Why Are Right Wing Men So Sad?

Post Reply New Topic

They also dont believe in condoms and the pill.

And when their right wing daughters get pregnant, a lot of them change their minds about abortion.

I am referring to real events in Texas, but cant remember the source.

Oh what do you mean exactly?

The same pro-life people are happy to allow less fortunate women and children to suffer though
https://www.prochoiceamerica.org/campai ... -movement/

Not sure how belief is making others suffer is going to get them into White heaven??
But I'm sure they also believe "as above so below"

Well I think a lot of these pregnancy issues can be solved with condoms and birth control, rather than being red or blue, can't they?

Let them flirt first, then you know they are interested ,but this is more a topic for L&D.

White Heaven’s foundations are built on the suffering of those less fortunate, or the wrong race, sexual orientation, etc...

Did anyone actually read the article, because there is actually some weirdly interesting things to take away from it being in the conservative Washington Times. At first I was hoping to find a link to the poll and data, which I couldn't find. But then the writer sneaks in what the 'speculation' is of the one who put the data together, which was that they thought it was evidence that those on the Left were more likely to seek out mental health evaluations rather than buying into other ideologies, which I am guess is saying that left wing mentally unwell people look to a doctor while the right wing are more likely to look to Jesus.

The author of the article then starts to broadly make their own speculations with very little data, which are things like awareness of inequalities such as on racial grounds, which the author uses hyperbole to create a disparity of death numbers. And something she calls "panic porn" surrounding Covid 19, which seems to fit the politics of this specific journalist's politics if you look up her other articles, where she seems unconcerned over the idea of children catching the virus, because they are unlikely to "die", and that all adults who might catch it from kids spreading it will be fine because of the vaccines, or is under a "your choice" for not getting a vaccine.

In summary, the evidence of this lower mental health for "liberals" is that they are more likely to go to a doctor to get diagnosed rather than look into some ideology, and speculated by this conservative writer that they just care too much about things.




I am having a little trouble understanding what you are trying to say. Are you saying that you don't believe that people with more racial biases, the sort of people that are likely to say something racist or have underlying beliefs, are likely to be using it to cover up for personal inadequacies. I would think it a bit like the South Park meme where it is "they took er jerbs", where the attack against the outside people is really covering up for feelings of economic inadequacy.





You are saying that you don't believe that, but you still wrote your counter to the idea of right wing incels, are essentially calling them betas, that want to turn women into sluts to have an easier time getting laid, and are secretly paedophiles that want to make it as acceptable as part of LGBT. Oh, and I guess are just losers trying to punch their way above their economic class, despite I guess the particular generation being referenced has the largest example of being more educated than the ones that came before, but more economically disadvantaged than them in home ownership never being harder.

Again, you are saying you don't believe it, but your responses of similar ideas on the other end of the political spectrum really to push alpha male ideology, who are ruining society by turning women into sluts, and LGBT is a slippery slope to paedophilia?

Well the more birth control methods are encouraged, the less abortions are necessary.

But a lot of the red states making laws to restrict abortion, also try to make birth control harder to access. Like they want to force people to have sex only to reproduce, but not for just seeking pleasure.

Best way to prevent abortion is to encourage birth control, but still safe access to abortion needs to exist where that fails or in cases where there are problems with the fetus that could harm the mother. It shouldn't be politicized but unfortunately it is.

You'd have to ask them for more details - I didn't entirely pull it from thin air, there really is a radical section of the Left interested in this stuff, see multiple recent scandals in Germany and the PIS from the 70s in the UK. They were much more open about it in decades past. From memory though I think the argument is usually something along these lines: they want a more sexually liberated society (for various reasons) - and because the fascist powers that be disapprove of children having sex, especially with adults, this somehow contributes or causes sexual repression in the child and without it the entire world would be like the seediest of gay nightclubs utopia arrives. Or something along those lines.

As for the Right's idea of consent, it's as not as though we are pro-rape. We just understand that:
- drunken consent is consent if the drinks were imbibed freely
- consent given under reasonable social pressure is still consent
- giving no outward indication of non-consent means consent was given
- you can't retrospectively withdraw consent in the morning and send someone to prison for rape - at least in a sane society

I don't think this devalues "the idea of women needing to consent", it's just treating women like adults with agency.

How consent would interact with the RadPedo Left (copyright Mikah give me a penny each time you use it), I imagine they just deny the idea that an underage mind cannot consent. So - appearance of consent would be valid consent in their eyes.

Would you apply it to non-white ethnic or racial activism? If not - you have some more thinking to do.



Its only purpose is to shed light on the nature of the original video.

To be fair, my opinion might be biased from how so often far-right boards like 8chan seem to also be hotbeds of people who post cartoon kiddie porn and talk about wanting to f**k underage celebrities.

Those are the only spaces I've ever seen discussions of that nature normalized. Those are the only spaces I've ever seen that content tolerated. YMMV

I was going to ask what 8Chan is, but it seems like I wouldn't want to know.

Why do you go there if that's the content and you say it's far-right?

Take a guess for what side of the political aisle pushes to keep child marriages to adults be legal. I have no idea what evidence you have for modern left wing has any substantial pro-paedophile beliefs, outside of getting them help. Is there are larger organisation that hid cases of sexual misconduct than cases than the Catholic church?

Do you really believe that a dude pressured someone into getting drunk so they would be more agreeable and not be able to think clearly, couldn't be sidestepping the active consent of an individual. That a person wielding reasonable (whatever that subjective term might mean for any case) can't have manipulated someone into sex when they would not have otherwise, like I guess a celebrity that might guilt a fan into it. That a person not saying "no" means that they are saying "yes", I guess especially with the other two examples where their judgement might be impaired. And I am thinking that the "retroactively in the morning" can apply to someone who in the middle of it decided that they actually didn't want to, or again the cases above where they might have been manipulated by intoxication, influenced by social pressures, or maybe were too afraid to say no at the time because they might have been afraid that they would be hurt.

It's an imageboard. It's where the QAnon conspiracy theory took off.

Boards like that give insight into what and how the far-right thinks; they're also among the better known places so people will advertise more obscure sites.

Understanding one's opponents is vital for defeating those opponents, no?

I don't defeat people, so I don't have an opinion. I try to stay out of politics and just live my life. That's not a judgement on anyone, but I really wouldn't know about opponents. I wouldn't want to understand someone with a bad character or ethics.

I didn't even know what QAnon was until about January or February this year I asked someone on WP. I can't even watch shows like Survivor where people plot against each other or make strategies and alliances. It's all over my head.

There is a difference, right? Whether activism comes from a place of defending the majority in power ethnicity or racial group by hitting down to say that they deserve what mistreatment or inequality they get. Against activism that addresses mistreatment or inequality put against minority groups, which is more punching up rather than punching down.

On the principal of applying to "non-white ethnic or racial activism", of course I think the same. It would apply just the same to say pro ethnically Japanese activism in Japan where it might be discrimination against foreigners, or anti-west beliefs in North Korea and highly conservative Muslim countries that don't have many rights due to strong adherence to religious doctrine and superiority.

As hard as it might be to believe, there is nothing about an inherent evil unique to race or ethnicity.