Social Justice Warriors - Now With Less Feminism Sperging

[Linako 2.0]

I know I'm late but I may as well say: giving up on Soul Calibur because of some DLC costume? I heard better excuses as to why one would give up on the series. One must ask: does every woman who play Soul Calibur would get offended at such armor? I'm sure some would roll eyes at it for whatever reason but even then, some wouldn't care because its just DLC armor, one of which is for a character whose armor isn't all that modest.

I also want to point out that alot of people there are saying "I used to love the Soul series...my god, what happened? " and shit like that.
yes, because The SC franchise didn't have fanservice since day 1

 

[Eldritch]

I also want to point out that alot of people there are saying "I used to love the Soul series...my god, what happened? " and shit like that.
yes, because The SC franchise didn't have fanservice since day 1
View attachment 18248 View attachment 18249 View attachment 18250

elephant in the room:

 

[wheat pasta]

I can see why they'd complain, I mean SC's boob physics aren't nearly as delicious as BlazBlue's so I'd be mad if they did titty costumes too because SC really needs to up their game in the jiggling department before they do such things.
Wait, that's not what they're worked up about?
Lol.

 

[Furina]

While this is more Rad-Fem, this little utopia is worth a laugh at how horribly ignorant the author is.

A classic. Amazingly delusional from start to finish.
I really want to know what other people like her envision as a utopia and what means they would think are necessary to achieve it.

 

[Linako 2.0]

A classic. Amazingly delusional from start to finish.
I really want to know what other people like her envision as a utopia and what means they would think are necessary to achieve it.

Feminist version of the Turner Diaries when?

 

[Daario Naharis]

While this is more Rad-Fem, this little utopia is worth a laugh at how horribly ignorant the author is.

In the comments...

"It is always Good to read and Think about they way things Should Be, meaning the way they Would Be if men had not ruined everything"

Ah. We are dealing with female Jon Normans (Chronicles of Gor if the name is unfamiliar. Look it up. He's a real charmer.) I see.

I recall a delightful book of his called "Time Slave" where a modern woman is sent back pre-agricultural society where women are, of course, little other than kinky sex slaves. You know, the way that sort of society actually was. In no way did everyone have to be tough as a bag of nails and dedicated to the survival of the tribe. Nope. Women just sat around waiting to be kinkily fucked because Jon Norman is into BDSM and it's his book so nyah nyah.

I mean, clearly, clearly the described world is the way things would be.

That's why Matriarchal societies are famed for not allowing men to gather in groups, not allowing PIV, exiling all males over the age of 15, and generally being political lesbian fantasies.

I tell ya, these people (And their male opposites are equal in this. I have a very special loathing for Jon Norman and his self-insert sue Master Swordsman/Lover University Professor who gets transported to the magical realm of Gor to fuck sex slaves and mope about how earth men are weak because women aren't sex slaves and men aren't proud hunter noble savages) are just a complete delight.

I only stumble into them once in a blue moon, but it's amusing every time.

A classic. Amazingly delusional from start to finish.
I really want to know what other people like her envision as a utopia and what means they would think are necessary to achieve it.

One has to wonder how exactly they think they are going to bring it about.

They are essentially the opposite side of the MRA/White Supremacist coin.

They aren't going to do shit. They are just going to sit around circle jerking over their fantasies, screeching that their ideal world is totally about to happen, their websites slowly becoming more and more outdated, slowly fading into obscurity.

You'll notice her tirade doesn't talk much about how this world is to be achieved. That it's just going to magically happen at some point is a forgone conclusion among her ilk (And their brethren on other parts of the political spectrum.) because hey, if you tell women they won't have to take shit from men, there will totally be a spontaneous uprising that includes all feminists becoming TERFS, banishing their male children, illegalizing PIV sex (Because no woman is heterosexual) and so on.

Then this uprising will somehow overwhelm the incredibly powerful standing male armies because... You know.... Look whatever, the point is, it's totally about to happen, you guys.

What really makes me happy is that this woman is a TERF.

Time is marching on, and she's on the losing side of history, holding hands with the social conservatives to try to spite transpeople. Historically, people like her could look at the march of progressive values and say "You see! You see! This is totally about to happen, you guys! Women are _______." Not so much any more.

 

[Hummingbird]

That's a great point about how this utopia is not that different from the Gor novels (in the real world, those big, strong men would die young from diseases and badly prepared food). Here's some of my own thoughts.

-With hetero and bisexual women, there will be that urge for romantic and sexual company with men. No amount of sex toys and other women can put an end to that. Sure some women can be an island, but not all of them. As Al Bundy said, "We (men) can get the job done and you can't take a battery home to meet your mother."

-I'm guessing artificial insemination and cloning will continue the human race. If it's the later, making them clean toxic waste (here's hoping they're protected) will effect their sperm.

-I can't help imagining the emotional damage forcing a mother to give up her son just because he hits a certain age.

-There will always be jerks and bad people even in an anarchistic society (which this utopia seems a bit like). Thus, there will be problems even among women.

-They are shooting themselves in the foot by getting rid of physiologists and medical help focused on women's health and childbirth. Midwives can only do so much and a difficult pregnancy needs professional help to ensure the health of both mother and child. And psychological problems just don't go away because one gender is totally in charge.

-Fresh air and natural surroundings can be helpful, but there are times where a sterile environment is needed like with surgery and certain allergies and diseases. Also natural remedies can be good, but until we can find a better way to fight cancer, chemotherapy is needed.

-IMHO anarchism could work in very small, communities (or if you lived off the grid), but in bigger and more united areas it won't. Not everyone has the same talents (some people suck at crafts and making things) and when human society works together, it helps ensure our survival and advancement. If everyone made everything themselves (I'm guessing the barter system will be iffy) with no outside help, we'd be stuck with a more primitive society.

-People do need proteins and during droughts, the colder seasons or if it's just a bad harvest, hunting and fishing can be quite useful for survival.

A lot of utopians fail to see that bad things can happen and any group (big business, women, workers, etc) can be just as bad as their oppressors. So they don't think of these things in advance and it will bite them in the ass.

 

[ChurchOfGodBear]

Fuck.

If only more people could see that the answer to all problems in the world: enslave men, abolish violence.

How, exactly, would one enslave men without being violent? We are the half of the species that likes to blow shit up when you piss us off, after all.

 

[Linako 2.0]

Time is marching on, and she's on the losing side of history,

Dude, there is no "right side" or "wrong side" of history.
that's a very pretentious phrase invented by SJWs

 

[MayMay]

Isn't that kind of utopia crap the kind of thing Bioshock pretty much exists to deconstruct?

- I'm not sure about the "if you tell women they won't have to take shit from men, there will totally be a spontaneous uprising" thing. These people fold faster than Superman on laundry day just at being called "bossy" when they're being bossy.
Which is a bit of extra reassurance since that basically means their entire "revolution" would require their enemy doing all the work for them. Seriously these people will go to insane lengths to put responsibility onto someone else.
- Yes, complain about genocidal "patriarchy" (nevermind how it's almost always rooted in racism, not misogyny), euthanize the men!
- You know, with such wild-ass thinking, what if it used to be the other way around? That there was some supposedly eeeeeevil all-encompassing power that oppressed men and then they rose and then women lost property rights, decision making positions and oh shit that's exactly what it used to be like for women before voting and all that. Huh, it's almost like this "utopia" is the goddamn same as their own great satan.
- You know, humans used to be part of a natural world, didn't cook shit, no pharmaceuticals and guess fucking what? They only lived to fucking 30 if they were lucky. Men don't have shit to do with women's lifespans and if what they claimed was remotely true then women sure as shit wouldn't have a longer life expectancy than men.
- If women are so great bordering on psychic powers, how'd they even get "conquered" by men and forced into this eeeeeeevil system as opposed to a kinda-backwards evolution of ice-age gender roles? Wars are won by the better side, not the inferiors in strength.
- This whole "The world would be so great without men!" thing sounds pretty familiar. Just swap "men" with "jews".
- Seriously, not a single comment pointed out that she sounds like a bloody nazi?
- Women are never pointlessly cruel and violent for no reason?

Seriously, crazy like this is why the term "Femnazi" exists.

 

[ChurchOfGodBear]

-I'm guessing artificial insemination and cloning will continue the human race. If it's the later, making them clean toxic waste (here's hoping they're protected) will effect their sperm.

If they want to get that good at cloning, they better get cracking on those STEM degrees!

-There will always be jerks and bad people even in an anarchistic society (which this utopia seems a bit like). Thus, there will be problems even among women.

If working at a company that was 95% female taught me anything, it's that women do NOT need men's assistance to make a clusterfuck of things.

Dude, there is no "right side" or "wrong side" of history.
that's a very pretentious phrase invented by SJWs

It's a rhetorical trick geared toward the intellectually lazy. It makes people believe that the course of history is predetermined and involves no action or responsibility on their part, but at least they get credit for picking the "right" side. It's as if they believed life were a giant Rocky movie, and they could bet all their money on Rocky winning.

 

[MayMay]

If working at a company that was 95% female taught me anything, it's that women do NOT need men's assistance to make a clusterfuck of things.

Like this? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ny-thought-shed-kissed-goodbye-conflict-.html

 

[ChurchOfGodBear]

Like this? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ny-thought-shed-kissed-goodbye-conflict-.html

Oh yeah. Also, way too many problems solved by "intuition" and governed by what "feels right". Nothing like hearing the CFO opt to spend three times as much as needed on supplies because she liked the way they looked.

Human society has been a mix of male and female since prehistory. There's a reason for that- we need both halves to function. Every time I hear someone suggest we've reached some arbitrary point where one sex is no longer useful, I just laugh. Yeah, millions of years of evolution made things this way, but you've come up with a better system in the last year and a half. Gotcha.

 

[ChinIsDead]

How, exactly, would one enslave men without being violent? We are the half of the species that likes to blow shit up when you piss us off, after all.

Well you see violence doesn't count when it's for the right reasons, and conveniently, we always happen to have the right reasons!

 

[Daario Naharis]

Dude, there is no "right side" or "wrong side" of history.

Oh I'd disagree. I'd say the Confederates, for example, were on the losing side of history.

As were people who went bananas over interracial marriage. Women getting the right to vote. Etc. Etc.

that's a very pretentious phrase invented by SJWs

Can I get a source on SJWs inventing the phrase "The losing side of history"

It's a rhetorical trick geared toward the intellectually lazy. It makes people believe that the course of history is predetermined and involves no action or responsibility on their part, but at least they get credit for picking the "right" side. It's as if they believed life were a giant Rocky movie, and they could bet all their money on Rocky winning.

Not at all.

It's about observable social trends.

People who still freak out about women no longer being only home-makers/penis receptacles, for example, are on the losing side of history.

Likewise, I would suggest the same is occuring with TERFs. They have been disavowed by their traditional political faction and hold hands with social conservatives in an effort to fight a losing battle against Transsexual rights.

TL;DR - I could come out and start screaming that Interracial marriage is the devil, and society will go on not giving a shit and continuing to engage in interracial marriage.

Feel free to substitute interracial marriage with any issue which is firmly settled in the social conscious. Women voting, for example.

People like the woman in the link can sit in their little enclaves and play pretend that society is just about to become their dream world. Sadly, that does not make it any less of a delusion.

 

[Linako 2.0]

Can I get a source on SJWs inventing the phrase "The losing side of history"

guess I should have worded it better.
What I mean to say is the people who mostly bring up the "losing side of history" tend to be pretentious hipsters who think that History is some kind of contest or something when History is just the recordings of past events in Human History.

the Confederates, for example, were on the losing side of history.

The Confederates were actually winning since they were smart enough to fight in their own territory and knew their land better than the union but lost because they were eventually low on resources and had to surrender to the Union.

Interracial marriage is still frowned upon in many countries. just because it's been legalized in some countries doesn't mean it's going to be a winning ideology.

 

[Poop Merchant]

Oh I'd disagree. I'd say the Confederates, for example, were on the losing side of history.

As were people who went bananas over interracial marriage. Women getting the right to vote. Etc. Etc.



Can I get a source on SJWs inventing the phrase "The losing side of history"

The problem with the phrase "wrong side of history" is that extremists use being on the "right side of history" to justify unethical, immoral behavior to the opposing side. Who needs to worry about being a decent person when history will surely recognize your righteousness? The ends justify the means, after all.

SJW's didn't invent the phrase, but them being extremists themselves have taken a liking to it.

 

[Daario Naharis]

guess I should have worded it better.
What I mean to say is the people who mostly bring up the "losing side of history" tend to be pretentious hipsters who think that History is some kind of contest or something when History is just the recordings of past events in Human History.

Really? I have yet to encounter this. I mostly encounter it as a way to refer to someone or some faction being on the side of history which... well... lost.

As for using it prior to the total defeat, I would suggest this is based upon social trends. One can say The Turner Diaries are totally going to become real, that does not make it so.

The Confederates were actually winning since they were smart enough to fight in their own territory and knew their land better than the union but lost because they were eventually low on resources and had to surrender to the Union.

The idea of "being on the losing side of history" does not consider could haves.

The Nazis could have one WWII if they had had more competent leadership who didn't open a war on two fronts, but rather took each of their admittedly fractious enemies on one at a time.

The fact that they could have won had things gone differently, doesn't mean that the Nazis were, in fact, on the wining side of history because they actually lost.

Interracial marriage is still frowned upon in many countries. just because it's been legalized in some countries doesn't mean it's going to be a winning ideology.

Apologies. I have made the quintessential mistake of the SJW.

I am speaking in an Anglo-American context.

The problem with the phrase "wrong side of history" is that extremists use being on the "right side of history" to justify unethical, immoral behavior to the opposing side. Who needs to worry about being a decent person when history will surely recognize your righteousness? The ends justify the means, after all.

SJW's didn't invent the phrase, but them being extremists themselves have taken a liking to it.

Losing side of history, not wrong side of history. Those were the words I used, yes?

Its an entirely amoral affair.

Right and wrong does not matter.

Anti-Gay Rights people in Canada were on the losing side of our history.

People against Interracial Marriage in an Anglo-American context were on the losing side of history.

Loyalists in the American Revolution were on the losing side of history.

It has nothing to do with righteousness, it has to do with who wins in an entirely amoral sense.

And I am quite convinced that people like the woman in the link are losing.

 

[Linako 2.0]

If the Happy homes are gender segregated, then those crazy fems have already won their utopia.
let's just hope their families can afford it.

 

[ChurchOfGodBear]

Really? I have yet to encounter this. I mostly encounter it as a way to refer to someone or some faction being on the side of history which... well... lost.

As for using it prior to the total defeat, I would suggest this is based upon social trends.



The idea of "being on the losing side of history" does not consider could haves.

The Nazis could have one WWII if they had had more competent leadership who didn't open a war on two fronts, but rather took each of their admittedly fractious enemies on one at a time.

The fact that they could have won had things gone differently, doesn't mean that the Nazis were, in fact, on the wining side of history because they actually lost.



Apologies. I have made the quintessential mistake of the SJW.

I am speaking in an Anglo-American context.

This addresses a lot of the points I would have said in reply to your earlier post, but I'll try to clarify. History goes way back. Way, way back, and it encompasses thousands of peoples and cultures, some of which would be more alien to us than... well, actual aliens. If you're going to use a phrase like "The wrong side of history" then you're putting yourself in the position of making a judgement based on all of history, not just whatever facts you find most convenient.

We could talk about the confederacy, for example. Slavery is a ridiculously common practice that has been practiced by every race at some point. In the last 500 years, it has been less common, particulalry in the "developed world", but the overwhealming majority of humans ever born knew of the practice and lived with it in some capacity. To say that the Confederacy was on the "losing side of history" requires us to only look at the last ~300 years, and if you're going to do that, you need a very compelling argument as to why the most recent slice of time is so significant.