When did you become a Nazi...?

[T00ts]

Its entirely a mans choice whether he wears a dress or not. Its you claiming that someone or something is stopping them. Its those who got upset at the observation that its not "normal" for men to wear dresses that is the issue, when it clearly isn't normal.

If men are browbeaten into feeling that wearing a dress to free themselves from feminist notion of "toxicity", then that could be construed as an attempt to alter their behaviour, or indeed feminise them

If it was normal for men to wear dresses, then you'd see it in the streets every day, among many or even most men. You don't see it for the simple reason that men wearing dresses is not "normal".

According to who? Who gets to say what is "toxic" and what isn't? Some theory that feminism has taught you? No thank you.

She didn't tell anyone what they should wear. She said society cannot survive without strong men. That's a fairly self evident statement.

Give me strong men every time. 

[DeppityDawg]

You strongly object to the feminization of men.
Do you consider a man wearing a dress to be feminization?
If so how do you not strongly object to men wearing dresses, and if not then what's the issue?

Its entirely a mans choice whether he wears a dress or not. Its you claiming that someone or something is stopping them. Its those who got upset at the observation that its not "normal" for men to wear dresses that is the issue, when it clearly isn't normal.

If men are browbeaten into feeling that wearing a dress to free themselves from feminist notion of "toxicity", then that could be construed as an attempt to alter their behaviour, or indeed feminise them

If it was normal for men to wear dresses, then you'd see it in the streets every day, among many or even most men. You don't see it for the simple reason that men wearing dresses is not "normal".

I am not promoting the concept that masculinity is toxic, I am promoting the concept that we inject toxicity into masculinity via social pressure etc, getting rid of this toxicity is a positive for men.

According to who? Who gets to say what is "toxic" and what isn't? Some theory that feminism has taught you? No thank you.

I assume you see the irony here that it is Owens who is the one telling men what is acceptable for them to wear, at least if they want 'society to survive'.

She didn't tell anyone what they should wear. She said society cannot survive without strong men. That's a fairly self evident statement.

[Nalaar]

I strongly object to the feminization of men and the absurd politics of feminism

You strongly object to the feminization of men.
Do you consider a man wearing a dress to be feminization?
If so how do you not strongly object to men wearing dresses, and if not then what's the issue?

It does not make men "toxic"

Agreed.

Some men do not repress their feelings, and some women do.

Agreed.

But in general, most males are not as in touch emotionally as females

Agreed.

That doesn't make either gender better or worse, and it certainly doesn't make anyone "toxic"

Agreed.

Because the concept that masculinity is toxic implies that ALL men are or are capable of being toxic.

I am not promoting the concept that masculinity is toxic, I am promoting the concept that we inject toxicity into masculinity via social pressure etc, getting rid of this toxicity is a positive for men.

Yet here we are with women telling men which aspects of their masculinity are acceptable and how they should behave.

I assume you see the irony here that it is Owens who is the one telling men what is acceptable for them to wear, at least if they want 'society to survive'.

[DeppityDawg]

You can't have it both ways and claim that men wearing dresses will result in the downfall of society, and not imply that men should not wear dresses, unless you are indifferent to (or in favour of) the downfall of society, which i don't think Owens is.

I never claimed men wearing dresses "will result in the downfall of society". Candace Owens said that no society can survive without strong men and that the "steady feminization of men in the west" is an "outright attack". I agree with the premise that it is doing society no good whatsoever and I strongly object to the feminization of men and the absurd politics of feminism

This could certainly be it'its own thread, but if we run with one example - Repression of 'feminine' emotions, as the adage goes 'boys don't cry' from a young age the expectation is that men are to repress feelings of vulnerability etc. This has a predictably disastrous impact on mens mental health, suicide rates, etc.

According to "gender studies" practitioners perhaps. Men behave (in general) differently to women. That is a result of hormones and biology. It does not make men "toxic", whatever tin foil hat theory feminism tells you. Some men do not repress their feelings, and some women do. But in general, most males are not as in touch emotionally as females. That doesn't make either gender better or worse, and it certainly doesn't make anyone "toxic"

But we both agree that Muslim Terrorists are a problem, yes?
Why do we not agree that the toxic aspects are a problem, with the same discrimination?

Because the concept that masculinity is toxic implies that ALL men are or are capable of being toxic. "Masculinity" is the product of of being male, not some political football that feminists can kick around

The masculinity we are talking about is a social construct. You are not born with social constructs, you learn them

Don't talk gender studies bullshit to me as if it is a fact. It isn't a fact, its a feminist theory. Masculinity is masculinity. Bad behaviour is bad behaviour. Neither you nor they get to decide what aspects of masculinity are or are not desire-able and then tell us how we should behave. Isn't that what Feminism has spent the last 100 years telling us? That men shouldn't tell women how to behave, or what aspects of their "femininity" are acceptable and which aren't? Yet here we are with women telling men which aspects of their masculinity are acceptable and how they should behave.
Mod edit

[johnofgwent]

I'm not clear. Which parts of masculinity is subject to learned behaviour?

An excellent point. Back in 1975 MBV Roberts wrote in "Biology, A Functional Approach" (one of the WJEC textbooks for A Leven biology) that many lower animals (the example cited was the mallard) have behaviours imprinted by the group around them; the example given being the male mallard, which from time to time gets its signals all twisted and proceeds to try to copulate with other drakes, instead of ducks. Just one such ...

[Nalaar]

I'm not clear. Which parts of masculinity is subject to learned behaviour?

The example at hand through the thread is a man wearing a dress is not masculine.

[T00ts]

The masculinity we are talking about is a social construct. You are not born with social constructs, you learn them.

I'm not clear. Which parts of masculinity is subject to learned behaviour?

[Nalaar]

And? She has a perfectly valid view, and its already happening. You can agree or disagree with her view.

So where did she explicitly say a man cannot wear a dress?

You can't have it both ways and claim that men wearing dresses will result in the downfall of society, and not imply that men should not wear dresses, unless you are indifferent to (or in favour of) the downfall of society, which i don't think Owens is.

What "toxic" traits? Lets start with Masculinity. Name them?

This could certainly be it'its own thread, but if we run with one example - Repression of 'feminine' emotions, as the adage goes 'boys don't cry' from a young age the expectation is that men are to repress feelings of vulnerability etc. This has a predictably disastrous impact on mens mental health, suicide rates, etc.

Exactly. Because not all Muslims are terrorists
Any more than Masculinity is "toxic"

But we both agree that Muslim Terrorists are a problem, yes?
Why do we not agree that the toxic aspects are a problem, with the same discrimination?

Feminism, 3rd wave or otherwise, is a political ideology. Not something you were born with, like being masculine. Or is that wrong now too?

The masculinity we are talking about is a social construct. You are not born with social constructs, you learn them.

[DeppityDawg]

Didn't expect it would. %uD83D%uDE0B But I thought it was worth pointing out.

Well, that's settled then. You've warned me Candace is a fraud, but Dawg's inherent sexism means if she turned up in a bikini and a smile, I'd forgive whatever she'd done. Toxic masculinity and toxic femininity in a single sentence! God, this forum would miss me if I dropped dead this afternoon

Seriously though, my sentiment stands. The choice the US had was between an idiot and a senile auld t**t. I don't think the winner is going to solve any of the country's problems

Bear in mind, these newfangled neocon conservatives are not conservative in the slightest, they are neoliberal. Peter Hitchens regularly saus this - I like Hitchens btw. He is an example of a very principled conservative, I've had so much crap off liberals for extolling his virtues bit he is generally right about pretty much everything.

He calls Boris a Blair clone - and he's right.

These so called anti woke 'cons' are not conservative in the slightest, and revel in identity politics just as much as the other liberals

You may be correct. But I don't experience these "neocons" attacking my identity, even if they are attacking my pockets. If the below is an example of one of these "neocons", then I'm with them

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/nov/22/new-equalities-commissioner-attacked-modern-feminism-and-metoo

I agree about Hitchens. I like him too. His has principles and he defends them. I don't see any shame in that

Oh right, no I didn't get it but I do now.

Like I said, don't vote Lab, I'm not gonna. The only way forward is with new parties IMHO. That's all I can say...

I think we've done this to death, but its been an interesting exchange, and without any bitterness. Thank you, and I hope I've returned the respect. In the end, if all we do on here is get our point across, then its worth it.

[Borg Refinery]

None of that is exactly the "untold truth about Candace Owens" because its on Wikipedia [a dubious source at best]

A bit worse than wiki, it's from some newsy gossipy sites, but it has relevance. The AOC thing from what I gleaned appeared to be true, and seemed rather hypocritical to me.

Btw the NAACP and lawzuit thing is definitely true, as is the stuff bout her billionaire hubby. To my mind this makes her hypocritical.

I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who don't like her, and this tends to be true for most people who nail their colours to a particular flag. Some will dislike her because of her politics and what she says - some will dislike her because she is black or because she is a woman, and that's a sad truth, isn't it. And tbh, anything that attempts to smear Owens using Ocasio-Cortez in the example has surely got to be a piss take? 

Not really, she's guilty of what she accuses AOC of, that's the point being made there. I'm not AOC's biggest fan for a number of reasons, but it seems fair to me.

In the end, its not that hard to do a hatchet job on any public figure. And where the words "allegedly" and "reportedly" appear a lot, I tend not to treat it as gospel. None of that makes me change my mind on her.

Didn't expect it would. 😋 But I thought it was worth pointing out.

Honestly? Who knows what is "left" and "far left" now, its difficult to tell. They all merge into one bleating bunch of ****s. As for conservatives, I see them lining the pockets of their own. I don't really see them pulling down statues, inventing "toxic" memes and dividing us all into "good people" and "bad people". To the Tories, we are all equally good to shaft 

I see them playing divide and rule worse than anyone else.

Bear in mind, these newfangled neocon conservatives are not conservative in the slightest, they are neoliberal. Peter Hitchens regularly saus this - I like Hitchens btw. He is an example of a very principled conservative, I've had so much crap off liberals for extolling his virtues bit he is generally right about pretty much everything.

He calls Boris a Blair clone - and he's right.

These so called anti woke 'cons' are not conservative in the slightest, and revel in identity politics just as much as the other liberals..

Of course you have. That was my point. The media showed us plenty of it too. It was the lack of the "other side" committing equally destructive and hate filled actions that was my point

I saw lots of the other side doing bad stuff too, but ok I follow their affairs more.

Its not a question of "support" for the Tories. The Tories are the lesser evil. Its about preventing these people from getting into government. You don't get it, do you? I don't trust them, and I don't want them in government. I'd vote for the devil if it would keep them out - why would I want people in power who demonstrate every day that they despise people like me? You may be voting for "a kind of Labour party" today, but sooner or later, you are going to get Seattle. That is the way they are headed.

Oh right, no I didn't get it but I do now.

Like I said, don't vote Lab, I'm not gonna. The only way forward is with new parties IMHO. That's all I can say...

[DeppityDawg]

Then the hysterical confederate dude who loves Candy Owens and thinks Lincoln's a commie jumped to her defence. Those are the kinds of mad yanks (well..confeds) who support her. 

None of that is exactly the "untold truth about Candace Owens" because its on Wikipedia [a dubious source at best]

I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who don't like her, and this tends to be true for most people who nail their colours to a particular flag. Some will dislike her because of her politics and what she says - some will dislike her because she is black or because she is a woman, and that's a sad truth, isn't it. And tbh, anything that attempts to smear Owens using Ocasio-Cortez in the example has surely got to be a piss take? 

In the end, its not that hard to do a hatchet job on any public figure. And where the words "allegedly" and "reportedly" appear a lot, I tend not to treat it as gospel. None of that makes me change my mind on her.

Well what do you mean by far left? You acknowledge the eight wing Dems like Kamala don't wanna defund the police etc..... Also no one ever heard of a seof loathing conservative...

Honestly? Who knows what is "left" and "far left" now, its difficult to tell. They all merge into one bleating bunch of ****s. As for conservatives, I see them lining the pockets of their own. I don't really see them pulling down statues, inventing "toxic" memes and dividing us all into "good people" and "bad people". To the Tories, we are all equally good to shaft 

Well, it seems true to me. I've seen countless vids incl proud bhoyz supporters punching reporters and the story of a Trumpo beating an elderly couple with a golf club. Go back and you'll see it is on either side. Look at the McCloskeys..

Of course you have. That was my point. The media showed us plenty of it too. It was the lack of the "other side" committing equally destructive and hate filled actions that was my point

No one suggested you should vote for them, that doesn't mean you should just lend your support to the Tories or whatever BXP comeback pops back up either.

I don't see why it has to be a binary choice, why not support neither.

Its not a question of "support" for the Tories. The Tories are the lesser evil. Its about preventing these people from getting into government. You don't get it, do you? I don't trust them, and I don't want them in government. I'd vote for the devil if it would keep them out - why would I want people in power who demonstrate every day that they despise people like me? You may be voting for "a kind of Labour party" today, but sooner or later, you are going to get Seattle. That is the way they are headed.

[Borg Refinery]

Not necessarily. It means you become more reflective as you get older. You look at yourself more critically. Perhaps its because you have experienced a more complete life, and when you find yourself with more time on your hands, decisions you made when you were younger you tend to see in perhaps a different light - "what if I'd have done this?". We all reach that point. It doesn't necessarily mean you were wrong. It just means you perhaps understand more completely. There are lots of things I've done that I wish I hadn't. Or more accurately, I wish circumstance had been different. I can't change that, but I can reflect on it

Good points I guess.

It would be unrealistic to think Thatcher, and all she'd had a hand in, had not at some point reflected on those things and wondered if she could have done things differently. In the end, its perhaps more about motives than actions. We can't change the action, but we can examine the motive.

Sure. And I feel her motives were fairly impurely pure ("greed is good and helps people" etc). But I think she realized that was balls.

Well, that.s not exactly what I said. I said I'd continue to think positively of her until such times as I have a solid reason not to, in effect. I'm undecided about Keir Starmer, and whilst I'm not "positive" about him, I'm not going to dismiss him. Corbyn was different. I had a hundred reasons to despise that ****

I'm going to dismiss Starmer because, as with Owens, in my opinion he's shown great duplicity.

Oh I posted this in june on the yank forum that I haunt/spam the life out of. It's a long copypasta I'm afraid.

https://www.nickiswift.com/150775/the-untold-truth-of-candace-owens/

Months after graduating Stamford High in Connecticut, Candace Owens' family settled with the state's Board of Education for $37,500 after Owens received racist threats. According to The News-Times, "at least one of five teenagers sitting in a car left messages threatening to kill Owens, who is black, and repeatedly used a racial epithet. In one of three messages, one of them referred to her as "dirty" and threatened to burn her house down and tar and feather her." One of the students was the 14-year-old son of then-Mayor of Stamford, Dannel Malloy.


The supposed ringleader was fellow student Evan Kopek, who "had a shouting match" with Owens two days before the incident in February 2017. Kopek was suspended, but the school refused to "discipline him and the other boys for an incident committed off school grounds unless the police made an arrest." This decision caused Owens to miss school for six weeks because "it was traumatic to attend with the alleged callers." The NAACP even offered its support. A little over a year later, the Board of Education settled with the Owens family.

Years later, during a 2019 appearance at CPAC, the annual conservative conference, Owens had this to say about racism in America (via Daily Beast). "Stop selling us our own oppression," she said. "Stop taking away our self-confidence by telling us that we can't because of racism, because of slavery. I've never been a slave in this country."

Then there's this...

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/list/?speaker=candace-owens

Lawsuit With the NAACP

Owens now calls the NAACP "one of the worst groups for Black people," even though the organization helped her win a racial discrimination lawsuit. In 2007, she accused some white boys of racially harassing and threatening to kill her. Owens claimed the boys were the son of then-Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy, Connecticut's former governor. Because of the NAACP, Owens' family received a settlement of $37,500 from Stamford Public Schools.


Scot X. Esdaile, the Connecticut NAACP president who helped Owens with her lawsuit, was shocked to hear she had become a conservative. Esdaile told Mic, "We're very saddened and disappointed in her. It seems to me that she's now trying to play to a different type of demographic."

He also said, "It's the same type of thing Clarence Thomas did. [Thomas] reaped all the benefits of affirmative action and then tried to roll over on it. It's that kind of mentality and disrespect."

Anti-Trump Website

In May of 2018, BuzzFeed reported that Candace Owens was the CEO of an anti-Trump, liberal-leaning website called Degree180. Owens wrote in 2015 that it was "good news" that the "Republican Tea Party ... will eventually die off (peacefully in their sleep, we hope)."


Degree180 also talked about Trump's penis size and him being racist with an immigrant wife.

The site reportedly shut down by the end of 2016 and Owens magically "came out" as a conservative on YouTube a few months later.

Fox News

By March of 2018, Owens was slithering onto TV stations and finally made it to Fox News. She spit out a line that went viral and made her a darling of pseudo-conservatives. Owens said the National Rifle Association was founded as a civil rights organization that protected Black people from the KKK. Even the Fox News host said, "I've never heard that before! That's so interesting!" She never heard it before, either, because it was a lie.


Watch the insanity below:



PolitiFact confirmed she lied or is just willfully ignorant. According to the NRA's own web site, "Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to 'promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis,' according to a magazine editorial written by Church."

However, her fraudulent comment made her a media darling.

Another Lawsuit

Back in January of this year, Owens attacked New York Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez for being "fiscally irresponsible" because the newly elected congresswoman couldn't afford an apartment in Washington, D.C. However, reporter Nathan Bernard exposed Owens by posting a lawsuit that showed "she rented a $3,500 apartment, lived there for six months rent-free, then claimed she had gotten 'toxic mold sickness' and threatened to sue her landlord to avoid paying rent."



She allegedly stopped paying rent in September of 2016 and was evicted in January of 2017, which coincides with her "coming out" as a conservative only months later.

As for the mold claims, a legal analyst told Bernard Media, "The obvious question is if the place was so unlivable why stay there 6 months, even rent free? Why not get out of there especially if you can afford an apartment for $3,500? It's not difficult to identify a toxic mold infestation either. If you started to exhibit symptoms that seemed related to the infestation, why not notify a doctor immediately? Also, why sue a year later after moving out? There are a lot of questions that arise on first glance at this case. She's going to have a huge burden of proof at trial."

Social Autopsy

In the spring of 2016, Owens launched an anti-cyberbullying website called Social Autopsy. She reportedly started a Kickstarter campaign to raise $75,000 (she sure likes money she doesn't have to work for). CTPost.com described the site as a "searchable database of offensive speech found on social media." Owens wanted to expose people who anonymously harassed others online, which is known as doxing and is a huge no-no among conservatives. She claimed she got pushback from the left, which was allegedly one of the sparks that lit her conservative fire.

However, Quillette.com reported, it was the right who attacked her.

"While Owens portrays herself as a victim of leftist persecution, the fact is that the initial backlash against Social Autopsy came mostly from the 'cultural libertarian' opposition to the authoritarian left. YouTube video bloggers Matt Jarbo ("Mundane Matt") and Chris Maldonado ("Chris Ray Gun"), both strong critics of 'social justice warriors,' were among the first to blast the project as a terrible idea. Another early negative report came from none other than Breitbart; it was written by Allum Bokhari, a frequent co-author of the not-yet-disgraced Milo Yiannopoulos and a leading foe of the 'SJW' left in digital and tech culture," the site wrote.

This would make sense because it is clearly people on the right or MAGA crazies who don't want to be exposed for their hatred. You can hear Owens doing the voiceover for the Social Autopsy video below:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/newsone.com/3848636/candace-owens-receipts-con-artist/amp/

Then the hysterical confederate dude who loves Candy Owens and thinks Lincoln's a commie jumped to her defence. Those are the kinds of mad yanks (well..confeds) who support her.   

Maybe. On the whole though, Democrats/Labour/Left is where the general malaise of self loathing finds its home

Yes. And if you look at Seattle, you get a reasonable picture of what life under the permissive far left would look like.

Well what do you mean by far left? You acknowledge the eight wing Dems like Kamala don't wanna defund the police etc..... Also no one ever heard of a seof loathing conservative...

I don't think thats strictly true. Sure, the usual nutters on the right were out and there was violence from them, and don't we know it because the media made sure we did.

Well, it seems true to me. I've seen countless vids incl proud bhoyz supporters punching reporters and the story of a Trumpo beating an elderly couple with a golf club. Go back and you'll see it is on either side. Look at the McCloskeys..


No. The Republicans are not trustworthy. Neither are the Tories. But if I was a Spam and voted for the Dems, or a Brit and I voted Labour, what I'd get is the above - more wokeness - more divisive identify politics and victim agendas - more attacks on my countries past and on my very identity. The people pushing these agendas largely reside under the cover of "left/progressive" politics. I've said countless times that the Labour Party was hijacked by these people. Cromwell said it too. "I didn't leave Labour - Labour left me"

No one suggested you should vote for them, that doesn't mean you should just lend your support to the Tories or whatever BXP comeback pops back up either.

I'm sorry, but if its a choice between a party that will attack my financial well being, and a party that permits and encourages attacks on my very identity, then I'm going to vote for the former EVERY time.

I don't see why it has to be a binary choice, why not support neither..

That's what this thread is about. I'd rather die poor, but with my pride and my identity intact, than ever bow down to the kind of c**ts who hijacked the Labour party

Understandable.

That maybe your truth, and I respect it. Mine is a little different. We all have to accept our responsibilities when we demand our "rights". Otherwise what we engender is entitlement. In my book, there is no gain in swapping one set of entitled tossers for another.

Yeah that's a good point, we could ekd up with even worse..

[DeppityDawg]

Doesn't that imply that you did something wrong? And I don't mean you I mean her.

Not necessarily. It means you become more reflective as you get older. You look at yourself more critically. Perhaps its because you have experienced a more complete life, and when you find yourself with more time on your hands, decisions you made when you were younger you tend to see in perhaps a different light - "what if I'd have done this?". We all reach that point. It doesn't necessarily mean you were wrong. It just means you perhaps understand more completely. There are lots of things I've done that I wish I hadn't. Or more accurately, I wish circumstance had been different. I can't change that, but I can reflect on it

It would be unrealistic to think Thatcher, and all she'd had a hand in, had not at some point reflected on those things and wondered if she could have done things differently. In the end, its perhaps more about motives than actions. We can't change the action, but we can examine the motive.

😆 Well at least you're refreshingly honest that nothing she could do would make you think bad of her.

It's an attractive way of thinking sometimes, but it's not a good idea really.

Well, that.s not exactly what I said. I said I'd continue to think positively of her until such times as I have a solid reason not to, in effect. I'm undecided about Keir Starmer, and whilst I'm not "positive" about him, I'm not going to dismiss him. Corbyn was different. I had a hundred reasons to despise that ****

Most of the 'liberals' are very pro police. Even Kamala is.

Maybe. On the whole though, Democrats/Labour/Left is where the general malaise of self loathing finds its home

Seattle is loonyville if you heaed about the CHAZ etc. Mineappolis was hurting after the tragic events I think.

Yes. And if you look at Seattle, you get a reasonable picture of what life under the permissive far left would look like.

Actually Trumpo's are attacking cops too, as well as shooting innocents and occupying govt buildings.

I don't think thats strictly true. Sure, the usual nutters on the right were out and there was violence from them, and don't we know it because the media made sure we did.

What we didn't see much of was the videos of ordinary people (many of them black btw) breaking up roadblocks and reacting angrily to "protestors" who'd invaded their towns. These were mostly pro-protesters, the usual crowds of antifa/climate/vegan/students rent a mobs

Whereas the Republicans are trustworthy? They have just picked a supreme court judge was part of a bizarre little cult because they hope she overtturns Roe v Wade.

No. The Republicans are not trustworthy. Neither are the Tories. But if I was a Spam and voted for the Dems, or a Brit and I voted Labour, what I'd get is the above - more wokeness - more divisive identify politics and victim agendas - more attacks on my countries past and on my very identity. The people pushing these agendas largely reside under the cover of "left/progressive" politics. I've said countless times that the Labour Party was hijacked by these people. Cromwell said it too. "I didn't leave Labour - Labour left me"

I'm sorry, but if its a choice between a party that will attack my financial well being, and a party that permits and encourages attacks on my very identity, then I'm going to vote for the former EVERY time.

That's what this thread is about. I'd rather die poor, but with my pride and my identity intact, than ever bow down to the kind of c**ts who hijacked the Labour party

The truth is the yanks deserve better parties like we do, but their system is even harder to reform than ours, this leads to protests and stuff rightly or wrongly.

That maybe your truth, and I respect it. Mine is a little different. We all have to accept our responsibilities when we demand our "rights". Otherwise what we engender is entitlement. In my book, there is no gain in swapping one set of entitled tossers for another.

[Borg Refinery]

S'ok, I believe you. I don't think anyone could have presided over what she did and not have some regrets. Regret is something that tends to haunt you more as you get older

Doesn't that imply that you did something wrong? And I don't mean you I mean her.

"But could you not say that about any personality or politician? I think she's still young, and the necessary gravitas (if that the right word) to be a serious politician generally only comes with age. Until someone comes up with a video of her boiling kittens alive, I'm going to think positively of her"

😆 Well at least you're refreshingly honest that nothing she could do would make you think bad of her.

You could say in fact, the more Liberals dislike her, the more I'm going to be a fan 

It's an attractive way of thinking sometimes, but it's not a good idea really.

"This is true. And BLM, Antifa and the rest of the Liberal "protest" circus's solution of defunding Police departments is going to help how exactly? Minneapolis defunded their PD to the tune of $1million. Unsurprisingly, crime went up. "

Most of the 'liberals' are very pro police. Even Kamala is.

"No, this is true. But that's not exactly what I said. I said "if you were opposed...", meaning that if your perception [ie Republicans] of Democrat city governance was negative, why would you elect to approve their budgets?

As for what they do spend it on, I'd be willing to bet Democrat run cities have a far higher percentage of their budget allocated to "soft" spending (ie not Police or enforcement) than Republican run ones. In the example above, Minneapolis is introducing "Violence Interupters"

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/10/14/meet-the-minneapolis-violence-interrupters

I'm not going to react. Hey, lets give it a fair chance. But I know how it will end."

And then of course, there Seattle...

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/washington/articles/2020-10-24/seattle-lgbtq-commission-calls-on-mayor-to-resign

...where the "LGBTQ Commission" ( ) is calling on the Lesbian Mayor to resign "for failing to protect the human rights of the people of the city" Apparently, shes "failed" to protect community members "from very real harm and violence that has been leveraged against Black and brown LGBTQ+ people". Leveraged? Interesting use of language when you're looking for ways to explain your way of your own feck ups."

Seattle is loonyville if you heaed about the CHAZ etc. Mineappolis was hurting after the tragic events I think.

"So anyway....run this by me again...who exactly was attacking the Police, burning down property, looting businesses and occupying government buildings?"

Actually Trumpo's are attacking cops too, as well as shooting innocents and occupying govt buildings.

"But no, no, of course you are right, Dynamics...I don't "know" what these cities spend their budgets on...but these people are so fecked up they defy any logical analysis, and I know I wouldn't trust a single one of them. I'd sooner live in a tent in barren field than be governed by these ****s"

Whereas the Republicans are trustworthy? They have just picked a supreme court judge was part of a bizarre little cult because they hope she overtturns Roe v Wade.

The truth is the yanks deserve better parties like we do, but their system is even harder to reform than ours, this leads to protests and stuff rightly or wrongly.

[DeppityDawg]

You don't have to read the entire exchage. Owens opening comment is "There is no society that can survive without strong men. The East knows this. In the west, the steady feminization of our men at the same time that Marxism is being taught to our children is not a coincidence. It is an outright attack. Bring back manly men."

And? She has a perfectly valid view, and its already happening. You can agree or disagree with her view.

So where did she explicitly say a man cannot wear a dress?

Both have toxic traits within our society, and those traits are best confronted and removed.

What "toxic" traits? Lets start with Masculinity. Name them?

Correct, but we should be acting in a way to suppress and eradicate Muslim terrorists, etc.

Exactly. Because not all Muslims are terrorists

Any more than Masculinity is "toxic"

It's a term i've heard allot, and it holds. Indeed Candace Ownes has been describing 3rd Wave Feminism as toxic for years.

You have? I haven't.

Feminism, 3rd wave or otherwise, is a political ideology. Not something you were born with, like being masculine. Or is that wrong now too?

Agreed, but a man wearing a dress or painting their nails is not a step backwards either.

That's a matter of opinion. Its whether a man can wear a dress if he wants to, and he can. No one suggested it be "illegal" or that a man can't wear a fecking dress.

The point was that its not "normal" for men to wear dresses