Petition for mods of major subs to ban /user/fuzzbutt22 for censorship on /s/PinkPillFeminism

submitted by SuperConductiveRabbi from self.SaidIt

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]radfem 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (126 children)

Imagine being at the top of the privilege ladder and still being so bitter and scared that you have to mock women for trying to defend their right to speak uninterrupted by men...

I’d say get some therapy but... well... you clearly aren’t confident enough to work on your massive personal deficiencies.

Ps. Because it’s the morally right thing to do... strange concept for someone like you I know but...

Pps. If my complaints are such a time waste why do they bother you so much?

[–]teelo 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun -  (26 children)

Imagine being at the top of the privilege ladder

Imagine being so brainwashed you actually think all men are at the top of the privilege ladder. Imagine being so braindamaged you can't even recognise obvious satire (which is about 99% of my comments).

[–]radfem 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

Sure...

I get it bro, it’s hard to actually seriously argue a point (especially when losing) better to just claim it’s all a big joke.

I’d say it must be nice to be able to be so lazy... but honestly I’d rather be stressed than be the self involved douche you clearly are.

[–]teelo 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (24 children)

I'm hardly losing the argument. You're not even arguing. You're just making personal attacks.

If the world is "dominated by the Patriarchy", then explain to me:

  1. Why do Family Courts favour giving mothers the child in the majority of cases?

  2. Why do Family Courts favour awarding large amounts of alimony to the ex-wife in the vast majority of cases?

  3. Why are Police trained to always arrest the man in a domestic violence dispute, even if the woman is the only one displaying any violence, and even if the man is the accuser?

  4. Why has the pay gap been proven to be perfectly equal between genders in western countries when the same job is compared?

  5. Why did 19 of the top 20 richest women in the world get their money from ex-husbands or an inheritance rather than earning it themselves through hard work?

The answer to all of these is simple: There is no "Patriarchy problem" outside of Saudi Arabia. Its all in your head. You need something to complain about. Women are not legally or socially inferior, the majority of you are just plain lazy, you want everything to be handed to you for free while men do all the hard work.

[–]Catbug 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Why do Family Courts favour giving mothers the child in the majority of cases?

Because of the assumption that women are inherently nurturing, know how to care for a baby, and want to raise children. The patriarchal idea of what a woman is.

Why do Family Courts favour awarding large amounts of alimony to the ex-wife in the vast majority of cases?

Old Fashioned idea stemming from women marrying and being a stay at home wife or mother provided for by a husband. She has no job history or training and no financial support if she leaves her husband. Needs reassessing as a policy.

Why are Police trained to always arrest the man in a domestic violence dispute, even if the woman is the only one displaying any violence, and even if the man is the accuser?

Because the vast majority of the time it is a man who’s the attacker and there’s been a few too many cases of police removing nobody and the victim being murdered.

Why has the pay gap been proven to be perfectly equal between genders in western countries when the same job is compared?

We devalue jobs once they are filled by a large number of women.

Why did 19 of the top 20 richest women in the world get their money from ex-husbands or an inheritance rather than earning it themselves through hard work?

Let’s not pretend all the richest dudes out there aren’t also Saudi princes who never earned a cent lol. That’s just a strawman.

[–]teelo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Because of the assumption that women are inherently nurturing, know how to care for a baby, and want to raise children. The patriarchal idea of what a woman is.

If women don't like that because its "sexist", then why do the vast majority of you still ask for full custody anyway?

Old Fashioned idea stemming from women marrying and being a stay at home wife or mother provided for by a husband. She has no job history or training and no financial support if she leaves her husband. Needs reassessing as a policy.

If she has no job history or training then that was her life choice. Women have equal rights, and equal responsibilities for their actions and inactions. Its still sexist and not the Patriarchy for courts to generally favour them in alimony payments.

Because the vast majority of the time it is a man who’s the attacker and there’s been a few too many cases of police removing nobody and the victim being murdered.

Got any proof that the man is usually the attacker? Or are you just making assumptions based on the Duluth Model?

Let’s not pretend all the richest dudes out there aren’t also Saudi princes who never earned a cent lol. That’s just a strawman.

Five of the top ten richest people are dudes who poured time and effort into building tech companies. Bezos, Gates, Zuckerberg...

[–]Catbug 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Are the majority of women asking for that? Where are your sources?

No, not the Duluth model. Bachman, Ronet; Linda E. Saltzman (August 1995). "Violence against Women: Estimates from the Redesigned Survey" (PDF). Bureau of Justice Statistics.

You can find more collected here. https://web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

That was less her choice in the fifties or prior and that’s the era I’m talking about. It needs serious reassessment since women are now allowed financial independence and are not limited to certain careers. I’m sure Martha, born 1922 was just swamped with opportunities for total independence and never heard a lick of the socialisation of the time.

So? Zuck earned himself absurd amounts of money for selling peoples privacy. What a hero. Also such convincing proof that patriarchy doesn’t exist at all. Top tier.

[–]teelo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Are the majority of women asking for that? Where are your sources?

The courts wouldn't award custody to someone who doesn't ask for custody. Thats a basic legal principle. If the vast majority are being awarded custody then consequently the vast majority must also be asking for custody.

(August 1995)

Got anything that isn't 25 years old based on a time when we had our last wave of race riots?

So? Zuck earned himself absurd amounts of money for selling peoples privacy. What a hero. Also such convincing proof that patriarchy doesn’t exist at all. Top tier.

So? The majority of the top 20 richest women earned absurd amounts of money by lying on their back. What heroes. All this proves is women are lazy, men put in all the work so of course men get the rewards for it.

[–]Catbug 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

lol. The richest women didn’t work as hard as zuck so says you, therefore all women are inherently lazy. Great arguments.

[–]teelo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Great comeback. Haven't proven any of my points wrong.

[–]radfem 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

I’m sorry but we were arguing about whether or not males should be allowed to troll feminist subs and whether it’s hypocritical for a person to cry censorship and then ask that others be banned...

I’m not here to derail the debate by discussing an entirely different topic (in detail).

If you’d like to make a post about how you think the patriarchy is myth because you’re completely uneducated feel free to do so in an appropriate sub.

Maybe I’ll stop by, but honestly I typically charge to educate people... men I charge double.

[–]teelo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I’m not here to derail the debate by discussing an entirely different topic (in detail).

What? Are you afraid that you're going to lose the debate? Terrified that you don't have any comebacks? Do you know that deep down, I'm right, your movement is nonsense, but you're terrified of admitting it and putting the blind faith followers you have to shame?

All you're doing so far is arguing like a typical woman does: refusing to attack the central argument, playing mind games and making personal attacks. You're losing this argument, big time. But thats natural, you're a radical feminist, thats what you do. And thats why your movement will never succeed.

[–]radfem 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Buddy you still haven’t properly explained your core argument here, which is why you’re now trying to deflect and place burden of proof on me for a position I haven’t even taken yet.

But I get it, it’s hard to admit you’re wrong.

[–]Velocity 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Western women are among the most privileged people in the world. You really need some perspective.

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

Got that picture kicking around of the pyramid with 1% of men at the top followed by 100% of women followed by 99% of men, with the 100% of women complaining about the 99% of men?

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

Once again you're deflecting from the arguments I presented for you. Are you ready to admit that your entire movement is wrong yet? Or too afraid of admitting that men were right all along?

My "core argument" is in this comment, ready for you to present an actual comeback whenever you're ready. Or ready for you to admit defeat and find a real goal in life: https://saidit.net/s/SaidIt/comments/55dh/petition_for_mods_of_major_subs_to_ban/kiul

[–]teelo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

a position I haven’t even taken yet.

Do you realise what your username is? Just posting presents a position.

[–]radfem 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

So western women being less oppressed than other women makes them more privileged then men? How so?

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

Did I say anything about western women? Are you confusing me with other commenters, now?

[–]teelo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (98 children)

Ps. You didn't even respond to the question:

If you're not even a mod here then why are you defending them?

Remember the Pyramid of Debate on this site. Attack the core argument, not make personal attacks.

[–]radfem 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (97 children)

Ps. I did. Maybe try reading my whole comment instead of going off half cocked...

Pps. Aren’t you the guy who just argued that the pyramid of debate doesn’t matter so long as no one’s doing any harm...?

[–]teelo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (96 children)

You said:

Ps. Because it’s the morally right thing to do... strange concept for someone like you I know but...

Its morally right to defend a moderator who is violating freedom of expression?

Radical feminists used to be the ones arguing for freedom of expression, when right-wing leaders engaged in censorship against you. What happened to all those protests you fought for, for years, to get your views accepted? Why are you not honouring the ancestors who came before you, in your very same movement?

[–]radfem 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (95 children)

Saidit rules state that content that is not on topic or not made in good faith can be removed.

Please explain how someone admitting to posting provocative content just to test if they’d get banned is ‘in good faith’. Explain how ‘suck my dick’ isn’t low quality content that’s off topic.

Don’t sweat though, the op couldn’t defend himself either.

[–]teelo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (94 children)

The only comment I was examining was the one you directly responded to:

bald-janitor 1 insightful - 4 fun - 9 days ago

No u

That is not equal to `suck my dick'. Its pretty low on the pyramid but its not as low as the personal attacks you have been making in this very comment chain. Lead by example, don't be a hypocrite. Lets see how much you cry about being censored after your personal attacks get deleted.

[–]radfem 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (93 children)

Buddy my female, I get banned from entire platforms for stating fbi statics like 98.9% of all rapes are committed by men.

Y’all are all for censorship when it’s in your favour.

[–]teelo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (58 children)

98.9% of all rapes are committed by men

Ever considered that maybe the problem is nobody takes woman on man rape accusations seriously, and that perhaps they're waaaay hgiher than the FBI chooses to report?

Whats your counterargument to "there are countless examples of courts giving way lighter sentences for female rapists than male rapists".

You want equality, right? Go and fight for it. Demand that equality. Demand that female rapists get the same sentences as male rapists.

[–]radfem 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (57 children)

No, because like the, ‘no one takes abused men seriously!’ Argument it’s supported by exactly no evidence.

[–]teelo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (56 children)

There is no evidence because you radical feminists fought incredibly hard to make sure universities are not allowed to research it. But the absence of evidence doesn't prove it false. You can't prove a negative.

[–]teelo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (33 children)

Y’all are all for censorship when it’s in your favour.

I am against all forms of censorship, on either side. I can't speak for other men, because, and I know this might shock you: it turns out that all men are not actually a singular entity. I have my own views and opinions that differ to others. I will argue against censorship no matter who is speaking.

[–]radfem 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (32 children)

Yet you were just gloating about... when I get my comments removed...

I know, I know... it’s hard to keep your lies straight.

[–]teelo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (31 children)

I never said I would be the one censoring you. Just that it will be incredibly hilarious when you do get censored. You are the one making low-pyramid arguments. I have yet to see any attacks against any of my core arguments from you.

Deletion of personal attacks isn't "censorship". Try actually posting something that isn't at the bottom of the pyramid and maybe I'll defend your right to freedom of expession.