@mkultra She's comparing men who masturbate to sluts who take a mile of dick and have had a dozen abortions.
It's like a drug addicted prostitute with AIDS saying that she shouldn't be judged because people take over-the-counter cold medicine.
The point doesn't nbeed to be belabored, its self evident to anyone with a functioning brain. The actual issue here isn't the substance of what she's saying, its that RW circles give her engagement, even in the outrage mode.
I am a right winger, and my concern online is 1 part entertaining and 1 part political. Women are categorically not political actors and therefore have no real bearing in a political space, their inclusion is to the detriment of said space as such. Women have a lot of value, just not in spaces that teleologically boil down to violence.
I should also attack "incel" discourse as it detaches what is essentially a sociological issue with the phenomenon of liberalism from the systemic critique of liberalism as such and is reframed by a PUA re-appropriation of issues in terms of merely having sex. Access to sex isn't an issue, the real issue is that liberalism has successfully destroyed familial social technology to such an extent that "incel" as a category can be parsed. Properly understood all forms of liberalism must be combated as system and as concept for any resolution to the individual issues discussed to take place. This is the obvious conclusion prevented from taking hold in discourse precisely because of liberalism itself, but this critique isn't really suited to this reply.
Throw out your sex toy and turn to God.
@mkultra 1. you would be right if women were never given rights, especially voting rights. This made them political actors. This is solvable however.
2. The incel problem can be solved in the same way removing women as political actors can be solved. The problems are one and the same.
3. God gave men a biological and emotional need for love and sex, and Feminism ruined everything, forcing men to seek alternatives.
All of these are the same problem with the same solution.
The formalism of a thing is not its reality. Women can play at being political actors but they are not in essence and they will eagerly tell you this as soon as the subject of the draft comes up. I do not engage in fantastical theorizing about what I am told by formalisms, this is against the Bible and the wisdom of Plato.
@mkultra You are correct as far as the essential reality is concerned. Women are fundamentally not (and shouldn't be) political actors, but their status was willed artificially into existence at great ongoing cost to humanity and society.
Regardless of this women have rights, and the ongoing cost of these rights creates the situation that both you and I must navigate through as we wait for things to get bad enough.
Ultimately, idealistic notions of "equality" are anathema to nature and reality
Rights are not in the Bible, these trivialities of soymen and retards don't concern me.
@mkultra "rights" are just a formalization of that which people are willing to kill and die for. Religious people kill and die for their God, and thus the "right" of religious freedom/tolerance came to be.
The vocabulary is irrelevant. There is plenty of killing and dying in the bible, and the political power flowed directly from that killing and dying (i.e. rights)
Refusing to acknowledge the problem because it isn't explicitly in the Bible doesn't make the problem magically disappear.
Incorrect, no-one dies for "rights."