99

40 comments

Everyone's an anti-capitalist until men want to get their dicks wet.

[–] [Deleted] 10 points Edited

I always say there's no such thing as anti capitalism, if you're buying something you're consuming. That demand you're creating has to be filled and it's usually at the cost of other people. Companies aren't making bank through any sort of ethical means. We're all forced participants in this shit system. Go live in the woods without buying anything and then you have the pleasure of calling yourself anti capitalist.

You can be both against the system and forced to participate in it to live correctly at the same time. I think there are fundamental issues with our current system, like it requires infinite growth to not fall apart (any year without growth means a massive increase in unemployment), and it makes automation a negative for the workers, when we as a society should be trying to automate all of our jobs away to be able to work less.

Not that previous attempts at changing the system went well, but it does not mean that we can't find a better one. For more than a thousand years, democracies failed and the divine right of kings felt like it would never go away.

[–] BlackCirce [OP] 🔮🐖🐖🐖 4 points

This is the same logic as the post, just applied to workers in general.

This was me yesterday when an actual woman said to me recently that if there weren't prostitutes more men would rape, then ranted about how I'm on the wrong side of history. The actual audacity of stating "other women" exist to absorb the rape inclinations of disgusting men so you don't get raped. . .I told her "so you admit prostitution is rape, its just different women and it get's called a business."

Those libfems believe that "inferior" women exist to be sexual punching bags for shitty men. Their philosophy basically boils down to: "Rape HER, not ME!"

"Do it to Julia!"

They are admitting that a large % of men are rapists. Claiming that somehow paying for something makes it right -- because everyone who does a "job" just LOVES their job, right?

And that nobody is working out of coercion or desperation -- there's somehow women who just LOVE having 10 different violent strangers banging away in her vagina, ass (ugh!) and then MOUTH! I mean, women in porn are just begging for it, right? Totally normal. So there's definitely thousands of women like that -- just imagine there must be, or they wouldn't do it, right? Is that the "logic"?

You know how you can be in a parking lot and some fat unkempt smelly creep pulls in next to you in his giant truck and he gets out like he owns the world, and you think "wow, I wish that guy would force me to the ground and stick his unwashed dick in my 'expectant asshole' (!!!!) until I couldn't take the pain anymore -- and then ram it down my throat! As long as he threw $20 at me, we'd be good!" NO WOMAN thinks like that. EVER. Yet we have these libfems deluding themselves that thousands of women think like that.

I'm a lifelong animal rights person, and it so reminds me of people who've torn into me for asking if they know how the meat on their plate went from being a sentient being to getting smothered in ketchup there. "Don't tell me! I'm trying to enjoy my food!" Don't tell you what prostitution is really like because you want to keep the "happy cows on Old McDonald's farm" fantasy about "sex work."

The "right side of the history" thing is such a bizarre statement, because the good guys aren't the ones who write history, the victors are.

I swear people are so obsessed with being on “the right side of history”. I’ve never heard so many people defend such bizarre positions with the belief that eventually they’ll be vindicated.

Don’t do something for pats on the head in history books, do it for what’s happening NOW. These people are basically just admitting they’re not concerned with what’s actually going on at the moment, they just don’t want a future “grandma was a racist” situation.

Are there time travellers giving out certificates or something? I guess we wouldn’t know, cos we’re not getting any due to not being on the right side of history.

Wonder if part of the reason the rhetoric of being on the 'right side of history' is prominent these days is because of the preformative nature of social media. The self is increasingly defined by how others perceive it and optics are key: when everyone can see you all the time, you don't want to look bad. Things, people, and events are run through the filter of the immaterial Public before one's own perspective.

Not only that, but there is always a "right side" since history is written by the winners. And you can't predict it now.

Anyway, in religious lingo, they are kinda promising that if you behave now, even if you don't fully believe it, you'll go in paradise in the future.

I hate how their solution is to immolate more women to aggressive men rather than, you know, LOCK THEM UP.

In a just society men wouldn't have a chance to be as aggressive as they are. We would have built a system where only those who can manage their emotions can go out an meet people.

And before any lurker cries that I'm a terrible misandrist, remember that in too many countries in this world, right now, women and girls cannot go out and have a life for much less. We already have such a system, but men decided that we are the problem.

"But what about wives who choose to stay with their abusive husbands!?"

I'm close to telling these women the truth: the ones who leave wind up in homeless shelters and get raped and beaten by TIMs.

Even if the choice is unconstrained or uncoerced, and entirely devoid of contextual factors (big ifs) not all choices are valid. Not a popular thing to say but the fact is that sometimes want things which are not just bad for them but bad for people around them. Individual whim is not the sole arbiter of morality.

Individual whim is not the sole arbiter of morality.

Yep. We've all known women who have chosen to stay with shitbag men even though those men abused them and/or their kids (even when they had the means to leave). That decision doesn't magically become "empowered" just because a woman freely decided that having a penis in her life was more important than protecting her kids

“Either women have agency or they don’t!”

“If they don’t have agency they’re children!”

Men always say that.

They never seem to think MEN have agency and could opt NOT to rape women in prostitution. Funny how that works.

I am SO SICK of men on the internet calling women CHILDREN.

I made this mistake of wandering into a workers rights sub on Reddit. And, to nobody's surprise, all the Socialist Bros forgot about work being inherently exploitative when the discussion turned to sex workers! When it came to sex workers, they believed that all the women claiming that sex work is bad just didn't bootstrap hard enough to be successful!!

Yeah, I used to be on a Reddit sub about how much work sucks and is exploitative. I left as soon the males started posting about sex work being "real work" . . . Ugh.

If it's so easy and wonderful why don't these men bend over and spread their assholes?

Because most MRAs couldn't get laid for free; forget about asking for money! 🤣

They're not well mentally. No other if's and but's about it. Patriarchy is a helluva drug, and the mass conditioning and constant psychological terrorism we experience under it changes how we think and act for life.

House slaves got nice clothes and were part of the family!!!!!1!!1

[+] [Deleted] 3 points
Load more (1 comment)