Untitled

[astropeony]

Say it as loud as you can

[cheshireinthemiddle]

Reminder that this phrase is about male genocide and women being inherently better than men, not gender equality.

Which splits its repeaters into the groups of those whp are ignorant of its meaning, and those who genuinely advocate for it.

[gopfails]

"Male genocide"

You wanna be oppressed so bad

[cheshireinthemiddle]

Men already face serious andbiften systemic/systematic inequalities for being male. Your ignorance of this is not a counterargument.

What I was addressing was that this phrase was/is a call to genocide.

Pay attention.

[burningabyss572]

What does the Future is Female even fuckin' mean cause like....

Humans are not that one species of lizard, I don't know how to tell you.

[cheshireinthemiddle]

Oh! An actual question. Fun.

"The Future is Female" came from radical feminist seperatist and proud man-hater, Sally Miller Gearhart. Gearhart wholeheartedly believed that women were inherently better than men, and should be 100% of leaders, police, teachers, etc. That the world should be led by women and women alone. And her solution to all of this was to convince women all over the world to selectively abort any male children they have to reduce the male population down to 10%. Then put the remaining men into "camps" for "breeding purposes". (The part about camps was found in her supporter's notes in response to questions of how they will keep up the population. I havent found anything from her directly about it, but it makes sense.).

This slogan was popularized for decades and misinterpreted as generic empowerment to the point that you can see/gear it on mainstresm television and see it sold on t-shirts.

As in "The Future is Female" isnt some empowering slogan about women being equal. It's about women being superior, and a call to the genocide of men. It's saying the future belongs to women.

EDIT:

OP is selectively erasing comments and turned off reblogs immediately after I posted this. No actual counterargument other than "men should die". Which means OP is likely on the side of people who knows what "the future is female" means and approves of it🤷‍♂️

[astropeony]

Reblogs aren’t disabled, clown. I block comments from other clowns like you because it’s pointless using translator every time to argue with those who will defend men while ignoring objective data about what men actually do to women and that other men, if they "do" suffer(womp womp), do so because of the system that other men built. I’m too lazy to reply to each of you, and I don’t want you to litter my comments with crap that could tarnish the image of young feminists or other women you’re forcing into compulsory empathy for scumbags("not like other men/pick me, girls/actual good" men). If you want to fight a straw man, go ahead. But I wouldn’t advise you to spread lies about me :p

[anneone16621189]

Don't bark about beating down straw men when you're too chicken shit scared to put that stick to the men you hate so much.

[m00nlandings]

Don’t bark about someone being too chickenshit to beat up men you claim they hate when you’re too chickenshit to kill yourself

[anneone16621189]

You first, bitch made.

[astropeony]

Say it as loud as you can

[cheshireinthemiddle]

Reminder that this phrase is about male genocide and women being inherently better than men, not gender equality.

Which splits its repeaters into the groups of those whp are ignorant of its meaning, and those who genuinely advocate for it.

[gopfails]

"Male genocide"

You wanna be oppressed so bad

[cheshireinthemiddle]

Men already face serious andbiften systemic/systematic inequalities for being male. Your ignorance of this is not a counterargument.

What I was addressing was that this phrase was/is a call to genocide.

Pay attention.

[burningabyss572]

What does the Future is Female even fuckin' mean cause like....

Humans are not that one species of lizard, I don't know how to tell you.

[cheshireinthemiddle]

Oh! An actual question. Fun.

"The Future is Female" came from radical feminist seperatist and proud man-hater, Sally Miller Gearhart. Gearhart wholeheartedly believed that women were inherently better than men, and should be 100% of leaders, police, teachers, etc. That the world should be led by women and women alone. And her solution to all of this was to convince women all over the world to selectively abort any male children they have to reduce the male population down to 10%. Then put the remaining men into "camps" for "breeding purposes". (The part about camps was found in her supporter's notes in response to questions of how they will keep up the population. I havent found anything from her directly about it, but it makes sense.).

This slogan was popularized for decades and misinterpreted as generic empowerment to the point that you can see/gear it on mainstresm television and see it sold on t-shirts.

As in "The Future is Female" isnt some empowering slogan about women being equal. It's about women being superior, and a call to the genocide of men. It's saying the future belongs to women.

EDIT:

OP is selectively erasing comments and turned off reblogs immediately after I posted this. No actual counterargument other than "men should die". Which means OP is likely on the side of people who knows what "the future is female" means and approves of it🤷‍♂️

[astropeony]

Reblogs aren’t disabled, clown. I block comments from other clowns like you because it’s pointless using translator every time to argue with those who will defend men while ignoring objective data about what men actually do to women and that other men, if they "do" suffer(womp womp), do so because of the system that other men built. I’m too lazy to reply to each of you, and I don’t want you to litter my comments with crap that could tarnish the image of young feminists or other women you’re forcing into compulsory empathy for scumbags("not like other men/pick me, girls/actual good" men). If you want to fight a straw man, go ahead. But I wouldn’t advise you to spread lies about me :p

[anneone16621189]

Don't bark about beating down straw men when you're too chicken shit scared to put that stick to the men you hate so much.

[m00nlandings]

Btw I find it precious you men play the victim with strawman while making delighted in the idea of a man harming women who call out male violence against women.

Truly, go kill yourself

[anneone16621189]

You want me dead that bad, shut up and get the rope, bitch. I'm not going do your work for shiftless cunts like you.

[idle-drifter]

I had this little conversation last month. I don't know where they calculate the 85%. But I do get paid for my time and labor. Otherwise, I would quit. The nice thing about not owning the business. I'm not attached to any debt incurred by the owners.

[gearboxpraexology]

The 85% is probably the business's revenue after labor costs.

@thinginthefen am I correct? do you think wage labor pays for inventory or raw materials? What about the equipment the business uses? Rent, electrical or water bills? Maintenance and upkeep? If not, do you not believe those costs should be paid for with the revenue earned from their use?

[return-of-the-blech]

Why do these idiots believe the boss doesn't do any work?

[siryouarebeingmocked]

>This is what they call a loaded questions;

No, it's a question with an opinion in it.

>; they’re not idiots and more often than not its the people under the boss that do most of the work and create the surplus value.

The idiot explicitly said the boss "doesn't work". Not "doesn't do most of the work".

Doesn't work, full stop.

You're making up a stronger argument instead of admitting someone on your side was wrong.

>Also dipshit, how does your inventory and equipment create value? Are they self assembled and 100% self operating? Are they 100% self maintaining and self cleaning? No? Do you need skills to do those things?

Who purchased that inventory and equipment and hired the workers?

Who pays expenses, like Gearbox said and you are deliberately ignoring?

A lot of the time, maintenance and assembly and cleaning is done by outside contractors. Paid for by management. Which is itself a skill.

Stop pretending it's all-or-nothing, and anyone who isn't rabidly pro-worker* thinks management is entirely responsible.

*Or more accurately, their classist stereotypes of workers.

[pussybitchasscons]

Tfw you're only alive cause of goverment run tax payer funded social programs.

Kicking the ladder out from under you so Noone else can benefit is scumy ngl. You know since you're unemployed

[siryouarebeingmocked]

[pointingatconservatives]

You are unemployed

[anneone16621189]

So what? You're going to shut them up?

[astropeony]

Say it as loud as you can

[cheshireinthemiddle]

Reminder that this phrase is about male genocide and women being inherently better than men, not gender equality.

Which splits its repeaters into the groups of those whp are ignorant of its meaning, and those who genuinely advocate for it.

[gopfails]

"Male genocide"

You wanna be oppressed so bad

[cheshireinthemiddle]

Men already face serious andbiften systemic/systematic inequalities for being male. Your ignorance of this is not a counterargument.

What I was addressing was that this phrase was/is a call to genocide.

Pay attention.

[burningabyss572]

What does the Future is Female even fuckin' mean cause like....

Humans are not that one species of lizard, I don't know how to tell you.

[cheshireinthemiddle]

Oh! An actual question. Fun.

"The Future is Female" came from radical feminist seperatist and proud man-hater, Sally Miller Gearhart. Gearhart wholeheartedly believed that women were inherently better than men, and should be 100% of leaders, police, teachers, etc. That the world should be led by women and women alone. And her solution to all of this was to convince women all over the world to selectively abort any male children they have to reduce the male population down to 10%. Then put the remaining men into "camps" for "breeding purposes". (The part about camps was found in her supporter's notes in response to questions of how they will keep up the population. I havent found anything from her directly about it, but it makes sense.).

This slogan was popularized for decades and misinterpreted as generic empowerment to the point that you can see/gear it on mainstresm television and see it sold on t-shirts.

As in "The Future is Female" isnt some empowering slogan about women being equal. It's about women being superior, and a call to the genocide of men. It's saying the future belongs to women.

EDIT:

OP is selectively erasing comments and turned off reblogs immediately after I posted this. No actual counterargument other than "men should die". Which means OP is likely on the side of people who knows what "the future is female" means and approves of it🤷‍♂️

[astropeony]

Reblogs aren’t disabled, clown. I block comments from other clowns like you because it’s pointless using translator every time to argue with those who will defend men while ignoring objective data about what men actually do to women and that other men, if they "do" suffer(womp womp), do so because of the system that other men built. I’m too lazy to reply to each of you, and I don’t want you to litter my comments with crap that could tarnish the image of young feminists or other women you’re forcing into compulsory empathy for scumbags("not like other men/pick me, girls/actual good" men). If you want to fight a straw man, go ahead. But I wouldn’t advise you to spread lies about me :p

[anneone16621189]

Don't bark about beating down straw men when you're too chicken shit scared to put that stick to the men you hate so much.

[luckyladylily]

Considering how it is incredibly well know that a default distrust and hatred of masculinity led to radical feminism and trans exclusionary radical feminsts, a group that is incredibly violent and hateful to trans women, I find it fascinating (read: Incredibly short sighted and foolish) how many trans women are openly embracing that kind of rhetoric. They seem to alternate between "fuck terfs!" and "I really vibe with the idea that masculinity is inherently evil and corrupts everything it touches"

You get the feeling that to some trans women the problem is not that terfs are bigots, but that they target trans women specifically.

[cdarklock]

I mean that's very much the way people are. It's not that the thing is bad, but that it is being used in a bad way against the wrong people; I myself would use it in a good way against the right targets.

That's why when Orange Jackass took office and incompetently tried to take over and destroy the government, the opposition party did not even try to destroy the tools he was using when they got into power. "We will use them correctly! We will need them so we can do that!"

And now here's Orange Jackass again, but with assistance to help him use the same tools more effectively. He's probably still going to fail, but he's going to do a lot more damage, because we didn't take the tools away.

Every group is like this. It's why we make zero fucking headway on banning guns. "But what about OUR guns?!"

[hamstergetten]

Are you people who just need to complain about Trump always on. And who are the right targets?

[cdarklock]

I mean OP is complaining about a fringe element of the trans community four months ago, and I am complaining about establishment Democrats two and a half months ago, but sure. The problem is that we "just need to complain about Trump" and we are online too much.

Welcome to the piss on the poor website, I guess. Dumbass. Go fuck yourself

[anneone16621189]

Answer the question , who are the acceptable targets that the "good people" need to destroy?

[friendlyfreakazoid]

Right-wing men openly and unashamedly say they hate women. Leftist men, being so progressive and enlightened, just say they hate white women and cis women and “terfs” and wealthy women and mean girl nurses and “Karens” and bitchy teenage girls and women who take feminism “too far” and misandrists and mothers and women who don’t coddle men and women who can’t take a joke and their girlfriends and theirs wives and and and

[anneone16621189]

Who was this conservative man who so openly declared that he hates women? And if you say Andrew Tate, I'm going to laugh at you; please find another bogeyman.

[anneone16621189]

Don't sugarcoat it now?

[siryouarebeingmocked]

>capitalism

>China

>due to social pressure

How did someone manage to come up with a stupider take?

[gopfails]

This would be perfect for you!

Since you are unemployed

[anneone16621189]

So what do you do for a living, parasite?

[gopfails]

Mad I made fun of your boyfriend

[anneone16621189]

So, no job having bourgeoisie, I see! Also, you forgot the question mark?

[gopfails]

It wasnt a question. But a statement. Im calling you a faggot

[anneone16621189]

Oh dear, homophobic slurs? You're sure you're not down with the GOP? Cuz apparently they're the ONLY ones who are cool with spitting out slurs, right?

[gopfails]

Holy shit you're a fucking loser

[anneone16621189]

I'm in good company!

[siryouarebeingmocked]

>capitalism

>China

>due to social pressure

How did someone manage to come up with a stupider take?

[gopfails]

This would be perfect for you!

Since you are unemployed

[anneone16621189]

So what do you do for a living, parasite?

[gopfails]

Mad I made fun of your boyfriend

[anneone16621189]

So, no job having bourgeoisie, I see! Also, you forgot the question mark?

[gopfails]

It wasnt a question. But a statement. Im calling you a faggot

[anneone16621189]

Oh dear, homophobic slurs? You're sure you're not down with the GOP? Cuz apparently they're the ONLY ones who are cool with spitting out slurs, right?

[siryouarebeingmocked]

>capitalism

>China

>due to social pressure

How did someone manage to come up with a stupider take?

[gopfails]

This would be perfect for you!

Since you are unemployed

[anneone16621189]

So what do you do for a living, parasite?

[gopfails]

Mad I made fun of your boyfriend

[anneone16621189]

So, no job having bourgeoisie, I see! Also, you forgot the question mark?

[siryouarebeingmocked]

>capitalism

>China

>due to social pressure

How did someone manage to come up with a stupider take?

[gopfails]

This would be perfect for you!

Since you are unemployed

[anneone16621189]

So what do you do for a living, parasite?

[bagelbread1275]

why does male rover get to be in the middle for BOTH sigils are you fucking serious

[anneone16621189]

Gacha games really do draw in the worst kinds of lowlifes, male and female. You people are just shitheels, aren't you?

[thydungeongal]

I have posted before about how sometimes well-meaning attempts at running D&D without some of the more unfortunate dynamics can often backfire but in a way where most people don't even register it backfiring. Because when you take the step of "oh D&D's various 'evil humanoids' don't just exist in a vacuum and given the renfaire colonialism on display it's kind of impossible not to read them as somewhat racialized" many people will then go "okay but we still need some people who player characters should be allowed to kill guilt-free, so let's replace 'orcs' with 'bandits' because killing bad criminal people is perfectly ideologically neutral." At that point it's like "okay so your characters are no longer the racist kill squad, now they're just the Tough on Crime Vigilantes."

But I feel I should make clear that D&D the game itself is not exactly at fault here: like, okay, it is sort of at fault in the sense that it is a game of fantasy killing people with swords and magic. And it is easier for people to accept the killing with people with swords and magic part when they can imagine that their characters are at least to a degree justified. That is sort of just built into the game (and the game has built into its lore varying levels of making the fantasy of killing certain types of guy justifiable).

But D&D is not at fault for making people go "okay so it's bad when you kill orcs simply because they're orcs. It's better when you kill people who are bandits, who are a class of evil criminals where killing them is actually wholesome and sensible." Like, yeah, most people probably don't think about it that deeply, but the reason people don't think about it that deeply is ultimately ideological.

And the ideology is basically "it is bad to be racist but it's good to be a tough on crime vigilante."

[krongbly]

I don't disagree with this post but I do think there's an important element being left out here which is that 9 times out of 10 players are engaging in combat primarily as a form of self defense. Most of the time it's less of "we can kill these people because they're criminals and that makes it ideologically neutral" and more "these NPCs are trying to kill us and the most effective way to stop them right now is to reduce their hit points to 0 which, if they fail their death saves, means they will die."

I think "vigilantes tough on crime" is actually kind of a bad descriptor for how most parties operate. This definitely varies wildly from table to table but I think for the *average* table there's honestly a solid chance that either your players are friends with at least one criminal NPC or even that they themselves are criminals. There's even an entire class who's fantasy is "criminal."

[thydungeongal]

I don't think the self defense point actually holds true in a meaningful sense.

In older editions of D&D, which were much clearer on the expected gameplay being "go into the dungeon and steal the stuff," there wasn't really this layer there. The rules for combat were generally quite harsh on player characters so combat was certainly something they didn't want to get into too casually, but ultimately the player characters were just going into the dang monsters' house and stealing their stuff. The monsters were arguably the ones acting in self-defense (but they're evil so who cares).

But in the WotC editions the self-defense justification is still fraught because modern D&D especially is an action game. It's a game where characters mostly have access to various methods of visiting violence upon their environs and where the gameplay itself rewards them for violence, because combat is the main source of experience as written in all WotC editions of the game and characters primarily grow in combat effectiveness.

The self-defense angle I feel is not supported by the game's rules itself, but is more of a narrative contrivance introduced by groups to make their characters feel more heroic.

My friend @tenleaguesbeneath once described it as, and I am paraphrasing, "characters hunting things for sport but the things attack them first so they can claim self-defense." Characters want to get into fights (because that's where the rewards are), characters primarily grow in terms of being able to get into cooler fights, but because getting into fights on purpose isn't heroic there's an angle of "those goblins started it" to make the characters feel more heroic.

I don't think this is a bad thing per se. It is one way to make the power fantasy of D&D feel less like the characters are violent thugs and more like heroes. But like it is basically a group of mercenaries going into a warzone, they can't really say "well we didn't really expect to have to kill anyone on our mission, but sadly, circumstances conspired against us." Fighting is what the game wants them to do and I don't think anyone is wrong for wanting to portray the player characters as engaging in self-defense, but it's only self-defense through a very crooked lens imo.

[lumpout]

Linking this to the modern "revenge porn" action movies like John Wick and Nobody.

The self defense/revenge motivation is a fig leaf for indulging in gleeful violence. While modern DnD fictionally positions the party as the righteous castle-doctrine empowered heroes; we should at the very least be critical of why it is doing that. It's functionally identical to the fantasy of "what would I do if a bunch of terrorists/bank robbers burst into the room?" Just because there's an in-universe reason as to why you get have to murder all those people in flashy and fun ways does not mean that it isn't what you (the player) sat down at the table to do.

[jambeast]

And the key thing to remember is that violence is awesome (in fiction) and we don't have to justify it to anyone.

[brazenautomaton]

Yeah this post is horseshit and the ideology behind it is soul poison. If you demand a Maoist struggle session for your D&D campaign for its ideological implications then 387.44 million miles of wafer-thin circuits is not enough to express the extent to which you need to go fuck yourself. The assumptions and demands you make are based in a concept of human experience that only exists to serve your politics. This is not how human beings engage with art, this is not how human beings engage with stories, this is not how human beings engage with games. You are suffering under this monstrous worldview and you are monstrous in attempting to inflict it on others.

You are not revealing a secret pro-vigilantism argument, you unfathomably vast stumblefuck. You are revealing that you have conditioned other people to be afraid of speaking up against you and they're unable to fight your openly malevolent bad-faith attacks, so when you threaten them with Unpersoning for some game mechanic or setting detail you don't understand, instead of standing up for themselves and telling you to fuck off they shuffle to the closest equivalent of it that they think won't get them yelled at.

[thydungeongal]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I personally enjoy playing D&D and thinking about stuff like this. :)

[general-cerberus]

why do you enjoy playing a combat oriented game when you think combat in the game is morally wrong? Like theres none violent tabletop games you could be playing instead

[cavegirlpoems]

i mean what's wrong with just... playing a game as a bad person? I for one *love* playing games where my PC is not really a good person. See, eg, most Vampire (and World of Darkness) games. Once you lose the assumption that your PC 'should' be a good person, a whole lot of gameplay avenues open up.

But then again I like playing Sabbat games so maybe I'm just weird.

[thydungeongal]

There's literally nothing wrong with it, but the reading comprehension squad on Tumblr has decided to go with a reading of my post that says "D&D actually should conform to my personal political views and if it doesn't anyone playing it is a bad person" when I am emphatically trying to argue for engaging with the game as is without trying to rehabilitate it. Sad!

[agentnoun]

Lotta people reacting to the OP could do with a reminder that someone can discuss a thematic element of a work without either praising or condemning it or the people who enjoy it. Sometimes it can just be A Discussion.

[anneone16621189]

No, it can't. That ship sailed ages ago. If some random dickhead says your fave is Problematic, you have 2 choices, either admit you are a scumbags who spits on the poor, or you burn all your bigoted crap in a fire and repent all of your regressive sins.

[thydungeongal]

I have posted before about how sometimes well-meaning attempts at running D&D without some of the more unfortunate dynamics can often backfire but in a way where most people don't even register it backfiring. Because when you take the step of "oh D&D's various 'evil humanoids' don't just exist in a vacuum and given the renfaire colonialism on display it's kind of impossible not to read them as somewhat racialized" many people will then go "okay but we still need some people who player characters should be allowed to kill guilt-free, so let's replace 'orcs' with 'bandits' because killing bad criminal people is perfectly ideologically neutral." At that point it's like "okay so your characters are no longer the racist kill squad, now they're just the Tough on Crime Vigilantes."

But I feel I should make clear that D&D the game itself is not exactly at fault here: like, okay, it is sort of at fault in the sense that it is a game of fantasy killing people with swords and magic. And it is easier for people to accept the killing with people with swords and magic part when they can imagine that their characters are at least to a degree justified. That is sort of just built into the game (and the game has built into its lore varying levels of making the fantasy of killing certain types of guy justifiable).

But D&D is not at fault for making people go "okay so it's bad when you kill orcs simply because they're orcs. It's better when you kill people who are bandits, who are a class of evil criminals where killing them is actually wholesome and sensible." Like, yeah, most people probably don't think about it that deeply, but the reason people don't think about it that deeply is ultimately ideological.

And the ideology is basically "it is bad to be racist but it's good to be a tough on crime vigilante."

[krongbly]

I don't disagree with this post but I do think there's an important element being left out here which is that 9 times out of 10 players are engaging in combat primarily as a form of self defense. Most of the time it's less of "we can kill these people because they're criminals and that makes it ideologically neutral" and more "these NPCs are trying to kill us and the most effective way to stop them right now is to reduce their hit points to 0 which, if they fail their death saves, means they will die."

I think "vigilantes tough on crime" is actually kind of a bad descriptor for how most parties operate. This definitely varies wildly from table to table but I think for the *average* table there's honestly a solid chance that either your players are friends with at least one criminal NPC or even that they themselves are criminals. There's even an entire class who's fantasy is "criminal."

[thydungeongal]

I don't think the self defense point actually holds true in a meaningful sense.

In older editions of D&D, which were much clearer on the expected gameplay being "go into the dungeon and steal the stuff," there wasn't really this layer there. The rules for combat were generally quite harsh on player characters so combat was certainly something they didn't want to get into too casually, but ultimately the player characters were just going into the dang monsters' house and stealing their stuff. The monsters were arguably the ones acting in self-defense (but they're evil so who cares).

But in the WotC editions the self-defense justification is still fraught because modern D&D especially is an action game. It's a game where characters mostly have access to various methods of visiting violence upon their environs and where the gameplay itself rewards them for violence, because combat is the main source of experience as written in all WotC editions of the game and characters primarily grow in combat effectiveness.

The self-defense angle I feel is not supported by the game's rules itself, but is more of a narrative contrivance introduced by groups to make their characters feel more heroic.

My friend @tenleaguesbeneath once described it as, and I am paraphrasing, "characters hunting things for sport but the things attack them first so they can claim self-defense." Characters want to get into fights (because that's where the rewards are), characters primarily grow in terms of being able to get into cooler fights, but because getting into fights on purpose isn't heroic there's an angle of "those goblins started it" to make the characters feel more heroic.

I don't think this is a bad thing per se. It is one way to make the power fantasy of D&D feel less like the characters are violent thugs and more like heroes. But like it is basically a group of mercenaries going into a warzone, they can't really say "well we didn't really expect to have to kill anyone on our mission, but sadly, circumstances conspired against us." Fighting is what the game wants them to do and I don't think anyone is wrong for wanting to portray the player characters as engaging in self-defense, but it's only self-defense through a very crooked lens imo.

[lumpout]

Linking this to the modern "revenge porn" action movies like John Wick and Nobody.

The self defense/revenge motivation is a fig leaf for indulging in gleeful violence. While modern DnD fictionally positions the party as the righteous castle-doctrine empowered heroes; we should at the very least be critical of why it is doing that. It's functionally identical to the fantasy of "what would I do if a bunch of terrorists/bank robbers burst into the room?" Just because there's an in-universe reason as to why you get have to murder all those people in flashy and fun ways does not mean that it isn't what you (the player) sat down at the table to do.

[jambeast]

And the key thing to remember is that violence is awesome (in fiction) and we don't have to justify it to anyone.

[brazenautomaton]

Yeah this post is horseshit and the ideology behind it is soul poison. If you demand a Maoist struggle session for your D&D campaign for its ideological implications then 387.44 million miles of wafer-thin circuits is not enough to express the extent to which you need to go fuck yourself. The assumptions and demands you make are based in a concept of human experience that only exists to serve your politics. This is not how human beings engage with art, this is not how human beings engage with stories, this is not how human beings engage with games. You are suffering under this monstrous worldview and you are monstrous in attempting to inflict it on others.

You are not revealing a secret pro-vigilantism argument, you unfathomably vast stumblefuck. You are revealing that you have conditioned other people to be afraid of speaking up against you and they're unable to fight your openly malevolent bad-faith attacks, so when you threaten them with Unpersoning for some game mechanic or setting detail you don't understand, instead of standing up for themselves and telling you to fuck off they shuffle to the closest equivalent of it that they think won't get them yelled at.

[imsobadatnicknames2]

Tumblr user thydungeongal: Trying to contrive a way to make this game about engaging morally questionable violence and graverobbing to be Leftist™ is an unproductive endeavor that not only is usually less fun than just deciding to simply play as violent, morally questionable graverobbers, but also usually ends up with even more unsavory implications.

The post understander 9000: WHY. ARE YOU. DEMANDING. EVERY D&D PLAYER. IN THE WORLD. TO HAVE. A MAOIST STUGGLE SESSION. EVERY TIME. THEY PICK UP. THE DICE. YOU. FUCKING. MONSTER!!!!!!!

[red-knight-black-knight]

considering the Post Understander's point is theoretically anti-moral-purity, it's remarkable how much vitriol they launched into at the merest suggestion that someone might think they did something mildly questionable. it almost beats out how they accuse her of "unpersoning" immediately after saying that her analysis is not how humans do things

like if "this is a little fucked up if you think about it" warrants "that is a monstrous malevolent horseshit bad-faith soul-poisoning unpersoning attempt", i hate to break it to this magnificent hypocrite but thydungeongal is not the one who has "conditioned other people to be afraid of speaking up" against her.

to be completely fair to them, though, they did make one good point, which is that someone engaging in this behavior should be told in no uncertain terms to fuck off.

[anneone16621189]

Bla bla bla your fave is Problematic, this thing you like is bad and you should feel bad. Same dance different music.

[outraged-honk]

Seeing so many Americans wanting their country to be destroyed. "Watch it burn" as one post said.

So you'd rather have no rights? You'd rather have no say in government? You'd rather have absolute chaos, widespread death?

Your privilage is showing.

If you hate the USA so much, leave. Same with other western countries right now.

Hating your country, sure, I feel we have at one point. However, wanting it destroyed is another story. Not only does it show extreme first world privilege, it also shows that the propaganda from terrorist regimes has burrowed deep into your common sense.

Being from a country that I can be free in, that I can associate with who I want, I don't have to worry about bombs, women can wear whatever, I like having democratic rights like freedom of speech, and to voice my opinions.

But you forget that what you have in the western world, all those rights and freedoms, they are not as common elsewhere in the world. Every country has a different system and protects their laws and citizens differently, while it says about 160 countries have this right, the same amount is said to violate human rights at the same time.

Be careful what you wish for because it might just come true.

Sources:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-freedom-of-speech

https://worldostats.com/country-stats/human-rights-index-by-country/

[anneone16621189]

If unearned, undeserved privilege is bad, why not have it taken away, why shouldn't first world nations be blown out from under their feet so they'll struggle for survival just like everyone else? It's the ultimate, undeniable way to check our privilege, right?

[sawbuckplus]

[gopfails]

Source

[generallemarc]

Me when I blindly assume everyone killed in police shootouts did nothing wrong to tell the people who survived actual fascism that they don't know what fascism is.

[gopfails]

They shot him infront of his child and dragged his corpse out into the street

They literally got away with executing a man in broad daylight and murdered a woman cause she was rude to them.

You're a vile person

[generallemarc]

Yes, how awful I am for not blindly taking your screenshots and very unbiased description as accurate, which you're providing in the context of saying that actual survivors of fascism are wrong about what fascism is and you, the privileged one who lives in a liberal democracy and is free to call the state whatever they want, know better. Y'all spend your time shrieking about ZioNazis while telling survivors of actual fascism to shut up when they disagree with you.

[gopfails]

Oh cool so now you're LYING about dead people. Very religious of you so tolerate and kind.

You're going to hell

[generallemarc]

Yes indeed, I'm going to hell for lying, which I did when I said absolutely nothing about any specific person beyond "you're just assuming all of these people were innocent of anything and not dangerous". Show me where I lied about a dead person. Please.

[nonenosome2]

"She was rude to them"

Damn. That is a weird way of saying she hit a cop with her car.

I'm sure the others are equally unbiased descriptions.

[gopfails]

Even the pedophile you worship disagrees with you.

Victim blaming a dead woman who cant fight back or defend herself is absolutely pathetic and you should be embarrassed to post your shit takes online.

[anneone16621189]

So where's your shame? We'll ALL end up in hellfire sooner than you think, so you'll have of eternity to kick the shit out of all the people you hate, including the Orange Baboon. See you soon, sucker!

[apricops]

we talk about how “let people enjoy things” has destroyed people’s brains but “good comedy should punch up” has convinced so many people that being pointlessly mean to strangers is not only justified but virtuous

[anneone16621189]

Being a coward. How many flesh and blood Nazis have you beaten into a pulp so far? Give a number and maybe people will be scared of you.