Trannies are a symptom, not the cause. - I don't think AGP and the troon menace just emerged in a vacuum, it is a secondary condition that grew from an older underlying problem passing an extreme threshold.

[Sumptinsfuckey]

Great retort, you dumb as shit midwit.


I asked you to get into specifics, you have not. May as well conede you don't know what you're talking about then.

Will Dunning-Krueger please use the pink courtesy phone, Dunning-Krueger to the pink courtesy phone please.

 

[Mothra1988]

How do you define liberalism?

Imagine having to have to ask this question. lol

Will Dunning-Krueger please use the pink courtesy phone, Dunning-Krueger to the pink courtesy phone please.

>mad sped says the idea women are equal to men is a myth
>I ask for a specifics on that statement
>instead of elaborating (like does he mean physically, mentally, morally, legally, whatever other capability, etc.) repeatedly chimps out like a retarded monkey and throws tantrum

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're perfect evidence why men are sometimes inferior to women. Go back to your hubox on /pol/.

 

[Maurice Maine]

Imagine having to have to ask this question. lol



>mad sped says the idea women are equal to men is a myth
>I ask for a specifics on that statement
>instead of elaborating (like does he mean physically, mentally, morally, legally, whatever other capability, etc.) repeatedly chimps out like a retarded monkey and throws tantrum

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're perfect evidence why men are sometimes inferior to women. Go back to your hubox on /pol/.

Women are cringe, you'll never be like Evel Knievel

 

[Sumptinsfuckey]

Imagine having to have to ask this question. lol

Imagine being dumb enough not to know there are multiple, sometimes exclusionary definitions of liberalism.

>mad sped says the idea women are equal to men is a myth
>I ask for a specifics on that statement
>instead of elaborating (like does he mean physically, mentally, morally, legally, whatever other capability, etc.) repeatedly chimps out like a retarded monkey and throws tantrum

Since I realise that the enormous task of remembering what you yourself wrote, only minutes ago, is beyond your limited intellectual capabillities, I'll simply quote you.

Denial of what reality?

So did you not understand or were you merely pretending to be retarded?

Dunning-Krueger strikes again.

 

[Mothra1988]

Imagine being dumb enough not to know there are multiple, sometimes exclusionary definitions of liberalism.

Imagine being so stupid that you don't instantly understand what the quote referred to via its context.

Imagine being dumb enough not to know there are multiple, sometimes exclusionary definitions of liberalism.


Since I realise that the enormous task of remembering what you yourself wrote, only minutes ago, is beyond your limited intellectual capabillities, I'll simply quote you.


So did you not understand or were you merely pretending to be retarded?

Dunning-Krueger strikes again.

Keep chimping out and avoding answering the question you pussy and intellectual lightweight.

 

[Jotch]

I've just barely gotten into my twenties and already want to curl up into a ball and die in a ditch somewhere after seeing the state of people in universities.
Is there even coming back? It seems too little too late, nothing short of an atrocity would reverse this. Certainly wouldn't want to be 'winning' if that is what it would take.
I hope later in life to move out somewhere more remote where I don't have to deal with it.

 

[Sumptinsfuckey]

Imagine being so stupid that you don't instantly understand what the quote referred to via its context.

Sorry, but I'm not nearly empathetic enough to put myself in your shoes.

Keep chimping out and avoding answering the question you pussy and intellectual lightweight.

Which question? The one you actually asked, which had already been answered or the several that were only asked somewhere in your imagination?


Here's a novel idea, if you want to know something, why not actually ask it, instead of acting like a typical woman and assuming that others would have any interest in reading your mind even if they could.


Or you could just continue to rag out like the emotional incontinent child your posts have proven you to be.

 

[La Salpêtrière]

How do you define liberalism?

Spoiler: Off Topic ramble

The liberalism that i'm refering to was born post civil rights act (and then became globalism after the cold war) and became the religious faction of the american (who then became global) elites. It's main components (even above the classic individual liberty, that became a justification, not an ideological pilar) the conception than the history is always going forward to perfection (the Good Side Of The Story™, the elites side)and a false sense of enlightament (see 1) that can't fall because they're The Good Guys. Everything else is relative, even classical liberalism.
I can see how you can claim the efects of an sliperly slope here, because in essence the base is the same for every byproduct of Liberal Enlightament™that they're the Good Guys doing the good thing. But tranners/queers twisted it in such a particular way that is "Since we're The Good Guys in the Right Side Of The Story™, it doesnt matter what methods we use since after all everything is going to be alright because thats Our Destiny" and that allows them to indulge in the worst human behavior posible. In a way, i agree with @Smug that is a result of post Christianity (both post-Protestant and post-Roman Catholic) with the exception that not even in the most convoluted periods of Christian history the militar class and the clerical class ever mixed, but queers are both soldiers and preachers at the same time. That, again, allows special fuckery that only they could cause.

Tl;dr. My point was that try to pinpoint antecedents for queer ideology it's pointless. It doesnt matter because until queerism (troonism) every ideology worked towards life (even The Libs) and troonism works towards death. It's a diferent can of worms.

 

[Sumptinsfuckey]

Spoiler: Off Topic ramble

The liberalism that i'm refering to was born post civil rights act (and then became globalism after the cold war) and became the religious faction of the american (who then became global) elites. It's main components (even above the classic individual liberty, that became a justification, not an ideological pilar) the conception than the history is always going forward to perfection (the Good Side Of The Story™, the elites side)and a false sense of enlightament (see 1) that can't fall because they're The Good Guys. Everything else is relative, even classical liberalism.
I can see how you can claim the efects of an sliperly slope here, because in essence the base is the same for every byproduct of Liberal Enlightament™that they're the Good Guys doing the good thing. But tranners/queers twisted it in such a particular way that is "Since we're The Good Guys in the Right Side Of The Story™, it doesnt matter what methods we use since after all everything is going to be alright because thats Our Destiny" and that allows them to indulge in the worst human behavior posible. In a way, i agree with @Smug that is a result of post Christianity (both post-Protestant and post-Roman Catholic) with the exception that not even in the most convoluted periods of Christian history the militar class and the clerical class ever mixed, but queers are both soldiers and preachers at the same time. That, again, allows special fuckery that only they could cause.

Tl;dr. My point was that try to pinpoint antecedents for queer ideology it's pointless. It doesnt matter because until queerism (troonism) every ideology worked towards life (even The Libs) and troonism works towards death. It's a diferent can of worms.

Did it though?
Take early feminism, as in pre-civil rights, pre-queerism, sufragette era feminism. Did that "work towards life"?


This is why I asked what your definition of liberalism was, were you referring to classical liberalism, WW2 era liberalism, 1960's liberalism etc. I mean depending on the era and definition, figures as different as Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, Adolph Hitler, Karl Marx, W.E.B Dubois, Alexis De Toqueville, John F Kennedy and Bill Clinton could all be honestly be called Liberal.

 

[La Salpêtrière]

Did it though?
Take early feminism, as in pre-civil rights, pre-queerism, sufragette era feminism. Did that "work towards life"?

Yes. It's objetive was "deepen" society (whatever did it or not, it doesnt matter. It's notions were aimed at survival, Aka life drive. It was creational at least and thats not debatible) not to destroy it's very concept. I lost the queer essay i wanted to quote, but i go i again.
Death dive it's always present in every human production, but queerism it's pure death drive like it was never done.

 

[Sumptinsfuckey]

Yes. It's objetive was deepen society, not to destroy it's very concept. I lost the queer essay i wanted to quote, but i go i again.
Death dive it's always present in every human production, but queerism it's pure death drive like it was never done.

Except that the very concept of the franchise, and thus of how society was ordered, up untill the passage of the 19th; was that women should not be allowed, as a class, to hold political power because they could not be relied upon to wield it for the benefit of the whole society. Which even at the time was hard to refute given that the only thing the suffragettes cared about as much as being given the right to vote was taking away everyones right to be an adult responsible for their own behavior through the temperence movement. In fact, they cared more for taking away rights as evidenced by the fact that the sufragettes put the entirity of their persuasive power towards the passage of prohibition as a priority over suffrage.

How is trying to ensure that those who hold up society lose at least some their natural rights, while also trying to ensure that those who dont bear the burden of maintaining and defending that society get to exercise authority over said society not at attempt to destroy that society?

 

[The Internet Dick]

But I don't agree they are the issue itself. I think they are a symptom...

Transvestites have historically been viewed as a symptom of civilizational decline and dissolution. Openly acknowledged homosexuality and muddling of sexual identities have been noted as harbingers of societal collapse by various historians over thousands of years, with transsexualism showing up in ancient Rome numerous times, culminating with the Emperor Elagabalus, who lived and dressed as a woman, married a man, and supposedly offered enormous sums to any court physicians who could surgically gift him with a vagina. None could, of course, but the Praetorian Guard, fed up with his shit, did some surgery of their own on Elagabalus, starting at the neck.

Point is, this sort of thing has been going on for a long time and follows a pattern almost boring in its repetitive sameness, a cultural phenomenon that usually shows up just prior to the cataclysmic upheaval that marks the end of a given civilization or fall of a great nation-state. We're watching one of these Great Cycles play out right now in real-time.

Western civilization is dead--or very soon will be. Troons are crows plucking at its corpse.

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

It's faggot acceptance brought us to the slippery slope. Pride parades have become the ultimate in degeneracy, with each year trying to outdo the last year, and it's been going on for 50 or so years now so it's no surprise that the bar for being a degenerate is leather pups and gay fuckery on your sidewalk.

They sold us "we just want to be like you" when it was everything but.

They admitted, several times, before the 90s that it was all about tearing down moral boundaries for the sake of tearing down moral boundaries. Gayle Rubin comes to mind. That's queer theory for you.

We should have listened to them the first time.

Being expected to act like a civilized, well adjusted human being and not a subhuman coombrain is oppressive, dontcha know.

 

[La Salpêtrière]

Except that the very concept of the franchise, and thus of how society was ordered, up untill the passage of the 19th; was that women should not be allowed, as a class, to hold political power because they could not be relied upon to wield it for the benefit of the whole society. Which even at the time was hard to refute given that the only thing the suffragettes cared about as much as being given the right to vote was taking away everyones right to be an adult responsible for their own behavior through the temperence movement. In fact, they cared more for taking away rights as evidenced by the fact that the sufragettes put the entirity of their persuasive power towards the passage of prohibition as a priority over suffrage.

How is trying to ensure that those who hold up society lose at least some their natural rights, while also trying to ensure that those who dont bear the burden of maintaining and defending that society get to exercise authority over said society not at attempt to destroy that society?

This is off-topic

Spoiler: ot faggority do not open

2) As soon as the formation of future citizens ceased to depend on the church-state, women always hold political power because they're the ones forming them now. (You retards truly believe that before the suffragetes women were dolls) The suffragetes were the bourgeois women asking to be in the same spaces as the bourgeois men just like prole women and men were always together. So yeah, no, there it was no destruction. Just a formalization of what always happened and it was no longer possible to return to the post-war society.
2) "Wanting addicts to stop breaking the social contract it's authoritarianism!!!" Dear God, i hate libfags.

If i I find the quotes I had by queer theorists explaining it themselves it would be a little easier but

They admitted, several times, before the 90s that it was all about tearing down moral boundaries for the sake of tearing down moral boundaries. Gayle Rubin comes to mind. That's queer theory for you.

It's true. What differences queer therory of any other revolutionary theory (of any other bad revolutionary theory) it's the destruction just because and without alternatives. Here, thats why i said death drive.
Not every change it's a death drive. Death drive it's wating to stop creating and interacting with life, to putting it in a simple way (and no it can't be put in a simple way). It's not even "wanting something to end", it's the return to nothing. You can like or dislike "change," but it used -to try- to go somewhere. The final goal of queerism is nothingness. And stop shitting the thread.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

It's not an unpopular opinion and most people here that looked deeper into modern politics already know that all those mental illnesses are perpetuated in order to sell shit/make the population compliant (the only two important things for the elites). The problem is that fixing the issue isn't possible without massive fedposting and costly social upheaval, while preventing trannies from ruining an entire generation (or just your own fun) is something somewhat manageable.

 

[Felis Meanis]

I believe you're onto something.



I can't recommend this book enough; it highlights in frightening detail just how much the feminist have, seemingly out of spite, taken it upon themselves to tear down and destroy our boys and men in favor of creating their dystopian society of gynocentric worship. Your theory of the ramifications of their insidious motives definitely seem plausible.

Queerism is not a folie à plusieurs or a mass hysteria , it's a cult of death.

Indeed, and I believe, much like Ralphamale-chan, that this is the logical conclusion of the liberal movement that spawned feminism, where women desire to remove themselves from their biological imperatives through policy. They never quite bothered to adequately think their hedonistic desires through, and it is now an established fact that women are more miserable than ever. Much like with your proposed deathcult of queerism, a woman scorned will not deny herself the pleasure of dragging her imagined nemesis down to the abyss with her, and so her desire to destroy boys and men is set into motion when her so-called utopia of female empowerment comes crashing down. The dumb cunt don't even quite realize the fact that she harbors these malicious ambitions. Such is the female ability to shift blame and not take accountability. The war brides never thought it morally objectionable to open their legs for their oppressors; if anything, it's her kinsmen of the male gender — now deceased — who failed her by losing their lives to the enemy in the first place.

oldschool second wave feminists like JK Rowling

Unfortunately, feminist whores like Joanne are very much creatures of third-wave feminism. Long before her bouts with transgender people, she routinely espoused the most politically correct drivel imaginable, and she no doubt still holds the same sentiments. That's why her reluctance to admit transgender people into her ranks stung so much to her equally as deranged followers; she had already made a name for herself by fiercely disavowing all politics that didn't explicitly and particularly cater to the need of nigger cattle and global mass hysteria at the expense of white men.

This is yet another facet of the so-called deathcult: the seeming need for feminists and other disgusting politically correct degenerates to forcefully inject as many useless and dangerous niggers into their own countries as possible, and advocate for alarmingly authoritarian policies. I believe they know at an instinctual level just what this does to the men of their own people, and they relish in the realization. That women themselves are severely affected by this as well isn't all that important. The emotional need to destroy their imagined oppressors takes presedence.

 

[Smug]

It's main components (even above the classic individual liberty, that became a justification, not an ideological pilar) the conception than the history is always going forward to perfection

That (what you're referring to as "liberalism") is what I'd typically refer to as "historicism", in the same way that Leo Strauss coined the term. Your definition of it matches amazingly well.

 

[Flaming Carrot]

While I can agree that males are unfairly demonized at times, that doesn't explain the massive increase in teenage girls trooning out. And a lot of other troons are middle aged men who don't actually seem to be ashamed of being men. Sure, they can recite the spiel about being non-binary, but a lot of them aren't cutting their dicks off.

Despite their supposed desire to be women, they're not generally interested in doing things that we might associate more with women, like laundry, washing dishes, or child care. They're not upset that they can't use a breast pump and they're not volunteering to spend hours in the kitchen cooking Thanksgiving dinner.

They do however seem very interested in being in women's locker rooms and bathrooms and helping girls with tampons or going to sleepovers. They're not doing that because someone on the TV told them to be ashamed to be men. They actually seem pretty pleased with being incredibly perverted men and getting away with it.

There's probably a variety of reasons people troon out. Teenage girls are prone to social contagion. Troons are held up as being special, and teenagers want desperately to be thought of as special. Some of them are just kids who are having a tough time with puberty or are autistic and But the older men seem to be by and large perverts who either like being humiliated or like humiliating women. And of course there's the few unfortunates who are genuinely mentally ill, are aware of this, and are trying to live life as inconspicuously as possible. But those are pretty rare, as I think almost everyone understood until recently.

 

[doodoocaca]

OP, I agree. Having exhausted victimhood they're going after people for the woke original sin of not being victims.

To everyone else, my turn to the right continues so hard I might break the sound barrier. The problem really reduces down to letting whiny assholes spin yarns about how unfair everything is and run with it. From that beginning, we got started in this "all is victimization and oppression" mindset in the first place. Once that was all exhausted, what was left?

Non-victims are clearly oppressors!

Endless demands and whining and hyperbolics started to saturate everything to the point there was no room for anything else but to attack, so attack they did.

 

[Yet Another Wanker]

Even TYT admitted during the Tate arrest saga that feminisms took things too far. Even the super liberal LGBT flag mask wearing education Professor said the same about schools.