@JamesSkepp I had listened to Joker's response to that on Better Bachelor during my commute home yesterday evening. I had intended to scope out that NY Post article and possibly share it here this morning.

Fucker beat me to it!

Anyway, yeah, that shit reveals the FBI to be a goddamn joke. I'm not exactly always "hip" to the latest "YOLO-lingo", but I can see several errors in their definitions, not the least of which is lumping everyone in the manosphere in with incels.

I also find it laughable that they're so worried about violence from Red Pillers, MGTOW, and incels when I can only recall 2 mass shooters, both of which were incels.

However, how many LGBTQOMGWTFBBQ shooters has there been? Hmm? Are the FBI going to start monitoring all the pro-faggot, pro-tranny platforms such as the incredibly disturbing /r/egg_irl?

Anyway, just in case the FBI is monitoring here:

#based #Chad #RedPill #MGTOW #WAATGM #WNB #Stacey #GetBackInTheCloset #DisbandTheFBI

Fucking around aside, when Trump wins back the office that was stolen from him, I hope he disbands these incompetent, corrupt, political hack bureaucrats.

@Typo-MAGAshiv The feminine imperative pushing homosexuality should be enough to know that it is part of subverting men. Homosexuals are fine, masculinity isn’t. Homosexuals largely stand with feminism, but feminism stands with homosexuals. Calling them unharmful as a group when they are simultaneously the group that most aggressively pushes their ideology in the western hemisphere is just asinine. I’ve in my life not seen as many billboards and posters of any political party in the streets as there are homo pushing ones out there right now. It’s everywhere. Knowing that homosexuality is definitely less than 50% genetic, they are doing the work to nurture every child and young man into maybe sucking dick.

One last point: people who make the effort to get people to use approved terms are wrong because it’s never about the current term. It’s not even about the next one. It’s about ending the discussion. There’s two parts to it, the first one is the one Orwell described: If the words to express certain opinions stop existing, so do the opinions (“you won’t even be able to commit a thought crime”). The other one is about baking premises into words. The words are put together in a way that once one uses them, they already imply certain parts of the premise are true. If you then also buy the story that the old word is bad, then you’ve bought the old concept being wrong and the new concept being right. You then have to defend your argument on your enemy’s terms. For example the new term for faggots is “men who have sex with men (MSM)”, that’s not even a word, that’s a term. Once you use this, you already accept that faggot is wrong because it implies faggots are feminine and fruity, you accept that gay is wrong because not every man that has sex with men needs to be gay, you even accept that it’s not only biological men who can be gay, but it’s actually also women because they can identify as men and then be MSMs. There’s a host of other stuff that you automatically buy into once you accept their terms of using language. Some people here think it’s basic Dale Carnegie (most overrated book in history btw) type intelligence to speak on their conditions, but it’s actually Kamala Harris level retardedness to do so.

I’ll stop talking about this topic now, having gays live rent free in my head is not something I’m looking for.

#GetBackInTheCloset

@MentORPHEUS

Given the current state of overpopulation

For a libertarian you sure spout quite a few liberal tropes. There is no overpopulation. Birth rates are declining and they need to be higher for this type of society to further exist. We can discuss if that is something we should strive for, but the simple fact is that societies are partly collapsing because of declining birth rates. That’s a symptom obviously, not the disease.

Sounds like your justification amounts to nothing more than the strict 50s Tradcon view that the value and esteem of a man derives only from his service as a provider to women and children, and failing that, he is considered an enemy to society.

You are putting words in my mouth. I am saying society needs more children and family units, gays can’t provide that, so there’s no reason to incentivize them to do anything, that means no tax benefits, no marriage, no adoption, nothing. Society should either not care about them at all or disincentivize their behavior and stigmatize as not to perpetuate and spread the alphabets people sickness to non affected members of society. So essentially #GetBackInTheCloset

You're catastrophizing, as if we can choose between actively opposing gay people OR embracing and including them without limits.

Nothing if the sort. You said you wanted to chop off a part of the gay voter block and get them on your side. You said you want the manosphere to associate with them and make a political partnership with them, I said we should not strive for that.

Seems to me you are building on wrong premises and that your thought is not really libertarian if you don’t want gay people to be left alone but incentivize gay behavior by providing them benefits that heterosexual married couples get from the state for being good little contributors to the machine. I don’t know for sure, but does not really seem to be a libertarian argument for me.