So Other than GamerGate, Brexit, and Trump What's New?

[Observe]

I think most of us, give each other the benefit of the doubt and judge according to action.

When I meet a woman I don't know, I don't immediately label her. Sure, I naturally begin to label as my mind processes sensual data. What kind of clothes, haircut, how she carries herself, is she smiling etc? I begin to form an initial tentative view of her, even before she speaks.

To be honest though, I can't remember the last time I met a woman and labeled her a feminist right out of the gate. I might label her a conservative or liberal before sticking the feminist label on her. I'd have to get to know her better.

To me, the word feminist is almost meaningless, because no person is only a feminist and nothing else. Technically, I am a feminist male, because I don't think men should have an advantage over women in society.

[Mightysword]

To be honest though, I can't remember the last time I met a woman and labeled her a feminist right out of the gate. I might label her a conservative or liberal before sticking the feminist label on her. I'd have to get to know her better.

Technically, I am a feminist male, because I don't think men should have an advantage over women in society.

And here come back to one of the more important question posed by other: why need the label at all? When you say: you ARE a feminist male, BECAUSE you don't think men should have an advantage over women". Does this come with the implication that non-feminist males do not believe in those things? Why is it not enough to simply say "we are all going to work for the equality of all sexes/genders" ?

[Observe]

Why is it not enough to simply say "we are all going to work for the equality of all sexes/genders" ?

That's essentially what we end up doing. We can debate labels and semantics until the cows come home, but at the end of the day, how I have conducted myself on behalf of women (and men) is what matters.

If I was a women, I would want equal pay for equal work. Therefore, as a man, it is only right that I stand for that principle whenever I am in a position to do so. Whether I know the word feminist or not, it make no difference to how I behave.

If a person is kind and decent, they will support fairness - regardless of sex.

[Ketraar]

And here come back to one of the more important question posed by other: why need the label at all? When you say: you ARE a feminist male, BECAUSE you don't think men should have an advantage over women". Does this come with the implication that non-feminist males do not believe in those things? Why is it not enough to simply say "we are all going to work for the equality of all sexes/genders" ?

Because in the real world, woman's treatment and access is skewed against them, thus the need to focus on them. Its not really rocket salami, but you knew that.

And now I wait for the rebuttal that woman's suffering and unfair treatment is made up by feminists, or much like climate-change is a conspiracy to get men's privileges and how they are the true victims and will have too cook and clean and raise children, which is the women's job anyway.

Yes the world is perfect and why make movements to advance people's rights to standard? Its like racism, it was fixed ages ago.

MFG

Ketraar

[Mightysword]

Because in the real world, woman's treatment and access is skewed against them, thus the need to focus on them. Its not really rocket salami, but you knew that.

When you see the pendulum swing hard in one way, the natural instinct is to swing it hard the other way. I don't know what is rocket salami to you, but pulling the pendulum to the middle maybe not the instinctual thing to do, but it's the only way to stop the pendulum from moving ... for good.

Yeah, I know why people say "Black lives matter", given the in justice displayed many believe it's a natural rally cry. But "All lives matter" is the right to do if you want to solve thing permanently.

And now I wait for the rebuttal that woman's suffering and unfair treatment is made up by feminists, or much like climate-change is a conspiracy to get men's privileges and how they are the true victims and will have too cook and clean and raise children, which is the women's job anyway.

I don't think anyone here in the argument with you so far had said anything even remotely close to what you just said. It is a warped image or conjecture you conjured up in your mind, because activist like you tend to give yourself this siege mentality Us vs Them. Hey, I told you many times before right, your brand of activism is built on guilt, frustration, condemnation, and overall negativity rather than the positive hope and dream. The attitude you just displayed is the reason why me, and perhaps others refuse to subscribe to your idea. We believe and follow the cause, we just simply don't believe and follow people like you.

Yes the world is perfect and why make movements to advance people's rights to standard? Its like racism, it was fixed ages ago.

MFG

Ketraar

Again, no one here but you are saying that. You're giving a target for your own frustration through no one but your own conjecture. Even though all of us see the same problems, yours is not the only way to fix it as much you believe that it is. Either my way or it is the wrong way ... well, let's just say in many instances that's the mentality that creates as much problem as it solves.

[Ketraar]

Yeah, I know why people say "Black lives matter", given the in justice displayed many believe it's a natural rally cry. But "All lives matter" is the right to do if you want to solve thing permanently.

No! For **** sake! Its NOT up to you to define the movement, its intent, target and goals unless it was you that started it! You are being disingenuous trying to devalue the more than valid outcry for injustice by black people that thought THEY needed to make some noise. Black lives matter does NOT imply other lives dont, anyone thinking otherwise is projecting their bigotry onto others.

I don't think anyone here in the argument with you so far had said anything even remotely close to what you just said. It is a warped image or conjecture you conjured up in your mind, because activist like you tend to give yourself this siege mentality Us vs Them. Hey, I told you many times before right, your brand of activism is built on guilt, frustration, condemnation, and overall negativity rather than the positive hope and dream. The attitude you just displayed is the reason why me, and perhaps others refuse to subscribe to your idea.

I ignored this idiocy you keep tossing at me many times, but I will say this just once. You know shit about me, you have absolutely no clue what I feel, what I do and who I am. We debate IDEAS and IDEALS, anything you come up to try and define who I am or what I do based on it, is BULLCRAP. Feel free to keep trying, I will ignore it.

MFG

Ketraar

[Observe]

All these movements designed to address inequities are perfectly valid. To deny them their due, is to frustrate the evolution of society.

Why need the label at all

Because this is what people do. They label everything. If something looks like a car, that is what I label it as. If I go to the doctor, he is interested in how I label my malady. We do this out of convenience for communication and consensus.

We label when we are dealing with the practical world. Take Black Lives Matter. Ultimately, of course all lives matter. On a practical level however, there is need to address inequities and so we place a label on it to bring attention and focus.

We could say the words 'climate change' is a label. It is easier to speak of climate change, than to try to explain in detail, every time the subject comes up. It's a short-hand summary of a perceived problem.

Nothing wrong with labels when dealing with the practical realities of the material world. There are however, times we may want to avoid labeling, because our ability to acquire new understanding can be inhibited by frozen definitions.

[Alan Phipps]

"Do you know what a stereotype is? It's superstition and shallow opinion about a [whatever] based on brief experience of just a few. You really don't want to fall for it."

Ren Otani, X Rebirth.

Who said that computer games could not be educational and relevant?

[Aye Capn]

But we can keep it simple, crime is bad and deserves varying degrees of outrage.

The whole point of Feminism is to pervert the law so that the victims become the perpetrators and the perpetrators the victims. Your Feminist conception that "crime is bad" is exactly the problem when what is called "crime" is a perversion of justice stripped of due process.

Kirsten Gillibrand's persecution of Paul Nungesser is a perfect example. Her answer to Paul Nungesser's false accuser not getting a guilty verdict is to rewrite the law to make it virtually impossible for men in Paul's situation to defend themselves.

I see that as no reason for me not to apply for a feminism membership.

Paul Nungesser is innocent.

Equality ... inherited from the Committee of Public Safety ...

What is that the reference to?

Not sure "equality" has to be a strictly feminist idea ...

The whole point is that it is not. As with the sort of "justice" done by Social Justice the Committee of Public Safety's conception of "equality" has everything to do with Feminism.

Feminists are the Committee of Public Safety, the Alderwomen of Salem, the McMartin Preschool Recovered Memory Investigators, an archetype of injustice as old as recorded history, and in every new guise of hoods and armbands another generation of innocents suffer.

But why specifically the Comittee of Public Safety? Today the armband of our latest archetype bears the sigil "Equality" -- just as it did for the Committee. Feminists didn't invent this sort of "Equality"; they are its grisly resurrection.

And to the dictionary we go!
1. ... equality ...

"Equality", indeed.

Again there are no lynch mobs.

When Robert F. Williams thwarted a Klan mob did the mob's lack of success make it not a lynch mob? Ridiculous.

A Feminist hate mob organized around the extralegal sexual mutilation of innocent men because of their race and sex is the very definition of a lynch mob whether or not it succeeds.

The more seriously one takes the crime of rape the greater the injustice of branding for life the falsely accused.

Saudi Arabia is the wet dream of everyone who hates feminism ...

Treating accusations as proof of guilt is the stock-in-trade of everyone who loves it.

["Listen and believe" creates its own perverse incentive ...

No it does not.

Yes it does; case-in-point Sabrina Erdely.

Brett Kavanaugh ... Never mind the possibility of a politically-motivated lie: accusations are proof of guilt ...

Brett Kavanaugh is:
3. Still a judge.

If Kavanaugh were on a college campus he would've already been fired. Your "defense" of Feminism that its harm is contained as it does not yet control everything misses the point of the horrors it visits upon the innocent in the places it does control.

To consider Feminism a "good thing" one would have to be a Feminist.

I have no problem with that.

I have never been more thankful that so few and ever fewer identify as Feminists!
Impartial justice not Social Justice.
Humanism not Feminism.
Due Process not Kangaroo Courts.
#DeVos2020

[Mightysword]

No! For **** sake! Its NOT up to you to define the movement, its intent, target and goals unless it was you that started it!

And we said that a movement can not be judged simply based on its intent, but also the action of its followers. A good cause doesn't make every follower a saints, again, do you think every priests are beyond reproach? Why is it so difficult for you to understand that? You keep referring to the text, we simply say the action has to be accountable too.

I ignored this idiocy you keep tossing at me many times, but I will say this just once. You know shit about me, you have absolutely no clue what I feel, what I do and who I am. We debate IDEAS and IDEALS, anything you come up to try and define who I am or what I do based on it, is BULLCRAP. Feel free to keep trying, I will ignore it.

First: you are the one quoting AFTER me in this case, doing the exact things you accusing me doing (making assumption about your thought) except with a lot more temper and harsher language. Why you are talking as if it is my problem?

Second: we have had enough clashes on ideal and we both stand up for what we believe in. You had gone as far as calling out others (including me) in instance you don't agree. So I don't think it's wrong for me to treat you as the avatar or personification of the ideal you're advocating, or shouldn't I do that?

Third: you are absolutely right. I don't know anything about you. I don't know who you are, didn't grow up with you, not your friend, and have no idea what is on your resume. The only thing I have on you is your words on this forum. So do note that my assumption (as you call it) be it right or wrong, they are what they are due to the impression that you are giving. And base on what you had said so far, I don't see a reason to change my assessment. I will only change it not because you're screaming at me, but only if you give me a valid reason to do so

[Mightysword]

"Do you know what a stereotype is? It's superstition and shallow opinion about a [whatever] based on brief experience of just a few. You really don't want to fall for it."

I think I know what you're getting at Alan. But there is also another saying: ignorant is a bliss.

Ok so how about it. Since there has been temper flared, and assumptions made. I will offer a detail example, and link up everything I had said in the last 2 weeks to show people where I am coming from. For anyone who will spend the time and afford to read through it, I will ask you to see if my POV is a product of a shallow opinion based on brief experience of just a few.

Also, I will clearly mark the beginning and end of the post, so to those who have problems with my post, you don't have to read it. To those who will, I do not seek your agreement or endorsement, I'm just asking you will read it with a calm and objective head. And if you do read it, please read it in the entirely to avoid a "jumping the gun" situation. Be warned, it's long, and there is no tl;dr. Read it only if you really want to, please ignore otherwise.






********************************BEGIN**********************************************

The example here about the Diversity and Inclusive movement. This is something I believe strongly in, not just a fan from the side, but as an active participant on this movement. So new flash, I am an activist too! The goal is of course to in crease diversity in workplace, school, institution ...etc... due to the following reasons:


- By having diversity, we help to combat bias and stereotype.
- By promoting inclusiveness, we give everyone equal opportunities.


So yes, I am a big believer and follower. But even then, I can't help but notice as the movement became a more political force and activist groups start gaining power ... things takes a bad turn. I ask you exam this scenario:

A company need to hire a new position. A public posting was made detail all qualification for the job. A hiring committee was formed, which each members given a grading matrix for the selection and evaluation process. Over 100 applicants is in the pool by the time the posting ends. The following process was followed:

- First round: done automatically by computer. Scanning through resume/open letter to eliminate any candidate that did not meet the minimum requirement. Around 50 people make it to the next round.
- Second round: member of the hiring committee go through the resume themselves, giving points base on the letter of intend as well as any qualification beyond the minimum. During this, they do not know the name, gender, race or any personal information of each applicant. The top 10 with the highest score is submitted to HR for the last round - a face to face interview.

*HR got back to the committee and demand the list to be extended to 20. Turn out among those 10, they were all white. When the list extended to 20, it includes a black candidate.

- Third round: face to face interview. The top 3 finalists is submitted to the director for final decision. Decision came back, none of the finalist got pick. In fact, the company will hire the rank 16th candidate, which also happens to be black. When the hiring committee hit back asking why: a very clear and specific reply was given: so that the company roster can have more diversity.


So here is a few problem with this, and if a point is tied to something I had said in the last 2 weeks, I will highlight it.


ONE ---- Honesty and integrity: if the company already decided that I will only hire a person of color, the job posting should have reflected as such. But of course a posting saying something like "position only available to applicant of color, we already have too many white employees" is highly inappropriate. So they know it's wrong, but that's exactly what they did behind the scene.

TWO ---- Why did I say for every 3 steps forward, 2 step back are made: so words get out.

- The person who top the qualification list who should have gotten the job, knew he/she was booted in favor of a less qualified candidate because of the race factor. This person may be or may not be a racist before, but it certainly didn't help moving his/her perception in the right direction.
- The peers who were expecting their next coworker to be the most qualified of the pool, turn out they get someone who are much less, just happens to be black. Even before we consider the racism factor, from a professional respect point of view, it's already not a good start. Again, racism maybe there or maybe not already there, it won't exactly move toward the right direction.
- So, if the goal of diversity and inclusive is to combat bias and stereotype. and give everyone equal opportunities, this process accomplished exactly the opposite. But hey, if you just want to talk about end goal, then it can be considered a success, the company now have more diversity with the additional of one black employee.

THREE ----Why did I say others had to come in and clean up the mess?: lawsuits started flying, motion of no confident took place, accusation of racism, whisper testimony, counter suit for retaliation ...etc... Everyone had so much fun that the company ended up forming a taskforce, charging with the task of still improving diversity but make sure that kind of shenanigan doesn't happen. Take a guess who is on that taskforce? People with no history of racism, recognized for their work in promoting Diversity and Inclusive, but also level head enough to see what can go wrong.


FOUR ----Why did I say you can't force a 100 years process in 10? Ketraa if you reading this, when I said that I don't mean something as simple and as literal as holding back woman equality by 50 years.

- The taskforce identify the cause easy enough: out of the original 100+ applicant, there was only 3 black. Even when racism assumed to not exist, the statistical chance of a black candidate getting the pick is already low.
- A short term proposal was made about changing the recruitment process with more emphasis on networking and outreach program. For example, reaching out to organizations like the National Society of Black Engineers with new job posting and ask them to spread the message so more black candidates can apply for the job.
- A long term proposal was made for community building and investment, so that a bigger pool of qualified black candidate can be generated for the future. This mean opening up new doors, presenting new opportunity, funding new scholarship for at risk population ...etc... and you know, when you work on these things something you wish you have a magic wand. Reality is that you don't, and it's a painfully slow process that the real result will not be seen until years down the line. That's why most companies need both a short term operational plan, and a long term 5-10 years strategic plan.

When I said 10 years, I mean something like "hey, just pick the first black candidate on the list, job done, more diversity BAM". By 100 years, I simply acknowledging the difficult and the amount of work had to be put it so that the goal achieve is not a short term one, but is a long term, sustainable process. The end game is that instead of having 1 black for every 20 candidates, but move that number to 5:20, 7:20, and if I dare dream, maybe 10:20 someday. That is why I said my branch of activism is built on the hope and dream for the future.

FIVE ----Why did say when I make one step of progress, I want it to be a step everyone can make together. I want the most qualified candidate to get the job, regardless of the color, what I do is to improve the odd that candidate will be black. I want all of the peer to be happy with their new coworker, and I want HR can make the decision free of any political influence. I know I often criticize people for being idealistic over practical, but who do you think is the biggest idealist? The only difference is how much patient you have for the cause. I want minimum collateral damage and overhead as progress is made, even if it has to be slow.

SIX ----Why did I say progress must be made naturally and not engineered. By nature, I don't mean just sit around and let thing sort itself out. I believe activism is more about changing the way people think, rather than forcing a decision on them. Relying on a nature process doesn't mean not putting afford, but it's about putting the afford to nurture and foster the changes step by step, instead of just going for the throat right at the beginning.


So, that's a bit of context for why I think the way I do. Now, I don't know how the situation on this particular issue outside of the US, but in the US it is a growing issue. The example I used here is by no meant a rare or isolated incident. You don't hear it very often or at all in mainstream media because it's against the narrative. But dig around a bit and you'll find enough to satisfy your curiosity. It's also not just about the hiring of one or two individuals. There have been cases of people banding together to sue institutions claiming they were denied administration due to their race, the only irony part is it's the white and asian who did it rather than the black and latino. And most telling part is as these lawsuit played out, some defending institutions do not even deny it. They openly admit that without a conscious recruiting policy, they can not maintain a diverse balance among applicants, and it's within their right to do it. So again, victories if you want to only look at the end goal and focus on the statistic, but is it the right way to do it. This is why I said we sometime ignore, stay silence and give tacit approval to wrong doing because it fits the narrative we want better.

I just post a small link here, it's sorta fall on my lap since the BBC posted it just a few days ago.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45514592

So, a school in Europe sent a picture of its student to a US PR firm to promote their school. The US company thinks there isn't enough black face on the photos so they recolored a few faces to black ... have to make everything look diversity you know. And like I said, this is not rare, the scary part is it's getting a point where we're doing almost unconsciously now, as if it's a matter to be taken for granted.

The goal, they were never changed. But I wonder if we had become too obsessed with the end goal, that sometime we forgot or lost sight of what the goal itself is about.

********************************END**********************************************






So, that's my context and reasons. For those who read through it, my apology to put you through that and my thank for going through that. I do not seek your agreement, but I hope you would understand more whether if I am truly ignorant about activism, or if my POV is a product of a shallow opinion based on brief experience of just a few? This is not just limited to this particular movement anyway, I can share similar example for a lot of movement, including gender quality or feminism. I'm not someone commenting on the side, I'm right in the middle of it.

[fiksal]

But we can keep it simple, crime is bad and deserves varying degrees of outrage.

The whole point of Feminism is to pervert the law so that the victims become the perpetrators and the perpetrators the victims.

No it is not.

And to the dictionary we go!

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism

Definition of feminism
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

I see that as no reason for me not to apply for a feminism membership.

Paul Nungesser is innocent.

Ok lets go with this example.

Can you elaborate?

For example:
- how is this guy is an example of why, as per feminism definition above, the cause for women being equal to men, is not a good cause?


and I want to keep the ever growing thread concise, so please stick to the definition and the question above

[clakclak]

@Aye Capn: I think that is enough for me. Problem is our views are so vastly different that we will probably never see eye to eye on this issue.

[Aye Capn]

Problem is our views are so vastly different that we will probably never see eye to eye on this issue.

The fastest turn of a Feminist into a Humanist is for her son to be falsely accused and railroaded by a kangaroo court run by her fellow Feminists. I accept the consequences of not wishing this on anyone without moral reservation. Adieu.

And to the dictionary we go!
Definition of feminism
1 : ... equality ...

Again? By all means, then, let's review the Feminist conception of "Equality":

Equality ... inherited from the Committee of Public Safety ...

What is that the reference to?

Not sure "equality" has to be a strictly feminist idea ...

The whole point is that it is not. As with the sort of "justice" done by Social Justice the Committee of Public Safety's conception of "equality" has everything to do with Feminism.

Feminists are the Committee of Public Safety, the Alderwomen of Salem, the McMartin Preschool Recovered Memory Investigators, an archetype of injustice as old as recorded history, and in every new guise of hoods and armbands another generation of innocents suffer.

But why specifically the Comittee of Public Safety? Today the armband of our latest archetype bears the sigil "Equality" -- just as it did for the Committee. Feminists didn't invent this sort of "Equality"; they are its grisly resurrection.

Paul Nungesser is innocent.

Ok lets go with this example.

Can you elaborate?

Yes, but I'll let Sargon do it.

how is this guy is an example of why, as per feminism definition above, the cause for women being equal to men, is not a good cause?

Tyranny in the name of equality is still tyranny; likewise any form of equality that is tyranny is not a good cause but an evil one.

[fiksal]

And to the dictionary we go!
Definition of feminism
1 : ... equality ...

Again? By all means, then, let's review the Feminist conception of "Equality":

Wait, is your hang up with the word "equality"?

That word is even more specific than that : "the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities.". It's half mathematical.

Which of the words is a problem word for you?

Equality ... inherited from the Committee of Public Safety ...

What is that the reference to?

Not sure "equality" has to be a strictly feminist idea ...

The whole point is that it is not. As with the sort of "justice" done by Social Justice the Committee of Public Safety's conception of "equality" has everything to do with Feminism.

Fine, "equality" has a lot or everything to do with femenism. Seems logical, and I dont see any issues there.

Feminists are the Committee of Public Safety, the Alderwomen of Salem, the McMartin Preschool Recovered Memory Investigators, an archetype of injustice as old as recorded history, and in every new guise of hoods and armbands another generation of innocents suffer.

I skipped this the first time because I've no idea nor really care what or who these Alderaan organizations are.

Why should I care about them?

Yes, but I'll let Sargon do it.

It's a bit boring to watch boring videos. Is there anything you want to add instead in terms of an answer of what I've asked?

I can link some Rammstein to illustrate my point.

how is this guy is an example of why, as per feminism definition above, the cause for women being equal to men, is not a good cause?

Tyranny in the name of equality is still tyranny; likewise any form of equality that is tyranny is not a good cause but an evil one.

Equality is tyranny to you?

oh well in that case, I am convinced, the made up tyrannies neither affect me nor I really care (about them). Had me worried there for 1/1000 seconds.


Feels good man

[Aye Capn]

Wait, is your hang up with the word "equality"?
...
"the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities."
...
Which of the words is a problem word for you?

Let's go with "status" and apply it to the concept in justice of "burden of proof". In a just system the burden of proof is not equal but placed on the prosecution; the alternative is the Star Chamber, both its literal incarnation and its Feminist reincarnation. In most circumstances innocent people can't actually prove their innocence against made-up charges nor defend themselves from arbitrary prosecution or political persecution.

But even compared to the Star Chamber Feminist "equality" perverts burden-of-proof doctrine still further: because of Crystal Mangum's race and sex being historically unequal relative to those of the accused the "historical injustice" was essentially added to the burden of proof, making it insurmountable.

Never mind the bank records proving their innocence: Crystal Mangum's Progressive Stack overrides hard evidence. This is Feminist "equality".

I skipped this the first time because I've no idea
...
It's a bit boring to watch boring videos
...
oh well in that case, I am convinced, the made up tyrannies neither affect me nor I really care
...

Paul Nungesser is innocent.

Feels good man

No doubt.

[fiksal]

In a just system the burden of proof is not equal but placed on the prosecution;

That system works for me.

because of Crystal Mangum's race and sex being historically unequal relative to those of the accused the "historical injustice" was essentially added to the burden of proof, making it insurmountable.

Is that a person's name? I get a feeling you keep posting all those names hoping I'll look them up. And yet I dont see how he or she has anything to do with dictionary definition of equality.


Crimes must be treated equally regardless or victim's or perpetrator's sex. That's one example of equality.

If / Since you dont agree with that, I am not sure what to even tell you.

Paul Nungesser is innocent.

Never met him.

Dr Venture is innocent as well.

[Aye Capn]

Defending Feminism through willful ignorance is ... unique. Even Johnathan Rabe wasn't willfully ignorant; he honestly didn't know the nature of the masters he served.

You've already admitted you don't agree with the Feminist conception of "Equality", but cognitive dissonance blocks you from thinking that through any further.

Refusing to acknowledge they exist doesn't make the injustices of Feminist Social Justice any less horrific, nor does it change the nature of an ideology which in the name of Equality persecutes the innocent.

Someone in this courtroom is guilty, but it is not my client.

Paul Nungesser is innocent.

[CBJ]

This thread seems to have been started as flamebait and it doesn't seem to have progressed much beyond that. I'll give it one last chance to have a pleasant chat about what's happened in the last few years, but if people can't manage to keep it from becoming a spill-over from the politics of the Trump thread then I'll close this one and the discussion can carry on there.

[fiksal]

@Aye Capn, your war with clear definitions and English language is a nonsense to me. As an engineer one must remove the noise to get to the basics.

I know exactly why you are anti feminism and anti equality, and anti a few more things.

So it seems like everything was "discussed" already