Feminism and why it's bad.

I see a problem in that... how are women going to force men into concentration camps... violence? I mean I'm totally against men who use violence against women, especially since they have less chances of defending themselves... well I think I made my point.

And yeah, I'm hoping "real" feminism isn't that radical crap. Anyway, go on discussing, never mind me.
 
Last edited:
I think her idea is brilliant. No more work, you can do what you want, more or less... No responsibility for anything anymore. So basically, men can be lazy jackoffs while women do all the work. And for some reason, that's supposed to be better than patriarchy.
 
Beaushizzle said:
Crni Vuk said:
And when slavery stopped being profitable for the elites, they did away with it.
Click to expand...
Yeah it just took a small tinny civil war, but that's not really important I guess. Pfff. A bunch of people playing with their rifles in the mud I assume.
Click to expand...
The civil war wasn't about slavery.
Click to expand...

"...A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety."
-- South Carolina's declaration of causes of secession.

More examples here. "Slavery" is mentioned 38 times in the declarations of secession of Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. The South seceded to preserve and expand slavery, the North fought to preserve the Union. This was well-known to everyone, on both sides of the war, when it was fought -- and everyone stated it repeatedly, both during and in the run-up to the war. Slavery was the single cause that pitted South against North, and you will not find contemporary articles denying it. They don't exist, because it is such an obvious truth. This is well known to all academic historians -- you will not find a single recent history of the Civil War that would deny this simple and obvious fact for the simple reason that it is an obvious fact.

And yet, because the South wanted to whitewash the war after slavery lost its luster, because they wanted to cast themselves as innocent victims of an overreaching North, this myth that it was not about slavery took root and was taught for nigh-on a century.
@Hassknecht: Most radical feminists disagree with Bindel. There's no outcry because obviously, mass-imprisoning heterosexual men is not going to happen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hassknecht said:
I think her idea is brilliant. No more work, you can do what you want, more or less... No responsibility for anything anymore. So basically, men can be lazy jackoffs while women do all the work. And for some reason, that's supposed to be better than patriarchy.
Click to expand...

So you are saying they would convince us to going into concentration camps with beer and TV's?

I will need video games, internet, and plenty of wargming miniatures.
 
Gonzalez said:
Hassknecht said:
I think her idea is brilliant. No more work, you can do what you want, more or less... No responsibility for anything anymore. So basically, men can be lazy jackoffs while women do all the work. And for some reason, that's supposed to be better than patriarchy.
Click to expand...

So you are saying they would convince us to going into concentration camps with beer and TV's?

I will need video games, internet, and plenty of wargming miniatures.
Click to expand...
Welcome to capitalism.
 
Gonzalez said:
Hassknecht said:
I think her idea is brilliant. No more work, you can do what you want, more or less... No responsibility for anything anymore. So basically, men can be lazy jackoffs while women do all the work. And for some reason, that's supposed to be better than patriarchy.
Click to expand...

So you are saying they would convince us to going into concentration camps with beer and TV's?

I will need video games, internet, and plenty of wargming miniatures.
Click to expand...

Internet's going to be a problem, there's no porn allowed.
 
Hassknecht said:
Gonzalez said:
Hassknecht said:
I think her idea is brilliant. No more work, you can do what you want, more or less... No responsibility for anything anymore. So basically, men can be lazy jackoffs while women do all the work. And for some reason, that's supposed to be better than patriarchy.
Click to expand...

So you are saying they would convince us to going into concentration camps with beer and TV's?

I will need video games, internet, and plenty of wargming miniatures.
Click to expand...

Internet's going to be a problem, there's no porn allowed.
Click to expand...

That's ok, true love happens only between males anyway.
 
But what are gay couples going to watch to get horny, he said "no porn", not "no straight porn".

I always found it more convenient to have a male partner anyway, only problem I don't feel attracted to men. Guess once forced I might start looking at them fondly?
 
Last edited:
@Sander SJWs would be a whole lot more popular if they left humor alone.

And if the Confederacy was more interested in slavery than independence, why would their constitution allow every single state of the Confederacy to abolish it within its own borders? And why did so many slave states remain in the Union?
 
LordAshur said:
@Sander SJWs would be a whole lot more popular if they left humor alone.

And if the Confederacy was more interested in slavery than independence, why would their constitution allow every single state of the Confederacy to abolish it within its own borders? And why did so many slave states remain in the Union?
Click to expand...
This. The civil war was about the union overtaxing southern states and trying to take away some states rights. Slavery was just a rallying cry to increase Union volunteer rates and disrupt southern war making capacity by encouraging slaves to escape.
 
Oh boy ... you are new here. You have no clue what you're getting your self in to. If you thought the Marines at Okinawa had it rough than you never saw Sander arguing.

*Edit, not that I am saying you're right, just a friendly warning mate.
 
I keep thinking of telling them that it's not serious, and that the thread was made as a joke, but I don't want to ruin it for them. Besides, we have them back!
 
LordAshur said:
@Sander SJWs would be a whole lot more popular if they left humor alone.

And if the Confederacy was more interested in slavery than independence, why would they allow every single state of the Confederacy to abolish it within its own borders? And why did so many slave states remain in the Union?
Click to expand...
No unoccupied confederate state abolished slavery during the war(Tennessee did so during Union occupation), and they only did so after the war under threat of violence -- Mississippi didn't ratify the Thirteenth Amendment until 1995, for instance. That they had the theoretical ability to abolish slavery is irrelevant: all those states were united in their support of slavery.

The South seceded to preserve slavery because they saw the North's limitations on the expansion of slavery as a long-term, existential threat to slavery. The North did not go to war to abolish slavery, even though that was in the end the result. They went to war to preserve the union, and would have been happy to avoid war with slavery intact in the slave states. Those slave states that stayed in the Union did not join the Confederacy because they did not see the North's actions as an existential threat to slavery, or because the majority of representatives in that state did not mind abolishing slavery, or because they did not think slavery was worth going to war for. Mostly, a combination of those three. And they did oppose the use of force to maintain the Union. And all those border states saw many of their citizens join the Confederate army. It is worth noting that the Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to the border states -- again, the North wasn't fighting to abolish slavery, that political push didn't come until the very end of the Civil War.

Once again: no need to believe me, you can read the words of the Confederacy yourself.

Beaushizzle said:
This. The civil war was about the union overtaxing southern states and trying to take away some states rights. Slavery was just a rallying cry to increase Union volunteer rates and disrupt southern war making capacity by encouraging slaves to escape.
Click to expand...
"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition." -- Vice President of the Confederacy Alexander Stephens, weeks before secession

I have given you a multitude of Confederates declaring, in their own voices, that they were seceding because of slavery. You have given no evidence to oppose that notion.

But I'll give you one more: yes, the Civil War was about states' rights -- to be precise, states' rights to hold slaves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top