houseoftolstoy @[email protected]

But rather than adapt to the environment, far too many women demand we change the environment to accommodate them. So we get content like this, as if it is a major problem that men need to address. A waste of time, of course, as the people doing the "harassment" can be safely ignored or blocked. Who cares what some idiot says on the other end of the microphone? His "threats" or "harassment" can't actually do anything. He is just like a small yippy dog: very loud and annoying, but not a threat.

Gaming is indeed a space mostly dominated by men. And there are some men who will trash talk and say some crass things. The 12 year old saying "I fucked your mom" on Call of Duty is a well known meme, and one that most men understand to just not fret about that sort of thing or any other trash talk.

But women who are unaware of this universal phenomenon come in and act all offended that "there are harassers in online gaming!" Yep. Just do what the men do and ignore or block. Problem solved.

Here's a riddle: how do these EVIL GAMER BROS know that they are talking to a woman who is playing an online game? Some games have voice chat, but for most games it is not really necessary to play the game.

The answer is that these women out themselves as a woman in some way, where it is easily avoidable and unnecessary to engage in the actions that would out women as being women playing games.

Most likely, they are seeking attention, similar to what this 4chan post states.

If you want men to "stop hating women," going in with "the poor women are being harassed when they play video games" is not the way to do it, because it comes with overt accusations of men either being "harassers" or being complicit in harassing by not being good white knights and defending the honor of women who find out that there are people who trash talk when playing video games online (everyone, not just women). But women just assume it is only them that get "harassed" in this way.

Random recon listening to NPR to see what the soylibs provide for content late one night. I hear a Jena Friedman talking about her time on Adult Swim, where she said her goal was to get the mostly male demographic to stop hating women.

An example of her content:

Not all who have intellect need to have all their ideas be their own originally. It is okay to steal good ideas that someone else came up with. In fact, knowing how to recognize which ideas are good (and worth stealing) and which ones are bad (and not worth stealing) demonstrates a great amount of intellect.

Being too prideful to appropriate someone else's ideas when you recognize that they are good is just foolish and inhibiting.

What really gave it away was the same politicians who were against the "Trump vaccine" were suddenly onboard with the exact same mRNA bullshit once they secured power for themselves. Anyone who was properly paying attention should have caught on to the inconsistencies.

In fact, Trump supporters showed that they thought for themselves more than the "you're in a cult" faggots when they booed Trump for promoting the clot shot.

Another thing, I recall in the early days of the vaxx being released the pathetic psy-op that was "we are giving non-whites the shots first! You can wait in the back of the line to get your shot, whitey!"

Meanwhile, anyone who was already suspicious was not going to worry about who would get priority in taking that poison, but rather correctly assessed that there was no rush to get the clot shot. In the end, they wanted to force everyone to get the shot, so the theater was just stupid.

Doing my recon on state propaganda NPR, they are bringing up how "complicated" it is to figure out who and who does not need Covid "vaccines." Here's a simple answer that those faggots will not say: no one needs or should have them. And if you argue against that, I guess you can go ahead and get boosted. Because I cannot save you if the shots indeed are meant to kill or shorten your lifespan.

https://youtu.be/hNJ2zLbMuq4?t=1080

Perfect example of a TradCon who does not realize that he moved with the Overton Window when talking about universal suffrage. The idea that we should be more restrictive overall with who should vote does not cross his mind (not just women). Also, a great example of someone who does not have equality as his most critical value just accept a lot of the talking points from those who do value equality (not uniquely him but an example).

Whenever there is a bad outcome as a result of someone else's decision (often a politician or other member in power), I do not give a free pass to those who had supported the decision maker just because "I didn't vote for this" or "it was not me who made that call."

Rather, I ask the question: if it was you who was in charge, would you have made different decisions? If you would have made the same choices, then how can your proclamations have any validity?