TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/seduction
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

      • Artful Prudence
      • A Voice for Men
      • Alpha Game
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Good Looking Loser
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • In Mala Fide
      • KillToParty
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Married Man Sex Life
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Power Moves
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • The Spearhead
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

They keep upping the hypocrisy

JaxJags904

January 24, 2019
3155 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://i.redd.it/hlclg4zvefc21.jpg
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title They keep upping the hypocrisy
Author

JaxJags904

Upvotes 3155
Comments 226
Date January 24, 2019 7:55 PM UTC
(7 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/ajgblm/they_keep_upping_the_hypocrisy/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/they-keep-upping-the-hypocrisy.885367
https://theredarchive.com/post/885367
Top posts by JaxJags904

Saw this in FB and thought y’all would enjoy

89 upvotes
March 13, 2019
/r/MGTOW

Their backwards logic continues

67 upvotes
January 7, 2019
/r/MensRights

The song/saying “who run the world? Girls.”

17 upvotes
February 11, 2019
/r/MensRights

Against Men’s Rights

15 upvotes
December 6, 2018
/r/MensRights

WNBA player Riquna Williams Suspended Ten Games for DV and threatening someone with a firearm

8 upvotes
July 17, 2019
/r/PussyPass

Man fatally shot on Rogers Park lakefront trail | Chicago Sun-Times

8 upvotes
October 2, 2018
/r/MensRights

Is this trashy?

0 upvotes
June 14, 2019
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]Jadenent0623 578 points579 points580 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

But they just proved his point...

[–]JaxJags904 341 points342 points343 points 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

In their delusional minds his tweet proves THEIR point because he’s being sensitive.

This is my biggest issue. He’s asking a question and he just gets shit on for it

[+]Nateplays8551 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (14 children) | Copy Link

I'm kinda tempted to start a Twitter account that takes tweets with casual racism and sexism against white men and flip the gender and race with the original tweet linked.

[–]Mister_Mask 89 points90 points91 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Already been done. Already been banned.

Check out r/menkampf though.

[–]Jex117 66 points67 points68 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Here in Canada a guy from Toronto had his life ruined after arguing with a couple feminists on twitter - he won the harassment case, but his company went under and he took on a couple hundred thousand dollars in debt. Also, he was barred from using any internet accessible devices during the trial.

I'm legitimately worried that arguing with the wrong feminist will result in cops kicking my door down.

[–]Singulaire 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

His name is Gregory Alan Elliot.

[–]Key_Lime 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

All the more reason to stay off social media and maintain adequate PerSec.

[–]Kvasirona 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The problem with this, like it or not politicians use these spaces and giving them up entirely, to a narrative which we fundamentally disagree with, just robs us of a competing voice.

[–]ultrasuperthrowaway 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep it’s like giving up and declaring the feminists won and making men second class citizens

We deserve a voice

[–]GanttGuru 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Can I get an AYYYYmen!?

[–]MasonTaylor22 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm legitimately worried that arguing with the wrong feminist will result in cops kicking my door down.

I wouldn't be surprised. With my little interactions with SJW/feminists, I've been threatened with death, but they added a "lol" at the end, so I guess it's okay.

[–]metaltrite 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So have money before attempting. Good to know

[–]__pulsar 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I donated to his legal defense fund. That case was fucking insane.

[–]GrievousGod 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Can you link to the twitter account?

[–]JaxJags904 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

r/menkampf

[–]sneakpeekbot 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Here's a sneak peek of /r/menkampf using the top posts of the year!

#1: Cancel Jewish People | 65 comments
#2: All Jews are Trash | 31 comments
#3: Hans Muller dishing out truths | 115 comments


I'm a bot, beep boop | Downvote to remove | Contact me | Info | Opt-out

[–]Quintrell 29 points30 points31 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Pointing out an obvious double standard means you're sensitive? Just wow...

And these are the same people who supposedly encourage men not to bottle up their emotions? That it's okay to show your feelings? How can someone possibly be so blind to obvious hypocrisy?

[–]Jex117 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

relevant

[–]Brockkilledspeedy -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You sound soooooo butthurt /s

[–]Jex117 23 points24 points25 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Only if you take a few seconds to read his comment and process the hypocrisy.

They're banking on the fact that most of their readers will skim across the headline without ever reading the article or his comments. They don't care that a slim minority will see through it.

They know what they're doing. This is what propaganda looks like.

[–]filosophicalaardvark 806 points807 points808 points 7 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

Lmao do they not understand that they are literally proving his point?

[–]JaxJags904 451 points452 points453 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

The crazy thing is the comments all say he is proving HER point, because he is being sensitive/triggered. It’s insanity

[+]Okiegolfer1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (13 children) | Copy Link

Yes the replies are unreal.

"we can be racist/sexist towards white men and if they react in anyway they are only justifying our racism/sexism"

[–]Jex117 145 points146 points147 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

It's called kafkatrapping - one of the most common logical fallacies feminists rely on to validate their confirmation biases, and dismiss criticism.

There's nothing unreal about it - this is their routine response; the logical fallacies are used as a tool for manipulation. Don't let it confuse or frustrate you; that's their sole purpose. Instead, learn about the logical fallacies they routinely throw around. Know them, understand them, learn how to identify and dismantle them when you're faced with these manipulations.

It's a very useful skill, not just in regards to debating feminists - it's just generally useful in life. It's helped me see through a lot of the fluff salesworkers and customer service reps peddle, it's helped me identify and dismantle my own biases, and it's enormously benefited me on the job. It helped me successfully stand my ground when I'm up against management.

[–]Unners 20 points21 points22 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Never heard of this before! Thank you. Do you have some or where did you find some tips around dismantling/debating?

[–]Jex117 28 points29 points30 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Here's a good article to start with - plenty of youtube links to boot.

I learned a lot from this guy - he's kinda preachy about certain subjects, sometimes it's cringey, but he's usually got valid merits. Here is a relevant video of his. He's also done a lot of really good breakdown / explanation videos on how Jordan Peterson is such a heavy weight in debates - found here.

That should be enough of a foundation for you to expand out from, if you have the motivation to dedicate. Remember, these skills are useful far beyond debating feminists.

[–]CommunistAndy 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Thx for this ;)

[–]Jex117 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I'm glad to help give other men the skills to defend themselves from manipulative feminists and their supporters.

[–]abatoire 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I'll be looking into this as well. I read an article on the daily bell regarding this and it seems 100% accurate to what occurs.

Reminds me of a book about psychology that my brother recommended. He claimed it was knowledge to defend himself. However when I read it, I saw only tools people would use to attack/abuse human social weaknesses. Strange eh? But then he's management and I'm not... Haha. Go figures... 😏

[–]GingerRazz 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Think of it like Sun Su's art of war. A manual of your opponents attack tactics is an amazing defensive tool because if you know your entire and their tactics, you can counter them effectively. You could take a book on common emotional abuse and manipulation tactics and use it to abuse people, but you could also use it to be more cognizant of attempts to manipulate and abuse you

[–]cheesebanana 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Tag

[–]vandamguy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

here

have this

reddit silver *

good post :D

[–]passepar2t 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I usually try to "agree and amplify" and gleefully play the villain, but this isn't always feasible. I need more tools to deal with this nonsense.

[–]filosophicalaardvark 241 points242 points243 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He's just pointing out the hypocrisy. But yeah they're insane.

[–]Jex117 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

They don't care. They know full well that most people will just skim the headline, without ever reading his comment, let alone dedicating the mental energy it requires to process the hypocrisy.

They're counting on the fact that most of their readers will form negative associations towards Piers Morgan, based not on the message, but merely on their confirmation-bias.

It's propaganda, pure and simple. They know what they're doing.

[–]Reverend_Vader 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The problem with confirmation bias with Morgan is its true, he is an utter cunt

Can we swap him for another spokesperson

[–]JaxJags904 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Doesn’t matter that he’s a cunt, he should be allowed to ask a question without it being the worst comment in the world

[–]GingerRazz 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

He's not a spokesperson. He's a person, and the truth is the truth coming from any mouth. I don't back him because I agree that he tends to be a piece of shit. At the same time, I will defend words that are true regardless of source. Attacking or ignoring words because of the source rather than because of their content is a tribalistic behavior and part of what helps create the feminist echo chamber.

[–]Reverend_Vader 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment, there are just a few hundred thousand other guys who have influence i'd rather be the one throwing this double standard out there.

Nothing against the point, I just despise this guy as i'm uk so i've had years of wanting to punch the smug fucker.

[–]GingerRazz 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Totally fair. I can get behind the fuck that guy sentiment, but is Anita Sarkesian said the same thing, I defend her statement and her against attacks for saying it. I'd still think she's a cunt.

I wish it was someone less awful getting attention for pointing it out, but at the same time, I'm just glad someone who gets major attention is pointing it out. My biggest frustration is that I'm certain there are thousands of people with large voices that feel the same way and either won't or can't say so publicly for fear of backlash, so it often is celebrities who are shitty that actually say it because they fear no backlash. Hell, many of the shitty celebrities who say it might not even believe it. They may be saying it merely for shock value and attention. Even so, I see that sentiment being expressed in public as progress.

Less than a decade ago, being an MRA on media was like dying of thirst in a desert with goalposts shifting like sand dunes. Now, I'm public consciousness, the landscape has become more stable and they're more likely to try to minimize our issues or distract from them rather than to just blatantly lie and claim we want things that we've never said or acted towards.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

At the same time, he's taking the time to make a fuss about some rando making a sexist comment on the twitters 'proving' he is being needlessly sensitive about people being rude about white men on twitter. SO I can see where some people are coming from - just ignore the casual racism and sexism directed at men constantly on gutter outlets like twitter and you'll live a happier life. I tend to agree with that. However there is also a case to be made that the increasing prevalence of casual racism and sexism directed at men in public fora should be condemned. And it should. But maybe arseholes like Piers fucking Morgan are not the best people to articulate that if you want any sympathy for the position.

​

For my part, I think after this covington business that any decent person should get off facebook and twitter permanently. Its a cess pool of garbage people with uninformed opinions telling each other lies. It is digital road rage.

[–]Jex117 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

At the same time, he's taking the time to make a fuss about some rando making a sexist comment on the twitters 'proving' he is being needlessly sensitive about people being rude about white men on twitter.

He's exemplifying the double standard. Nobody bats an eye when these exact same comments are directed at men, but when Morgan posted the exact same comment directed at women? Everyone loses their minds.

I agree with your underlying sentiment - society has become too reactive, too sensitive, and too quick to resort to outrage. That being said, at the same time, I think everyone can agree that there's a lot of outrageous shit in the world that's absolutely deserving of outrage.

The question here is, do the double-standards against men justify outrage? I've definitely seen examples that do, but I've also seen examples that don't. I've personally called out users here on /MensRights for posting knee-jerk snow-flakey shit about mundane issues. Personally? I think the double-standards regarding circumcision, as well as the dismissive treatment towards men's emotions, is worthy of some degree of outrage.

[–][deleted] 305 points306 points307 points 7 years ago (68 children) | Copy Link

Sexism against men has been normalized. Sexism against women is evil and should be fought because you know, equality.

[–]JaxJags904 170 points171 points172 points 7 years ago (52 children) | Copy Link

Same with racism against white people

[–][deleted] 46 points47 points48 points 7 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

Agreed. I've been called racist only for being white. I hate racism and I actively stand up to anyone who spews the bs.

[–]toggleme1 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

Is it racist to say that people from Kenya are on average faster than people from Germany?

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points23 points 7 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

Not if its fact and you are speaking of a professional sport where there are stats.

[–]Quintrell 28 points29 points30 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

According to some yes even facts can be racist. Or at least the act of pointing out those facts is racist

[–]Jex117 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

Facts and racism aren't mutually exclusive.

Racism is defined as "anything that portrays a racial ethnicity(ies) as being inherently inferior or superior to another racial ethnicity(ies) in some regard." Textbook racism isn't necessarily bigoted or prejudiced - that's why we have words like racial bigotry / racial discrimination / racial prejudice, etc. Facts can be racist too.

The problem isn't necessarily that facts can be racist, the problem is that racism has become an incredibly delicate topic these days, such that you can't discuss racist facts without some people perceiving it as latent racial bigotry on your part, nor can it be discussed without real bigots using those facts to justify their notions of racial bigotry. Any attempts to convince people it's not latent racial bigotry on your part will be used as proof of your latent racial bigotry. Any attempts to distance yourself from the bigots who use those facts to justify themselves will be used a proof that you're associated with them.

It's a complicated topic, which makes it nearly impossible to talk about in our current cultural climate.

[+]DWSchultz1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Would it be racist to say that African American skin color is better adapted to sunny climates than white skin color?

[–]Jex117 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Technically yes, even though it implies no racial bigotry or prejudice.

After racism became a buzzword, the entire subject became so delicate. The moment the topic comes up you can see peoples ears perk up - some people are just waiting until you say something they can use to accuse you of being a bigot, other people wait until they think you're "on their side" before they unload all the bigoted racist shit they've been bottling up.

It's become such a discombobulated mess.

[+]DWSchultz1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Thanks. It is surprising how people are scared of saying things (even on reddit). So you might assume a more free site (voat/gab) has the full spectrum of free thought......

Then you go on there and find it is full of the ‘reddit refugees’ who are right of hitler.

[–]JaxJags904 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My go to fake argument is always “there are too many black running backs in the NFL. It’s clearly discrimination towards white running backs. There should have to be an equal number of white and black running backs at all times.”

Most people realize how ridiculous that is

[–]WorldController 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

That isn't how racism is defined in the social scientific sense. Sociologists, for example, define racism as anything (including behaviors, institutions, beliefs, etc.) that bolsters white privilege. Racism is, in fact, a form of racial prejudice/discrimination. However, not all racial prejudice is racist; technically speaking, only prejudice that belittles nonwhites or idealizes whites is racist. Incidentally, this means anti-white prejudice is not racist.

[–]Jex117 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm talking about the dictionary definition of racism, which has become so commonly misconstrued - not the pseudo-philosophical definition of racism, invented by feminists, who's definition is simply and literally: "Power + Privilege = Racism." Full stop.

It's an astoundingly reductionist notion based in revisionist history. It completely negates the complex power shifts throughout history, in lieu of a generalized outlook where White people oppressed everyone for all of time.

edit: Stop down voting OP, he made a valid point.

[–]WorldController 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm talking about the dictionary definition of racism, which has become so commonly misconstrued

Your idea here that it has been misconstrued hinges upon the belief that "facts can be racist," according to the dictionary definition of the term. Since no races are inherently superior/inferior, this belief is false and the typical association of racism with bigotry is valid.

the pseudo-philosophical definition of racism, invented by feminists, who's definition is simply and literally: "Power + Privilege = Racism."

Actually, the definition is "Prejudice + Power = Racism." Power and privilege are essentially the same thing.

Anyway, this definition has nothing to do with either philosophy or feminism. It's based on the undeniable evidence that whites are a dominant panethnic group. In other words, it's based on social science. Similarly, we refer to classism as "top-down" discrimination against those of lower-SES backgrounds. Racism, classism, and the like are social problems because of the inherent power differences involved in them. "Bottom-up" discrimination (e.g. POC resentment toward whites) per se is not a social problem, hence why social scientists don't consider it racist, classist, etc.

It completely negates the complex power shifts throughout history, in lieu of a generalized outlook where White people oppressed everyone for all of time.

First, whites have dominated POC throughout modern history. As a panethnic group, they've never been subjugated by nonwhites. So your point here about "revisionism" is dead wrong. Second, history is not really relevant to this definition. The fact of the matter is that, today, whites are the dominant panethnic group. Thus, any prejudice or discrimination against them today is not technically racist.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

That's completely insane. I saw a young girl on YouTube make the point that if racism has to include being in the majority and being in the more powerful culture, then by that logic, if she said racist things about Japanese people in Japan, that wouldn't be racist. Funny how easily she punched a hole in the logic that only white people can be racist, whyle with the Japan example, showed that people would hold to their white people are the only ones who can be racist even in countries where they're the minority and not the dominant culture. That definition implies that white people are inherently bad in a way that all previous empires and current oppressors are not. Just nuts I tell you.

[–]Jex117 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

relevant comment

There's absolutely nothing insane about it - it's a deliberate manipulation. Don't write it off as mere insanity, don't let it confuse or frustrate you - that's what they want it to do. Don't indulge their manipulations, don't give them what they want.

[–]WorldController 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I saw a young girl on YouTube make the point that if racism has to include being in the majority and being in the more powerful culture, then by that logic, if she said racist things about Japanese people in Japan, that wouldn't be racist.

First, racism is about power, not necessarily numbers. Second, this argument ignores the fact that, while whites are the dominant panethnic group in Western society, Western society itself is politically, economically, and culturally dominant throughout the globe. This means that whites are the globally dominant panethnic group. Accordingly, the situation described above would indeed be racist.

That definition implies that white people are inherently bad in a way that all previous empires and current oppressors are not.

Whites are unique in that they are a globally dominant panethnic group. No such group has existed before in history.

[–]Planner_Hammish 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And further, the SCC says that truth is not a defense for "hate speech". Lmao, I thought those judges were supposed to be smart.

[–]Ninja_Arena 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Part of the issue I have with people mentioning these kinds of facts is that the question always comes up with "why?". As in why do you care if one ethnic group does x y or z?
(not race, races don't exist. Its a complete made up biological bro science bull shit. Look up the history of the word)

It only makes real sense to bring up stats if you are looking for examples of racism (people treating others a certain way mainly based on skin colour, usually negative).

The example of all Kenyans are good runners...what about the ones that have 30 percent British dna? Is it also based on region? Certain families, culture of the area or altitude of training? All those things make pointing out a "race" over simplified or flat out stupid and incorrect. I have more in common physically with people not my skin colour then I do with most people with the same skin colour I have.

Another example, Jewish people. Seem to have a disproportionately high number of Nobel prize winners. Will probably be overtaken by Chinese in the next 50 years based on brute force of the population, but Jewish people are ridiculously high in that regard. They also are incredibly mixed genetically so that suggests that the traditions and culture have a powerful impact.

So the question is, how much is genetic, how much is cultural? I know many immigrants from the same countries and the success of their kids directly reflects the pressure and importance their kids put on education and succeeding. Some kids are doing awesome, others are average.

It all boils down to, yeah, it's not racist to point out an ethnic group has common characteristics b5it it does beg the question as to the value it has in doing so in the first place...with the exception of health issues.

On Pierce's tweet, I don't agree with him often but he's being banned for pointing out hypocrisy in a completely inoffensive way and I really hope this type of nonsense stops by the end of 2019 and the people who banned him and scolded him get their shit together. We are all wasting our time, including me, with this shit while billionaires rape our land and sign bills to reduce our freedoms so every 0enny we earn and then some, goes into their pockets.

[–]PanderjitSingh_k 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Why bring it up? Because you can save an enormous amount of suffering with racially informed policy.

[–]Ninja_Arena 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Racially informed policy. That sounds like it won't lead to a bunch of problems...

[–]Moonvie 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

That's not how it works.

If you for example praise Kenyans for being fast runners or say that blacks are better at basketball, that's great and all is swell. It's empowering and you're a good guy for saying those things. If you say that white people are ugly, have no lips, white women have no asses or simply that white people are all born evil, that's ok too, because you're #woke and you're an ally.

If you attach any positive characteristics to whites or any negative trait to blacks or other poc, you're the very definition of racism. That's how it is nowadays. Facts have nothing to do with it.

Sexism as a word works pretty much in the same way nowadays. Naturally it's used when talked about men and women.

[–]Jex117 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Racism has become such a buzzword that most people aren't even familiar with what it actually means anymore.

Technically speaking, this example could fit the dictionary definition of racism - that "anything which portrays an ethnicity(ies) as being inherently inferior or superior to another ethnicity(ies) in some regard."

It's not racist to point out that statistically, Kenyans make up the majority of professional runners. However, it's racist to imply that Kenyans are in some way genetically predisposed to be superior runners. Textbook racism isn't necessarily inherently hateful or bigoted - a lot of examples of textbook racism are altogether benign for most folks. I'd wager benevolent racism is more commonplace these days - although it's generally not perceived as negative, benevolent racism is still racism.

When people call something racist, they're usually referring to racial stereotyping, racial bigotry, or racial prejudice - words that seem altogether forgotten in todays pop culture.

[–]illigal 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

You mean reverse racism? /s

[–]Maito_Guy 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

Lol I just got into an argument with an MRA because he was using that term unironically.

[–]See-9 -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

I use the term to avoid the argument “racism against white people doesn’t exist.” Some battles are more easily fought simply by changing the semantics.

[–]Maito_Guy 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Why would you adopt made up nonsense social science new speak that degrades the meaning of a word and implies some of their nonsense(racism against minorities is the original/primary racism or that there is some significant difference when someone is racist to a white person) has validity.

[–]See-9 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Did you not read my 2nd sentence? The battle is more easily fought.

Even the most radical of feminists will agree that “reverse racism” exists. Most wont agree that racism against white people exists. By establishing that reverse racism does exist, it’s a matter of changing their mind that the “reverse” portion matters at all. If you didn’t use this method, you’d be stuck arguing that racism against white people exists. It’s a much more difficult argument semantically.

I implore you go try to answer your own questions before you ask them aloud. You didn’t need for me to explain this to you if you had read and understood my post.

[–]Maito_Guy 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I wasn't ignoring your explanation it just didn't seem like a good justification. It does seem more reasonable now you have fleshed it out though. Personally I object on a fundamental level to engaging with social justice language games but I can at least see the logic in your approach. Have you had much success.

[–]See-9 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don’t view it as a game. I view it as achieving my goals. If my goal is to change someone’s mind, or at the very least, see my point of view, then I’m going to achieve it. If they have a flaw or logical inconsistency that makes it easier to achieve that goal, or be able to achieve it at all...fuck yeah I’m going to use it.

I’ve had plenty of success. I use this method when trying to convince anyone of anything - whether it be work, my parents, or my girlfriend, on a broad range of subjects.

Just, use your powers for good. I’d say this method is morally dubious at best without using it for the proper reasons, or for the proper topics.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I just avoid the term altogether and use 'bigotry' instead. Pretty clear cut.

[–]See-9 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Good luck changing someone’s mind about their bigotry. You ever argued with your racist grandmother? Or overzealous religious Aunt? It usually doesn’t bode well because changing those core tenets in someone by obliquely talking about them just makes them defensive and they shut down. You’re never going to change someone’s mind fighting their core belief system unless they are truly open to change.

Instead, There are tools you can use to make those discussions not only easier but more productive. One of those things is choosing semantics and an argument format that enables you to change their mind without putting them too much on the defensive. My method above is simply that.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I appreciate that and I agree entirely - but using that word short circuits some of the pre-prepared drivel they tend to have. And I've yet to come across someone concerned with 'social justice' as they see it - prepared to put up a written or spoken defence of bigotry. They will say "there's no such thing as sexism towards men" but they will not say "it's okay to be bigoted against men". I'm not keen on trying to change minds as I believe it takes a paradigm shift - It did with me. But if I'm going to be in an argument I at least want bystanders to see clearly what I'm against (bigotry) and not mistake me for some well, bigot.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The whole idea that racism against white people doesn't exist ignores some massive historical facts. It's based on a stupid millennial assumption that because they see white "privilege" today that white people have always dominated and colonised the world. If you consider that the American slave owners bought them from African slave traders and didn't invent slavery, if you think about the slavery in the Arab world and the rest of the world for most of history and of how many different cultures have colonised others, it's obvious that white people didn't cause all the trouble. And, white people have been victims, including when the Norse invaded England, when England oppressed the Irish and now the terrified white farmers in South Africa.

[–]See-9 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Are you people purposefully misinterpreting my point? There’s no way every single person commenting is this stupid

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well now, that's no way to make friends.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

No they're not. Racism is racism. I, for instance, use the term "Reverse racism" in an entirely different way. It's racism, but basically racism under the guise of good intentions. "Oh, poor insert anything but white here you must be so poor, uneducated, unable, unsuited, incapable, etc. that you need my white help!" Kind of like the chick on twitter who said she saw a black dude in a bmw with a trump sticker and was "confused." Oh, confused the "nigga" you thought was in yo house decided to make his own decisions?

[–]Jex117 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I, for instance, use the term "Reverse racism" in an entirely different way. It's racism, but basically racism under the guise of good intentions. "Oh, poor insert anything but white here you must be so poor, uneducated, unable, unsuited, incapable, etc. that you need my white help!"

Otherwise known as "the bigotry of low expectations." I've also heard it referred to as "soft racism." It's similar in use and form to such things as "benevolent racism" which I consider to be the closest thing to "reverse racism."

Racism is defined as "anything that portrays a racial ethnicity(ies) as inherently superior or inferior to another racial ethnicity(ies)" but in common syntax you'd get the impression that something can only be racist when the focus is a racial inferiority within a protected ethnicity - that notions of racial superiority among minorities aren't treated as racism. To me, this is the closest thing to "reverse racism."

Either way though, I refuse to alter my vocabulary to abide by their demands.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Which is exactly what I was getting at.

[–]See-9 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Kudos to you for not using the colloquialism "reverse racism", and instead transforming it into something entirely different that you have to explain to other people. Your language gymnastics do nothing to detract from my point.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm giving you ammunition to use, not berating you. If you're honestly always going to be looking for a fight, you're gonna find it. But not here. I'm trying to help you figure out how to dismantle those silly terminologists who will fight you tooth and nail about "reverse racism doesn't exist!" when you can say "Then it's okay for insert anything but white to say n****r?!" I'm not here to fight with you. I'm agreeing with you and offering you further insight. Don't immediately think everyone is the opposition. Cuz I'm not.

[–]See-9 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You started out your comment with

​

>No they're not

​

, I assume disagreeing with my central point of "setting up this argument is an easier argument to win than without it". And then your supporting evidence was how YOU PERSONALLY use the term I was talking about. Honestly you brought nothing of value to the table, you disagreed on premise and not the central point, and you come across like an ass. It doesn't really matter to me what you think you're doing, you're not adding to my argument nor providing a valid counterargument against it. So shove off with your bullshit high roading if you don't have something useful to say.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Some battles are more easily fought simply by changing the semantics.

That's what I was saying "No they're not" to.

Edit, alright I'll get into your paragraph of distraught.

And then your supporting evidence was how YOU PERSONALLY use the term I was talking about.

That's not what I was speaking to.

Honestly you brought nothing of value to the table, you disagreed on premise and not the central point, and you come across like an ass.

Well when you first come across as a dick, I only decide to offer myself up so you might get some of the fecal matter (actual thought) particles into the head, at least one of them, of your own.

It doesn't really matter to me what you think you're doing, you're not adding to my argument nor providing a valid counterargument against it.

Actually, I did. I used the term in a way in which it allows you to utilize the way in which many left leaning people attempt to demean others with it, regardless of race, creed, gender, or sexuality. I allowed you to see it in a different way and use it as a force of good. To show those people that there are ways in which they, themselves, are propegating racism, unknowingly.

So shove off with your bullshit high roading if you don't have something useful to say.

No, I believe this is where I shove you off, mate. I believe your stop may have been back at Belize, but I think these cliffs would do just fine. Au revoir.

[+]comment_is_satire1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Stop giving these people ground by using their terms.

[–]See-9 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I feel like every single one of you people disagreeing with me have no fucking clue as to what point I'm making.

[–]PanderjitSingh_k 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Is this another debating tip?

[–]FreeVegetable 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

bUt RaCiSm aGaInSt WhIte PeOpLe DoEsn'T exISt.

[–]Jex117 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Which, ironically, is racism in and of itself.

Imagine the backlash if you went on television and said it's not racism when you call black people n***ers?

[–]lasciate 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Feminists require an entire ideology complete with a new dictionary to justify their double standards.

You see it's not sexism or bigotry when we call for discrimination and violence against men because...

You see when we push for nakedly unequal treatment of the sexes under the law it's really a higher form of equality because...

[–]Jex117 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I can understand why they would redefine terminology to suit their narrative, and I can understand why so many feminists abide by it.

What I don't understand is who decided mathematical equations are seen as valid definitions. Dictionaries differ in definition, but you won't find any dictionaries that define words by adding and subtracting other words.

"Air = atmosphere + pressure."

"Desk = wood + screws"

"Mug = ceramic + glazing"

Who the fuck came up with this, and how dim-witted do you have to be to not question this reductionist thinking?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I had a feminist do that when this symbol when I questioned the term toxic masculinity and said it was saying that being male was bad.

She wrote toxic masculinity =/= toxic maleness.

Or something like that.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I honestly think the excessive terminology is just an essy way to shut down dissenting opinions. When you don't even allow someone to use language you cut them off at the root. This is something I've noticed in more niche and creepy corners of psychotherapy. Give it a new language and it's just another layer of coercion.

[–]Jex117 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Bingo. It's just another tactic to manipulate and control.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

So. NewSpeak.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Had to look that term up, exactly.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Orwell was onto it.

[–]Jex117 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A combination of 1984 & Brave New World.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I was thinking up this term, figured it must already exist. It does. LeftSpeak.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sorry. That description sucks. I'd call it LeftSpeak, as it's left wing NewSpeak.

However, there's nothing good online that's using that word. Here's a guide to left wing vocabulary, which I think we should now call LeftSpeak.

[–]Jex117 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't forget Face Crimes

A facecrime in 1984 is just an expression that is shown on one's face that conveys suspicious (anti-party) beliefs. It is easy to commit because it is very difficult to have full control of your natural reactions. In the novel, if you find something that you hear sad, or gruesome, like the government killing thousands of enemies, then you may instinctively flinch. This is a facecrime because it shows that you disagree with the party's actions, which is considered a crime.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

My current pet hate, largely brought on from seeing all the posts and comments about the Covington students, is 'privilege.' I'm so tired of the brainwashing that leads to people using these words. At least we have South Park to make fun, such as with PC Principal. 'Check your privilege, bro!'

[–]Jex117 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_Study

It's more fucked up than you can imagine. They're mentally damaging an entire generation of young white people.

[–]ElectricInfatuation -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Beyta

[–]JaxJags904 74 points75 points76 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don’t expect any better from indy100 or Facebook, but holy shit. It’s the worst thing ever what he did, but it’s literally just copying what they said. The hypocrisy is unbelievable

[–]HeForeverBleeds 60 points61 points62 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

What a ridiculous lack of self-awareness. Though more likely it's not so much they're not aware of the hypocrisy as much as they try to defend it, with baseless claims like "misogyny is a much bigger problem" and the general "good when we do it; bad when you do it" mentality

[–]JaxJags904 38 points39 points40 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

They truly think you can’t be racist towards white people or sexist towards men. That’s why they think it’s ok when they do it. Their reason is “hundreds of years of oppression” make it ok. And they say that like they have been oppressed AT ALL in their short lives.

[–]kryptx 40 points41 points42 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Here's how it works. Oppression goes into the victim group's Discrimination Account. Later, it is to be spent by members of the group who were never oppressed, on behalf of their ancestors, against those who look like they might be descendants of dead former oppressors (but only local oppressors -- those who committed atrocities in other countries are not considered). This will cause them to roll over in their graves and we'll all feel warm and fuzzy.

[–]JaxJags904 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Take my upvote lol. It’s sad, but it’s almost true

[–]GrievousGod 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm saving this for later.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I just want to point out that the only people I know who post this shit are middle class white women on my facebook that I went to art school with.

[–]Jex117 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Don't dismiss the power and influence mainstream feminism has on the real world. Legislators and policy makers across the west are basing real world policy on feminist doctrine.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I didn't mean to come off as dismissive of that fact, I just find the people actually spreading it interesting.

[–]Potatolover3 56 points57 points58 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

https://www.indy100.com/article/piers-morgan-twitter-toxic-feminism-sexism-white-man-response-8744151

This is the article and holy fuck are they racist and sexist. Talking about "Male fragility" and how white men deserve to get made fun of. I cant believe we share this earth with such bigots. Wtf man. Hope for humanity is lost

[–]XenoX101 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Then again who actually reads "Indy100". Sounds like another independent 'woke' journalist jumping on the virtue signalling train.

Also I love the argument about historical oppression, because that is a racial supremacy argument if I ever heard one. "My race was oppressed 100 years ago, so I am entitled to be free from criticism". For all the talk of white privilege it seems whites are the only ones privileged enough for it to be socially acceptable to criticise. In any case, two wrongs don't make a right so this is an asinine argument.

[–]Jay_Hardy 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I need to bleach my eyes.

[–]haydenv 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Holy shit. They are justifying sexism and racism, acting like white men are not human.

I just can’t believe the world we live in

[–]Potatolover3 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, it's very gross. It's like we live in the 1950s or something. People are still racist and sexist, it just changed who it was about. Of course not anywhere near as bad as then but you get my point

[–]tigrn914 40 points41 points42 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

I completely disagree with him when it comes to guns but he's been damn right about feminism and pc culture for years now.

[–]tmone 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

exactly. im not about to be like some people and be a choosing beggar when it comes to support. support is support, regardless if its someone you cant stand otherwise.

good on piers whether hes just pandering or not. the opposition, the sjws dont care.

[–]Barkzey 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Not exactly. Some things he labels ‘pc’ for seemingly no reason.

[–]CyberToyger -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Got any examples?

[–]Barkzey 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

“Nobody was waiting for a vegan bloody sausage, you PC-ravaged clowns.”

[–]CyberToyger -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

That appears to have been a tweet towards a vegan restaurant chain, which from Pier's perspective would fall into the PC category. It's been politically incorrect to enjoy meat for some time now, with animal rights activists and Social Marxists chiding omnivores at every turn, so I can see why he used PC in this particular case; he's been bombarded by the more extreme ideologues on his own side of the political spectrum -- in addition to the right of course.

[–]Barkzey -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

It's been politically incorrect to enjoy meat for some time now

I fucking wish that was true. 97% of the population eats meat.

I can see how a simple mind would umbrella veganism with other pc topics, but simply requesting that people offer mercy to animals is not even close to demanding people use their obnoxious pronouns.

[–]CyberToyger 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Just because a majority of the population still eats meat doesn't mean that it isn't politically incorrect to do so, they're just ignoring it. Whenever someone makes a video with a meat product in it, there are always vegans in the comments. And if you were to try to start up a Meat-eating 101 class on a college campus, you would get protested and death threats. And also that class would never even get approved.

There's nothing simple-minded about noticing that many of the same people who espouse veganism tend to hold many other PC viewpoints such as being anti-gun, being Social Marxists and Third Wave feminists, restrictive of Freedom of Speech when it's something that offends them. It isn't all vegans of course, but the loud ones are more likely to be the PC ones which the rest of us have to deal with on a regular basis.

[–]Barkzey 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Just because a majority of the population still eats meat doesn't mean that it isn't politically incorrect to do so,

If the vast, vast majority of the population does something, it’s probably politically correct.

Whenever someone makes a video with a meat product in it, there are always vegans in the comments.

Definitely. Sometimes it’s me

And if you were to try to start up a Meat-eating 101 class on a college campus, you would get protested and death threats.

Most vegans are very serious about peaceful protests, so death threats is taking it a bit far. Threatening lives is also frowned upon by vegans, as you would expect.

A meat eating class sounds like it would be intentionally inflammatory towards vegans, which is why it would be protested. A home economics class that cooks meat, or a biology class that uses animal parts, would be considered acceptable by almost everyone.

There's nothing simple-minded about noticing that many of the same people who espouse veganism tend to hold many other PC viewpoints such as being anti-gun, being Social Marxists and Third Wave feminists, restrictive of Freedom of Speech when it's something that offends them.

Most vegans are actually just normal people who choose to recognise basic animal rights. Of coarse some are feminist, Marxist, anti-gun, etc. but so are meat eaters.

There's nothing simple-minded about

It is rather simple minded to categorise a large group of people based on a minority. It’s like calling black people criminals — a disproportionate amount are, but you can’t just categorise them as criminals.

The main reason people associate veganism with pc culture is because vegans tell people not to do something. But there’s nothing wrong with telling people not to do bad things.

Martin Luther King stood up against racism. Is he ‘PC’ for telling people not to do shitty things?

[–]JaxJags904 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I’m not going to stop eating meat anytime soon, but I truly have no argument against people who are vegan. When they bring up the issues with animals I really can’t combat it because I agree. I also love eating meat and have been doing it for almost 30 years, so I don’t know if I’ll be stopping.

[–]Barkzey 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The premise of veganism is that animal exploitation is immoral. If you can’t argue against that, how do you still choose to participate in something that you know is wrong?

I used to like the taste and convenience of animal products too, but I just can’t bring myself to do it anymore.

[–]JaxJags904 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Like I said I can’t argue it, but I’m just not ready to give up meat products.

[–]Barkzey 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I’m not trying to pester you, but don’t you value your morals over taste pleasure?

[+]NeDictu1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

how can piers morgan be such a complete moron about some things, but then right on point about others?

[–]jimskog99 21 points22 points23 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

People aren't black and white. Also, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[–]Jex117 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

If Hitler said water is wet, would you call him a liar?

[–]NeDictu 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

water is wet is not thoughtful commentary on a complex issue though. if hitler had a comment on brain degradation due to lack of stimulation/socialization and advocated against isolation as a punishment for prisoners, I'd be similarly confused as to why his other opinions were so retarded.

[–]Jex117 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The point is facts are facts; they don't care who uses them or what they've done in their life.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't agree with his opinions at all either, for the most part. But what If he's actually RIGHT for the most part, and only sometimes wrong? After all, the legions of people thinking he's wrong NOW ( when we think he's obviously in the right this time around), actually believe that. I suppose it's a matter of convictions, beliefs, and bigotry (which is inherent in all of us to different degrees) and biases, which blind us or make it near impossible to switch over to a point of view we oppose.

Edit:/right and wrong themselves hinge on your way of looking at it and your position. For many showing racism against whites (I've gone through the comments to Morgan's tweet) is right and acceptable, because it's actually not racism (?!?)

[–]bounty913 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Happy cake day!!!

[–]TheShShCreature 58 points59 points60 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It’s okay, they’re insulting themselves with their retardation.

[–]Fuckoff555 23 points24 points25 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh my god ಠ_ಠ, their lack of self awareness is reaching a critical level it's not even funny anymore.

[–]jimskog99 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I didn't think I'd ever be defending Piers Morgan, but the asshole is right on this one.

[–]alclarkey 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I know some of the other things that Piers Morgan has tweeted, and this is by far one of the best. Though he's said some picardfacepalm worthy things, this isn't one of them.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Their lack of self awareness is hilarious.

[–]Thaurane 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Twitter just needs to hurry up and die already. It will do society as a whole justice. If I had to choose between recreating my twitter or facebook account. I would choose facebook.

[–]JaxJags904 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Twitter is great for sports....that’s about it. Instagram is total trash. Facebook is mostly trash

[–]weedislif 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I hate Piers Morgan but I agree with this tweet

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm thinking this how horrific things like genocide get normalized in a society. You justify hatred in the form of your own victimization. You are convinced you are justified in killing or oppressing those people because you are ALREADY in fact a victim of their oppression (you are SURE of it). All of your problems become the work of a particular demographic, and everything against this demographic is "justified" because of how inhumanely horrible they must be, because the conspiracies of their horribleness become practically a religion in itself. When said group defends attack... well that's just PROOF of their eminent threat! Just look at the silly conspiracies people have been saying about Jews throughout history... when you don't like a group or their success, just come up with some stupid narrative about how they "oppress" you, to justify your own violence against them, and deflect your own failings. You can in fact be a blatant aggressor while absolutely convincing yourselves you are DEFENDING yourself from some imminent evil. What better way to turn otherwise decent people into war mongers?

[–]aazov 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This deserves six million upvotes.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fuck me if intersectional feminists managed to be more obnoxious than Piers fucking Morgan.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I like him. I read somewhere that he was totally insane, but it was a lie, he raises good points. He's a bit dramatic about but well he's an entertainer

[–]PacoBedejo 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

After watching his pants-shittingly stupid stances on firearms (as he can soon observe in Venezuela, I fear), finding that I agree with him on something made me re-evaluate my stance here.

[–]alclarkey 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

A broken clock is right twice a day. His tweets and stance on gun control was pretty cancerous.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

What was his stance? Btw he's English, so if he has a pretty strong stance of no guns should be allowed, that's just the most common European opinion on the issue

[–]alclarkey 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

His stance was that the US second amendment only applied to muskets. So since he was talking about US gun culture, his Englishness buys him nothing.

[–]dre702 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

To add on to that. When the second amendment was established. Machine guns were a thing. So were multi shot pistols. Everyone knew guns were gonna advance as well as other aspects of society. So he’s just completely stupid on that.

[–]LowQualityH2O 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I didn't believe you at first, but holy shit you're right for the most part. The Puckle Gun was created in 1718. It wasn't fast, but it did show much advancement in firearms long before the 2A was ratified in 1791.

And Paper Cartridges go back as far as the 14th century.

[–]WikiTextBot 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Paper cartridge

A paper cartridge is one of various types of small arms ammunition used before the advent of the metallic cartridge. These cartridges consisted of a paper cylinder or cone containing the bullet, gunpowder, and, in some cases, a primer or a lubricating and anti-fouling agent. Combustible cartridges are paper cartridges that use paper treated with oxidizers to allow them to burn completely upon ignition.


[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.28

[–]HelperBot_ 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Desktop link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_cartridge


/r/HelperBot_ Downvote to remove. Counter: 233985

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah but you will encounter that opinion among many of us in Europe. Most of us I would say. So if you don't like him for that reason, you wouldn't like what a loooot of European commentators have to say about the issue

For most of us, the standard opinion is "just get rid of the guns, or stop complaining about mass shootings - either one"

Not saying I share that opinion, i share Steven Crowder's opinion

[–]PleasantHuman 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Reminds me of this Sky News clip

[–]fengpi 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't forget: It is men who are the fragile ones! Which is why they always demand speech codes, reformed language and safe spaces bedecked with stuffed animals and soap bubbles.

[–]JaxJags904 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Seen it before, love the curb music at the end lol

[–]Drezzzire 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

🤦‍♂️ Do they even have brains

[–]RamXid 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No

[–]dogkindrepresent 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't like the implications of that kind of argument. As in either every race, gender and sex is open game or none should be. Within reason I actually lean on the former but it doesn't really matter because only some groups being open game is worse than either.

I also really don't like Piers Morgan after seeing him being such a piece of shit over the Koran with Tommy Robinson.

I have to give him some credit and respect though for breaking out of the prison of political correctness and standing up for himself.

[–]Jex117 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't like the implications of that kind of argument. As in either every race, gender and sex is open game or none should be. Within reason I actually lean on the former but it doesn't really matter because only some groups being open game is worse than either.

A lot of people aren't aware that feminists operate under a separate set of definitions. They've redefined sexism and racism to exclude white people and males - simply telling them this is racist against white people isn't good enough. Their doctrine gives them justification to dismiss this argument.

If you want to convince a feminist to reexamine this, you'll need to engage them on a deeper level.

[–]ExFavillaResurgemos 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Look, piers morgan is a wanker no doubt, but his tweet was so fucking reasonable and easy to understand... So how don't they???

[–]JBrody 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's like a bizarro world. They totally ignore the tweet he was responding to while PUTTING IT IN THE DAMN IMAGE!

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Modern feminism is never about equality

[–]the_annoying_one1 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

He's just thanking them for proving his point

[–]JaxJags904 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

And in their delusional minds they think he proved their point. It’s wild

[–]the_annoying_one1 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This reminds me of that pic that says cupcakes for equality but for men it's a dollar and for women its 75 cents

[–]Jex117 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They did, for the 95% of users who just read the headline and accept it as gospel.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I can’t believe I’m saying this, GO PIERS!

[–]Yusi-D-Jordan 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I generally don’t like him, but he was spot on with this one.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks for posting this. This post made me go follow this guy. Fuck MSM and it’s hypocrisy.

[–]Good-Boi 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

SJW Liberals are biggest hypocrites in the world. Twitter and facebook, ect...are propaganda platforms for them.

Racism against whites and sexism against males is not only supported on those platforms but encouraged too. Speaking out against that will see you likely banned and discenting views censored

You'll see the far left liberal platforms push this hateful narrative harder the closer to election time we get

[–]lhommedacier 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I never thought I'd say this without including the word 'wing' at the end, but PIERS MORGAN IS RIGHT.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's become normalised to do this for women. At some point it will cause a backlash

[–]tiserus04 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don’t think they missed his point. They (the writer of the article/the left) believes racism is about power dynamics. Since White males have been the historically dominate demographic socio-economically they believe that only white men can be racists.

This is how my sociology professor explained to me. I was so stunned I could not rebuttal before he change the subject.

[–]Lethn 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's actually ridiculous that I'm finding common ground with the likes of Piers Morgan because of how bad feminists are, he's completely right.

[–]Invicturion 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That cockwaffle isnt exactly a blazing light of manhood.. But for once........no..i cant say it.. He is still a cunt...

[–]Bosquito86 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Holy cow, I've never thought that the day will come when I'll agree with Piers Morgan...

[–]actionjackson42 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I usually don't like this guy, but he's spot on here.

[–]StupidDebate 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If only Terry Crews tweeted that

[–]fryhldrew 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Worst tweet my foot

[–]adomm420 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I appreciate his activity. Anyone saw his rant on morning show about Gillette ad? loved it!

[–]Silencio00 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The replies of the tweet proved his point. But Twitter its an awful place anyway.

[–]LoneKharnivore 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree with Piers "Morgan" Moron? I need a shower.

[–]GTFonMF 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Valid question is valid.

[–]Suavementeeee 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nice Kafka

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

https://youtu.be/Ag1o3koTLWM

[–]abatoire 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

This can't be real... This is to insane to be real...

[–]abatoire 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Well I'll be... It is... Question. Some of the tweets referenced in this clearly impartial "article" make points that you can't be racist to whites and we are to blame for 100s of years of oppression etc.

Are we not on the same level as blaming the son for the sins of the father? Are we to round up people of a certain ethic groups who tried (and largely succeed) in ethic cleansing? Are we allowed to call all Germans Nazis, Italians Roman, Australians convicts and Americans native murder land grabbing imperialists???

As that's there history (in simple terms)

[–]boydingo 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

^ Thier

[–]abatoire 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

*their ? 😏

[–]boydingo 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I’m not worthy

[–]Andrew_Squared 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm just stunned I agree with this guy on something.

[–]factsd0ntlie 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Time to leave earth

[–]b-radimusprime69 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hahaha what a fucking joke

[–]nonroker 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They were wrong to say that. And he is wrong to say this. Everyone needs to stop with the strawman bullshit.

[–]twittyswister 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fuck, they're dumb. What's even more amazing is that somehow they've managed to ensconce themselves in positions of power. This can only end with a civil war.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Spouting off about toxic masculinity = groundbreaking and brave

Calling attention to the fact that the above is wrong by comparing it to an inverted, hypothetical rebuttal = reaching new low

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Optimistically speaking, these demoralized individuals out themselves as racist/sexist. Even going as far as trying to change the definition of racism to include power. Makes me depressed, I’m an immigrant and faced a lot of hate for being a “white male” mostly from teachers/professors in school/college. Perks of living in California.

[–]chambertlo 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But, racist toxic feminism is the only type of feminism that really exists these days.

[–]HJGamer 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Feminism has become racism towards men.

[–]boydingo 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Men are not a race.

[–]masterdebator300 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

A woman on the internet is the epitome of sensitivity. Just simply disagreeing with them will send them into a mute happy rage

I being a gamer have had many debates with people and the men were calm and collected and only the women (some not all) went haywire. Ofcourse thus is just my experience.

[–]Jex117 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

To be fair I've had plenty of spats with angry white knights.

I won't pretend that women aren't more emotional than men, but at the same time I can't get behind these anti-woman notions.

Keep in mind only 14% of women identify as feminists. Advocating for Men's Rights doesn't have to be Men vs Women - especially when you consider some of our biggest, loudest, and most famous activists are women.

[–]Lokimonoxide 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"mute-happy"

Looks like you meant "mute, happy rage" .............. which is weird to read, haha.

[–]Pound_puppies 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I will never use or refer to this man as a champion of men's rights. This man is a total and complete piece of shit.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Bit of a tangent, but relevant to the overall discussion, did other people read about this hoax, in which they got fake essays using ridiculous jargon that sounded authentic published in respected academic journals? It's a reminder of how much of this academic stuff like gender studies and other victimhood studies courses leave people with these new beliefs that only white people can be racist, only men can be sexist, etc. There's so much chicanary and frippery in academia. Particularly the victim studies fields. So many people parrot this made up nonsense as if it's the truth. This hoax did the world a favour. Clearly the theorists who are putting out all this gender stuff are making it up and can't tell the difference when others make up a bunch of baloney that sounds like top notch feminist theory. Getting back to the topic at hand, if we simply point out logically that we believe anyone can be racist or sexist, regardless of race or gender, and they attack us for being rational, we still have the high ground. As this article that someone linked below about Kafkatrapping discusses.

[–]ABooney134 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I wish more leftist were like piers.

He doesn't understand gun rights and the constitution but guy sure is far more sensible than most democracts.

[–]Jay_Hardy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's probably because he's British.

[–]IsThataProGenji69 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The first time in my life I agree with piers Morgan

[–]Potatolover3 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There's no way this is real can I get a link. I just cant believe there are people this stupid

[–]JaxJags904 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There were a lot of Facebook comments on it. It’s real. These people will be outraged at whatever they are told to be outraged about, and jump through all sorts of hoops to justify it

[–]RampagingAardvark 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Men are all sensitive racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic bigots, and if you get mad at me for calling you that, you're just proving me right! /s

[–]keepitswoozy -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Piers Morgan is a boss

[+]that_guy_witha_LBZ -8 points-7 points-6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You guys get so bent out of shape about everything.

[+]electricalnoise -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I thought Piers Morgan was a cunt? Was it just about the gun thing, or is this a new development?

[–]toggleme1 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He hasn’t stopped being a twat.

[–]JaxJags904 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don’t give a fuck about Piers Morgan tbh, I just hate this hypocrisy that you can’t be racist/sexist towards white men

[–]Jex117 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In regards to this discussion, he makes a valid point, regardless of anything else he's done.

If Hitler said water is wet I'd have to agree with him, regardless of anything else he's done (I'm not implying a comparison between Piers Morgan & Hitler - just highlighting that merit and truth isn't exclusive to people we like)

[–]Lokimonoxide 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If Pol Pot swam into a freezing river to save a box of puppies, you wouldn't criticise him for it.

Piers Morgan has the ability to be correct/make good points, even if you don't like him.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter