I feel like you missed step one there, mate.

It’s not even that they don’t care that they did it. Most of the time, they literally don’t think they’ve done anything wrong.

In other news, my toaster absolutely wrecked my T.V. at making toast.

Just like the UK, it always has been. It really screws with the narrative of billionaires trying not to pay for the health, infrastructure and welfare that allows them to extract their wealth.

The first rule of colonisation is to make the colonised pay for their colonisation. It’s just that we all, collectively, forget that our governments colonise at home too.

I know right? Who do these people think they are, shareholders?

Don’t worry, as the Internet is forever, you’ve already criticised dear leader. We just have to hope they don’t get into power.

I mean, you might as well call it the Walmart expansion model

And they say you guys are humourless!

I wasn’t being too serious tbh. However, as we’re here, I feel like fairytales might have been around a little bit longer than nazis.

You should read about how the Franks “christianised” German saxons and then cross reference that with the time period those kinds of fairytales come from, as we’re swapping reading ideas. It’s just a guess on my part of course.

Apologies for interrupting your work.

Burned alive for using the wrong sewing technique / burned alive for worshiping the wrong god or maybe the “right” God but, in the wrong way, who knows?

Either way, somehow, someway, the idea of being burned alive for not following rules seems to be almost literally burned deep into the Germanic saxon psyche.

They’re not a humourless people. They’re just terrified someone might catch them not working or following the rules and laughing isn’t working.

They know how much control they can assert of the population through controlling social media. They’re not about to allow anyone else to use that, if they can help it. Also, it’ll dilute their messaging, even if it wasn’t as problematic as something like tiktok.

It makes sense the second you stop presuming any good faith.

deleted by creator

Thats understandable and I think I arrive at the same point. All be it from a slightly different way. I have no faith in us doing anything to change it because no one likes the answer.

What do you feed an insatiable monster who can absorb any weapon you throw at it and poops out planet killing gas?

As little as possible.

What does capitalism actually feed on?

Human labour.

Specifically human labour, above and beyond what we need to live and have a comfortable life. The problem is, you can’t have super rich without vast amounts of excess, toxic, forced labour.

The answer has always been the strategic refusal of work. The problem is, you might as well tell people that the way to salvation is punching babies in the face because work is now as much a god as anything else we’ve had in human culture.

Want to sit around and do nothing to save the planet?

Well, now you can.

Its not whataboutism. Its trying to help you see something youre clearly missing. Its applying the same logic somewhere else, to see if it still works. Its literally how you explain fallacies.

Its not an all lives matter response either. Instead its you attempting to reject intersectionality, in the name of feminism, without a hint of irony or self awareness. Luckily for you, no one else seems to have read theory post the 1980s either.

“Men are trash” being acceptable for all women implies that every man ever has always suffered less power imbalances than every woman ever. For example, it would mean that black male slaves in the 1800s would have to of suffered less at the hand of power imbalances than Queens of the United Kingdom, for your “power imbalance makes sexism ok” argument to hold any weight. Its just a safespace for sexism, provided it’s only directed one way.

Lol no, intersectionality isn’t a false equivalence, as you’re attempting to paint. It’s the rejection of upper class white women, for whom all the men in their lives were all powerful, declaring that all men are always in a higher position of power than all women because that’s the only thing they ever saw (bougouise feminism).

Turns out, for all their talk of equality, people like yourself just want to be at the top of a new hierarchy, exacting revenge.

You literally tried to refute intersectionality with “thats like saying all lives matter.”

But I didn’t manufacture that and neither did you. It also, intentionally, ignores every single other intersection a white person could have.

Don’t worry, the sentiment invalidates itself. That kind of backwards bougouise feminism died in the 80s and should’ve stayed that way.

Again, you don’t understand what a false equivalence fallacy is. So, you should really stop attempting to use it because doing so is make you look like a fool.

Whatabouting and false equivalences aren’t the same thing. I feel like I’m witnessing the death of irony here.

No, something wrong is still wrong, even if you feel bad about historical injustices. The power imbalance does not change this and also ignores every other intersection a white person could have.

You even drew a false equivalence the BLM which is the only actual false equivalence on this chain.

See the wiki pages of the fallacies you clearly don’t understand.

God damn bougouise feminists.

No, it’s not an equivalence argument. I didn’t say they were equally wrong or the same thing. Also, nether power dynamics nor oppression make those things right.

You’re telling me that you see no problem with black people saying the same about all white people then?

My point is that is that both are wrong, not that they are or are not both equally wrong. So, would you mind explaining where the equivalence is please?

I mean, I know its more of a case that some people don’t like that both of those things are wrong to do but I’m gonna need a little more than that and a misunderstanding of an informal fallacy, sorry.

The easiest way to see if it’s OK is to swap out “men” with any other protected characteristic. If, having done that it suddenly becomes problematic, it was always so and they should’ve known better.

I think youre right not to engage them though. For all their talk of equality, anyone who talks like that just wants to be at the top of a new hierarchy. Remove or subjugate the men and most women (who haven’t decolonisated their minds) will just replicate the same power structures, adopting the position of patriarch without a hint of self awareness. The way forward is to help other men see the pain caused to them by the patriarchy, as its only then that we can see the pain we cause through the patriarchy, due to the rituals of disregard and empathy killing we go through as boys.

I’ll finish by saying the same thing I said to my dad, shortly after he lost his job" "yes dad, of course I’ve heard of the phrase ‘sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.’ However, you can’t always do that, especially when you’re meant to be firefighter, you doughnut.

You feel better now?

The real extensions were the ones we shared in the comments section