My guess is he may be successful on Tinder but as soon as any woman talks to him, he immediately sets off all of their red flags.
Either that or he's just lying. Hard to tell.
As someone who was raised a girl, yes. Immediate red flags. Sets off all the misogyny radars. Any man who complains about feminists is going to be a bad time. Couple that with bragging about money and looks because he thinks that's what women want, yet still assuming women are shallow gold diggers even when he can't get a date despite being wealthy and attractive. The whole thing drips with passive-aggressive resentment. Why would anyone want to be around that?
Anybody who uses the word femini$m to mean “equality” and uses the word “patriarchy” to mean oppression is using gendered language to describe good and evil.
Gender abolition but dumb.
I make 130k, handsome, tall, full head of hair, big dick. I can’t get a date either, Because I’m not super rich and super hot.
Lmao which defense contractor do you suppose they work for?
That's pretty funny, because I've never made more than median local wages and I've never struggled to get laid (please don't turn me into the
)Maybe, just maybe, treating women like people and not having a shit personality is more important than wealth.
I agree with the first half of that, but not so much the second. I'm a tall single dude, and I am more or less stigmatized out of spaces where kids exist unless I'm with a woman presenting date or friend. Like, I get it, sexual predators tend to be men so extra caution is prima facia warranted, but it's pretty unfortunate that has manifested in such a way that men are inherently unwelcome without a chaperone in what should be gender-neutral spheres of society. This seems to reinforce toxic gender stereotypes to me and harm everyone.
I feel like both your characterization and my objection are reductive, though, and I honestly don't want to get into a whole thing about it. So I'd prefer to just say I think there's more nuance to that and leave it be.
Sure. But caution and the outright exclusion/presumption of guilt are two different things. Men who enjoy care taking and children are just as legitimate in those interests as women are who don't, and it's gender biases/reactionary roles that say otherwise. Whether women have their own kids, or hell, even want to have their own kids or not doesn't prevent them from being seen as innate care takers and being given permission by society to interact with kids. A woman who wants to engage with care taking or play or mentorship with kids can fairly readily do so. (This sword obviously cuts the other way where women are expected to take on this role, whether they want to or not.) Men can't, and that is sad for the men who would want to and would be great at it. I intuitively imagine that those are probably the most sensative and compassionate men who would provide a better model for what being a man could be to kids too. Reactionary Gender roles do hurt everyone, not just the historically marginalized. I don't think it's good to give them a pass or affirm them just because they happen to be hurting a historically privileged group. I think even those parts need to be dismantled and the pain they caused taken seriously.
I make 130k, handsome, tall, full head of hair, big dick. I can’t get a date either, Because I’m not super rich and super hot.
Lol, lmao.
Hates feminists and compares them to Nazis
Can't get a date and assumes it's because of shallow reasons and not because of his obvious misogyny
Gee I wonder what's scaring the ladies off
Lowercase rationalism: not even once either. r/TheMotte is/was one of the worst subreddits ever for my money. It was like SSC but more blatantly racist.
looked at that guys profile too. said he wanted a dick enlargement surgery even tho he got 7 inches. he seemed to think having a 9-10 inch dick would get him laid all the time lol
Whenever chuds say this stuff they recently got called racist for saying something racist
These are the exact people we should bully aggressively.
so called "rationals" when I ask them the ratio of a circle's circumference to it's diameter.
As if the right never infight. US vs Isis comes to mind.
Hell, modern capitalist Russia vs Azov nazi Ukraine also comes to mind.
It can be overblown too, depending on how the speaker defines leftism. Often “infighting” is just plain ol’ fighting, and the perception of it being fight internal to a coherent and organized party is an oversimplification, if not outright misunderstanding, of varying politics or methodology.
For example, in the failed German revolution of 1918, I wouldn’t necessarily characterize disputes between the communists and the socdems and the Spartacus League as infighting. They are/were always a coalition of distinct interests.
Part of the problem is the very concept of a political spectrum and the implicit grouping that entails. I’m not a big fan of Trotsky, but it reminds me of something he wrote in Their Morals and Ours:
To Hitler, liberalism and Marxism are twins because they ignore 'blood and honour'. To a democrat, fascism and Bolshevism are twins because they do not bow before universal suffrage ... Different classes in the name of different aims may in certain instances utilise similar means. Essentially it cannot be otherwise. Armies in combat are always more or less symmetrical; were there nothing in common in their methods of struggle they could not inflict blows upon each other.
I love the "there you go using your brain again 🙄" crowd because they offer nothing of substance or anything remotely indictive of them using their brain, just some dumbass comment.
Everyone is rational at times and everyone is irrational at times. You can use a rational thought process with bad inputs and bad reasoning and come to incorrect conclusions. I really hate people that claim to rational politics. It seems like they recently discovered "thinking" and have realized it's good.
Its my appearance and not my personality copium 
you go, loser
I am the one true leftist 
