Feminism

[LogGrad98]

It definitely goes both ways. Some of the biggest grifters on the planet are the secular priests of the modern left. People like Robyn Diangelo and Ibram X or orgs like BLM etc.

The ones on the modem right don't do this? I was talking religion not politics. But definitely politicians and people of a political bent do this as well, regardless of their leanings. I just find religious grifters to be far far worse since they tap into an already deeply ingrained factor of human existence, something many people are indoctrinated with since birth, and tied directly to the existential nature of life, and tack a political factor on top, essentially preying on people who are at their most vulnerable. It's despicable.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

The ones on the modem right don't do this? I was talking religion not politics. But definitely politicians and people of a political bent do this as well, regardless of their leanings. I just find religious grifters to be far far worse since they tap into an already deeply ingrained factor of human existence, something many people are indoctrinated with since birth, and tied directly to the existential nature of life, and tack a political factor on top, essentially preying on people who are at their most vulnerable. It's despicable.

They distract them by making them hate their neighbors while picking their pocket.

….the oooold dick twist!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[str8line]

The ones on the modem right don't do this? I was talking religion not politics. But definitely politicians and people of a political bent do this as well, regardless of their leanings. I just find religious grifters to be far far worse since they tap into an already deeply ingrained factor of human existence, something many people are indoctrinated with since birth, and tied directly to the existential nature of life, and tack a political factor on top, essentially preying on people who are at their most vulnerable. It's despicable.

"In any case, prayer breakfasts are never good eating for secular Americans. Thursday’s doubleheader was no exception.

Tonally, both events were, by Trump’s 2024 tachycardic rhetorical standards, restrained, cool, even calm. The implications of what was proposed at the second gathering, however, are incendiary. America’s non-conservative Christians, non-Christians and nonbelievers should take heed, as should all of those who believe that some form of secular governance is necessary for the well-being of any liberal democracy.

Secular governance, as we all know, is not Donald Trump’s fancy. He made a torrent of statements to this effect at both breakfasts. But none were more alarming than his announcement that he was appointing Attorney General Pam Bondi to head a task force to “eradicate anti-Christian bias”:

“The mission of this task force will be to immediately halt all forms of anti-Christian targeting and discrimination within the federal government, including at the DOJ, which was absolutely terrible, the IRS, the FBI ... and other agencies. In addition, the task force will work to fully prosecute anti-Christian violence and vandalism in our society and to move heaven and Earth to defend the rights of Christians and religious believers nationwide. You never had that before, but this is a very powerful document I’m signing.”

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[LogGrad98]

"In any case, prayer breakfasts are never good eating for secular Americans. Thursday’s doubleheader was no exception.

Tonally, both events were, by Trump’s 2024 tachycardic rhetorical standards, restrained, cool, even calm. The implications of what was proposed at the second gathering, however, are incendiary. America’s non-conservative Christians, non-Christians and nonbelievers should take heed, as should all of those who believe that some form of secular governance is necessary for the well-being of any liberal democracy.

Secular governance, as we all know, is not Donald Trump’s fancy. He made a torrent of statements to this effect at both breakfasts. But none were more alarming than his announcement that he was appointing Attorney General Pam Bondi to head a task force to “eradicate anti-Christian bias”:

“The mission of this task force will be to immediately halt all forms of anti-Christian targeting and discrimination within the federal government, including at the DOJ, which was absolutely terrible, the IRS, the FBI ... and other agencies. In addition, the task force will work to fully prosecute anti-Christian violence and vandalism in our society and to move heaven and Earth to defend the rights of Christians and religious believers nationwide. You never had that before, but this is a very powerful document I’m signing.”

MSN

www.msn.com

Yep. Too bad no one ever thought of anything that would protect the rights of Christians, and you know those other believing people.


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

"It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Yep we've never had that before. No one ever thought of that. Good thing we have a president so utterly clueless that he thinks of things people already thought of to make sure people know he thought of these things before they did, you know, ex post facto.

 

[LogGrad98]

It's a really good thing we now have a presidential decree that protects Christians. Now we don't have to worry about non-Christians doing things like holding offices, you know, like president. At least we can make sure the streak of 47 straight Christian presidents will remain unbroken. It was a dark dark time in our history when we didn't have a Christian president. And now we can finally get some laws based in Christian values, you know, like all of them.

Now we just need a presidential decree protecting white men over 40. The most discriminated group in the country's entire history! No one has faced more discrimination than old white men. Get on it Trump! I mean how in the **** did the old white men ever allow any other group to have more than 10% of the nation's wealth?! Absolutely scandalous! The very idea!

 

[Tom Pitt]

The ones on the modem right don't do this? I was talking religion not politics. But definitely politicians and people of a political bent do this as well, regardless of their leanings. I just find religious grifters to be far far worse since they tap into an already deeply ingrained factor of human existence, something many people are indoctrinated with since birth, and tied directly to the existential nature of life, and tack a political factor on top, essentially preying on people who are at their most vulnerable. It's despicable.

yeah I get what you mean. I made that comment because I think as the left becomes more secular, they have their own "religious or moral police" or influencers if that makes sense. That's why I said secular police. Where it used to be the clergy dispersed throughout institutions in days of old, now it's like DEI officers where that is still going on. But I find religious grifters reprehensible... like the multi millionaire pastor that flies on private jets etc. But in defense of Jordan Peterson, he does have some legitimately valid and worthwhile things to say. And his message is much better and wholesome for lost young men than someone like Andrew Tate right?

 

[Tom Pitt]

View: https://x.com/thomassowell/status/1892937325812023499?s=46

Margaret Thatcher was a great woman and great ambassador of Liberalism. I would submit that Neo-liberalism is no longer true liberalism but a form of PC authoritarianism.

"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. Whatever it's ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now
is an objectively revolutionary process." - Linda Gordon
Also this quote from Gordon... whose contributions to the feminism in the realm scholarship cannot be understated.

 

[Rubashov]

yeah I get what you mean. I made that comment because I think as the left becomes more secular, they have their own "religious or moral police" or influencers if that makes sense. That's why I said secular police. Where it used to be the clergy dispersed throughout institutions in days of old, now it's like DEI officers where that is still going on. But I find religious grifters reprehensible... like the multi millionaire pastor that flies on private jets etc. But in defense of Jordan Peterson, he does have some legitimately valid and worthwhile things to say. And his message is much better and wholesome for lost young men than someone like Andrew Tate right?

No not really, Peterson is a gaping arsehole, he's no better than Tate, its basically the same rubbish just with different packaging, like Apple products...

I think its pretty much impossible to live and grow up in any of the state of the Judeo-Christian world and not be in some way influenced by the basic morality of the bible and that's not a bad thing. It becomes a bad thing when people start to impose the politicised fringe views of religion on others. I'm all for treating my neighbour decently and charity for the poor, and I'll think you'll find every religion believes in that, what I'm not on board with is being told who to love, how to have a family and so. Christianity has for a very long time been as much if not more a political programme than spiritual. The power exercised by the Catholic church through history is immense and the various form of the Protestant church that have emerged have also done so to forward the political aims of rulers and states.

 

[Rubashov]

View: https://x.com/thomassowell/status/1892937325812023499?s=46

Margaret Thatcher was a great woman and great ambassador of Liberalism. I would submit that Neo-liberalism is no longer true liberalism but a form of PC authoritarianism.

"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. Whatever it's ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now
is an objectively revolutionary process." - Linda Gordon
Also this quote from Gordon... whose contributions to the feminism in the realm scholarship cannot be understated.

The only decent thing Thatcher did was die.

The nuclear family is for the most part an American invention, the idea of mum, dad and the kids as a stand alone unit. This was promoted in America as an idea to encourage people to move around for work ect. In European cultures its more common for people to live with large extended families, this can be a problem for capitalism because people are reluctant to move away from their family structure for employment. As an example i come from immigrant families but we immigrated together, so despite having left Europe 70 years ago, I have an extended family of over 100 people who live within a relatively small geographic spread. If you took my house and drew a circle with a radius of say 30 miles, you'd easily collect 60 or 70 of my extended family.

 

[Tom Pitt]

I would encourage you to look inward and talk to women about these issues you have with them.

I would encourage everyone to examine their own beliefs and behaviors before judging others and how they choose to live their life.

I think most men would be best served to begin this conversation examining what they can do to address their concerns. Blaming women is an old, tired tradition and won’t get you anywhere.

While it’s adorable to ask, there’s more work and research you need to do before engaging in a real conversation with anyone who will take you seriously.

My question is, why is it women’s job to make men better partners and people? I think they’re tired of you and your lazy approach to life. Come with a basic understanding of women’s issues. We don’t have time to wait for you to catch up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You seem to think my comment was made out of personal vendetta. I'm simply interested in raising the question as to whether feminism is a net positive for society. I am certainly open to being persuaded as much. I both believe woman should be treated with dignity and respect and certainly believe they should have the option to leave abusive relationships while also theorizing that what feminism has evolved into is bad for society. This of course is not really super palatable right now because the downsides of modern feminism is veiled in equality and equal rights and therefore cannot be questioned and furthermore outside the purview of the Overton window as the left controls all the organs of western society (universities, legacy media, HR in corporations, social initiatives etc. But if women only want to marry up or sometimes marry a partner at least of equal social attainment, what might we say of the fact that 90% of all gender specific scholarships go to women while women being 58.5% of students getting degrees are women compared to 41.5% going to men? And is it problematic than from simply just a biological fact men equate a woman's value on the dating market with her body count and that feminism presents promiscuity as a liberation from the patriarchy? that most men want a wife who has not slept with lots of dudes. this is not good for society my good man

 

[BabyPeterzz]

View: https://x.com/thomassowell/status/1892937325812023499?s=46

Margaret Thatcher was a great woman and great ambassador of Liberalism. I would submit that Neo-liberalism is no longer true liberalism but a form of PC authoritarianism.

"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. Whatever it's ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now
is an objectively revolutionary process." - Linda Gordon
Also this quote from Gordon... whose contributions to the feminism in the realm scholarship cannot be understated.

Do you realize your boogeymen are only yours?

Like, most people on the left these days don’t even know who Margaret Thatcher is nor care about what she says.

You really have no idea who you’re really opposing. At all. It’s all been made up by your own echo chambers. You don’t know us, what we think or believe. We don’t wear hats. We hang out with the people you hate and fear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BabyPeterzz]

You seem to think my comment was made out of personal vendetta. I'm simply interested in raising the question as to whether feminism is a net positive for society. I am certainly open to being persuaded as much. I both believe woman should be treated with dignity and respect and certainly believe they should have the option to leave abusive relationships while also theorizing that what feminism has evolved into is bad for society. This of course is not really super palatable right now because the downsides of modern feminism is veiled in equality and equal rights and therefore cannot be questioned and furthermore outside the purview of the Overton window as the left controls all the organs of western society (universities, legacy media, HR in corporations, social initiatives etc. But if women only want to marry up or sometimes marry a partner at least of equal social attainment, what might we say of the fact that 90% of all gender specific scholarships go to women while women being 58.5% of students getting degrees are women compared to 41.5% going to men? And is it problematic than from simply just a biological fact men equate a woman's value on the dating market with her body count and that feminism presents promiscuity as a liberation from the patriarchy? that most men want a wife who has not slept with lots of dudes. this is not good for society my good man

I don’t know you, so no my comment wasn’t personal.

You posted a block of opinions that reflect very clearly the media you consume and the male role models you’ve mentioned here. I have also listened to them, there is some value there for men, but it gets ruined once all the insecure garbage gets dumped in. To us feminists we want to sympathize with you. But that requires a lot of research and work you won’t find on Twitter and YouTube, or rumble, all the echo-spheres.

So my statement stands. I think you’re so biased and brainwashed by propaganda that I won’t engage on any of the things you claim. You don’t know anything about my argument.

If you do, please enlighten me and I’ll engage. Otherwise, I don’t have time to wait for you to catch up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk