WatDabney @ WatDabney @sopuli.xyz

Posts

8

Comments

932

Joined

2 yr. ago

However, claiming that boys are only seduced by misogyny because of class issues and the misuse of identity politics is manifestly inaccurate. (emphasis mine)

I've never seen anyone, including anyone this author cites, say that they "only" are.

And so on, and so on...

If my government the government that's managed to weasel its way into power over the land on which I happened to be born proposed an initiative to tackle fraud, I would look for the catch, because it's guaranteed there would be one.

So I'm curious - does your pretzel logic extend to other situations?

Imagine... John and Bob both want to buy a used car, and they both know that the other wants it too. Bob makes a better offer and gets to buy the car. Is John then justified to shoot him and take the car by force?

Or is that a right you reserve exclusively for Russia?

I love the irony of the fact that the tankie take on Ukraine is identical to the position generally taken by spouse abusers - "you shouldn't have made me attack you."

Clearly signaling who they actually represent.

Not that their supporters will notice though.

Connolly is an accomplice in the coup d'etat.

Well I assumed it was the crybaby hiding behind his mommy since it's his chatbot.

But now that I think about it, the manbaby in the leaky diaper is just as fragile, so it's possible that it all started with him boo-hooing to the crybaby.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other...

"Lefties keep calling us Nazis but they don't even know what Nazis are, and oh yeah, by the way, all of these people over here should be killed because they're an inferior race."

Even setting aside the staggering psychopathy of the modern right - their complete and utter disregard for the lives of other human beings - I don't even begin to understand how any human being could have so little self-awareness.

Such a fragile little manchild.

Lately this series keeps feeling like tragedy and heartbreak are looming just barely off-stage.

Yeah - I don't get it.

I wrote that whole pointed digression because it's a thing that's been shaping itself in my mind lately, and that headline reminded me of it. "Inseminated person" sounds like something out of The Handmaid's Tale, so I just immediately assumed that it was an example of the incels-in-office in action. That just sounds like such an incel thing to do - to reduce someone's identity to essentially "one who has been inseminated," as if having had semen pumped into you is the important part and everything else is just meaningless details.

I still can't sort out how that's supposed to in any way be progressive.

Huh.

I has nothing at all to do with that.

In our current environment, I took "inseminated person" to be sort of a notably formal synonym for "cumdumps," or maybe less crudely, "sperm receptacles."

It seems to deny the individual so labeled of any human qualities aside from the fact that they've been, in conservative christian terms, blessed with a man's seed. The person described doesn't even seem to the important person in the description. It's more as if they're a mere receptacle, and the person who did the inseminating is the one who actually matters.

Self-evidently I should've read the article, but honestly it never struck me as even a possibility that such a dehumanizing phrase would actually be promoted as a progressive thing.

I'm becoming more sure all the time –

The stereotypical "incel" is a broader personality type, the negative qualities of which are not caused by, but merely to some noteworthy degree associated with, involuntary celibacy.

Involuntary celibacy does not, in and of itself cause "incel" attitudes and behavior, nor does sexual experience preclude them. It's possible for someone to be involuntarily celibate and not be an "incel" and it's possible for someone to have sexual experience and be an "incel" anyway.

And in fact, a significant part of the would-be oligarchs who are currently carrying out a coup d'etat and their assorted cronies and supporters are, by any standard other than the fact that they can (at least some time) get laid, "incels." That includes but is by no means limited to Trump, Musk, Vance, Hegseth, Rubio, DeSantis, Abbott..., and this guy.

The only part I don't understand is how you can apparently believe that the USSR going through something that sort of equates with a Chapter 11 reorganization, divesting itself of most of its subsidiaries and rebranding itself as "Russia" is in any way relevant.

Actually, one could just start with the sentence, "Trump is ______ing the ______ to favor the well-off even more, and cloaking these changes in a thin veneer of ______," and fill in the blanks with any matched set of terms and end up with a true statement.

Again, those 50 million voters would only matter if their votes were legitimately counted, and they will not be.

Those days are gone. With Musk and his minions running roughshod over the federal computer systems, there will never be another legitimate federal level election in the US.

A dozen people getting shot.

Really.

50 million new voters would only matter if their votes were legitimately counted, and they're not going to be. Our future is sham elections with predetermined outcomes.

ETA: that's not to say that I think shooting people is the solution - it's not. But voting sure as hell isn't going to be either.

Funny how often I've seen the word "accelerationist" thrown around lately, and generally at pretty much anyone who calls for fighting back against the deliberate wholesale destruction of American democracy and liberty.

Preach.

It's not a coincidence that it was Democrats who coined the term "flyover country."

And it's not a coincidence that "flyover country" won't vote for them.

And they're okay with that. They'd rather lose than lower themselves so far as to associate with the unwashed masses.