[004]
phylos
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
... And yet, it isn't an exaggeration. Those two issues come from the article I (and several others) signed.
to:
... And yet, it isn\'t an exaggeration. Those two issues come from the article I (and several others) signed.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
to:
\"The second thing we can do is an extension of our plan from the last entry. America\'s newly ripped, muscular women should be given training on how to kill their husbands in proportionate numbers to how often men kill their wives.\"
Then goes on to say that maybe this is a bad idea and we should stop thinking of men as the pillars of non-victimhood. This would be actually solid out of context. The problem comes when one rereads their immediately previous entry (#5), which was a roundabout support of women being the victims and that it\'s not ok for men to hit them while \"joking\" about women hitting men; thus, they condemn the \"men are tough\" stereotype while supporting it at the same time.
Which means that the thing they (supposedly) consider a bad idea was the only actual \"solution\" they proposed, given that the better alternative was undermined by their own hypocrisy.
I would have used it as my dethroning moment of whatever idiot wrote that, but alas, the entire staff signed it thus, the only conclusion possible is that the entire staff believes that bs.
Anyway, this discussion already forced me to read that odious article again and have zero interest in repeating so I won\'t bother coming back here, plus I was already clear in what I wanted to say. Cheers.
Then goes on to say that maybe this is a bad idea and we should stop thinking of men as the pillars of non-victimhood. This would be actually solid out of context. The problem comes when one rereads their immediately previous entry (#5), which was a roundabout support of women being the victims and that it\'s not ok for men to hit them while \"joking\" about women hitting men; thus, they condemn the \"men are tough\" stereotype while supporting it at the same time.
Which means that the thing they (supposedly) consider a bad idea was the only actual \"solution\" they proposed, given that the better alternative was undermined by their own hypocrisy.
I would have used it as my dethroning moment of whatever idiot wrote that, but alas, the entire staff signed it thus, the only conclusion possible is that the entire staff believes that bs.
Anyway, this discussion already forced me to read that odious article again and have zero interest in repeating so I won\'t bother coming back here, plus I was already clear in what I wanted to say. Cheers.
