Anonymous #1 11w

Oh ewwww. I’ve always thought Hasan had creepy vibes but this just confirms it.

15

Anonymous #2 11w

Moral of the story is that leftist men are still men, I guess.

7

Anonymous #1 11w

Chat is this real

2

Anonymous #3 11w

i wish i had the clip in my camera roll but i heard it with my own ears unfortunately

6

That’s literally not the point

10

Anonymous #4 11w

Learn about intersectionality.

13

Anonymous cheesepussy 11w

Learn about getting over yourself.

-6

Anonymous cheesepussy 11w

So you would?

-3

Anonymous #4 11w

They’re not saying there’s something wrong with being attracted to her, they’re saying that focusing on her attractiveness instead of talking about her actual merit as a politician is sexist.

10

Anonymous #4 11w

You can’t care about those issues without caring about feminism and expect that to lead to meaningful change

9

Anonymous #4 11w

Thank you for proving my point

13

Anonymous #1 11w

Do u know when/where he said it?? I’m not saying I don’t believe u I just want to find this 😭

3

Anonymous #3 11w

I bet if you looked up the quote you could find it.

1

Anonymous cheesepussy 11w

Sure I can. I do it every day. White women in the United States are the most protected and cushioned demographic in the world. I literally couldn’t care less about any causes that are championed primarily by that demo.

-6

Anonymous #3 11w

https://streamable.com/j6xlfp this one?

1

Why are you being so weird? Is it hard for you to talk and act like a normal, socially adjusted, person?💀

11

Anonymous brattybottom51 11w

yes! thank you!

1

Anonymous moderatemonkey 11w

You’re the one who thinks it’s weird that people find an attractive person attractive.

-5

Anonymous #4 11w

Let’s do an quick exercise on rereading…

10

Anonymous #4 11w

Oh, okay so you’re not a leftist, you’re just sexist. Thanks for telling all of us ❤️

12

Anonymous #4 11w

Nobody said feminism was about white women in particular but that’s a pretty lame excuse for not caring educating yourself on the causes you supposedly stand for

7

Anonymous cheesepussy 11w

*not caring or educating

7

Anonymous #3 11w

I mean the clips real but the way they described it’s not

4

Anonymous #8 11w

sure maybe i misworded it, but you'll have to forgive me since it's been a while since i've seen the actual clip. i fear my point still stands, and his point too.

4

Anonymous #4 11w

you have a very twisted idea of feminism. feminism is not just for white women, but the black and brown women to. for trans women. for disabled women. for fat women. for skinny women.

8

Anonymous #1 11w

Unfortunately it’s not the case in reality. Feminism is still heavily Eurocentric. A good example is white women stealing the concept of oiling hair which is an ancient Indian practice while ignoring the roots behind it. An Indian women nurse was beaten so bad it made the news but there wasn’t much outrage. Yet Taylor Swift owning her music or whatever gets a lot of feminists riled up

2

Anonymous #7 11w

Women and men aren’t equal. That’s just a fact of biology. There are no feminists in a house fire.

-7

Anonymous #9 11w

Sure, the way some people practice feminism is eurocentric. Though I feel like it doesn't make sense to blanket that experience over all of feminism, because many who are feminists don't place their focus on white women.

7

Anonymous #1 11w

It isn’t, though. By definition, sure. In reality it isn’t. It’s brunch activism is what it is. Nothing more.

-6

Anonymous #4 11w

Again, maybe *your* experience of it is. There are also immigrant and lgbtq+ activism that is "brunch activism." That doesn't mean that all of it is worthless and shouldn't be talked about or fought for.

7

Anonymous #1 11w

It isn’t the majority with 🏳️‍🌈 support. It is the overwhelming majority for “feminism” support. Feminists cherry-pick equity and equality because they are desperate to be perceived as victims at every fucking turn. It’s fucking pathetic.

-6

Anonymous #4 11w

Claiming that we don’t need feminism in a country where Roe v Wade is overturned, women aren’t paid as much for the same exact job thar a man would and rapists are hardly ever punished (holy hell, just look at who is the literal president rn) among other things is uh…a statement

9

Anonymous #10 11w

I see I’ve pissed off at least one misogynist lol

8

Anonymous #10 11w

Not everyone in the same job deserves the same pay. Rape is illegal. Roe vs Wade has nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with jurisdiction. Feminism is hypocritical at every juncture.

-7

Anonymous #4 11w

1) it’s not just a funny coincidence that it’s almost always women getting paid less and you’re blind if you can’t see that 2) so is “lgbt and black/brown people getting beaten to death” but people still turn a blind eye to it, similar to rape 3) Roe v Wade is a multifaceted issue and it mainly targets women’s rights to privacy and autonomy along with jurisdiction (it’s quite literally about women’s reproductive health wtf are you stupid?)

9

Anonymous #4 11w

At this point the level of stupidity you're spouting makes me believe you're just baiting

9

Anonymous brattybottom51 11w

Oh man that’s really bad 💀

1

Anonymous #10 11w

“No I can’t be a misogynist!! I voted for Kamala!!”

4

Anonymous #1 11w

I bet you run into “stupidity” a lot when your delusions don’t align with reality.

-3

Anonymous #4 11w

1) Not only is that just plain misogynistic, there are several studies showing that women are just as effective if not often better at leadership positions than men 2) Police brutality is technically illegal and yet the people who do it hardly ever face consequences, guess what also hardly leads to any consequences for the perpetrators? 3) It is absolutely multifaceted and the fact that you can’t get it through your head the the entire case was literally about whether or not the

7

Anonymous #4 11w

government has any business making laws on ABORTION, something very specific to women and AFABs just proves to me that you can’t understand nuance. No way you’re not just baiting atp

7

Anonymous #10 11w

1. It isn’t misogynistic. It’s simply true. For any corporation interested in international operations, women in leadership is not a viable path forward. 2. Qualified Immunity exists. Look it up. 3. It isn’t multifaceted. Take it up with your state legislature, dumbass. What you don’t understand is that it ONLY has to do with whether it is a state or federal issue. You don’t even understand the things you support. That’s why feminism is a fucking joke. God damn Instagram activists.

-3

Anonymous #4 11w

You saying that the attack on women's bodily autonomy has nothing to do with misogyny or the feminist movement is insane

3

Anonymous #1 11w

I wonder how the people who voted to overturn Roe v Wade view women and feminism...

4

Anonymous #1 11w

It isn’t my fault you can’t comprehend legal documents and legislation.

-1

Anonymous #4 11w

It also isn't my fault that you can't comprehend that there can be intent behind legislation..

1

Anonymous #1 11w

Roe vs Wade isn’t legislation.

-1

Anonymous #4 11w

This would be like me claiming that anti trans legislation is purely legislation and has nothing to do with transphobia or homophobia

1

Anonymous #4 11w

Oh boo hoo I used a word wrong. That doesn't nullify my point.

1

Anonymous #1 11w

It does nullify your point. Court decisions are not legislation. The “intent” behind the decision was that the existing legislation was overreach—a common issue at hand in court. It’s one you have no problem with when it goes your way, but you get your blue hair in a knot when it doesn’t. Make another sign and cry it over some white zin.

-2

Anonymous #4 11w

You’re right rape is a crime and there are legal consequences for it. Police brutality is a civil rights violation and is subject to 18 USC § 242 which is a federal law on police brutality, so yes there are consequences for it. Derek Chauvin is a good example and same with the officers that beat Rodney King.

3

Anonymous moderatemonkey 11w

Someone understands qualified immunity about as well as they understand the judicial branch.

-2

Anonymous #4 11w

Qualified immunity doesn’t apply to civil rights violations or criminal acts. It only protects against civil litigation, not criminal.

3

Anonymous #4 11w

Ironic…

1

Anonymous moderatemonkey 11w

You might want to read more than an AI overview, kid.

-2

Anonymous #4 11w

How did Derek Chauvin get charged if he had qualified immunity protecting him from criminal liability then?

1

Anonymous moderatemonkey 11w

You’re halfway there. Why do you suppose qualified immunity was codified?

-2

Anonymous #4 11w

Here

0

Anonymous #4 11w

Again, this applies only to civil litigation, not criminal. Please, show me where it is written that qualified immunity protects government officials (of any office) against criminal litigation. If you think people aren’t being held responsible criminally then your issue isn’t with qualified immunity, it’s with your local prosecutor…

-3

Anonymous moderatemonkey 11w

Nope. Different direction. What led to its creation?

0

Anonymous #4 11w

I don’t care what led to its creation frankly. I care more about how it’s applied.

0

Anonymous moderatemonkey 11w

You should care about both. Otherwise, you can’t understand either.

0

Anonymous moderatemonkey 11w

honestly dude this guy isn't gonna gaf about women no matter what you do just leave it

1

Anonymous #4 11w

like damn i didn't realize we had to intellectualize wanting equal rights for women and to fight against misogyny but oh well

1

Anonymous #4 11w

I’m sure it doesn’t have a spotless history, and frankly I don’t even really care for qualified immunity. I don’t think it has much of a point in the first place. My point is that abolishing it isn’t going to hold anyone more accountable in criminal matters because it already doesn’t have any relevance to criminal litigation.

1

Anonymous moderatemonkey 11w

It does, though.

1

Anonymous #4 11w

How does qualified immunity protect people from criminal litigation?

1

Anonymous #12 11w

It’s a gendered term that has most definitely been used as a form of historical oppression on women. With that being said, I don’t think you could find any reasonable person that would argue that it’s been used as a form of oppression to the same degree as the “n-word” and I think it’s still socially accepted for the most part (I don’t think using it derogatorily towards women would be accepted by most people).

2

Anonymous moderatemonkey 11w

Idk bitch is just the girl version of dick or like douche

0

Anonymous #12 11w

Personally, as a woman, bitch is just someone who’s irritating, rude, mean, ect. I don’t gender it anymore. I call both men and women bitches if they act like the definition 😭. But it definitely has history but that’s why I purposefully use it without gender.

1

Anonymous #8 11w

Yea I guess I can’t draw a clear example off the top of my head, but the idea of calling my friend a dick (and meaning it) doesn’t feel even remotely as bad as calling my S/O a bitch (and meaning it). The latter feels like there is a much heavier connotation ig.🤷‍♂️

5

Anonymous #12 11w

Yes. It’s used to insult women for being unfeminine and men for being too feminine. It’s not a slur or anything but it’s def rooted in misogyny and lowkey I do feel some typa way about people other than women and femmes using it

1

Anonymous moderatemonkey 11w

There are very specific judicial rulings that determine what conduct is ineligible for civil complain. I wonder how those are connected. Hmm.

0

Anonymous #4 11w

Right, and like I said, frankly I wouldn’t mind tossing out the doctrine. But it’s not going to change whether or not criminal litigation is brought to an officer that committed the crime of violating civil liberties. It already doesn’t protect it. It would open the door for people to sue civilly for compensation and make it more accessible (which could be a great thing) but criminal charges are still going to come from the local prosecutor, which is already uninhibited by qualified immunity.

0

Anonymous #4 11w

We would have to push for change in legislation and in your local prosecutor’s office (if you don’t think they are doing their job to curb instances of police brutality) if you wanted to see more criminal charges levied. Which I am additionally not at all opposed to, as someone that studies and works in LE.

2

Anonymous moderatemonkey 11w

If only there were a court case that addressed that and established the grounds of criminal liability for offenses committed in service of stopping or investigating a criminal complaint or warrant.

1

Anonymous #4 11w

Honestly, I’m not sure what you’re referencing this could vaguely apply to multiple landmark cases. Tennessee vs Garner, Terry vs Ohio, Graham vs Connor…

0

Anonymous #3 11w

as a side note/building on this comment, the board is crawling with fake leftists, fake feminists, and all kinds of people whose politics are little more than performance. every few days somebody attributes some idea to Marx that he never wrote. but anyway yeah the misogyny is often the first to show itself

6