whack-a-moron - Tumblr blog

[whack-a-moron]

Y'know I will admit I could be mistaken about this so has anyone besides myself seen a sudden massive drop in talk about Nazis and neo-nazis after the Israel vs Palestine shit became topical and antisemitism came back into fashion

Like I'm just saying I used to not be able to swing a cat by the tail without hearing someone bitch about nazis (usually meaning right-libertarians lol) and now there's just utter silence on that topic wherever I go but boy is everyone shitting on Israel!

All these folks who think they would not have been ratting their Jewish neighbors out to the cops if they lived in 1940 Germany are so precious 💕

[whack-a-moron]

@JakeWSimons

Hamas executes three Palestinians who criticised it online. I wonder what the campus types would say about this

[whack-a-moron]

[whack-a-moron]

Here's an idea:

Let's worry about all the kids in foster care without permanent/loving homes, raised in abusive environments, or straight up subjected to human trafficking to exploit for labor and sexual assault first, and are actively conscious of their suffering every waking moment of the day, then we can worry about a fetus that is literally too undeveloped to have a concept of "conscious sentience" before crapping out more babies.

Specifically babies that people don't want to have and are more likely to end up in such bad situations.

Maybe stop treating human beings like a puppy mill where being irresponsibly and blindly brought into the world into shitty circumstances makes you a "humanitarian" and then hand-waiving away completely avoidable human suffering once its far too late to stop from adding one more person to the problem of "too many humans to properly account and care for already".

And while we're on the subject, why don't we add "that girl/woman who got raped and had no abortion options and chose to commit suicide instead because they couldn't handle being forced to carry a pregnancy they didn't want" could have cured cancer too.

So congratulations, because you took away her choice about her body twice, you get two dead people instead of one.

But I'm sure you'll bend over backwards trying to find a "Gotcha!" of how you're so much better than the "pro-aborts" (pro-choice) people even then and demonize the woman who committed suicide or claim you have some "magic cure" answer that'll fix everything and make her see how wrong she is and why you get to lord your personal opinion above people whose lives you don't have to live.

Once again, pro-aborts fail at critical thinking.

For starters, no pro-lifer is condoning any of the other things mentioned. Yes, killing children or pushing them to commit suicide is wrong and bad. That’s kind of the entire idea behind being pro-life. We just happen to apply the idea that killing children is bad in more scenarios than pro-aborts do. They’re the ones with the exception to “don’t murder children.”

And no one put babies in cages. Stop spreading disinformation.

Also, what is the overall point here? It sounds like that idea is being mocked when used in the abortion debate but supporting it in every other situation brought up.

Bringing up other situations where children tragically die does not excuse you from straight up murdering one yourself. I don’t know what part of their brain thinks if they can point out other situations where children are wrongly and unjustifiably killed it justifies killing a child in abortion.

They try and they try but all they do is prove a good argument for abortion does not exist. Which is why they resort to these asinine comments.

[whack-a-moron]

Good grief, which is it, everyone in Gaza is starving to death or the hostages are awesomely. Or are they trying to argue that the human beings they kidnapped, enslaved and terrorized got first servings. I mean everything they say is out both sides of the mouth blatant lies but like, c’mon now

Gaza is both suffering severe famine and the kidnapped hostages are fed like kings; the Israeli army is both committing systemic genocide and is made up of weak and cowardly soldiers; Hamas are both superior ubermench fighters and poor little blorbos who cannot fight without wearing children like leather armor. Welcome to upside-down world!

[whack-a-moron]

Id like to see this negative testosterone Brave Knight born in Oakland California never setting foot outside of wealth and comfort refuse to be rescued from his tiny bathroom prison cell where hes waterboarded and creatively tortured on the daily by his ISIS kidnappers, because it took mowing down the 50 Beacful BacifistsTM in the Raqqa apartment bloc hes imprisoned in, who definitely dont know hes there wink wink and carry RPGs and AK47s as a fashion statement. I bet "nay....it isnt worth it..." was the first thing that went through the minds of all the 20kg full sized adults in Auchwitz when they heard that liberating them came at the discount price of 5mil dead German civilians. Pathetic statement from a pathetic little man.

[whack-a-moron]

Willing to bet most of the people who answered in favor of the bear haven't even been up close to a bear in a zoo, either, much less in the wild.

I remember my first zoo bear experience with a grizzly on the other side of glass. You can literally feel the ground shake as they walk at a casual stroll from 20 feet away because of how heavy and powerful they are.

Its also a pretty stupid debate because last I checked, the question was "would you rather be in the woods with a bear or a man".

Naturally, all of the bad faith zealots reframed the question automatically into "would you rather be in the woods with a bear or a rapist", because clearly all men are rapists, even though at least 40% of rapists are female.

At first I really liked the premise of the bear debate but now as a Male SA survivor I feel even more buried than before. Like... how did we get to this point? Where thousands if not millions of people will see me as a potential rapist for merely existing? I thought the question was meant to be thought provoking and ask how we can better address SA but it became another gender war.

It's starting to convince me I'll never live in a world where people actually believe me. Ever.

I don't believe this was ever really meant to be (as you said) thought provoking. Most of the time, these things don't turn out that way because that's not what these people are looking for

What's worse is when they use statistics to try and prove their point. I've been seeing these videos and posts of people explicitly saying that bears are safer than men

It's not comparable

How can it be comparable when many people don't live near bears? For many people, they won't see a bear in person besides the zoo. I've gone camping and hiking a lot and I've never seen one. Compare that to the men you come into contact with on the daily who don't do anything to you

[whack-a-moron]

“They came in on humanitarian aid trucks!”

“This is a war crime!!!”

“They massacred 200+ people!”

It’s actually a war crime to take hostages babe. It’s also a war crime to kill people you take and/or attack civilians. All of October 7th was a war crime. You cannot enter another country and slaughter random civilians dancing at a rave. You cannot go door-to-door in a village and burn people alive. That’s a war crime.

On the other hand, it is not a war crime to attack an entity involved in war, even if it would normally be a crime to do so. For example: attacking a refugee camp is not a war crime when the “refugees” are hiding hostages. If a hospital is being used as a base for terrorists, the hospital is now legally fair game for war. When we have satellite videos of Hamas members driving UN vehicles and operating out of an UNRWA building, those vehicles and that building are up for grabs.

They will literally video themselves wearing press vests while firing rockets into Israel. But if they die, they won’t be reported as a combatant death. The headlines will read “Israel Kills Member of Gazan Press”. And people eat it up.

At this point people have two options:

1. You’re a sheep. You do no real research. You follow blindly.

2. You’re a Jew hater. You are antisemitic.

Which one is it? Maybe a combo of both.

[whack-a-moron]

How does it feel to have an ideology rooted in selfishness and hatred rather than compassion? I genuinely could not understand why someone would want to be that miserable all the time.

how does it feel to plow through the world with such proud ignorance of literally everything around you? to have no concept of "wrong" the way fish have no concept of "wet," and everything is a morality play where you are the hero?

I bet it feels pretty good

[whack-a-moron]

[whack-a-moron]

Huh. says it all really.

[whack-a-moron]

It never stops being funny to me how radfems just can't think of women in sex without thinking that they're necessarily the submissive ones...

Even if they're domming they're still victims

Women just can't have sex with men where they benefit and aren't harmed, it doesn't exist

Even if they're fully running the show

Male sexual pleasure inherently causes harm ig

[whack-a-moron]

Depends I guess. Not all burgers are made equal. Some have what can barely be called actual meat in them, and a lot of places are super skimpy about the ratio of vegetables you get on them.

There's also a lot of places where a hamburger or cheeseburger is literally just bread, meat, and cheese.

Also the source of the beef matters. Beef cattle that are raised on dirt / shit lots (see: Cowburn lands in California) and fed almost exclusively grain are EXTREMELY unhealthy both for the cows and the people eating them.

Large scale cow burn operations feed most of their cows almost exclusively grain diets because it accelerates their growth to make them grow much bigger, much faster, which causes bloat and other illnesses (which often need to be treated with antibiotics and other drugs) and changes the meat into the wrong kind of acid that is bad for us to ingest. On top of that, cow burn style paddocks are real bad for global warming because Co2 trapped in the soil escapes into the atmosphere, on top of the methane the cows themselves produce.

If the meat comes from cows raised primarily on pasture land that are allowed to forage hay, grass, and other plant roughage the more "old fashioned" way people raised cows, then yeah, you get beef that's loaded with all kinds of good nutrition and the proper form of amino acids that keep us healthy by eating it.

But to do so means your cows take longer to grow to proper slaughter size and need more space to properly rotate pastures, which is more expensive, so huge commercial farms don't like to do it.

On top of pasture cattle being healthier for us to eat, they're also actually really good for the environment if you're doing proper pasture rotation, because the cow manure helps plant growth, and those plants keep Co2 trapped in the soil. So responsible cattle farming not only gives us healthier food to eat but also helps mitigate the negative effects of climate change, despite what hippy dippy "cow farts are killing the planet" idiot vegans try to tell you.

[whack-a-moron]

I wonder what OP thinks about Asian movies made in Asia primarily casting Asian actors.

Or African movies made in / set in Africa that cast primarily African actors.

It's quickly becoming apparent that colour blind casting aims to serve a white audience now

[whack-a-moron]

“Is fighting leftist antisemitism really the hill you want to die on?”

Not particularly. But, since that’s where you’re trying to kill me, I’d rather go down swinging.

[whack-a-moron]

Like @jadagul to put it another way: if someone says they're opposed to 'feminism' - not some specific group using that label, but 'feminism' - what on earth should one take that to mean, if not 'I am opposed to women's rights and equality'?

[whack-a-moron]

Could you go into more detail on the "feminism made men's shelters not exist" thing? I have no idea how the causal chain there works. (Also just fyi there ARE men's shelters - at least in my country - but you're not capital-W Wrong, it's legit weird there aren't way more.)

I mean because feminists get extremely, extremely upset when anyone talks about male victims of domestic violence and then start screaming and threatening and harassing everyone in range?

the woman who opened the first women's shelter was Erin Pizzey, and it did not take her long to notice that a lot of the women there were just as violent as the men they escaped, and that it was obvious they needed a men's shelter just as much. feminists flipped their shit about this, protested her, lied about her, tried to get her fired and blacklisted, threatened her, and killed her dog. All of the people who did this were feminists and none of them were not feminists; feminists did not oppose the people who did this and no feminists attempted to help her.

Earl Silverman tried to open a men's shelter in Canada after being domestically abused by his wife and seeing the only resources for men were all predicated on men being the abusers. Feminists lost their shit. They protested him, lied about him, harassed him, went out of their way to strip funding from him, and eventually drove him to suicide. All of the people who did this were feminists and none of them were not feminists. Feminists did not oppose the people who did this and no feminist ever attempted to help him.

Feminists demanded that arrest be mandatory when police showed up to domestic abuse calls. Then all of a sudden, a whole bunch of women got arrested, because domestic abuse is not a gendered problem. Feminists could not accept this. They created a thing called the "Duluth model," which became the standard view of how to deal with domestic abuse, that literally states only men are abusive and any behavior from a woman that appears abusive is due to how a man abused her. The organizations who deal with domestic abuse run off a world-model that literally states men cannot be abused and women cannot be abusers. Feminists pushed for "primary aggressor policies," which meant that when the police showed up on a domestic abuse call, they should consider the "primary aggressor" to be the male, and arrest him. Men who call the police to report being abused are far, far, far more likely to be arrested than the women who abuse them. This is the explicit goal of a policy that was made by feminists, all of whom were feminists and none of whom were not feminists, who used the political and social power of feminism to make it happen, who had free access to that power in order to do so, who enjoyed complete support from feminists, and who did not face any opposition from feminists.

Feminism gets a pass because of the deep-rooted sexism it appeals to. Feminism claims to be synonymous with womanhood, and women are so precious that anything that claims to be aligned with them has to be good. And women have so little agency that this thing can't have possibly DONE anything in the world that is bad, it has to be a mistake, or a lie you told because you hate women so much! You can't remember all the ways that feminism is wrong and hurts people, because they're women, and women don't DO things! You forget it the moment it leaves your vision cone because it doesn't fit the biased narrative. And you just keep going "well, but real feminism is for real equality, and feminism is definitionally good!" no matter how many times you see it isn't. No matter how many times it's proven that yes, feminists do hate men, and yes, feminists are wrong, and yes, feminists are cruel, and yes, feminists care more about hurting men than helping women, and yes, if you mention these things to your "real feminist" friends who are for "real equality" they will expel you and harass you... it just can't stick. The narrative is too powerful. No matter how it's proven, we're going to hear "well I know real feminism is for real equality so we should all still be feminists and give power to feminists and support people who use the mantle of feminism without ever looking into what they believe" over and over and over.