Male Liberation Front

You're on fire dawg, no one can stand up to this madman!

Tankie tried this hard and fails. SAD!

It's just a slice of common sense Which I have liberated from the bibble and given to mothers
Not matriarchal, a momma's boy or even a boy.

Attached: Ivana.jpg (530x399, 23.58K)

You’re not a man now but you were likely born male. Trannies disgust me.

Not a trans
>>>/tv/

Buzz away mr butterfly

Attached: 1410322998811.jpg (1200x800, 170.73K)

Attached: 064b6ebe3bf3cc1da3c3e3d6989bfd31c37630450033aaba3be4e293d5c0a32e.jpg (1200x1697, 809.18K)

this is not exactly the thread but:
isn't this in cases of conflict just tyranny of social status/influence? the guy everyone wants to have a beer with wins over the socially incapable recluse?
ironically, the notion that free will has anything to do with law already presupposes a semi-deified status unto it

so i should fuck random women in the street, because i would have them do that unto me

I hate dogs, I wish someone would kill any dog they found in my yard.
Therefore, in compliance with the Golden Rule, I will kill any dogs I find in people's yards.

Wait are you saying that you're pro book-burning?

What a life

Attached: pbs_twimg_com_media_DCX1kMkWAAYg.jpg (1024x768, 134.46K)

In a world without laws and money, I see the motivating factor of life becoming the ability to build friendships and/or persuade people. But not to get so far ahead of everyone else that you live in a castle with servants etc.
The recluse lives how he wants, the inept will be taken care of, and hopefully their numbers will shrink as the generations come.
Yeah. I'm a compatibalist.

Might be pretty normal in some places.

You get a thump on the head.

I think he's playing his Nazi card.

And you wonder why people call liberals bleeding hearts. I wish everyone was friends too. That doesn’t influence my political beliefs because it’s pansy shit.

let's go with a pragmatic, real life example - and since you're an anarchist, you don't get to use transitionary states with laws to acclimatise people to the new model society:
person a and person b are both part of a social group
person a claims person b raped them
the circumstances are murky and there isn't really any easily attainable super conclusive evidence one way or the other
do you not think the social status of a and b end up influencing what course of action is taken? the real life example is that of a "good guy" "kind of" raping someone and then it being "kind of" swept under the rug because of their social standing. hell, the victims might convince themselves it wasn't rape, why and how would such a nice person rape someone?
that's not the point, I'm saying the question of free will and law have literally nothing to do with one another.

You can’t reason with women they are too feels before reals

It's just a deduction on what would likely happen when you shift priorities away from gathering the most money. We'd value our resources and our labor. Our Earth/solar system and each other.

Person A and her friends and family believe her. Social group organizers (heads of neighborhood watch, education leaders, or whatever) call for further investigation.
If for some reason modern science can't determine one way or another, I suppose they'd all have to take measures to just get over it.
If person B is has a high social status with just about everyone, I doubt he could silence everyone who doubts him, no matter how small the minority. Think this is all unreasonable? I would rather have a world that handles things like this than what we have now. Less rapists would come out of it.

Those that believe in free will are most likely to be those that want capital punishment for a murderer, while the determinist believes that society/fate shaped the perpetrator and they could not help themselves.

Waste of trips!
I think I balance my feels and reals rather well

they don't need to silence everyone though, just the critical mass. social cohesion is an extremely powerful force
I would not. yours is a playground for those who get off on domination (and not the fun kind), even if you think these anti-social tendencies would die off in a society like that eventually
but this is all meaningless moralism. you are raising law to the semi-divine level you criticise.

This is why we should not have given women the right to vote.

This is why voting doesn't do anything

Religious communities would fall prey to a charismatic rapist. More sensible modern communities may feel the need to intervene.
Some anarchists refuse any sort of governance, I think decentralization of it would simply increase the size and scope of government. But of course they wont be as corrupt without money in the picture
These are frames of mind that even atheists can't sidestep. Nothing "semi-divine" about it.

No. It will take a lot of effort and responsibility. Humans are naturally malleable and setting them free would work wonders.

Attached: Thomas Hart Benton 27.jpg (1658x1240, 310.47K)

no, let me put this more clearly
you are elevating 'Law' to a semi-divine level it doesn't have or need to have, by presupposing its connection to the question of free will via the concept of responsibility. leaving responsibility aside for now since it brings its own issues - your conception of 'Law' is inherently moralistic, not instrumental. it's become a spook, one which you want to negate rather than uphold though. a lot like how anarchists see the state

Okay, do you think the state treats male proles worse then females, for instance in terms of incarceration, making Men's Rights advocacy in their best interests?

Feminists demand to raise boys like sissies.
I think this goes the wrong way.
The boys are fine, we must raise the girls as tomboys.
And for fucks sake stop flooding them with jarring obnoxious pink!

Not at all.
It isn't.
Law creates states, and capital. Of course I'm against it. I don't elevate it, I loath it.
I did not connect law to the conditions of free will versus determinism. I briefly touched on it as a basis for a persons or peoples outlook, which of course would continue to exist in a post-Revolution world.

I prioritize the class issue over the various IDpol issues. Men in power treat middle class men and lower class men terribly. Who am I to judge which person or group has things worse. A soldier, a prisoner, a junky, a rape victim, a domestic abuse victim, a cancer patient who can't afford chemo anymore and must say goodbye to their children. Shits fucked so bad for all of us.
Black Lives Matter is about police brutality of all. Socialism is, well you know. Men's Rights Advocacy is just some whiny rightwing IDpol as far as I can see. Want a better deal? Become a socialist. Men's rights built right into it.

Pic related is what the modern male has been forced to become. He cannot indulge in normal heterosexual desires.

Attached: 1db3d2948034d7d9226a981d3842e4572b0e0d4efa16adb712402d0534268b9f.png (500x498, 179.26K)

I like being a guy, I like working out, I like assuming masculine roles in relationships. I also recognize men are discriminated against in custody battles, typically incur harsher legal penalties, and experience higher rates of suicide and homelessness, and I think those are all serious problems.

However, despite all that I'm still more supportive of feminism than the men's rights movement, because I recognize women face more discrimination in the workplace, are more vulnerable to sexual violence, and are oppressed in theocratic countries.

Could there just be a gender egalitarian movement? :/

I always knew it was just a whole bunch of edge

Attached: lollipop_0.jpg (750x757, 50.42K)

If by that you mean discrimination in their favor, yes.

Men are raped at higher rates when you include prisoners.

Which are only a handful of insignificant countries, and meanwhile the Western countries which have far more influence oppress men.

I didn't promote anything legalistic, and I'm a green anarchist, not an anarcho-primitivist.

What a bizarre way of twisting my words. Both genders face discrimination in different ways. Feminism even accounts for this, as consequences of the patriarchy. I'm not completely comfortable with the concept of the patriarchy because its very name seems to minimize the issues facing men, but I do think it's clear the issues impact women to a much greater extent, so I'm not opposed to it either. Really, I'm interested in hearing more about the feminist perspectives on it.

Nothing insignificant about it. I've spent quite a decent amount of time in South Asia, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, and West Africa, and in all of those regions, gender discrimination is a serious issue.

Seriously kids, I thought leftpol was supposed to be less retarded than leftypol. Try thinking a little harder.

that was then, this is now

:/ Really disappointing. I like this board, but I haven't been on in a couple months. Just in the couple interactions I've had today, the quality seems to have really gone down.

Do you not understand that feminists like do not care about men? At all. Either you support men's rights or you're one of them. One of the people who calls someone a bootlicker if they about male suicide rates and homelessness.

uh, considering the state of the board we are on are you sure its men who are the nazis of that simile?

Kill all men

Attached: SCUM_Manifesto_cover.jpg (269x369, 8.51K)

I support men's rights. I support feminism. I think the men's rights movement is pretty disgustingly right wing, and it needs to be seriously rehabilitated if it's ever going to do anything productive.

The insane misandrist fringe of the feminist movement isn't taken seriously by anyone. At all. They have no real impact, and they never will, and 99% of women are disgusted by them.

Solanas was mentally ill, but it seems pretty obvious that the Scum Manifesto was more art/parody than anything. Literally replace "man" with "woman," and pretty much everything in it was a real policy against women at some point in history.

Then again, she was batshit insane, so who knows.

No its not, you just assume that because of leftist heresay, your average MRA is a SocDem. willful cuckold is pretty right libertarian leaning though.

Holy fuck, what happened to this board? How did it get this retarded?

There has never been a bigger load of bullshit than this in any post in the history of this board. The insane misandrist fringe of feminism is mainstream feminism, they have all the power in feminist organizations, and 99% of American women support absolutely everything they do even if they outwardly claim not to. That's the only way #MeToo or the idea that it's bad for a woman to be punished for falsely accusing a man of rape could have gained any traction.

You're incredibly retarded.

Sounds really, really gay

Not an argument, if you actually bother to engage with MRA's instead of just going by what woketards screech about them you'll see that they are actually left leaning and often to the left of liberal feminists. The alt right and MRA's actually at odds on a lot of issues since the alt right is generally rather tradcon on gender issues(even though that doesn't really benefit most of them). This is not to say that there isn't a lot you can criticize MRA's on, in fact I'd I am fairly critical of the movement just not for the reasons cuckservatives and leftists generally are. Its really a quite liberal movement at its core and THAT is what sets it back, and this might be the one thing that Incel gets right that MRAs/willful cuckold's don't since Incel in general is a lot more skeptical of the logic behind liberalism. youtube.com/watch?v=goE3gBsHRD4&t

Attached: 91445887e23035ec1aad6bf8918352c9daefb3049a6408a64d6566eb45913cc8.jpeg (1736x933, 316.8K)

Retard

This is a boldfaced lie.

There seems to be a lot of name-calling going on, but I want to remind you what our good dad told me one time. Labels are for soup cans.

itt: feminazis freaking out over men rebelling against their unjust system

...

This is why feminists are fucking retarded. When Eliot Rodger wrote his retarded vision of the future, nobody thought he was kidding. We laughed at him because only a retard comes up with that crap, and only bigger retards think it's worth reading for anything other than pointing and laughing.

The difference is that Solanas was 100% correct, and Eliot Rodger would have had his head bashed against a rock as a small child if we had listened to her

Attached: dariafire.gif (480x362, 444.43K)

You should see how bad Zig Forums has gotten. The site has been flooded with redditors and halfchanners.

pfhaha
No, sexism (against men and women and others) runs through every version of feminism I've ever seen. From the craziest people who think men should be 10% of the population (obviouis) to the most mainstream shit like #HeForShe (subtler - reifies the subject/object dichotomy of trad gender roles by assigning responsibility to men and erasing power women have). If you listen to any feminist long enough they will say something sexist (usually against women) because the basic premise of feminism is lopsided. In reality, gender roles and biological sex (i.e. "human nature") are inherently dualistic and complementary. It's not that one side is different from the other, but that they are both different from each other. Women aren't different from the standard model that is men. Women aren't sidekicks in a man's world. Women and men are two sides of the same coin whether you're talking about nature or nurture. Feminism looks at one side rather than the whole thing, usually because the people involved have some hangups about genuinely interrogating gender and sex. This kind of thinking is most obvious with feminist arguments that flat out ignore the male side of things, often assuming men are in a neutral position. "20% of homeless are women! This is a serious issue!"

This. I’d rather be here than trannypol.

Is this bait? It feels like bait.

This. It didn't even happen over the span of years it happened over the span of months.

If feminism is the struggle for gender equality and sexual liberation as seen from the female point of view, eventually there must be born a counterpoint to this movement which explores gender equality and sexual liberation from the male point of view. We know the historical movement of liberation from gender-based segregation as feminism, since historically women have been the subjugated sex and gender, treated as human capital (essentially property) for the purposes of reproducing the labor force.

But as we are moving on to an increasingly postmodern, ideologically but not materially post-historical era, there will be an increasing number of people who see this inheritance of historical context as dead weight for a future gender-egalitarian project. Feminists assert historicity while the postmodern MRAs denounce it. This makes the MRAs look like the progressive ones in the eyes of Fukuyamaist liberals.

What I think will happen in the future is that both the feminists and the MRAs will meet in the middle and realize they both have the same goals. They only differ in whether they take the historical role of women as the subject of gender liberation into account or not. After this, feminism will cease to be called by that name, although it will go on doing what it has always done, now with the full involvement of men who are genuinely devoted to gender equality. Dialectics, son.

Attached: pokegenders.png (959x900, 843.24K)

IIRC most MRAs used to be leftists and the men's rights movement was started by feminists. They've shifted away from the left in recent years because the left has become overrun with misandrists but there are still left-wing MRAs.
I think if there were more leftist spaces like Zig Forums instead of the SJW-infested """"leftists""""" you find on places like reddit there would be more leftwing MRAs

not true at all. Feminism is anti-male but MRAs are not anti-female. I don't think we should be focusing on idpol either way, so to that extent MRAs are the same, but there is at least a difference between pro-equality idpol like MRAs and anti-equality idpol like feminism.

Kill all men

Now that is a steaming pile of wishful thinking. Identities are defined almost entirely by the people who hate them. As such, feminists will continue to become the screeching, hypocritical harpies that imagine them to be while the MRAs will be increasingly proud to be the knuckle-dragging mysogynists that feminists fantasize have kept womynkind in thrall throughout history.

Retard alert

It's okay, we are already aware that you are here.

Is this what passed for witty repartee in the assisted living facility?

You know legal systems account for this right? Lmao

what sort of definition of 'feminism' are you using? in a broad sense MRAs are very much a politically gendered = feminist movement
this is exactly why I don't use the word 'feminism' in discussion anymore, it doesn't mean anything.

wtf I hate feminism now

I dunno about feminists starting the MRM but Erin Pizzey invented women's domestic violence shelters. After a while she realized that men and boys also were getting victimized, so she tried allowing them in too, but it was seen as helping the enemy and she got ostracized.

It owned "retard alert."

So does everybody else.

Maybe if you're a retard

Hot take.

Holy fucking Christ, this is one of the dumbest posts I've ever read.

It's the struggle for female supremacism.

Women are and have always been a privileged class, especially Western women.

Holy word salad, Batman!

Lol no. One of my biggest goals is to lower the age of consent because it's ridiculous bullshit invented by feminists after they realized that teenage girls are so infinitely fucking superior to them it's not even funny and didn't want to have to compete with them. Many MRAs share this goal with me and feminists will never allow it without a fight. This is actually an example of MRAs doing more to help females than feminists do. Lowering the age of consent is fighting for the rights of teenage girls to choose who they want to be with, and feminists don't care about that. But beyond that, feminists also have no interest in helping men in any other way, either. Feminists benefit financially and socially from the current system and have no incentive to change it, much like the bourgeoisie benefit financially and socially from capitalism.

Of course by this you mean the historical role of women as the ones who get everything handed to them on a silver platter while men go die in useless wars to serve them.

Being shit? Yes, it will.

Some genders are more equal than others.

Senator Armstrong would throw a mech at you, and win my vote by doing so. Karl Marx would just beat you upside the head with a copy of Das Kapital because it's more than heavy enough to serve as an effective bludgeoning implement.

Kill yourself back to Zig Forums

Except ChristArmy, who runs it as a front, that is.
ChristArmy does, and that's one of the world's biggest problems. And this allows them to post as too.
citizengo.org/
They're fuckin' everywhere, and they usually try to hurt people.

Now that has been proven you can both fuck off.

Attached: pPdNZ3c.jpg (818x503, 159.06K)

ALL OF MUH BAIT

You are everything that is wrong with the social "sciences."

Attached: Statistics.jpg (672x372, 26.9K)

Attached: Deflection.gif (500x424, 27.51K)

...

It is the greatest tragedy of statistics as a discipline that those who scream the loudest about them have no idea at all what they can and cannot prove.

I see that you have completely skipped the phase where you pretend that you are different from what you hate and just embraced it immediately.

Attached: Intersectionality.jpg (2560x998, 272.59K)

Intersectionality has to be a CIA invention.

Just as bad–it was created by a lawyer. You may be right about the Alphabet Soup funding, though. Check out how well her think tank hides who pays for it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberlé_Williams_Crenshaw
aapf.org/funderssuuports/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congruence_(geometry)

Well you see, I'm both a republican AND a monarchist.

Men's rights and feminism are not mutually exclusive.

There's nothing to argue with. He simply made the assertion that most MRAs are social democrats, which seems ridiculous since the MRA movement has been broadly affiliated with right wing populism. If you have figures that disprove that, though, I am very open to seeing them.

...

I already responded to you here:
I admit, I overused that insult, but I was genuinely surprised by how moronic your positions were.

When you tell leftpol that feminism is the worst disease afflicting leftism and nobody listens.

Eh, there are advantages that people have based on their identities. The problem with "privilege" isn't that it's false. It's that it's a distraction from class (which is what allows the discrepancy in the first place) and from the identity issues themselves. For instance white people having nice things is not the issue; black people not having things is the issue.

Intersectionality has a similar problem with how it frames things. On the one hand there's the whole thing where it's still black and white or binary just recognizing more categories. It still doesn't treat people as individuals who vary according to their particular experience and situation, trying to assign a canonical identity to ever possible variation to determine who has the upper hand. On the other hand, being black and white, it ignores the nuance involved in different identities even where there is an advantage. Consider gender. Both male and female genders have advantages. Men have more career opportunities. Women inspire more empathy in other people. Picking either side as the "dominant" one according to this sort of thinking requires you to ignore any advantages the "subordinate" side has and any disadvantages the "dominant" side has.

It is funny to see young liberals get all worked up over the latest Supreme Court nomination hearings when that shit is just a nearly line-for-line rerun of the Clarence Thomas hearings. How deep into spectacle are we when politics runs out of original material?

Attached: 39b7d34af7797f8116c1c92c4adbde46ce2e6e5f.jpg (480x360, 30.97K)