Social Justice Warriors - Now With Less Feminism Sperging

[Positron]

View attachment 4829761

"If you don't hate the LGBTQ community why do you refuse to wear the rainbow shirt? Some Christian you are!"
As Christians we can (and should) disapprove of the sin yet love the sinner.

 

[870EVO]

Can someone help me find the original of that 4 panel meme: white guy shooting black is racist, black shooting white is racist, etc.

Search engines are useless.

I've noticed a lot of popular un-PC memes that are near impossible to find on search engines now. When they used to turn up on the first page. Like these two old ones I had to go to Yandex for.

 

[BaskingBarracuda]

Music Reviewer reviews Steel Panther, a band known for being an over-the-top parody of 80s glam metal.

It’s a negative review, though it quickly becomes clear that it’s not the music that’s influenced his opinion.

They’re four dudes who look and sound like an LA hair metal band from the ’80s, right, but (and here comes the punchline) they’re doing it today. The gag involves dumb guitar riffs and even dumber lyrics about sex, babes and metal. Gleeful misogyny is built into the routine and their earlier work also boasted flourishes of racism and homophobia. Ladies and gentlemen: this is incel rock.

We could go on, but you get the idea. Weirdly, though, Steel Panther have toned it down. There’s thankfully none of the debut album’s sexism or homophobia here. So they clearly sense the joke’s worn extremely thin, that the parameters have shifted and you can’t get away with a song called ‘She’s On The Rag’, as they somehow did with 2014’s ‘All You Can Eat’. Which kind of begs the question: why bother doing it at all?

If you have never had sex, you might like this album. If you enjoyed Steel Panther’s single joke 10 years ago and thought, “I believe that I would enjoy hearing a slightly more apologetic version of this joke a decade down the line,” you might like this album. It’s only got one star because the NME content management system doesn’t currently support 0 stars.

Starts his review by saying they’re not funny (always a tell someone is mad about a joke but is trying to pretend otherwise) then falls to the old male feminist canard of calling anyone who disagrees an incel/virgin. He barely discusses the album in question, most of it is reading a charge sheet of problematicness from throughout the band’s history (and how his fellow reviewers were icky too). All a convoluted exercise in making sure everyone knows that he and the NME are not toxic virgin incel males.

Here’s our author:



And with his article he’s made clear he finds gratuitous sexualisation, even for comedic purposes, problematic. Well, except…

 

[AnOminous]

All a convoluted exercise in making sure everyone knows that he and the NME are not toxic virgin incel males.

NME has been a fucking joke since they went from nonstop sucking Morrissey's cock to trashing him for absolutely no reason other than politics.

 

[Slap47]

Environmentalists who hate nuclear do not exist.

Not all women make these goddawful justifications for their man-hatred, but...

View attachment 4824853
View attachment 4824861
View attachment 4824873
View attachment 4824877
View attachment 4824881
View attachment 4824885
Link to FB post

...but don't you dare make the same argument about black people!

I've avoided sperging about women or feminists for the most part, but let me just say:

View attachment 4824893

The "people" who use specifically this kind of Kafaka-trapping against whatever group they're talking shit about, are broken, hollow beings who do not deserve love of any kind.

The first two comics of this felt like the introduction to a /pol/ comic about black people or Jewish people.

 

[AnOminous]

The first two comics of this felt like the introduction to a /pol/ comic about black people or Jewish people.

They share literally exactly the same fallacy, that you can draw an inference about the probability of danger from a single fact about a person, but you usually have a lot more information than just "he's black." That's just one that's so obvious you can't avoid it.

For instance if I'm playing poker at a table where there's a black guy I'm generally going to assume he's a loose gambler type player and is probably the mark at the table. This is often a correct guess. Same with Chinese. (But if they're Vietnamese watch the fuck out.)

That said, if the black guy then starts playing like Phil Ivey or the Chinese dude starts playing like Johnny Chan, you seriously have to revise your superficial first impression based on one bit of information.

And if you live somewhere full of blacks, if you freak out every time you see one you'll just be a nervous wreck. People who are actually planning on mugging or otherwise fucking with you telegraph their intentions through body language and the fact they're paying a little too much attention to you. If you can't figure out what someone is doing and why they are where they are, you should be very suspicious.

Anyway these kinds of stereotypes can be useful shortcuts to thinking and give you some safety, i.e. don't just blindly go into neighborhoods full of people of a different race, whatever race you are (like seriously consider staying out of Bensonhurst if you're black), and if you're a woman, don't just trust men. Really, trust nobody until they prove they can be trusted.

But if your thinking stops there, you're an idiot. And whoever made this shitty cartoon is an idiot.

 

[Slap47]

Man would not cry.

 

[samuraicrack]

Liking comedy in 2023 means having to either pick between laughing at the same 3 pronoun jokes every night or the same 2 jokes whining about people making pronoun jokes

 

[DoubleD]

ATTENTION: It has come to my notice that Wojak cartoons are ableist, and possibly also racist (read the replies). Kindly refrain from using them.


Link, Archive

"The amount of Ableism on leftwt had [sic] created a legitimately unsafe and unwelcoming environment for disabled people like myself"

Y'know, I might have misjudged. Lefty Twitter isn't so bad after all.

Spoiler: replies

The person who posted this:

I assume this is sarcastic. No one could be that self-unaware.

Has a pronouns page (archive) so you know how to misgender her them.

EDIT: Just by random chance after posting this, I see the same fucker on Delusional Takes.

Link, Link to original, Archive

They share literally exactly the same fallacy, that you can draw an inference about the probability of danger from a single fact about a person, but you usually have a lot more information than just "he's black." That's just one that's so obvious you can't avoid it.

For instance if I'm playing poker at a table where there's a black guy I'm generally going to assume he's a loose gambler type player and is probably the mark at the table. This is often a correct guess. Same with Chinese. (But if they're Vietnamese watch the fuck out.)

That said, if the black guy then starts playing like Phil Ivey or the Chinese dude starts playing like Johnny Chan, you seriously have to revise your superficial first impression based on one bit of information.

And if you live somewhere full of blacks, if you freak out every time you see one you'll just be a nervous wreck. People who are actually planning on mugging or otherwise fucking with you telegraph their intentions through body language and the fact they're paying a little too much attention to you. If you can't figure out what someone is doing and why they are where they are, you should be very suspicious.

Anyway these kinds of stereotypes can be useful shortcuts to thinking and give you some safety, i.e. don't just blindly go into neighborhoods full of people of a different race, whatever race you are (like seriously consider staying out of Bensonhurst if you're black), and if you're a woman, don't just trust men. Really, trust nobody until they prove they can be trusted.

But if your thinking stops there, you're an idiot. And whoever made this shitty cartoon is an idiot.

The difference is that women must accept that living around men is a reality, and a desirable one at that. Everywhere that women live, men will live too. There may in fact be shitty ones, but on the whole women need men around them far, far more than they don't. Not only for relationships and procreation, but for the tax they pay into the system, high-risk jobs and duties certain men must undertake to maintain the level of comfort they have gotten used to. Women will never not need men.

White people, on the other hand,

 

[Zero Day Defense]

Not all women make these goddawful justifications for their man-hatred, but...

View attachment 4824853
View attachment 4824861
View attachment 4824873
View attachment 4824877
View attachment 4824881
View attachment 4824885
Link to FB post

...but don't you dare make the same argument about black people!

I've avoided sperging about women or feminists for the most part, but let me just say:

View attachment 4824893

The "people" who use specifically this kind of Kafaka-trapping against whatever group they're talking shit about, are broken, hollow beings who do not deserve love of any kind.

I've had some suspiciously repeating experiences with women of various contexts being (mystically) incapable of understanding generalizations... when they're about female behavior. I'm currently of the impression that at least American women are worse at generalizations compared to men.

Putting aside that there's no way that one in three women are assaulted by men, and the likelihood that this statistic will likely appeal to untrackable "underreporting", most men

• are provably still not assaulters
• look down on assault
• especially look down on men assaulting women, if only because they're easy marks
• downplay female-on-male assault of any kind, alongside women, to the point that female sex offenders are evidently treated more leniently in the courts

Most importantly, there's a litany of laws punishing all forms of assault-- with no sex distinction. This doesn't exist in a society where women should be generally afraid of men assaulting them in any capacity, because these laws don't exist in societies where assault on women is okay.

Granted, it's difficult to objectively prove that women in a specific social context abide certain trends, beyond the reality that said trends exist among them with no significant public pushback. But generalizations like the one quoted are obviously undermined by written and statistical realities, in contrast.

Women in the West also are hardly afraid of men. That's just a fact. They don't speak or act as though they fear men (especially not in that quote). None of them treat men as though they're afraid of them-- if absolutely nothing else, you wouldn't have anybody in the camp of "trans women are real women" if women at large had a genuine fear of men in general. It's especially ridiculous since literally every right and privilege that women now have has come from the stroke of some man's pen.

All of that said, there is something to consider when it comes to being afraid of men for shoddy ideological reasons, if we grant that it's even a remotely reasonable fear:

You clearly don't understand how difficult it can be to clear that particular bar sometimes. You really do have no fucking idea. And it's probably better that you don't, because if you did, you'd be much more fearful appreciative of men. As you should be.

Or, perhaps, you do have some clue, since you recognize that a proportion of men rape, murder and generally abuse wahmens - and many, I'm sure, get off on it. Here's the kicker, though: we're all capable of that - but, for the most part, most of us choose another way. Radfems are correct, as far as pretty meaningless statements go, when they state that all men are potential rapists. Well, fucking duh. In the sense that a grand piano hanging from a rope and pulley above the pavement is a potential deathtrap. Something goes wrong, something snaps, and someone (obliviously) finds themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time and... splat! Raise the piano right, however, and that doesn't happen very often, and we can have music and song and dancing, yay!

So, you're right to be wary, but I truly wish you could understand the incredible patience and forbearance of men, because you'd be relieved, not scared. You're surrounded by fucking saints on a daily basis and, in your stupidity, ignorance - femoid arrogance and entitlement - you call them monsters. And then you wonder where the bitterness comes from, and where the resentment and hostility begins.

The instincts of non-fucked-up men are protective, not predatory. They want to guard and shield the weak. And that means YOU, honey. Women seem to have forgotten that, and it's the lack of violence towards women, in the 'civilized' world anyway, that's enabled that amnesia.

Pardon my bloviating/internet tough guy larp, but that's simply how it is. I dunno, maybe try feeling gratitude that you don't live in Afghanistan, fucked up as that sounds. Shit, according to feminism, throughout all of Western history, women lived under White Sharia, so you must admit that - according to your doctrine - if we wanted to, we could oppress your ass right back into that kitchen - and there's not much you could do about it, if violence against women was decided, by men, to be socially acceptable (or necessary) again. I mean, The Patriarchy, and all that, right? Lucky for you there's pron, and vidya, and weed these days, and we just can't be arsed, frankly.

 

[ToroidalBoat]

I've seen that SJWs seem to treat the "marginalized identity" like Muslims treat Muhammad - seems it's "problematic" if someone of an "oppressor group" portrays or depicts someone of a "marginalized group", like Islam forbids depicting Muhammad. I think that's why Apu was "cancelled" from The Simpsons: a white guy voiced him. It also seems to be why there's that "r/mendrawingwomen" sub.

 

[VasonJoorhees]

Lefties who act like a Republican winning means the beginning of the end for the LGBT movement are literally the same as righties who act like a Democrat winning means they will be hunted in droves. Sure, it makes progress a lot harder for either side in either scenario, but this line of thinking is just paranoid spiraling.

My local favorite radio waves' host refers to them as "lunatic liberals and crackpot conservatives" and I'm inclined to agree.

I'm against all forms of bullshit. Social justice warrior tranny-ism is bullshit - but so is dismissing gays and lesbos as an unnatural mental illness. I personally think there's a healthy middle ground between tumblr and the westboro baptist church.

 

[ryuichi]

Reboot Lara, the monarch of SJWs

 

[TVB]

Reboot Lara, the monarch of SJWs

Do you realize we HAVE a thread talking about how cringe NuRaider is?

You know I don't like being ignored. It hurts my feelings.

 

[Jonah Hill poster]

Now, these types of pseudo-activists are just not trying anymore. We’re not even allowed to eat or drink anything sustainable to keep ourselves suffering from poverty and/or famine:

 

[Neighborhood Curmudgeon]

Now, these types of pseudo-activists are just not trying anymore. We’re not even allowed to eat or drink anything sustainable to keep ourselves suffering from poverty and/or famine:

View attachment 4860928

As if we don't already have plenty of reasons to hate SJWs, then they decide to go after meal times and coffee.

I almost wanted to believe they would have reasonable limits to what they find offensive, but time and time again they keep proving that anything under the sun will become one of their causes.

 

[ToroidalBoat]

We’re not even allowed to eat or drink anything sustainable to keep ourselves suffering from poverty and/or famine:

I almost wanted to believe they would have reasonable limits to what they find offensive, but time and time again they keep proving that anything under the sun will become one of their causes.

"If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss." - some guy

Like I said, if a straight white male were misguided enough to follow every asinine hot take the SJWs dump out, he'd be backed into a corner of misery with no fun allowed.

Such a poor deluded sap wouldn't be able to play vidya because it's "transphobic", he couldn't support space travel because it's "male entitlement", he wouldn't be able to design a sexy female character because it's "rape" because "she can't consent because she's fictional", he wouldn't be able to enjoy any culture of "people of color" as "exotic" because that's "exotification" and "cultural appropriation", he couldn't have any dating preferences and he'd have to be open to dating guys who are "transgender" because having any dating preference is "fetishizing", and on and on and on. "Colonization" this. "White supremacy" that. "Racist" this. "Misogynist" that. It's endless!

Meanwhile, such a thoroughly cucked guy would have to spend every waking moment believing woke, preaching woke, and "virtue signalling" support for each and every endless "Current Thing" of Current Year - or he could be excommunicated "cancelled" from the wannabe communist cult that is "social justice" and "The Right Side of History"...

Wokeism truly is an "ideology" from hell. It's founded on lies, and it's about conformity and control.

 

[870EVO]

Lefties who act like a Republican winning means the beginning of the end for the LGBT movement are literally the same as righties who act like a Democrat winning means they will be hunted in droves. Sure, it makes progress a lot harder for either side in either scenario, but this line of thinking is just paranoid spiraling.

I don't believe in the Republicans vs Democrats bullshit. That's the Soap Opera. You think Democrats are gonna give a shit about Bush or Kerry or McCain? Never heard them ever say a thing in the last 6 years. As long as the Republican supporter follows the "right" Republicans, then they are fine. If they are supporting a Republican that happened to be a Democrat most of his life, and hasn't been imbedded in the bureaucracy in Washington for the past 30 years? Oh yeah, those supporters are a problem.

 

[ToroidalBoat]

SJWs want all divided into different groups who are either "marginalized" or "oppressor", yet also claim that thinking of people as different kinds - male, female, black, white, etc - is "discrimination" or "othering" or the like. I guess SJWs want us to think of all as homogeneous "genderless" blobs - or as "diversity" - as it suits them. So if it's against a bland "melting pot" of globalism, it's "othering", but if it goes against the BS "marginalized" and "oppressor" dynamics, it is "wrongthink" to SJWs.

 

[Neighborhood Curmudgeon]

SJWs want all divided into different groups who are either "marginalized" or "oppressor", yet also claim that thinking of people as different kinds - male, female, black, white, etc - is "discrimination" or "othering" or the like. I guess SJWs want us to think of all as homogeneous "genderless" blobs - or as "diversity" - as it suits them. So if it's against a bland "melting pot" of globalism, it's "othering", but if it goes against the BS "marginalized" and "oppressor" dynamics, it is "wrongthink" to SJWs.

I've always found it amusing how SJWs claim to love multiculturalism, yet everything they do, as you're saying, is divisive and antagonistic. With shit like "cultural appropriation" and "safe spaces," they end up promoting more hatred, racism, and xenophobia. It doesn't help that they pin all the sins of racism on whites while also ignoring racism between non-white peoples. White guilt should be treated as a genuine mental illness at this point, but like transgenderism, it's seen as a respectable and normal thing.