you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

A bunch of fools “identifying” as feminists and selling porn didn’t make them feminists.

But that's the point that I was making. Nowadays words speak louder than actions. If TRAs can't respect the meanings of words like 'feminism', why should we respect words like 'transgender'?

We aren’t playing spies here.

Translation: we aren't on the winning team here.

Lobbyists infiltrate both major political parties, that way no matter what the election outcome, the corporate party wins. This strategy has been proven time & time again as a winning strategy. So spare me the weak excuses. What's the real reason you're against GC people infiltrating the trans movement?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

Fuck me you get combative and start assuming some really silly things snow.

I’m not making excuses, this discussion and your idea aren’t important or clever and there’s no excuses required.

I answered you. You not liking the answer given doesn’t mean there’s a grand conspiracy at play, or that you are some tactical genius throwing a perfect solution at these dumb feminists who won’t acknowledge your magic solutions.

It’s not that deep. Nobody is secretly not answering you truthfully because your post is such intimidating brilliance. It’s silly.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Contentless reply. It just boils down to "you think your idea is smart, but it's not". Of course I'm going to dismiss an unsubstantiated claim like that. You're not even trying to defend your position, which you're going to pretend to have pride in.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

I love that you seem to really truly think that any silly thing you say deserves a deeply thought out essay reply from us.

You took yourself way too seriously and are taking responses that are mostly taking the piss out of you and your ideas as seriously as you take yourself.

Step back for a sec and realise that there’s a lot of playful prodding going on here because it’s hard to take you seriously when you try to lecture us and tell us we should go do espionage.

I know you’ll dismiss this the way you dismiss every comment that doesn’t treat you like an authoritative and serious font of ideas but you should know anyway.

You will only ever be pointed at and laughed at when you come in all puffed up like you’re our sergeant and we aren’t saluting quick enough.

Basically bud, you aren’t owed quality content in exchange for anything you shit out and tell us we should do. Every single time you, as a male, waltz in and start saying you have the answer to feminism and we better listen up for our own good, you will be pointed at and laughed at. If you need to ask why that is, we will laugh harder.

If you start demanding we take you seriously and answer you, more pointing and laughing at the little angry man.

If you declare we are all incapable of understanding how brilliant your ideas are some might just piss themselves with laughter.

But nobody is gonna take you more seriously or do as you want it demand them to.

~spreading chaos~ lmao righto Tyler durden

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Yours are the only replies without substance, or are "us" & "we" your new preferred third person pronouns now? If you're not here to debate, then you're probably on the wrong sub. You can't blame someone for expecting a debate on a debate sub.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

If you think nobody else here is laughing at you I’ll leave that illusion alive for ya. I’m here to debate, just not silly ideas suggested by men who give marching orders to women then say the women are dishonest and unintelligent for not marching.

Go on, now you demand I treat your post with respect and answer you properly or go away again. Make sure to keep Ignoring everything that sums up why I’m not gonna invest time or effort into giving quality answers to foolish ideas, naturally.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I posted a debate question. You're the only one here not engaging in the debate, favouring ad hominem attacks instead. You're trying to justify your misuse of the debate sub by claiming that I'm giving "marching orders". FYI, "marching orders" don't end in a question mark. No one is forcing you to debate, but if you don't want to debate the question, what are you here for?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

That’s perfect, you’re right on cue. Now once more with feeling, babe.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's unnecessary for you to forfeit more than once, babe.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It’s cute how you keep framing things like you won something when you’ve just been sucking down obvious bait and puffing yourself up like a pigeon to someone who is laughing down at you the more you huff.

There’s nothing to forfeit. You and your half baked idea are not a competition or a threat. You are a sideshow who thinks he runs the circus.

[–]BiologyIsReal 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

But that's the point that I was making. Nowadays words speak louder than actions. If TRAs can't respect the meanings of words like 'feminism', why should we respect words like 'transgender'?

Sorry, but I'm old-school and I think actions speak louder than words. Imo, the best defense against such liars is exposing the truth. I call nonsense when local politicians pretend to care about poverty in spite of them keep pushing for the same old economic receipts that only work for making them and their friends richer. I call nonsense when local politicians push for economic austerity under the excuse of attracting foreing investement when they have all their money abroad. I call nonsense when local politicians pretend to be democratic despite having ties to the dictatorships. I laugh at western Media and politicians pretending to be outraged by war just now despite all the wars they have supported or waged. I find completely absurd the US wants to held Russia accountable for war crimes despite not only all their own war crimes, but the fact the US have worked hard for not being held accountable in the International Criminal Court.

If anything, it would be incoherent on my part not to call out the "feminists" who push for the legal erasure of sex or the legalization of prostitution.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I agree with all of that. Of course actions speak louder than words. Problem is most people don't realise that a substantial number of people go by the reverse. A way to expose that is to beat them at their own game.

A lot of people are against the church being tax-exempt, bc it makes it easier for cults to spring up about the place. If enough businesses just claimed to be churches, the short-term benefits would be: not having to pay taxes for a while, while in the longterm you'd be drawing attention to the issue. What's the issue you have with this tactic?

I was reading Kathleen Stock's book, but the problem I found with it was that all the terminology is created by TRAs & so simply using the same terms already half-promotes transgenderism, by half-legitimising it. It's difficult to argue against an ideology without creating a whole new nomenclature, which you'd have to then convince everyone to agree with. So I think the conventional RadFem way to oppose transgenderism can somewhat backfire. If you infiltrate it, you can help decay it from the inside.

[–]one1won 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

From July 2021, FYI, referring to Stock:

she distances herself from “certain trends within feminism,” namely radical and gender-critical feminisms while taking issue with their “modern activism” (239). She hopes “for a better activism in the future”

And, about Stocks position:

sadly it is largely conformist to a reactionary politics.

See also the comments on the quoted review of Stock’s book. here: https://savageminds.substack.com/p/immaterial-girls

Women are not monolithic. Not every woman is a feminist, not every feminist is a Radfem. I read your comment as assuming Stock speaks as, or for, Radfems. Many women are refusing to say “cis” or “trans”, as there is no such thing outside the science of chemistry.

And, no. Infiltration is not the way for women. Detrans and Desisters are more likely to prove deleterious to the GII movement. But it’ll take time; some people do wisen up with life experience.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not all GC feminists are radical feminists either.

Do you think GC feminists identifying as desisters or detrains would be a better tactic then?

[–]one1won 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You seem really attracted to lying, what’s up with that?

Meaning, No. “Self ID” scam is BS.