Our New President - President Donald Trump

Post Reply New Topic

If I may add, a town near me has gone to sh*t because of gang warfare and drug-related crimes brought over by illegal immigrants. Meth houses exploding, heroin epidemic, etc. This has forced many people to move and nearly trashed the economy of an already struggling area. I don't want to say the specific town for privacy reasons, but this isn't an isolated case. The livelihoods of the residents of those towns matter as much as the livelihoods of illegal immigrants. If they came over here illegally, they're already breaking the law. If they want to become a refugee, I think that should be an option open to them other than deportation, but what way do we have to tell who is here for a good reason?

As the names of the banned are forbidden to be spoken, PM me, and I'll tell you.

She demonises masculinity. That's anti-male enough to warrant my dislike of her message. To be honest, I believe the jury is still out on whether Sarkeesian is a legitimate gender-extremist or an opportunistic scam artist who poses as one. Regardless, the degree of influence she's been granted by her platform with the UN and her harmful campaign against "online violence" cannot be ignored.



Illegal immigration is a crime. 100% of illegal immigrants are criminals. By all means campaign to change that, but recognise that you're swimming against the tide.

His name is Robert Paulson.

No, wait. I'm thinking of Project Mayhem. Carry on.

That wasn't me.

I am Jack's bemused sense of confuddlement.

As the men's rights movement is a reactionary movement meant to undermine the civil rights gains of women, no different from the reactionary white nationalist movement trying to roll back the civil rights gains of racial minorities, my answer is an emphatic YES.
Men are no more an oppressed group than are whites.

I don't recognise the jurisdiction of the MRM over men's rights, and thus reject your justification of what is legally defined as "hate speech". I fully support the rights of all individuals, regardless of arbitrary distinctions, which happens to include the rights of all men. Further, I suggest that the proposition that support for men's rights is misogynist qualifies as de facto bigotry.



I'm disinterested in collectivist victimhood. I'm concerned with human rights, not identity politics.

I have absolutely no problem with individual human rights, regardless of sex or race. Just the same, the men's rights and white nationalist movements are by nature reactionary, and based on identity politics at their worse.

It's pretty remarkable just how thoroughly the men's rights groups have lost the PR wars, to the point where they're treated as de facto hate groups. They actually have some pretty reasonable positions on divorce and child custody issues, rights of the accused in sexual assault cases, conflicting demands made of men by modern society, etc, but you'd never know about any of that over the constant din of the feminists branding them rape apologists living in their parents' basements.

So, just out of curiosity, why is "reactionary" a problem? If I, as a white man, notice that terms like "white dude" are being used more and more often in a pejorative manner to discredit and insult, and decide to try and push back on that before it becomes an actual problem as opposed to an annoyance, what's the issue? Do I have to wait until there are mobs in the street before I speak up?

Find yourself in divorce court presided over by a man hating feminist judge then tell us what you think about MRA's. It'll be along the lines of a liberal is someone who's just been arrested and a conservative is someone who's just been robbed.

Why am I not surprised that you're defending the men's right's movement, which is an arm of the Alt Right.

Why am I not surprised that you're using the worst argument in the world...

And weren't actually relevant to the question I asked. I'm not sure why you brought them up, except as a weak justification for a proposition which I consider to be rather bigoted.

Your characterisation of the MRM doesn't match my experience of anywhere near the majority of individuals who purport to represent it. I'm also confused by your intimation that being reactionary is somehow an indictment of a movement - most, if not all movements are reactionary. Likewise, I'm baffled by the vague implication you seem to be making that the MRM is somehow connected to white nationalism.

In-group good, out-group bad, counter-group Hitler seems to be the sum total of your political beliefs.



Actually, they seem to be gaining considerable momentum, especially across social media (which shouldn't be underestimated), due to tireless campaigning by some of the more palatable figureheads. I think it's rather telling that the MRM was readily condemned as a collective due to the vitriol of a couple of inflammatory members of AVFM, whilst radical feminists enjoyed the sanctity provided by their nebulous women's rights advocating counterparts. Of the privileges afforded to women, and those who speak on their behalf, I would include a willingness to overlook tone and content which is not afforded to men and their advocates.

Of course, one shouldn't ignore that there is a degree of collectivist ideological poison in the well of the MRM, and that many of them are just as likely to wear a victimhood-skin jacket as other identitarian experience-thieves.

Nobody's ever been lynched for being a "white dude." No one's ever lost out on a job or housing because of it. If you don't like the pejorative use of "white dude," tell the person who said it that you feel wronged. Seriously though, white men will never be a second class of citizens.