unironically, he ought to be next, and he better know it, and he better go quietly

learn to write.

But fair enough, I can see how that might have been misinterpreted.

Yeah speak more carefully.

idk man you said we didn’t know if Trump was going to be like Sulla and give up his power and that’s a stupid fucking thing to say.

You’re an idiot because you think that Trump would ever resign like Sulla did.

These are not problems I have. I do have the problem of pseudofascist apologia being literally everywhere. You emitted trash nonsense. We already know what Trump is. Shut the fuck up.

If Trump is elected to a second term it will be a disaster and there is no ambiguity as to the nature of Trump for he has already declared civil war against the will of the American people. You are an idiot.

It is idiocy and I am not obliged to respect it as anything but idiocy.

I guess what I’m saying overall is Trump might, even if elected to a second term, still turn out to be the American Sulla instead of the American Caesar if you catch my drift.

This is stupid. You are an idiot. Shut the fuck up.

son

there is a fascist movement

this is an emergency

I will hurt who I will hurt.

you should shut the fuck up with your ‘well actually’ de facto dictator apologia

Rome didn’t have that many ‘dictators’ give up power

the vast majority of societies with authoritarian dictators are dysfunctional

again: shut the fuck up.

this means that if Unity sends you a bill, you don’t have to pay it, and if they take you to court, you prove that you’re acting within the terms of the license you agreed to, which keeps your lawyer fees to a manageable level because you already have all the documents you need: the contract and your source code.

I mean right? IANAL.

is very fascist in of itself.

No. It’s not fascist to have a firm and authoritative opinion. It is, perhaps, violent and authoritarian in outlook, but conservatives have just tolerated if not endorsed an insurrection under false pretenses and those conservatives have yet to kill the traitor responsible for it, so contemplation of violence is justified because this ‘cold civil war’ as Vivek called it is not going to end with that boomer criminal in power ever again.

you tell yourself a pretty story to make you feel better

I don’t think I shall commit to the insane proposition that humans use logic, rationality, and data to make decisions and inform their behaviors when climate change is currently killing the planet’s ecosystems off. To some extent I think you’ve got a high bar to clear for that proposition to be accepted!

Jokes or half-jokes aside, it’s not a new observation that people rationalize their politics after having decided what it is they feel. I’ve seen too much consensus reality with completely reasonable paragraph after paragraph to take reason all that seriously.

But I do believe that people are ‘reasonable’ in the way that you say: we don’t go around doing things just because (and to the extent that we do, it’s a good thing!). It’s when a group of people gather around a list of reasons that become an ideology that I start to get twitchy.

Feminism is a great movement but men who apply it as an ideology have missed something fundamental about the basis for reason in the expression of emotion.

I have explicitly told you I don’t care if I come off as unreasonable, so what’s your problem?

And what I do is speak with anti-women men online without trying to convert them to an ideology which is based around helping women.

Don’t gatekeep assistance by setting an arbitrary bar. It’s unhelpful.

fuck off? like do you understand how incoherent you are here? no, how could you, your entire ideology is based on the incoherent contradiction of feminism-for-women and feminism-for-everyone.

This is weak.

Then read it again. And don’t police tone.

We’re men helping men over here.

No, you’re posting online.

Do you personally volunteer at a battered women’s shelter? Then you’re a male ally.

Do you personally volunteer at a suicide hotline? Then you’re a man helping other men (when those men call in).

Otherwise I suspect, admitting that I don’t know you, that you think that you’re on a team that’s the good guys, and that you’re the only game in town, and you’re threatened that I don’t expect feminism to be something that it can’t and shouldn’t be, no matter how much ideological gymnastics are performed to try and convince men that feminism is on their side.

If you (or your ideology) profess a belief that you’re capable of being on everyone’s side you are grandiose and delusional. Help the people you can help, especially offline, but don’t be an ideological evangelist online because that isn’t meaningful participation in our society.

Yes we should try and make a society by everyone, for everyone. Intersectional feminism teaches us that the way to do this is to listen to the people with the experience, not the ideology which you, @surewhynotlem, are centering.

I am taking some rhetorical leeway towards a more radical presentation of the perspective, for clarity.

Solidarity can only be achieved once people can recognize one another as equals, and “women tell men how men should advocate for themselves” is not equal recognition. Of course women don’t think they’re womansplaining the oppression men experience.

I don’t believe in reason-based argumentation. Reason is how consent is manufactured. I trust reason only within the confines of the emotional message a so-called rational actor is emitting within the performance of the ritual of discourse. Too many women have been told to shut up for being ‘unreasonable’ for me to take reasonability all that seriously.

Certainly mothers should perform their motherhood within this lens. Their motherhood is centered, not the primacy of their opinion. The mistake the essentialization&monopolization type feminists make is centering feminism, when an ideology is not a cure for anything except the nagging sensation that if we come up with and communicate the right ideas the problems will go away.