Ugly feminists
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
114 comments displayed.
#276 to #101
-
ainise (08/06/2015) [-]
I do nothing all day and my god, after 24 hours with clinical strength deoderent I smell like a hobo's undarms after 6 months of not showering. My bud, on the other hand, can go to the gym, skip the shower, work for 12 hours in a ******* field, come back and not smell any different than he did right after he hopped outa the ******* shower.
People are different. It's a mixture of Natural B.O., what you eat/drink(or more specifically what you sweat out) and how active your sweat glans are.
People are different. It's a mixture of Natural B.O., what you eat/drink(or more specifically what you sweat out) and how active your sweat glans are.
#13
-
udo (08/05/2015) [-] 
"feminism is refuge for sexual failures"
how the **** did it take until now for someone to phrase it as PERFECTLY as this guy did?
how the **** did it take until now for someone to phrase it as PERFECTLY as this guy did?
#293 to #13
-
oscarwilde (08/06/2015) [-]
this guy is spot on about a number of things
check out his channel:
www.youtube.com/channel/UCittVh8imKanO_5KohzDbpg
check out his channel:
www.youtube.com/channel/UCittVh8imKanO_5KohzDbpg
#229 to #13
-
brianhanerjr (08/06/2015) [-] This guy is so eloquent. I don't usually have the patience to watch videos of this length but this is strangely compelling, and he raises a hell of a point.
#241 to #229
-
sciencedebunk (08/06/2015) [-] Not really; it's a no true Scotsman argument. To paraphrase, "feminists are all masculine and fat because the feminine skinny ones aren't real feminists."
It would have been interesting if he was able to correlate feminine features with political affiliation, but that article he references studied strictly politicians (i.e. congressmen both male and female) - newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/the-gop-has-a-feminine-face-finds-238867
It would have been interesting if he was able to correlate feminine features with political affiliation, but that article he references studied strictly politicians (i.e. congressmen both male and female) - newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/the-gop-has-a-feminine-face-finds-238867
#242 to #241
-
brianhanerjr (08/06/2015) [-] Huh. That thought didn't even cross my mind. I thank you for politely disagreeing.
#243 to #241
-
brianhanerjr (08/06/2015) [-] Also, might I say, very fitting username for this post.
#56 to #13
-
thebadspellir (08/05/2015) [-] **thebadspellir used "*roll picture*"**
**thebadspellir rolled image** I'm pretty sure it has been stated at least nearly as eloquently, but the accent makes it just beautiful
**thebadspellir rolled image** I'm pretty sure it has been stated at least nearly as eloquently, but the accent makes it just beautiful
#120
-
mindset ONLINE (08/06/2015) [-] >Many of whom won't get a right swipe on Tinder from the elephant man
#15
-
udo (08/05/2015) [-] the only thing I disagree with is the high-pitched voice thing. There are some seriously sexy deep-voiced women out there, and are sexier because of it.
pic related
pic related
#265 to #15
-
cryingchicken (08/06/2015) [-] God, you can really tell she's into some real kinky **** just from her voice and the way she looks at people. I'd give my right arm to have Olivia Wilde tie me up and sit on my face.
#158 to #15
-
anon (08/06/2015) [-]
That's more of a taste thing though, I would probably agree but the golden standard of objective beauty is just that, objective. And objectively most men prefer women with higher registers, not stupid high, but clearly discernible from a man's voice. Think Neve Campbell, her voice is probably what's considered objectively ideal.
#93 to #15
-
coffinsalesman (08/06/2015) [-] Like Lana del rey, who incidentally doesn't like modern feminism.
#3
-
evilhomer (08/05/2015) [-] **evilhomer used "*roll picture*"**
**evilhomer rolled image** Like most ideology the idea behind feminism is positive, helping woman who lack rights and are severely pressed, for example Saudi Arabia.
But like in most ideology there are radicals who grasp at straws and look for problems where there are not just to project their hatred.
Any idea to be hostile and or sexist against any gender be it toward man or woman is int itself ******* retarded.
**evilhomer rolled image** Like most ideology the idea behind feminism is positive, helping woman who lack rights and are severely pressed, for example Saudi Arabia.
But like in most ideology there are radicals who grasp at straws and look for problems where there are not just to project their hatred.
Any idea to be hostile and or sexist against any gender be it toward man or woman is int itself ******* retarded.
#14 to #3
-
goodhomer ONLINE (08/05/2015) [-] "Power tends to corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." - Bishop Mandell Creighton.
The people in charge, or at least the perceived leaders, of any ideological group will always be the worst possible outcome of that ideology.
This is why we are in the situations we are in today. We have not, and it seems sometimes that we can not, learned from the actions and experiences of the past.
The people in charge, or at least the perceived leaders, of any ideological group will always be the worst possible outcome of that ideology.
This is why we are in the situations we are in today. We have not, and it seems sometimes that we can not, learned from the actions and experiences of the past.
#182 to #181
-
ohhh (08/06/2015) [-] Well it doesn't matter if not many think them to be that bad. Because when it comes to it. The majority of those who identify as feminists are watching Laci Green, Anita, and Jessica Valenti. And the sane ones, such as Christina, aren't even watched by people who identify as feminists. Ask any self proclaimed feminist if they think the wage gap is true the the over whelming majority well say yes, and get offended if you suggest other wise. Like i said, the numbers are in, the movement is rotten to the core.
#185 to #183
-
ohhh (08/06/2015) [-] That's because feminism, by definition, means fighting for the rights of women, they already have all the rights that men have in the 1st world. They dawn the label so they have something to "fight" so they can be a "rebel". And a rebel can get mad, a rebel can be a prick, a rebel can get emotional, because they are the rebel, and they're fighting for the "right" side. Why be nice to the oppressor? It allows them to feel like they are accomplishing something by simply pressing a button, yet they do nothing. the reason they do no good, is because the label only exists for people who are no good.
#189 to #187
-
ohhh (08/06/2015) [-] Well a button press isn't going to stop the next woman from getting acid thrown at her, it isn't going to stop the decapitations, it isn't going to do anything over there. that's why they don't do anything about it, about the actual women suffering, because actual suffering can't be cured by a reblog, or a like, only hard work and sweat. And these people really never had any intention of working hard. They never worked a day in their life, they've always wanted to be able to just sit down, press a button, and feel like they moved a mountain. But there's a huge difference between feeling like you did something and actually doing something. And i think you can guess what side they fall on.
#191 to #190
-
ohhh (08/06/2015) [-] Many do have good intent. But i view them as people waving around the swastika, it's ruined, tarnished. Just wave around the peace sign instead. Just call yourself an egalitarian instead, it's actually better, feminism means fighting for the right of women, egalitarian means fighting for the rights of both genders, it is the true, un tarnished, name.
#130 to #38
-
garymotherfingoak ONLINE (08/06/2015) [-] it's moreso most radicals feel a compulsion to share their skewed ideology with ******* everyone
#132 to #130
-
ohhh (08/06/2015) [-] I see anita, laci green, and the like getting millions of views. Not the rational ones, like christina, most of, if not dman near all, the viewers of christina aren't even feminists. It's the nut job feminists, their nut job causes, that get's the ads, the money. The majority are nuts, and that's that. The numbers are in, the movements rotten to the core.
#254 to #38
-
dummerbaztard (08/06/2015) [-] Too bad your opinion is based completely off of internet memes and feminist bashing.
How the **** would you know what the majority of them wants or believes?
How the **** would you know what the majority of them wants or believes?
#289 to #254
-
bongpebbles (08/06/2015) [-] Who do you think are those millions of followers these internet radicals have? Who do you think gave anita sarkeesian $160,000 for her videos and gives $3000 to $5000 a month to all these radicals on patreon? The average feminist who act like they are not radicals while secretly agreeing with every single thing these radicals say and benefiting from every single law, right and/or unfair benefit these radical feminists give them, that's who. Just because the average feminist dont go around screaming and whining doesnt mean they dont believe in those radical feminist's ideas because at the end of the day when these feminazis finally convince the government to subsidize their tampons and make us pay for them with our taxes they will all say thank you and grab their free tampons.
#264 to #254
-
ohhh (08/06/2015) [-] No i follow what, and who get the most praise in the feminist media. And from i can tell it's people of the like of Laci Green, Rebbeca Watson, Jessica Valenti, and so on. The fckh8 campaign, things like that. that's what gets the big views, the thousands of reblogs, not the sensible ones.
#4
-
komandantmirkoo ONLINE (08/05/2015) [-] women hate other women, especially those who are better looking?
who would have thought
who would have thought
#70
-
severepwner ONLINE (08/06/2015) [-] My favorite thing ever is when men and women embrace their gender roles with pride. Each gender has its own traits, benefits, and responsibilities for the other gender, and as soon as people embrace that and perfect it, the much happier they are.
If you think that is remotely sexist or unfair, you have no understanding of how gender roles actually work.
If you think that is remotely sexist or unfair, you have no understanding of how gender roles actually work.
#63
-
emptysuperman ONLINE (08/05/2015) [-] If SJWs used similar logic against others we'd all dismiss it as crazy. Don't believe pseudo-science just because it supports your view. We don't need to use immature name calling backed by "science" to win against SJWs, we have rationality on our side.
#5
-
comicironic (08/05/2015) [-] This argument is getting to be really ******* dull.
If you understand the way you listen to whoever shouts the loudest, then you need to learn to correct for that heavy bias in your input, because anecdotal "what I see" isn't by any means going to be representative of the whole population.
The only reason you WOULDN'T screen out this misrepresentation and instead just take it as true is if you already have a preexisting bias against the group you're analysing.
As humans, this is a thing we like doing. Any flaw we find in the people we dislike or disagree with is good, because it reinforces our worldview and makes us feel good. This is why, for example, any rumor that starts in media in South Korea about North Korea tends to reach the level of generally-accepted fact very quickly, even if it has no evidence. People like hearing what they want to believe.
I don't want to suggest anybody is innocent of this.
But, if you want to be a social ******* analyst, you have to learn to weigh this in a more objective way, because you're trying to get the truth, not an agenda.
When you suggest, for example, that the only "real" Muslims are terrorists because it justifies your Islamophobia, or that the only "real" feminists are women who you can insult and deride for being fat and unnattractive, despite having no real evidence to support such a claim and brushing aside any counter-examples, you're performing a "No True Scotsman" fallacy, and your argument loses a lot of worth.
tl:dr; Do not insist that the crazy assholes you see most are the majority of the group you disagree with just so you feel better about yourself.
If you understand the way you listen to whoever shouts the loudest, then you need to learn to correct for that heavy bias in your input, because anecdotal "what I see" isn't by any means going to be representative of the whole population.
The only reason you WOULDN'T screen out this misrepresentation and instead just take it as true is if you already have a preexisting bias against the group you're analysing.
As humans, this is a thing we like doing. Any flaw we find in the people we dislike or disagree with is good, because it reinforces our worldview and makes us feel good. This is why, for example, any rumor that starts in media in South Korea about North Korea tends to reach the level of generally-accepted fact very quickly, even if it has no evidence. People like hearing what they want to believe.
I don't want to suggest anybody is innocent of this.
But, if you want to be a social ******* analyst, you have to learn to weigh this in a more objective way, because you're trying to get the truth, not an agenda.
When you suggest, for example, that the only "real" Muslims are terrorists because it justifies your Islamophobia, or that the only "real" feminists are women who you can insult and deride for being fat and unnattractive, despite having no real evidence to support such a claim and brushing aside any counter-examples, you're performing a "No True Scotsman" fallacy, and your argument loses a lot of worth.
tl:dr; Do not insist that the crazy assholes you see most are the majority of the group you disagree with just so you feel better about yourself.
#239 to #5
-
thesoulseeker (08/06/2015) [-] The style of presentation was amusing and the clip was entertaining.
But I do agree with you and anything in that video should be taken with a giant bag of salt.
By the way even if I was far enough up my own arse to believe everything he said the fact that this was made for infowars.com would've given me pause at the very least.
But I do agree with you and anything in that video should be taken with a giant bag of salt.
By the way even if I was far enough up my own arse to believe everything he said the fact that this was made for infowars.com would've given me pause at the very least.
#49 to #5
-
captaincapital (08/05/2015) [-]
then you realize that he is actually showing the majority
now it's on you to show us the majority is not like this at all
if you can't do that then **** off with your meaningless words
now it's on you to show us the majority is not like this at all
if you can't do that then **** off with your meaningless words
#54 to #49
-
comicironic (08/05/2015) [-] >now it's on you to show us the majority is not like this at all
Not how burden of proof works.
I'll give you a similar comparison, though.
The British women's suffrage movement was divided into two main groups, the Suffragists and the Suffragettes.
At peak membership, the Suffragists - also called the NUWSS, National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies - who were the more moderate group, numbered half a million in a population of 46 million. By comparison, the Suffragettes - also called the WSPU, Women's Social and Political Union - the radical and violent branch, who did various things like deny men admission and eventually become fascist, peaked at 2000 people. Even their newspaper only ever got 40,000 readers when it circulated best.
Yet, if you asked someone to decide which was the majority group by media presence alone, they'd be liable to claim it was the Suffragettes. The graph attached is the use of the two terms in books over time - you see how much more suffragette was published.
This is because the extreme gets attention. Extreme groups are more likely to sell, because they're fundamentally more interesting in terms of ideology and spectacle than moderates. The media shows disproportionately more of them, but you're also more likely to pick up on extremes because moderates are just less memorable, so you go through more confirmation bias.
The Suffragists organised massive marches, mobilising hundreds of thousands of people for their cause. The Suffragettes bombed houses, slashed artwork, poured acid on golf courses, and were generally a lot more violent, and therefore got a lot more attention than they should have for their size.
This is true of every group with extremes. Extremism is just more interesting. And this is why it's so important to pay attention to overrepresentation of extremes, because what you see in the media or what gets shared the most is not going to be representative of the population as a whole.
Not how burden of proof works.
I'll give you a similar comparison, though.
The British women's suffrage movement was divided into two main groups, the Suffragists and the Suffragettes.
At peak membership, the Suffragists - also called the NUWSS, National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies - who were the more moderate group, numbered half a million in a population of 46 million. By comparison, the Suffragettes - also called the WSPU, Women's Social and Political Union - the radical and violent branch, who did various things like deny men admission and eventually become fascist, peaked at 2000 people. Even their newspaper only ever got 40,000 readers when it circulated best.
Yet, if you asked someone to decide which was the majority group by media presence alone, they'd be liable to claim it was the Suffragettes. The graph attached is the use of the two terms in books over time - you see how much more suffragette was published.
This is because the extreme gets attention. Extreme groups are more likely to sell, because they're fundamentally more interesting in terms of ideology and spectacle than moderates. The media shows disproportionately more of them, but you're also more likely to pick up on extremes because moderates are just less memorable, so you go through more confirmation bias.
The Suffragists organised massive marches, mobilising hundreds of thousands of people for their cause. The Suffragettes bombed houses, slashed artwork, poured acid on golf courses, and were generally a lot more violent, and therefore got a lot more attention than they should have for their size.
This is true of every group with extremes. Extremism is just more interesting. And this is why it's so important to pay attention to overrepresentation of extremes, because what you see in the media or what gets shared the most is not going to be representative of the population as a whole.
#147 to #54
-
anon (08/06/2015) [-]
thats exactly how burden of proof works, jackass, if you believe that moderates so strongly outnumber radicals and want us to accept that conclusion you need proof.
though I think its become clear that all 3rd wavers and other trash are rotten spoiled human garbage, and especially the so called silent majority that mindlessly sends money and agrees with the corrosive ideology spouted by their supreme masters.
though I think its become clear that all 3rd wavers and other trash are rotten spoiled human garbage, and especially the so called silent majority that mindlessly sends money and agrees with the corrosive ideology spouted by their supreme masters.
#255 to #200
-
comicironic (08/06/2015) [-]
But I've not made the claim, but the counter-claim.
The original claim is still that this extreme is the majority, and doing so in a way that isn't "that's what I see the most".
The original claim is still that this extreme is the majority, and doing so in a way that isn't "that's what I see the most".
#8 to #7
-
comicironic (08/05/2015) [-]
>wouldn't the "crazies" be the inevitable end/perfect embodiment of that group?
That's entirely up to interpretation.
If you take this argument and apply it to Christianity, you get that the "perfect" embodiment of Christianity is the WBC.
Whether or not the WBC is perfect Christianity is subjective.
And while there are people who misuse the WBC as an example of all Christian behaviour, they are also making the same mistake in misrepresentation.
That's entirely up to interpretation.
If you take this argument and apply it to Christianity, you get that the "perfect" embodiment of Christianity is the WBC.
Whether or not the WBC is perfect Christianity is subjective.
And while there are people who misuse the WBC as an example of all Christian behaviour, they are also making the same mistake in misrepresentation.
#55 to #42
-
comicironic (08/05/2015) [-]
And people have tried, but there's not a lot you can do if people just pay more attention to the obnoxious and the incredulous at the far end of the spectrum.
Celebrities like Emma Watson draw attention to the fact that feminism is meant to be a moderate, inclusivist movement for tearing down the barriers between men and women in terms of unequal treatment.
What are they told? "You're not a real feminist, because you go against my worldview of what a feminist is! You're just doing it because it's 'trendy'!"
When you don't even acknowledge the majority itself, you're going to have trouble recognising it as the larger group.
Celebrities like Emma Watson draw attention to the fact that feminism is meant to be a moderate, inclusivist movement for tearing down the barriers between men and women in terms of unequal treatment.
What are they told? "You're not a real feminist, because you go against my worldview of what a feminist is! You're just doing it because it's 'trendy'!"
When you don't even acknowledge the majority itself, you're going to have trouble recognising it as the larger group.
#92 to #42
-
anon (08/06/2015) [-]
Well look at how gamers reacted to a lot of **** , they ignored it because they didn't want to deal with the assholes or spend so much time correcting everyone, and this site defended them. Wouldn't be surprised if a lot of feminists have just given up on their radicals and instead do their own thing to spread the better ideas.
#215 to #5
-
yukicherry (08/06/2015) [-] The crazy feminists are not the majority of the radical feminists.
Good to know.
Good to know.
#174
-
WelshPimp (08/06/2015) [-] Moaning about feminism and feminists is a refuge for men's sexual failure, and it annoys me the way it's posted all over funnyjunk. inb4 red thumbs at least I'm using the meme right
#178 to #174
-
robinwilliamson (08/06/2015) [-] No I'm sure they're all very sexually active.
In fact, every time a feminist moaning video comes out, Amazon reports massive spikes in butt plug sales.
In fact, every time a feminist moaning video comes out, Amazon reports massive spikes in butt plug sales.
#29
-
anon (08/05/2015) [-]
These ad-hominem attacks and insults against feminists are just as petty as anything feminazis come up with. Stooping to their level isn't going to help us counter their toxic attitudes.
#117 to #29
-
toosexyforyou (08/06/2015) [-] I wouldn't be so sure about that. The hateful radical feminists hide behind the word "feminism" to spread hate but if the word "feminist" was a synonym for "fat ugly bull dike" then they might keep hiding behind that word and choose something that's more appealing to them like "Nazi."
