Keep up the good fight.

Hear, hear!

I was with you until 'Sargon of Akaad'. Nope, won't be having anything to do with them. I agree with you about mentally ill men, though. They should be encouraged to get help, not to go to conferences and reinforce eachother's mental illnesses.

What? That isn't what the conference is. The conference is about that help being there for men to get. Getting help is the problem to begin with.

It looks like identity politics and whining, frankly.

My, aren't you the consummate badass.

It pretty much defines 'reactionary'. Like Straight pride marches.

Nah, it doesn't. A movement that has been slowly building since the 1970s is not reactionary, nor is it identity politics. Recognising genuine deficiencies in the law and problems for men that are empirically demonstrable is not something to be handwaved away. You are dismissive from the start because you saw the name of a guy you don't like, that's how full of fucking shit you are. Bugger off dude, if anyone is reactionary it's you.

The more research I do, the worse it gets. :)

Then you aren't doing research, you're looking for ammo and missing the forest for the trees.

Or, I'm coming to a different conclusion than you. Surely, there's room for disagreement? Or is this a monoculture?

No, what you are doing is trying to make out the people drawing attention to real issues are disreputable, which is ad hominem from the start. You haven't said a single damn thing to even demonstrate a different conclusion, all you've done is pretend you're above it all and make platitudinous, snarky statements. In other words, worthless, pointless drivel; an excuse to dismiss real issues and proclaim from an implied position of your personal strength, that doesn't actually exist, that anyone bringing up these issues is a pussy who should "get help". I've seen this internet tough guy shite over and over again and all it signals to me is weakness and ignorance. Being vague and flippant doesn't make you look strong or wise, because any dolt can type such meaningless, air-headed nothing.

Nobody is entitled to your sympathies and nobody can demand that you give a shit, but that doesn't change the fact that what you've commented is malicious tripe with no substance. I don't know what your personal reasons are to have such spite towards people who make enormous personal sacrifices to call attention to men's problems, but spite is what obviously drives you.

Er, many of them are, indeed, disreputable. Just talking about Sargon's disrepute would take hours. We could start with his embrace of bizarre conspiracy theories, follow up with his statement that he'd commit rape, just not of the particular MP he was attacking, his claims that Heather Heyer died of a heart attack - jeeze, I could go on and on.

Meanwhile, I'm not dismissing issues or calling anyone a pussy. Your stream of insults are just ad hominem. You've literally created a position for me, and now you're attacking that strawman vigorously, if ineffectively. There are real issues; these aren't the people to deal with them, and that isn't the venue that will create solutions.

No I'm confronting the position you have presented, which is a minimal, snarky and pointless one. You have not elaborated on any point, provided any argument, so don't blame me for engaging with what I'm presented with. As for Sargon, you've displayed there a lack of an ability to research anything, because every claim you've made is misguided. He joked about rape, didn't make a statement he'd commit it, there's a difference. I can't think of any bizarre conspiracy theories he embraces either.

Does any of the above mean he can't say something correct about men's rights and problems? No. That's the point. If you focus on the fact that you don't like someone instead of the ideas they raise and discuss, then you are not a serious person who is looking for the truth. There are people on the list of speakers I don't like, but that has nothing to do with the validity of the ideas discussed at the event. You can't look past that, so you sound like an SJW.

Or,. you'll just defend anything he says. The antisemitism, the racism, the rape 'jokes'.

I named one. He was a 9/11 truther and an Obama birther as well.

Ooh, I sound like a SJW. Someone's TRIGGERED!

Really, now. You claim I'm not a serous person who is looking for the truth, because I don't drink your kool-ade. Have I asked anyone to prevent this silly , reactionary men's rights circle-jerk? No, I have not. I'm certain that it will produce the same level of hilarity as your typical CPAC meeting does. It won't change anything, but then what do you expect? What did Unite The Right change, other than showing Trump supporters marching happily with klansmen and neo-nazis? It didn't change anything for you, I guess.

You're likening the men's rights movement to the far right? How original of you. You are the dumbest person to leave a comment on one of my journals in years.

No, I'm likening this meeting you've notified us of to the alt right. Because, that's who is attending. The alt right. As a Republican myself, I know the difference.

Do go on with the insults. I don't expect anything better from you.

They aren't the alt right. There are speakers from all over the spectrum. Liar.

Actually, might as well articulate further. You are an intellectual coward. Instead of engaging with the ideas people bring up you look for reasons to never consider what that person says. Your reasons don't even need to be true, such as pretending the concept of dark jokes doesn't exist because you want to believe Sargon stone-facedly made a legitimately sincere statement of his wish to rape someone. You call the men's rights movement a circle jerk because the concept that men kill themselves several orders of magnitude more than women do is too difficult a thing for your worldview to comprehend. The only people who can be sincere are apparently people who agree with you, despite the fact you couldn't make a coherent point of any worth if your life depended on it.

Why am I bothered by your comments? Because when I see the sheer magnitude of stupid embodied in a human being that you display it illicits in me a strong sense of utter despair. It's like glancing into the abyss. To cap it off your smugness is in inverse proportion to your intellectual powers, leading to the situation where you're grinning like someone dining on 10 courses of shit while typing the biggest load of bollocks on your side of the planets hemisphere. Ridicule of opposing views, reducing them to lies or dismissing them outright are the only tactics in your toolbox and I thank the gods I've never believed in that a sizable proportion of the human race isn't as fucking thick.

Small movements should always give up BTW, totally. Gay rights never achieved anything did it.

You're making arguments for me, so let me take apart your strawman.

Men kill themselves more often than women, women attempt suicide ineffectively more often. That has nothing to do with gender, and more to do with the fact that men are more likely to have guns or rope around, and women are more likely to attempt overdoses. Call it cultural - in places like Japan and Peru, the numbers are much closer and both sexes are more likely to use the same suicide methods.

Ooh, you're using the ten-dollar words, but you're still ad-homming. It's amazingly ineffective.

Gay rights achieved something because it wasn't hijacked by a bunch of right-wing reactionary loons.

Ad hominem means to avoid engaging with ideas by focusing only on the person speaking them. It does not mean "to insult". Idiot. You began this by literally dismissing the entire event mentioned because of one guy speaking at it. You fucking freak.

Your assertions about men committing suicide more because they are more capable of achieving it than women are is nonsense. It isn't corroborated by anything. Attempting suicide but doing so in a way that easily fails isn't simply a matter of available resources, but intent. When these women who attempt suicide fail at it what they've attempted is half-hearted. When women really want to die, they die. There is a whole world of content that HBR produces, books written by academics and psychologists about male mental health. The lack of abuse shelters for men when compared to women (about 1 shelter for men for every 1000 for women). Hundreds of hours of content are on HBR alone that go over the myriad issues. Which you dismiss. And claim its been taken over by the alt right. Bull. Shit.

That's a strange thing you're doing, claiming that women are less serious about suicide. Very, very strange. Also, all the cursing. Sounds like you're triggered.

When suicide attempts fail without someone else stopping them, how much thought have you put into killing yourself? Heart isn't in it. I always swear too, even when I'm happy, it's my thing. I've already told you why your simpleton comments piss me off XP.

If you know anything about suicide, people who actually are suicidal actually kill themselves. be it a bridge or anything else. I find it laughable that for some reason you think a woman is less likely to have rope than a man is.

I actually didn't want to be confrontational with this, but you're being just silly

Sorry, Sheds. You've failed to explain why I should accept you as an expert, and your statement is wrong, regardless. People tend to kill themselves with materials they already have to hand, and don't generally go out to the DIY store.

You're still a thick bastard who doesn't know anything about suicide. You can easily die with any sharp object and those who really wish to die actually die, unless another person finds them and stops it before its too late. Your bullshit position assumes women are so incompetent that they can't manage to kill themselves off like men can. Idiocy. The truth is we live in a society in which sympathy and empathy for women is so on-hand that attempting suicide half-heartedly has far more gains for women than men. So more women than men make half-hearted attempts. I don't think women are so inept that they can't manage suicide as affectively as men, yet you think I'm the one insulting women. That's how unbelievably stupid you are.

Sorry. You show no actual knowledge of the subject, and making up a position for me again? More dishonesty on your part. You assume that women are somehow less serious about suicides. This is you talking, not me.

Let's ask the Beeb.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/201.....ves-than-women

"Women also are even more likely than men to attempt suicide. In the US for example, adult women in the US reported a suicide attempt 1.2 times as often as men. But male suicide methods are often more violent, making them more likely to be completed before anyone can intervene. Access to means is a big contributing factor: in the US for example, six-in-10 gun owners are men – and firearms account for more than half of suicides."

Yes, that was never disputed. Attempting suicide, when earnest, means you will choose a method that will actually work. Men are more likely to choose methods that work, why? Because they are more likely to be genuinely wishing to die. This is not difficult to comprehend. When women have that same desire, they too succeed by guaranteed means. Do you think the explanation for WHY women are more likely to choose suicide methods that are less likely to work than the methods men are more likely to choose has something to do with them being women? Or does it have more to do with the intentions behind the attempt? Men who do not really wish to die also choose such methods that do not guarantee death. Why do you think women choose these inferior methods far more often than men do? Are they so stupid they don't know how to do it properly? I would say no.

You lack the cognitive ability to look beyond surface numbers and confuse the statistic for the explanation behind it. Men are indeed more likely to choose methods of suicide that end in death, and that's because they're more likely to genuinely want to die. Basic as it gets. QED.

It at least partially has to do with their choice of methods, and as suicide occurs generally as a spur-of-the-moment, come as you are affair, people tend to use what is close. Women don't tend to toss themselves from bridges in the US. If guns are around, they're likely to use them, but as women own guns at significantly lower rates than men, they aren't likely to have them nearby.

If you were correct, we'd expect that rising levels of female gun ownership would not lead to a corresponding number of additional suicides by shooting. The problem is, it has.

Your insults are still very, very silly, although at some point you must have sat down and read one of those 'improve your vocabulary and impress the easily impressed' books. Pity I'm not easily impressed. Or, insulted.

>The BBC
Smug anime girl.jpg

And women don't have rope...? why don't women have rope? that's just silly

Also women can also walk to the nearest bridge, it's really not a good argument at all you have here

It's not my argument. Also, it apparently matches reality. Do you have rope suitable for hanging yourself? Do you have a firearm? Then, you'd use a different method. Assuming you're in Britain, women are more likely to hang themselves there, as are men. They're highly unlikely to shoot themselves, because they don't tend to have guns laying around.

That WAS your argument tho, you were saying that women are unlikely to have rope (for some reason)

Here in the US, you'll find many homes are devoid of rope entirely.

It's unbelievable how much hair you're splitting

Are you just commenting randomly?

No, your argument was that women don't have rope, therefore they don't hang themselves as much. But now you're saying that NOBODY has rope. And yet suicides by hanging still happen. How come?
Don't bother answering BTW, you're not making any sense.

Let me re-explain, as you're having some cognitive issues.

1) people tend to not carefully plan suicide attempts.

2) people tend to use items they already have on hand in attempts.

3) in the United States, more men own guns then women own guns, thus more men use guns. People with access to guns are amazingly effective at killing themselves, regardless of sex. For all sexes, suicide attempts with firearms are successful 85% of the time. The success rate for all other methods runs around 15% Yeah, you read that right. MOST people survive suicide attempts - if they don't shoot themselves.

4) In the United States, the most common methods for men to commit suicide successfully are, in order, guns (56% of suicides), suffocation (25%; this is split roughly half and half with carbon monoxide asphyxiation), drug overdose and poisoning (11%)

For women, the methods are poisoning (36%), firearms (31%) suffocation (23%). Of course, that's for successful attempts. Women are about twice as likely than men to drown themselves, but only around 2% of all suicides are by drowning. Women are twice as likely to set themselves on fire, and about one fifth more likely to toss themselves off a bridge, but these methods are also very rare, as a whole for anyone to use.

Men and women are about equally likely to throw themselves in front of a train (men one-tenth of a percent more often), or cut themselves (three tenths of a percent more men).

Much of this, as I said, is cultural and availability. In South American countries where pesticides are commonly available but firearms are not, pesticide poisoning leads other methods. Japan went through a spate of people mixing cleaning chemicals to produce Hydrogen Sulfide gas around ten years ago and I'm uncertain if it ever ended.

I'm sure you've got plenty of rope around. That pedosadism art of yours is pretty disturbing.

Umm roarey...

https://www.furaffinity.net/journal...../#cid:56214847

You still owe me sources of conservatives being "censored" for reasons other than violating terms of service.

Best not to call someone an intellectual coward if you did the same thing

I don't owe you anything. Eat shit.

Try using Google, I got this in seconds. And no, I'm not going to take hours out of MY TIME to compile a fucking list of evidence for your entitled arse.
https://quillette.com/2019/02/12/it.....than-liberals/

Quillette is biased towards conservatives though and the reason I am asking is you to look up the sources is YOU brought up the claim and I don't take everything said on the internet at face value unless there is solid evidence to back it up.

Do you think there is going to be a single left wing source that will agree that conservatives are being censored? I mean you don't believe any right wing source could be genuine, do you? Fuck sake. You can't find a source that doesn't have a bias, it's impossible. Look at the evidence in the damn fucking source you clutz.

I did a check on quillette and they have not failed a fact check on media bias/fact check so I read the article and saw the data linked. I am still unsure but at the very least you provided some data. I do advise you not to lash out/ insult your opponents however because while text hides the intended emotions jumping to conclusions and insults will make the person you are trying to convince less likely to listen to you

Stick your advice up your arse, I don't care if you listen to me or not.

then why post your opinions in a way that invites conflict? your political comics frankly make you sound like a jerk

Because the people I oppose are disgusting immoral scumbags and conflict is exactly what has to happen. To not want conflict is to want the people who are fucked by those you apologise for to stay quiet and accept their fate. Your perspective does not deserve to go unopposed in the most strident terms and you are not entitled to my silence or anyone else's. That's why, you irresponsible cretin.

But you lump people into groups just like I lumped you into a group with what I said about traditional men's values? You naturally got upset when I did it so why is it different when I do it to you as opposed to you doing it to them.

Plus you have lobbed insults at me and I haven't done the same to you. I'm not offended but yelling insults at an "opponent" in an argument doesn't depict you in a positive light

So what if I insult you? Isn't it your fragile masculinity? I'm not lumping you into a group, you have put yourself in one, which does not give any credence to the concept that social media giants are censoring conservatives. There are thousands of videos documenting it on YouTube alone, going back years. I found that quillete article in seconds, which you first tried to ignore because its apparently a Conservative source. Then you talked about Alex Jones, as if he is representative of what's going on. Your reluctance to engage with this means you are, as a direct consequence, more keen to believe that silicon Valley are decent and reputable in their conduct. You also see it as something I owe you, to provide you with a comprehensive set of evidence for your perusal. I don't owe it to you. You are like someone being told a red square is a red square, but as you have your eyes shut, you say it isn't red or a square and that you need someone else to manually open your eyelids for you. Sod off. That wastes my time and it's why I'm insulting you. Stop crying, as you earlier put it.

"I'm not lumping you into a group, you have put yourself in one"

https://www.furaffinity.net/view/31670195/

The United States was and still is defined as a melting pot of numerous vultures. I bring this up because there is a great deal of ethnic conflict and racism in the history of the United States an it is still a problem today and because of social media it is even more visible.

You also put yourself into a group yourself by siding with conservatives over the concern of leftist "collectivism" said philosophy can be summed up as the good of the many outweighs the needs of the few. One example of good collectivism is mandatory vaccination because there are people with less than stellar immune systems such as newborns, immunocompromised patients, the very old and others. On the contrary antivaxxers are an example of individualism being harmful to the individual and society.


"There are thousands of videos documenting it on YouTube alone, going back years. I found that quillete article in seconds, which you first tried to ignore because its apparently a Conservative source. Then you talked about Alex Jones, as if he is representative of what's going on. Your reluctance to engage with this means you are, as a direct consequence, more keen to believe that silicon Valley are decent and reputable in their conduct."

There might be thousands of videos but how reputable are their sources?
I read the quillette article and after looking up media bias/fact check regarding Quillette and they are slightly biased towards the right but they have not failed fact checks which is what I was concerned about, not their politics. I used Alex Jones because he is a well known example of a right wing author (i should not have used conservative to describe him and that was a mistake I made and apologize for that) who broke the rules and got punished

My "reluctance" is because you made the claims and you should provide the sources to back up the claim. Your refusal to do so makes me think you are just repeating debunked information

"You are like someone being told a red square is a red square, but as you have your eyes shut, you say it isn't red or a square and that you need someone else to manually open your eyelids for you. Sod off. That wastes my time and it's why I'm insulting you. Stop crying, as you earlier put it."

You're doing the same thing yourself though by telling me to google your claims because you don't want to put the effort to try and convince me your claims are valid. You insulting me doesn't hurt me and I'm not "crying" I just want to see if you can prove your claims and you insulting me makes you sound like you have ran out of reasons and are just attacking me because of that

Collectivism is a political philosophy that places, in law, the rights of the group over the rights of the individual. When people want a government to apply this value to society as a whole they are committing evil, they are my enemies and the enemies of western civilisation. Vaccinations aren't controversial except among those who think they work and those who think they don't work but harm people. The latter are demonstrably wrong. As I'm sure you agree, or should I provide sources for that assertion as well? The videos documenting censorship show the sources in the videos, it's standard practice to have the articles of reference in the video alongside the face of the commentator. Spend time watching content about social media censorship. If you don't want to, I don't see what me linking to the videos is going to change and I've said several times I have no intention to so FUCK OFF.

All governments except authoritarian ones and anarchy are collectivism though.

I agree vaccines are important and we agree they are go so no you don't

And I'm not going to fuck off because as you said before "Because the people I oppose are disgusting immoral scumbags and conflict is exactly what has to happen." You say conflict has to happen and that is what you are in now. You wanted conflict so what started out as me offering constructive criticism has escalated into the conflict you desire also In this journal you made https://www.furaffinity.net/journal/9155990/ two of the reasons you draw political art is to

"I want to encourage other people to speak their minds, to feel like they aren't alone."

And

"To offer a counter-narrative to pervasive, stifling far left ideology."

I'm not in the far left which is communism, marxism-leninism, etc. And you encourage people to speak their minds which I was doing and also proviting a counter-narrative to your narrative. So you have wound up getting hoist by your own petard and are getting upset about it.

Your art style is very good I will tell you that much but if you want to provide a counter narrative, not everyone will agree with you and I just happen to be one such individual

I didn't tell you to fuck off with regards to talking to me but repeatedly asking for sources. Governments in the west are individualist, not collectivist. Collectivism is things like communism and fascism. Completely different. Take the vaccine example, the problem isn't individuals having individual choices, it is making decisions based on false beliefs and information. To establish whether or not something is true or false requires the freedom of dissent, especially the freedom to be wrong and to say that which others do not want to hear. I'm not advocating you lose your own accounts on websites because you disagree with me, I haven't even blocked your annoying dumb ass from my own comment section. You haven't hoisted me by anything, you are ignorant of what's going on in today's political climate of mass censorship and hate speech legislation. This is not a position of strength for you, to be full of shit isn't a winning position.

"All governments except authoritarian ones and anarchy are collectivism though."
I'm fairly certain this is just bait at this point.

I'm not trying to troll.

Democracy isn't pure individualism though.
Differing groups of people are voting for a politician they (the certain group) wants to win

I don't think you are either, but what you are doing is taking part in the discussion of a subject you know nothing about. Considering you said that all governments except tyrannies or anarchy are collectivist. You do not know what even the terms of the conversation mean. You are the political equivalent of an anti-vaxxer.

Then please explain what you think individualism is in your own words

That isn't what collectivism is. If collectivism meant people getting together under shared values to advocate for something then literally all politics would be collectivist. Meaning the word individualism has no meaning and shouldn't exist. You are trying to argue about things you have ZERO understanding of and you're an embarrassment to the species.

The dictionary definition of it you sentient pouch of pig spunk.

This " sentient pouch of pig spunk" read the definition of individualism and has this question for you: are you against democracy because unless there are constitutional protections for the minority from the majority(which individualism designates the individual as the smallest minority out there) individualism opposes democracy. From our interactions you seem to want the right to say anything you want without consequences from society

(X)

My problem is Roarey thinks he can say anything he wants without consequence. if you think calling somebody a bunch of insults when all they want is proof to back up their claims is fine then there is a problem because I've not stooped to his level and all I wanted from him is to back up his info with facts which he was able to do to an extent when I looked up Quillette in the media bias/fact check site and the Quillette has not failed any fact checks

Roarey's not really in it for the facts, just the insults. That's an alt-right thing.

well if he wants to go down that route he's gonna learn the hard way that FA has rules that will be broken and he will be warned at first before suspensions are handed out

I'm just in it for the porn. Otherwise, I'd have blocked him long ago.

Roarey... alt-right?
Hahaha oh god I hope you two ARE trolls. Otherwise you're dense as hell.
Disagree with what Roarey says all you want, but holy shit you can't claim HE doesn't know what he's talking about and then use the term "alt-right" to define his views. Alt-right is a very specific movement thinking that it is possible, and preferable, for the west to establish a white ethnostate and is often coupled with the idea that Jews, or zionism, is attempting to oppress "true" white people.

Considering Roarey often supports and talks very highly of Jewish communities and history, that alone should clue you in. And you know, the fact he's not a white supremacist.

But I'm talkin to some guys who trust the BBC LOL.

I think his art is amazing but... he's not going to have a good time advertising his image with constant insults and political art. Roarey if you see this, I am saying this because contrary to what you might think I don't want you to lose business because of your opinions. Furaffinity is not the best spot in the world for politics especially if you make money making art for people

Ofc he's gonna get banned FA is run by far-left terrorist sympathizers and braindead idiots like yourselves.

I'm not the one calling him alt-right. Hell, I have avoided insulting him to begin with whereas roarey has yelled insults at me and because text cannot convey emotions I'm certain you will think I'm being offended when I have pretty much stood my ground like he has and I haven't stooped to his level of berating him. All I want from Roarey is to be certain he is providing credible information for his claims that are factual and as unbiased as possible. That is all I want from him. I don't expect him to agree with me and vice versa

Got proof Antifa has committed acts of terrorism that have left people dead? I have not seen Antifa on a terrorism watch list other than by the state of New Jersey

Pierce, oddly, despite being a fake account, also parrots alt-right talking points. Like his mention o Pinochet, above. Probably just Roarey's sockpuppet.

It's not hard to see conservatives being censored in social media.
Project Veritas sorta already blew the lid on that, lol.
There's the stories about them attempting to target Ben Shapiro.
The demonetization of Steven Crowder.
Alex Jones being deplatformed having everything he did get removed at once. Sure he was a nutter but he didn't do anything they alleged.
Sargon being removed from Patreon.

The nature of it is of course done because of "Broken terms of service." but the problem with this is that you can't find as prominent left wing examples. Do I think there's some big conspiracy of google twirling their mustaches going "Muhahaha no more conservatives!" No. But being a largely left wing company as well as other tech giants being the same way. They're going to scrutinize conservatives nearly exclusively and be much more lenient to left wing groups.

Not like I really care, being in the United States. The suppression of the conservative criticism is making the left wing politicians feel like people actually agree with them. No one besides brainwashed college students want open borders, to pay for illegal immigrants healthcare, to have everything socialized. Believe that white people are the devil... The working class is just getting more and more pissed off, and if you censor their outcry it just means democrats will stay delusional and we're gonna get a second term of Trump, and the govt. is gonna come down hard on these companies. And I'm gonna love every minute of it.

how were the tax returns you got this year? besides if you wanna be a trump supporter, hope you are willing to accept being blamed for every fuckup he does because you will get that and so much more

No just the average person doesn't believe your liberal arts professor politics and thinks communism is shit, you fucking retard. Lol.

I don't care. They're as stupid as the idiots who thought Obama was an illegal alien.

Project Veritas produced another dishonestly-edited video, like they have in the past. Which is why nobody takes them seriously outside the conservasphere.

You claim there are no prominent left-wing examples. You forget Louis Farrakhan.

but if you want trump in office in 2020 doesn't that make you as stupid as the idiots who thought Obama was an illegal alien as well?

What was this about not stooping to that level? Kek.
But you're right, I guess if you're a fuckin "ORANGE MAN BAD" dipshit you would think that.

I don't feel the need to insult roarey unlike you and him who react defensively when questioned about stances like I insulted your loved ones

Yup. Pierce's an alt-right douchebag.

ehh... I try not to jump to that extreme of alt-right because they sound less like that and more like conservatives who think the world revolves around them

Same basic idea. Recall, I'm a republican.

I wasn't expecting that but glad we share a common enemy

Or I'm just trying to fuck with you because you're a laughable fucking retard and you're too autistic to realize it.

I ignore the political cartoons, or just ignore the text.

ahh I see

I'm amazed you continue to defend Sargon of Applebees after he single handedly killed your new home in UKIP, causing so much negative publicity that UKIP lost all their MEP seats, and made the party so toxic that many people including Nigel "the n*g-n*gs will never vote for us" Farage left and made his own new party that got more votes. Joining a political party because your favorite You Tubers did so is pretty collectivist behavior if you ask me. Dunno if you ever listened to the leaked 27 minute audio where a frustrated Ukipper/you tuber Mauritian Struggle questions Sargon on why he joined the party (the full audio is unfortunately removed but Mr.Metokur saved some excerpts about 19 minutes into this video https://youtu.be/fUtouaklx-w?t=1105 ), but it revealed how stupid Sargon is and how he really only joined UKIP as a stunt to shock people, and it backfired horribly for him. If Sargon associates himself with this men's rights conference, then he is going to kill it like he kills every movement he associates with and do more damage to men's rights than good (though even without Sargon, inviting grifters like Paul Elam to this conference should raise eyebrows considering his past remarks on rape and making a scam imitation White Ribbon charity). There's a reason Sargon is memed as the Grim Reaper. https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/149.....argon-of-akkad

Oh and here's several "bizarre conspiracies" I found Sargon promoting.
-Sargon promoting Rothschilds conspiracies on Twitter
https://twitter.com/RationalDis/sta.....03883356262400
-Sargon promoting the conspiracy that Seth Rich was murdered for leaking DNC emails, which is part of a larger conspiracy about the Clintons supposedly killing many of their enemies (but for some reason they allowed Monica Lewinsky to live)
https://youtu.be/g3y8ZXG9TqQ?t=4258
-Sargon claiming mass voter fraud in the 2016 election
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-5gPymRYq4
-Sargon promoting 9/11 trutherism (later recanted)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKd-xZGknZ8
https://www.reddit.com/r/OfficialDP.....her_confirmed/
-Sargon claiming Heather Heyer died of a heart attack (also later recanted)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qum3DEUe6yM
-Sargon falling for a hoax that Hitler survived WWII and moved to South America
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwO3cNeDP5Q

And if you want to know why people think the Honey Badgers are a bunch of misogynist scum, look up their defenses of Islamic sexism such as Karen claiming women not being allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia or peruse careers or education in some Muslim majority countries is "female privilege" and reversing such restrictions is unfair towards men also seeking education and jobs. Even other anti-feminists have criticized these remarks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyYs76meS-0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IenXA20ofYk
I recommend Big Joel and Knowing Better's videos critiquing the Red Pill movie for a more constructive view on men's rights.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDI4F7eWu7k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0dwWLY3SyY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDrJo8d45gc

"Look at this person saying a thing that I think is horrible, aren't they just the embodiment of evil!?" Grow up, I couldn't give the slightest of fucks. There isn't one person on this earth who doesn't say stupid shit or fuck things up, think there's an instruction manual on human perfection in both word and deed? Who the fuck are you to pretend you're any better than the people you're listing here? You haven't done a damn thing for anybody, stuck your neck out and had almost every conversation you have recorded for the world to hear. I despise your infantile attitude, sticking up for witch hunts and holding others to a standard you yourself have never met. Be "amazed".

The fact that they hang out with neo-nazis doesn't make their case any better.

And what makes you so sure Seth Rich wasn't assassinated by his own party? how often do daylight robberies happen in this part of town and how often does the perpetrator just leave without actually stealing anything? did they even catch the culprit?

Answer: The investigation found no evidence of that. FOX News retracted their statements but failed to offer an apology, for which they were criticized by other conservative outlets, notably National Review and Forbes.

You again? I wasn't talking to you, and I would appreciate if you would keep out, you're not good at arguing.
Anyway, so something not being proven is all you need to assert that something is false? that's really weak and anti-scientific

And apparently, all you need to assert something is true is no evidence at all. You're making the positive statement, it's up to you to prove it true.

And again, your insults are silly, sock puppet.

This one isn't hard. While the perpetrator(s) was never caught, the facts of the case don't make it look like a hitjob.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murde.....Rich#Debunking
First, while Rich learned programming for surveys, his mentor Andrew Therriault says that Rich never learned hacking. This excludes Rich as being the leaker since he wouldn't know how to hack and steal emails.
Second, the shooting occurred at 4:20 am in the morning, not in daylight, and police got to the scene a minute after gunfire was detected. Rich's hands, face, and knees appeared injured so he probably struggled with his attacker(s). Since police arrived so fast, a potential robber may have decided after struggling with Rich to just flee the scene quickly without stealing anything rather then spend time taking what they wanted and risk capture or leaving behind forensic evidence. This is why Rich's family describes it as an ATTEMPTED robbery, not a successful robbery.
Robberies had also been going up in the Bloomingdale neighborhood 2 months before Rich's death.
Third, a hitman would likely make sure their target is dead ON THE SPOT. Rich was found barely alive and then later died in the hospital. Leaving him alive risks that he could be resuscitated or live just long enough to give authorities identifying information on his attacker(s) before dying.
Fourth, the person who initially made the claim that Rich was murdered for being a leaker, Rod Wheeler, retracted his own claim after he couldn't back it with evidence. And Rich's family has requested that people stop using his death to push paranoid conspiracy theories.

Don't get me wrong, the Clintons have MANY legitimate scandals about them. But murdering their enemies left and right, being satanic pedophiles, or Webb Hubbell being Chealsea Clinton's real biological father are all bullshit.

Okay, let's go through this step by step.
a) The DNC leak WASN'T hacking, it was phishing. There's a difference that you don't need to be a script kiddie to figure out. Phishing is really easy especially if you're already in the network you're targeting; Rich obviously was in the DNC network.

b) None of these other elements are conclusive. Injuries? so what? picture yourself ina robbery with someone who's got a fucking gun, why would you even struggle? just let them take what they want. If you're a DNC executive you're likely well insured for whatever you're carrying anyway. And if you're the robber, why would you just not flee at the first sign of resistance if your victim is resisting for whatever reason? If anything, signs of resistance in a 1V1 where you don't have any weapon, indicates that Rich knew he was in a life or death fight.

c) Robberies 2 months prior?? whoah that's fucking ghetto... NOT That's a fucking SAFE neighborhood.

d) And you don't think a hitman wouldn't make sure to NOT be identifiable in the first place?? I mean, you consider a botched robbery to be likely apparently, but you don't think a robber doesn't take precautions to NOT be identifiable, especially since he HOPES his victim isn't fucking KILLED?? Think for a second, you think it's a botched robbery but you take the "they didn't wanna be identified" as an evidence that the person ISN'T a hitman. A Hitman wants his target DEAD. A robber doesn't want to KILL because a gunshot is gonna wake up the whole neighborhood. But thank fuck Wikipedia is here to "debunk" the "conspiracy theory". Holy shit.
And would you look at that, Rich didn't regain consciousness before dying. His attacker knew he wouldn't be able to give any description.

It looks to me like this wikipedia article writer either think any of this through, or had an agenda.

Reminder that Wikipedia was removing Epstein's connections to the Clintons repeatedly.

I linked Wikipedia because of the large list of sources the article gives at the end. And I cited more than just Wiki. The bold links go to other websites like factcheck.org. I also realize now my link on Andrew Therriault was broken so here it is fixed. https://archive.is/G4oXg I also thought of citing Snopes and Rational Wiki, the latter of which has an organized claim-rebuttal section about why no possessions might have been taken or how being a hit job is unlikely etc. However I know those two sites are considered too "SJW." So far you have cited zero sources like news articles or statements from the MPD about the case. I'm curious what your citations are because I learned there's a police hotline for tips on the Seth Rich murder. If conspiracy theorists think they have it all solved, why aren't they working with the authorities? Or is the tip line fake and the MPD is in on the conspiracy too, like there's no Republicans or anti-Hillary Democrats in their ranks who are willing to spill the beans? Why does Rich's family want nothing to do with these conspiracies and are asking people to stop spreading them? Are they being coerced into silence by the DNC or willing participants in a cover-up? There was actually a brief time when Rich's family teamed up with a conservative Jack Burkman to help them solve the murder, but they disavowed Burkman after he started claiming Russia was involved in Rich's murder. If Rich's family is being coerced by or participating with the DNC, how come they would be allowed to team up with someone on the opposite end of the political spectrum briefly? (Burkman btw went on to accuse Robert Muller of sexual misconduct) How is it the DNC can be leakier than a wet diaper but there's been no further email leaks with discussion about a murder order? Are there no disgruntled Bernie fans in the DNC who want revenge on Hillary who are willing to come forward with the truth either? How would a conspiracy like this even be kept a secret with the massive number of people that would have to be in on it?

Ok I'm getting frustrated so I'll keep this to a minimum, the sites you linked all stink; I didn't bring up any source because I'm not making any claim, merely pointing out the MASSIVE flaws in the narrative your wikipedia article has presented. Just merely questioning a bad narrative is "being a conspiracy theorist" now or something?

There are also flaws in the ones you're presenting now, for instance they didn't order execution through an e-mail..? yeah if your e-mails have just been PHISHED it would be pretty damn stupid to order an execution through THE SAME E-MAIL NETWORK don't you think. they likely would've made sure no trace existed. I can't believe I need to point out details like that.

All in all, just question more. This narrative you've been fed is badly flawed. I'm not gonna discuss this further.

I bet you'd enjoy this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocxuKL_S9uo

They put an amazing amount of effort into that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xG.....dex=2&t=0s You might like these, Furshinku.

I thought men were supposed to be tough and not bend in the face of adversity? That's what the Traditional/conservative mindset regarding men and masculinity is.

Aspirations to be tough are all well and good but it doesn't matter what anyone thinks men are supposed to be, what matters it what actually happens. Since they kill themselves 5 times more than women do, I'd say there's a problem.

Then you might want to reconsider your thoughts on traditional values because in the conservative mindset, men provide the income for the household, men are not supposed to cry, etc. Hell I still vividly remember the Gillette commercial "is this the best a man can get?" https://youtu.be/koPmuEyP3a0

Reading the comments and looking at the like to dislike ratio on the video shows another, equally important problem facing men: fragile masculinity
Read the comments for proof.

Fragile masculinity? That a euphemism for having feelings? I think you're more guilty of the stereotypical traditional demands placed on men than whatever image of my values you've created in your head.

Euphemism? No.
More guilty of stereotypical traditional demands placed on men than your actual values? Possibly.

I remember you mentioning personal fortitude as a something good conservatism needs to preserve but unfortunately for you, there are plenty of deficits in personal fortitude if you read the YouTube comments on the video I linked. Plus the whole shtick of "mass censorship of conservatives" on social media. The conservatives who got kicked from Twitter and Facebook only got kicked for violating terms of service and instead of acknowledging they broke the rules and showing personal fortitude by admitting they fucked up, apologize and not do it again. But instead they cry about being "censored" and play the victim which is the polar opposite of personal fortitude

There are men with mental issues I agree but I also feel a lot of the problems men face are a consequence of tradition

If personal fortitude were important to the right, there wouldn't be so many chickenhawks among them. I remember when real conservatives decried draft dodgers, instead of voting for them.

Oh yes. That is so true as well, I'm only here because I wanted to offer my two cents. Roarey in in the UK which may explain the disparity in his version of conservatism vs the kind in the US

They have their own alt-right, the remnants of the BNP, the fascists.

I'm not surprised. Fascism is an ideological cockroach

The alt-right seeks to make it acceptable again.

Us yeah but idk about the UK

I like your avatar.
Reminds me of a certain Chilean who knew what to do with trash.

Mmmm. Reported.

You racist.
Ben the gun-toting Trashman was a Chilean hero.

reported or..triggered?

I pulled the trigger on a report, yes. *zap*.

What? Fragile masculinity is a term that mocks men when they are vulnerable emotionally. That's what it's for. You're asserting that when conservatives have been banned from social media they broke the rules, but you have no evidence for it. Instead you expect me or someone else to come up with the evidence they were unfairly treated. All of those conservatives provide that evidence themselves. The companies who boot them say they violated rules but never say which ones or how they were violated. Instead it's completely unspecific and it can't be appealed. Only people with large followings ever get even a hope of getting their accounts back if there's enough outrage. Everyone else is just fucked. It's been shown in study after study, conservatives are being persecuted on social media. If you are unaware of it then you haven't bothered to actually look. But you'll claim anyone it happens to, who complains, is just crying like some child over nothing. Tool.

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-a...../twitter-rules

Here is Twitter's code of conduct as an example of the rules that are given by social media companies

"It's been shown in study after study, conservatives are being persecuted on social media"

Where would I look and how do I know these studies are unbiased as opposed to written by conservative sources?

Google. Posting the twitter rules page means nothing.

How does it mean nothing when those are the rules that could be where conservatives are getting kicked or getting temporary suspensions

"could be". In other words, don't look into it.

Don't look into it at your own peril, they say ignorance is bliss but if you choose ignorance it will weaken your credibility and people will ve less likely to listen to what you have to say

I was saying you arent looking into it. Not clever are you? Then again, you did start by telling me I should rethink a position I didn't have, which this journal made clear I didn't have in the first place, so what am I to expect from you?

I did look into it, an example of someone who got kicked off of social media for breaking the rules was Alex Jones with his deranged conspiracy theories calling the victims of the Sandy Hook and Parkland school shootings crisis actors. I was saying you rethink your positions on traditional values as according to traditional western values regarding men, they are not supposed to cry, they are supposed to be the main source of income for the family, etc.

Alex Jones and the thousands of other people this has happened to. He's just one high profile case people like to wheel out because he talks out of his arse. This is not a single person issue it's a widespread one that's been going on for years and you aren't interested in looking into it. That's fine, don't. But I don't owe you my time to give you evidence that you will dismiss anyway. If you gave a fuck about learning something you'd make the effort.

I am interested in it but at the same time i want to know whether or not said individuals were talking out of their asses like Jones did and if they violated the terms of service of Twitter or Facebook to get kicked. If you have evidence you can share then I will humor it but if you say things and tell me to "just Google it" then I get suspicious because i don't have an idea where to look and we both waste time

Jones was kicked off all the major platforms, ones he didn't break any terms of service on. So even that you're incorrect about. He was banned everywhere on the same day. That isn't convenient, at all?

Can you please offer proof?

Here's a far left source attempting to justify it. It notes how he lost his accounts in all the major platforms at the same time. https://www.vox.com/2018/8/6/176556.....iracy-theories

"The tech companies say they blocked Infowars not because of the conspiracy theories, but because, in Spotify’s words, Infowars “expressly and principally promotes, advocates, or incites hatred or violence against a group or individual based on characteristics.” "

"Facebook said they were shutting down several of Jones’s pages for “glorifying violence, which violates our graphic violence policy, and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies.”

" “Apple does not tolerate hate speech, and we have clear guidelines that creators and developers must follow to ensure we provide a safe environment for all of our users,” adding, “podcasts that violate these guidelines are removed from our directory.” "

He broke the rules as they said

You miss the point. As usual. It was coordinated and done on the same day, even on accounts he barely used. He does not incite violence or spread "hate" in any way that those who are on the opposite end of the political spectrum don't also do on a daily basis. But the far left, Antifa supporters, are not banned, Muslim preachers of killing infidels, even ISIS supporters, have intact Facebook and twitter accounts. These "rules" are not evenly applied which is where the fucking bias comes from. If you banned hate you'd have to ban everybody, if you were honest, but some hatred and violence is permitted, some isn't. The vague rules are there precisely to justify removing the accounts of those they don't like but because they are also in charge of against whom they apply those rules, then persecute their opponents and leave the rest alone. Simple. You would care if everyone you like to watch or read was getting banned from all the major platforms under those same rules. It's hypocrisy writ large.

Woo. complete breakdown. Blame AntiFa, every Muslim on Earth, and back to the incoherent screeching.

Simple: You like to watch racists who incite violence, which is why you're complaining.

Yeah, fail to make a point or engage with all the ways I've torn your utter tripe to shreds. Whatever you say, pussy.

Ooh,. 'pussy'. I'm being compared to a woman's genitals now. By an incel. I have that in common with pussy. You don't get it. :)

You're a living joke. A witless one, I might add.

Perhaps I should join you in the witless protection program, then. You're unfunny - a pitiful whine.

Join me? You've contributed nothing in the entire conversation beyond a few badly worded sentences that consist entirely of unreasoned statements that people who care about men's rights are alt-right, or are being infested by it. Oh and dismissed the far higher suicide rate of men because more women attempt it and fail. Never mind that these men are dead. You are a cunt.

This is an amazingly poor attempt to describe my actions and motivations, but as you are fundamentally dishonest, I don't expect anything else. Also, there's that violence towards women thing again. Do you have any insults that aren't about things you haven't touched since birth?

Er, when men have feelings, they get told they're 'SJWs', or worse. By, for example, Sargon of Akkad.

Sargon is talking at that conference about genuine issues affecting men, which you blew off and said men just need to get help. Lying again.

I said men need to get real help, actually. You keep misrepresenting my arguments, or worse, making up arguments I've yet to make.

For someone who whinges that I'm somehow being dishonest, anyone who looks as this thread can see that you're pretty dishonest.

Nope, you have dismissed what the event is about, beginning with the point that it's all worthless in your eyes because Sargon is a speaker. You then left entirely vague comments of no substance about how bad the people are who run the event. That is what you did and I haven't lied about it. What would be the point when everyone can fucking read what you've posted? How do men get real help when it isn't available? That's the whole point of the fucking event. As I've told you for the second time now, you complete fool.

You've been spewing a bunch of bullshit tho

Hey you're active on the FA forums aren't you? I think it was this username but I'm not entirely sure.

At any rates, just make sure you're making sense, that stuff about women being unlikely to have rope is completely pointless

By all means, which of my statements don't make sense?


Statistically, men prefer some methods of suicide, women prefer others. Men overwhelmingly use firearms and asphyxia by hanging in the US. Other countries have far more balance in suicide techniques - countries with few guns have few gun suicides.

No, I'm not active on the FA forums. Or, do you mean Roarey?

Because women are overly emotional and are also encouraged by society due to the way they're raised to feel entitled and be manipulative to get what you want.

So of course they're gonna "attempt suicide." Aka "Seek attention."

Sounds like tripe.

No I meant you, maybe I made a mistake

So anyway, why would women prefer methods that are inefficient...? if I really wanted to kill myself I would not take a risk of failing

Well, as I already said, since suicide tends to be a spur of he moment decision, people use the methods they have on hand. When houses had easily accessible gas jets, you found more people dying of gas asphyxiation. Now that it's rare to have them, gas asphyxiation has become rare.

Suicide is not a spur of the moment, it's a build up

This is frustrating, it's like you live in a different dimension where things work completely differently

I think he's literally autistic, so he doesn't understand how anything works.
I don't even mean that in a memey insult way this time I think he literally is.
(I mean, look at the picture of him on his profile, he even LOOKS like it.)

Pierce is able to diagnose complex psychological conditions from photos. Well, no's he's just a right-wing troll.

Damn trolls, they making it hard for your quest to find a boyfriend-free girl? :^)

No need for one. Fifteen years in the same relationship with a wonderful guy.

Jeeze, Pierce, you sure commission a lotta underage sex pics.

Yup. Good shit right?
Nothin like father and son bondin'.

Mmm? Kind of creepy, really.

Your loss bro.
Us fascists are super into the cub stuff and God Emperor Trump is gonna make it real after he becomes the dictator of the world.

We already know he likes 'em young. Him and his friends.

you fail to understand what I try to tell you.

People will find a way to kill themselfs, no matter what. Any tool to reach that goal that you remove from them WILL be replaced.

But, you might fail anyway. You seem to have the idea that suicides are well planned events. Still, the most certain way appears to be firearms, with the highest success rate.


You aren't planning suicide, right? Or, abducting any children?

But you should add, that even countries with few to almost no guns do not have less suicides.

Japan and China are very good examples. They just hang themselfs or decide to step forward while waiting for the train.

Even in a country like Switzerland with a lot of guns, trains kill more people than guns.

That's true, which is why I specified that it applies only to the US. We're somewhat unique in that sense.