a century. Women aren't morons you make them out to be.
>Sure there are biological differences between women and men but they hold almost no relevancy when it comes to mental competency, unless you believe a macho tall man is smarter than you just by being bigger.
They do. There is a thing known as interest. Women like children more on average, hence you see more women trying to become teachers and work with children in other areas.
Also women tend to chose family over careeer while men devote themselves more to their work, simple division of work everyone is satisfied with. My closest family is all highly educated and all women I know chose children as their primary goal in terms of how much time is devoted to us, the husbands do so by working more stressful jobs (lawyer and a STEM professor in a college, politics there is brutal).
>That is a naturalistic fallacy, if we consistently applied it we'd still live in caves and men would still grunt and eat mud.
No, it doesn't even have to be naturalistic. Esscences are different for men and women to a degree. Women like less stress and more kids, men like to strive to provide for the family.
>But look where are we, look what we achieved, absolutely unbelievable societies, science, culture etc.
We are at the brink of colapse, people are miserable and devoid of meaning, suicide and depression are at an all time high. But yeah, we have cell pjones.
>Lets assume you were immortal and lived for 2000 freaking years, you'd see almost no change in gender roles, no real difference in behavior in society etc.
And what we are seeing now is women debased, devoid of dignity and self respect, stupider than ever.
>But in just couple of centuries we saw almost impossible changes in societal and mental structures, how we behave now is NOTHING to what is expected by 'biological standards'.
That happened because capitalists wanted to exploit women too, not because of your idiotic egalitarianism.

...

First of all, it's just one guy.
Second, why is that even bad?
He shows empathy that you could never understand.
That level of empathy requires intelligence, maturity, responsibility and much more.

...

I'd tell you to not have kids but I don't think there's any danger of that happening

>regressive left
Anyone who uses a term this retarded should go to the gulags

>First of all, it's just one guy.
We know you are the second one
>Second, why is that even bad?
Because he's been brainwashed to the point of insanity
>He shows empathy that you could never understand.
Yeah, him and people with stockholm syndrome
>That level of empathy requires intelligence, maturity, responsibility and much more.
I don't think feeling bad about a person who was a danger to people around him and has severely broken the law is mature, responsible or intelligent. It's the opposite. Imagine a legal system which took pity on people who came into your country and commit disgusting crimes for hospitality. It wouldn't be a very just one, that's for sure.

He'll abort 1-2, but he'll have kids that's most probable.

>I can see why the "regressive left" is actually the positive force.
>the positive force
>positive
>valuative statement
>claims to have read continental philosophy
>using valuative statements in the year of our false god 4032/2
>positive
This is how I know you're a troll or a wikipediaer. Post-structuralist and Postmodernist would destroy you for using such a incredibly loaded statement.

>>using valuative statements in the year of our false god 4032/2
"Sodomy is the highest value"
-Focault

This men was right
>Slave morality is a "nay-saying" attitude or herd morality which holds to the standard of that which is useful or beneficial to the weak or powerless. The virtues are sympathy, kindness, and humility. Strong and independent individuals are evil.

This is a "good" thread

>he google a quote without knowing the context
That's Foucault strawmanning to prove a point.

This is a good post. Sadly, it's not what people usually mean by SJW. At least in my experience, I far more often run into
'SJW' the term as a sort of haphazardly constructed strawman. But regardless, if that's what SJWs are to you, then good; In your lingo, SJWs are a "bad" thing.

But you also have to consider that this is a counter-narrative you've created that, rather than reifying race, gender, and sexuality, reify a political group. We should aim to deconstruct the narrative of the so-called 'sjw' the same way we should deconstruct the much more widespread memes of "conservative" and "liberal."

You just showed your hand troll. 7/10 you have just the right amount of misinformation and undefined terms with no specific argument to make to convince me you're legit. Nice work

Until you get AIDs, kek.

>Lambastes Schopenhauer for building a philosophy around his own pessimism
>Makes his own philosophy to compensate for a pathetic cuckold life wherein, among other things, he gets rejected by a girl 3 times and finds his best friend doesn't want to die for the Jews

haha

cuck

Nietzsche was totally wrong, though. His philosophy is a joke, and has already been proven false.

By?

>has already been proven false

Where? By whom?

I find that hard to believe; considering he never really 'codified' his philosophy. You can't really find any agreement over what it is; even over simple concepts like the 'Will to Power'.

That he wrote like someone in one of mental institutions in which he would eventually find himself, did not help.

There is no reason to do anything but call you names. Academics are disconnected retards reading involuted nonsense peddled by losers who never achieved anything in their life save for bullshitting a bunch of failed rhetoric. If you're unironically some sort of Marxist or anarchy-hyphenation whatever because you read a book by some sex fiend about how "well you know if you really think about it in theory" when it has failed every time it's ever been tried as the world is facing a very real resource crunch V. population boom in the coming decades you are a fucking retard. It doesn't really matter how many hours you've spent dragging your eyes across the whining of abject losers and artists. The fact that you wasted your time on it doesn't entitle you to any response at all, much less one more detailed than "fuck off faggot".

It doesn't really matter what you say in your sarcastic effeminate reply because by 2040 I'll be right one way or another and in all likelihood you will still be an irredeemable moron with no social skills.

I remember last decade when anons were busy removing any remaining meaning inherent to the words "faggot" and "nigger."

They are literally farts in the wind now, and don't hold the fire they used to in the civil rights era, where even people who supported the racist/homophobic status quo were hesitant to use them.

You are doing this with the word cuck. Rather than throwing it at anyone vaguely liberal, why not use it when you actually mean to refer to someone who actually shares his wife with other men?

Expressing remorse over the legal and fair punishment of your rapist is on the same level of self-loathing as sharing your wife.

>Rather than throwing it at anyone vaguely liberal, why not use it when you actually mean to refer to someone who actually shares his wife with other men?

Well, then what words do we use to address (and disparage/mock) liberal faggots?

You're also not getting the more nuanced implication/meaning of 'cuck' as an obscenity. A cuckold is someone who forsakes that to which he has an exclusive right; in the cuckold's case, conjugal rights. Applied to liberals, it also carries a similar meaning; only as opposed to conjugal rights, it refers to culture/tradition/etc.

youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70
and stfu

The Day I deconstructed Veeky Forums or How the right was Won

It's no sin to allow other people to enjoy your culture.

>Civic Nationalism

>assuming there is such a thing as a shared culture
>assuming there is such a thing as a shared tradition

There are only competing interpretations of a nation's history, none of which are objectively true and each of which must be defended on merit alone. An appeal to tradition has no force.

>There is no reason to do anything but call you names.
>There is no reason to do anything but employ ad hominem.

Okay, so you already lose on the logic end of things. Maybe your rhetoric can still sway idiots, but that's not exactly a worthy goal, I should think, on the basis that it emboldens fools.

> Academics are disconnected retard
> disconnected

Which ones? In what way? In all fields of study? Just in humanities? Be specific. Couldn't non-academics hypothetically be disconnected in completely different ways than academics are?

>reading involuted nonsense peddled by losers

The above question also applies, here, my staunchly anti-intellectual friend.

> who never achieved anything in their life save for bullshitting a bunch of failed rhetoric.

I don't know of your achievements outside of this website, and am not interested in strawmanning you as some kind of loser, but you are engaging in failed rhetoric, right here.

> If you're unironically some sort of Marxist or anarchy-hyphenation whatever because you read a book by some sex fiend about how "well you know if you really think about it in theory" when it has failed every time it's ever been tried as the world is facing a very real resource crunch V. population boom in the coming decades you are a fucking retard.

Thank you for being concerned about the world. The thing about ideology and it's implementation in the real world is, is that when an ideology "fails" it's usually because of sabotage by opponents of the ideology, so that they may point, and say, "see, it fails."

Maybe an immunity to sabotage should be a part of any good ideology, but this is difficult to achieve as the methods of and motives for sabotage are numerous and evolving. If an ideology relies on everyone believing in it and collectively following its rules, then maybe it is idealistic, but I have not run into a single ideology in my life whose implementation doesn't depend heavily on widespread assent, ideal conditions, and immunity to sabotage, which things are usually inherent to the evolving situation and come from outside the ideology.

I hope you know what I mean and don't think that was a meaningless rant. It's a counter to your counter to the "never been tried" argument.

If I cannot counter your counter, what else may I do but capitulate or remain silent?

>It doesn't really matter how many hours you've spent dragging your eyes across the whining of abject losers and artists.

There's that certainty again. Why are they losers? Which ones are they? Why are they a waste of time? Besides, one might work and learn simultaneously through the aid of video and audiobooks. Philosophy and ideas (which you dismiss as whining) can be consumed via countless methods, thanks, yes, in large part to the market and the proliferation of digital consumer goods. (Doesn't mean there aren't still problems with Capitalism, or any ideology for that matter)

> doesn't entitle you to any response at all.

Clearly.

>Denying objective truth

Subjective morality and moral relativism is a one-way ticket to nihilism. Be my guest.

>He respects and/or admires academics

Heh. There's a reason why Schopenhauer/Nietzsche, to name a few, shat all over them.

This is a strawman. Not everyone vaguely liberal supports soft laws on rape. Where is this even coming from? I see cuck getting thrown at literally everyone. Even conservatives sometimes. It makes no damn sense, has zero to do with rape, or being soft on rape. GTFOuttahere with that tripe.

Rapists should be hanged. Do you agree?

Alternatively, if we absolutely must not have any death penalty, then life sentences should mean life; and in the most basic cells you can think of, not the pseudo-hotel-rooms we have in most modern prisons.

This is a good post. Everyone is operating with false a priori assumptions, running around like headless chickens, sad and angry. The left/right wing axis is not a line, but one of the bars making up your cage.

>Well, then what words do we use to address (and disparage/mock) liberal faggots?

>Implying this is a goal worthy of pursuit.

Are you interested in disparaging, or convincing people? If the former, use original phrases, rather than ones which have been worn thin. You won't win anyone over, and at best you'll temporarily satiate your impotent wrath.

If the latter, provide detailed, logical arguments deconstructing and critiquing their points. It will show you respect them, and wish them to change for the "better" (where "better" here is defined as whatever ideas you're trying to push).

I don't want them to change. I want them to die, preferably whilst being laughed at; which words like cuck/etc will achieve.

cuck in general is a beta male who shares his resources with a strong alpha male

Even if you agree with all the modern lefts values 100% ("SJW stuff" in particular), I find it only logical if before you go and fight for it, you should stop for a second and think if it's possible to change society fully enough. If not, then (realizing now that halfed ass ways bring about a horrible scenario) you should stick to an conservative way. If you think it's possible and you see others agreeing, then okay, go for it.

You clearly didn't read my post. Nowhere did I say that I respected or admired academics. I asked the gentleman (perhaps you, perhaps another user) to *specify* his claims. I found them melodramatic and angry, and thought perhaps that getting him to deconstruct his own ideas was a decent place to go with the discussion. Because even if he's correct, it might be for the wrong reasons.

The world is full of people who are wrong for the right reasons and right for the wrong reasons, as I'm sure you already know.

I also implied that reading is less of a waste of time if one does it while multitasking.

See

Quite deluded.

Yes, I suppose, if we're using your NewSpeak internet-era definition of the word cuck, and not the definition that existed hundreds of years before that.

Guess what, most of society shares its resources with stronger people. It's called collaboration. It's called teamwork. It's called the social hierarchy. If you have a job working for anyone other than yourself, you're a cuck, by your definition.

That definition is excessive, superfluous, stupid, and alienating to the vast majority of your audience. Rework your shit.

>prescriptivism

I'm the guy you're responding to.

Under circumstances where it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, sure. I don't really care about the method of the execution.

I care about the person being neutralized as a threat. I think lifelong hard labor which, while technically slavery, might be a better punishment, as far as infrastructure is concerned. Would not satiate the victim's need for vengeance, should they have that need, which I hope not, for even the ancient Greek Tyrant Draco realized that was a foolish path thousands of years ago.

>The dictionary defines the meaning of words

Heh.

Fair enough. I subscribe to ol' Schoppy's belief, personally:

>...the law and its fulfillment, namely punishment, are directed essentially to the future, not to the past. This distinguishes punishment from revenge, for revenge is motivated by what has happened, and hence by the past as such. All retaliation for wrong by inflicting a pain without any object for the future is revenge, and can have no other purpose than consolation for the suffering one has endured by the sight of the suffering one has caused in another. Such a thing is wickedness and cruelty, and cannot be ethically justified. ...the object of punishment...is deterrence from crime.... Object and purpose for the future distinguish punishment from revenge, and punishment has this object only when it is inflicted in fulfillment of a law. Only in this way does it proclaim itself to be inevitable and infallible for every future case; and thus it obtains for the law the power to deter....

Sure. Whatever. Okay.

You're right. I'm wrong.

Please, redefine words to mean any number of things you want, or expand current definitions to encompass anything you like, and use those words on people whenever and however you want, especially when and because you want them to die.

That will totally be effective at fixing those problem people, I was wrong to take exception to calling everyone on Earth who disagrees with you a cuck, the world will totally continue to have impact, please disregard my noticing a trend.

Have a good day,

t. Nigger Faggot, Lord of the Cucks, The First of His Name

What? Are you one of those "cultural appropriation is bad" faggots?

What a nu-male

im not sure what is more disappointing

the idea that OP might be serious

or the fact that if he is serious everyone got baited so hard

Veeky Forums is dead

>He thinks that a dog born in a stable is a horse

This is one thing I actually disagree with Big Daddy Schoppy on. "Justice" is not and has historically never been about deterrence of future crime. If it was, we wouldn't have crime. It's about removal of undesirables from society. If the crime is sufficient enough, hard labour (chattel slavery) or execution is sufficient, in those cases where it would be beneficial for the rest of society that that person not be allowed to procreate.

The deterrence theory of law and justice also sees free will where there are only incentives, and vastly over exaggerates punishment as a strong deterrent.

I do think a dictionary is a useful standard, and prevents words from continually decaying into hollow shells which are continually emptied of meaning and stuffed with new meaning, faster than people are able to grapple with and get used to them.

It also creates countless sub-arguments about what a word means unless you have precise, official definitions to go off of.

I suppose dictionaries are just too much big-government for sergeant ItMeansWhatIWant to handle.

I agree with your Schopenhauer quote. I just really am confused as to how we got here, because the word cuckold has nothing to do with rape consent unless you vastly inflate its original meaning to encompass new territories of thought.

It literally just means a guy who is okay with his wife having *consensual* sex with other men. People who fear emasculation, STDs, humiliation, or being left by their spouse for superior partners tend to be confused and or disgusted by the "cuckold" as He is defined here.

But nowhere have I heard of a man consenting to the rape of his wife, unless he simply hated her.

Pic related, it's the sort of punishment Schopenhauer's talking about in that quote.

Yes. I somehow embody liberal SJW stereotypes because I take exception to calling anyone vaguely liberal a cuckold.

Consider purchasing pic related.

I'd say people actually underestimate punishment as a deterrent. The two main reasons are thus:

1) Private prisons have a vested interest in having inmates, as opposed to prospective inmates being subject to the death penalty. This is because they make money out of them, and ergo have an interest in keeping criminals alive.

2) Liberal prison reformers, in turn, have the criminal's best interests at heart, wherever you look.

Both have the same anyway; ergo you find the figures constantly 'massaged' to create the impression, both public and otherwise, that rehabilitation is so much better than punishment.

Punishment, in any case, is better on principle.

When I saw this some months ago it changed my mind on a lot

I really hope you don't think you're a smart man, but it really seems like you do think that.

> u must think ur smart

You think that dictionaries are all it takes to solve immense problems of philosophy and linguistics. That's a very bold, very pretentious, very stupid claim. I meant exactly what I said.

I only regret that your inability to address what I've said results in you pretending to know what I think.

shitstreak

>I do think a dictionary is a useful standard, and prevents words from continually decaying into hollow shells which are continually emptied of meaning and stuffed with new meaning, faster than people are able to grapple with and get used to them.

>It also creates countless sub-arguments about what a word means unless you have precise, official definitions to go off of.
These are statements that combined with previous posts about the changing and context-dependent nature of many words, make a lot of implications. I oulined the nature of those implications.

> This is what you think Mr.

My only position, once again, is that superfluously redefining the word cuck to mean whatever you want, is dumb and sad, and deflates the word of meaning and impact.

I never set out to propose that a dictionary alone could solve complicated problems, that is an embellishment of my ideas, courtesy of you.

In much the same way as you have redefined your words to mean what you want, so too have you redefined mine.

No one is fooled, hombre. The jig is up.

> he insisted

>never question the capitalist pressures that brought about women entering the job market in the first place.

Huh? Women have always worked. Usually in agriculture, later in factories. Even middle class women usually did some kind of sewing or piece work. The only new thing is upper middle class white women getting jobs.

Women in China used to tie up their babies in sand bags because they didn't have time to take care of them while they toiled in the fields. If they can do that then Janet can work in the accounting firm and have her own life while birthing out a few offspring to continue the white race.

>Women in China used to tie up their babies in sand bags because they didn't have time to take care of them while they toiled in the fields. If they can do that then Janet can work in the accounting firm and have her own life while birthing out a few offspring to continue the white race.

She can, but she doesn't. Not in America, not in Europe, not in Asia. Why is that?

>You miss the point. Progressives always assume that """creating equality""" is a virtue everyone else shares
> always assume
> always

ONLY sith deal in absolutes, senpai

No.
Naturalistic fallacy is arguing more "natural" means inherently better.
Naturalistic fallacy is NOT arguing that natural factors satisfactorily explain an observable phenomenon.
You then go on to tear apart the naturalistic fallacy itself without touching the actual opposing argument, assuming you'd shown that's what it amounts to. This sort of linguistic bait and switch is extremely common among you intersectionalists, but this is the first time in a while I've seen one of you actually fuck up obvious terms by mistake.

>Women not even considering STEM/leadership/etc positions due to preconceived, millenia old notions of gender roles.
This is something you need to provide evidence for, love. Occam's razor is against you here.

>citing a documentary as evidence
Now you're just acting like a parody of yourself.

>ur bad and evil

hot opinions brah

>Thinks I was serious
>Doesn't even point out that what I said was itself an absolute .

God. Not only didn't you see my joke for what is was, you missed the low-hanging fruit.

I even put the word ONLY in all caps, to associate it with always, paralleling your fucktarded ideas, fighting fire with fire.

Christ you're a troglodyte.

How are you even getting wi-fi in that fucking cave, cretin?

Clearly you're too stupid to be properly Evil.

Pic related, it's you.

That isn't the problem, the thing that people don't like. Its the quotas and the demonetization of the majority, the childlike, literalness view on what equality and forcing it at the expense of the individual.

There's nothing wrong with a cattle farmer switching to a career a a chicken farmer
But your trying to take the chickens away from the chicken farmers and giving them to the cattle farmers, even though they would rather be raising cattle.

your a dorable

But she does, more and more.

>But your trying to take the chickens away from the chicken farmers and giving them to the cattle farmers, even though they would rather be raising cattle.

> Your Ideas Are My Bad Analogy, The Post

Birth rates of educated, working women are on the rise? This is news.