Be me

>be me
>mid 30s white straight male
>mostly decent dude
>don't send dick pics
>dont catcall
>think guys who do are dumb
>see all these "me too" posts on FB
>realize the huge scope of sexual harassment and abuse by men
>reflect on my own life
>realize I have done some over the top flirting I know was wrong, easily could be viewed as harassment and probably was
>decide to post how I was affected by these "me too" posts and admit I am the reason for some of them, decide to reach out and apologize to some of the women I've done this do in the past

refresh facebook:
"TO ALL THESE MEN APOLOGIZING FOR BEING A WOMAN'S 'ME TOO' MOMENT, FUCK YOU. YOU ARE DISGUSTING AND WE DON'T NEED YOUR APOLOGY, BE BETTER

>ok better not post an admission/apology
>think about a couple of experiences I have been in throughout my life where I was definitely sexually harassed (by gay men and straight women)
>decide to post, "me too" on fb to share solidarity that this does not happen to only women

refresh facebook:
"TO ALL THESE CIS MEN SAYING 'ME TOO' - HUSH UP. THIS ISN'T ABOUT YOU."

>decide I don't give a shit about me too anymore
>go get high and play PUBG
>jerk off to maledom porn just out of spite

All me to seems to be is a circle shlick of feminists applauding their "bravery".

You might be a decent dude, but everyone on facebook is not. Not giving a shit is the easiest way to go. Good luck in PUBG.

>filename
>LOGo

>giving a shit about what attention seeking girls post online for likes

What you don't seem to understand is that you cannot win. You can't. You're a straight white male and are "the problem" as far as these people are concerned. There can be no solidarity with them.

Their entire worldview has an underlying Marxist belief system. Everyone "on top" got their by oppressing everyone below and they should be given no mercy. I mean I hate to put it that bluntly but just look at their actions and words.

...

Dialectical Marxism and critical theory are a plague.

There are assholes everywhere user, forget the radical idiots. Apologising may not get you the best reaction anyway depending on the person and they aren't required to accept it. The best thing is to do better moving forward. I'd be one to appreciate your solidarity.

find it hilarious that these people think aggressively ostracizing a specific type of person from the get-go, will make the world a more accepting place, it's not racial profiling if your ass ain't black kids!

>think aggressively ostracizing a specific type of person from the get-go, will make the world a more accepting place

They don't think that at all, they want to eliminate said group. At bottom they want war, and they follow a genocidal ideology

Welcome to Identity Politics. Fun, isn't it?

that's the competition neoliberals asked for.

10/10 post

it sure is

The most hilarious part is that these fucking idiots have the nerve to support ideologies that promote actual fucking misogyny (Islam and sharia law), yet regular cis white man are the big bad rapist, women beating monsters, you know, if not for the fact that it would fuck us all up, i wish they succeeded in supporting the establishment of sharia law just so they could get a good ol fashion reality check form a sweaty sandy dicking from uncle Muhamed

Just sit back and relish in the fact that the only reason they are allowed to have an opinion is because a man let them. At any given time a man can take it away too. The whole reason men have ruled humanity is because we are the stronger, smarter sex. Women get pregnant in hopes of breeding more men. That’s science.

They support whoever their oligarchs tell them to support, just like you.
>implying that sharia law isn't simply an alternate legal establishment to which people can opt into, just like arbitration
I know you have a narrative to sell, but can you be a little less transparent about it.

sorry guys i don't think you understood at all was marx/marxism was all about. he wouldn't have given a flying fuck about this shit... marxism is a economical theory but you amerifats think everything what seems to be some kind of left is "marxism"

No, it's because women haven't seen fit to kill you off YET, and also because of some jew.

...

btw i find OPs behaviour hilarious, like what did he expect

That's weak, user. Also a little pathetic. You can be against the SJW marxism without doing a 180 into full on female hating chauvinism

They're sucking cuck Koch cock and believing literally everything the John J. Birch Society, an organization specifically formed to create anti-communist propaganda to protect the wealth of the Koch dynasty, has to say. They are the ones who made up muh cultural Marxism because anything they don't like has to be branded evil.
This is why rich people and their slaves need to be put in camps away from the rest of us.

>SJW marxism
What Marxism? They're market-loving competition-fetishizing neoliberals.

thanks

not economic marxism, but marxist in world-view

well, fair enough, being European, that's the narrative that's hot in my mind, tho by all accounts, what i mean is that they support the establishment of a system that would override pretty much all they claim to be for, the most basic and vanilla versions of sharia law are still a far cry in terms of equality between males and females, so its like they are supporting something that will ultimately defeat their purpose.

iow you're repeating what rich jews told you to say?
Dialectics is Hegelian, and Socratic before that. You literally have no fucking idea what you're talking about and you need to shut the fuck up until such time as you so.

Most great advances in the human race were developed by who? It wasn’t until men started giving women pieces of their knowledge did they learn to do anything for themselves.

Came up on my newsfeed, so cringe

i think you're going to far by expecting some kind of coherent world view from people (mostly women) like this. still, if there was such thing as a marxist world view, it would have nothing to do with dying your hair or having an tumblr account

>tfw dont use facebook or twitter
feelssogoodmang

The neoliberal's actual purpose is division and disempowerment of people by the market. I think that sharia law, just as arbitration, could be intended to seek that division and disempowerment.

The Chinese, of course.
Besides, we have enough to feed, clothe, and shelter the whole world now, so you're expendable.

elaborate? i don't want to google. but sounds like some kind of jewish conspiracy shit

why would you apologize? don't be a cuck

yes, the Koch family founded the Birch Society after WWII to discourage the American people from supporting communist policy and government as they naturally did in the wake of the Great Depression. So Birchers made up a bunch of stuff about Communism being a menace to everyone, when really it was only a menace to themselves and their feelings of superiority.
I don't know whether the Kochs were jewish, but they did have their interests.

even though the people who ended up leading the Marxist Revolutions of the Soviet Union were using the exact same tyrant/slave dynamic that they claimed to be fighting

That's how revolutions get going, at first. They need something to coalesce around. The mistake was not killing off the leaders as and when they started taking for themselves. I think that the American people are mostly past that now, once they get started.

makes sense, i did not know about this part of american history. i just somehow implied they were jewish. while some of the american jews surely would have supported this

The problem with that is it's a self-destructive cycle. Leader gets out of hand -> new leader corrupts -> new leader corrupts.

The system is built on such a high level of authoritarian centralised power that it just corrupts absolutely. Power like that in any state, Marxist or Capitalist, needs to be fragmented in order to keep the people's interests first.

that was meant to say "Leader gets out of hand -> new leader corrupts -> new leader needed"

this.
but if you look at it, the first try which was council communism worked quite well. which then got overtaken by force to establish the dynamcis/system you are talking about

If you're referring to Lenin's era being a success i'm a little confused as to what part you're considering a success. Feel free to elaborate

but anarchism doesn't work. who will give you electricity, hospitals and universities?

the keks are strong with this one

I'm not referring to anarchism. I'm talking more localised power with the infrastructure of regions being managed by a sort of pseudo city-state system communicating as part of a wider network as a country. A little similar to England's current council-Parliament structure but with more power in the hands of councils rather than the houses of parliament/lords

>Giving a shit about facebook circlejerk scandal/confessions
>Writing confesionals on Sup Forums

So this shit site is really just loser facebook now. fuck all you scumbags, you used to be better than this.

Eventually, new leaders stop corrupting because they know what's ahead of them, and devolve their powers to councils or stay on the straight and narrow by killing those who try to corrupt them.
>The system is built on such a high level of authoritarian centralised power
In any case, large systems tend to be built on centralized power because economies of scale are real. They can be disrupted by economies of a new system itself, in which control of commodities is pretty much automatic and only needs administrators, not a lawgiver. Paul Cockshott of Glasgow has designed a system that approaches this ideal.
>Power like that in any state, Marxist or Capitalist, needs to be fragmented
Not necessarily fragmented, but distributed.

Local generation, religious orders, and monasteries, respectively.

With Parliament's powers strictly limited and councils having a means of forcible defense against a Parliament gone rogue, I trust?

this thread is now a "how can communism be made practical" thread

maybe a little before lenin's era, who got sended from germany as a organizer of the revolution.
as far as my point of view goes:
- first: people get oppressed by zarian russia, have to give all their stuff, die of hunger etc.
- second: people make a revolution (of course some people get killed) and establish in some parts some "counsel communism"
- third: lenin comes, after that stalin comes and take over the power to form an totalitarian state

Go back to wherever you came from, I'm sure they'll be happy to jerk you off.

Oh, right, nobody actually gives a fuck and you have nowhere to go, so you're stuck shitposting here all night about things nobody ever gave a fuck about.

welcome to the middle age!

Just stay the fuck off Facebook. Shits not remotely constructive/entertaining. Let the cunts bitch and moan for another week and focus on shit that matters. This sexual harassment shit is way overblown anyway. It isn't even on par with simple assault. You notice how all these cunts and faggots whining with their meetoo posts are doing just fine? It's an attention grab. Fucking hell

you smell like reddit

nice one.
all because OP saw some marxist agenda in tumblrinas

It's just a joke that they say to post me too if you've been sexually assaulted OR sexually harassed, like they're pretty much the same thing.

Post me too if you've been poisoned or someone screwed up your order at a drive-thru.

Why do you fall for propaganda? Don't you know this is the year of the victim? Just reply #notme and leave it at that. DON'T APOLOGIZE FOR BEING MALE!!! There is no need for it just because of the actions of some assholes.

>this is the 48th year of the victim
ftfy

fuck off and die. thanks.

I should point out that and are both my comments so I'll try and answer accordingly.

>Not necessarily fragmented, but distributed.
As far as i'm concerned these are essentially the same thing. Distribution via fragmentation removes the capacity for a centralised entity to claw back that power.

>With Parliament's powers strictly limited and councils having a means of forcible defense against a Parliament gone rogue, I trust?

Almost. The ability for all citizens to be armed and maintain their individual rights no matter the current political entity in the centralised government is sort of key to how I view this operating.

I should add to all of this that I don't actually believe in Marxism as an solution for dealing with socioeconomic imbalances in societies.

>The ability for all citizens to be armed and maintain their individual rights no matter the current political entity in the centralised government is sort of key to how I view this operating.
What about their collective rights of those councils to run their society as they see fit, without some central government dictating potentially anti-Marxist terms?

he has a point though, social media is to some extent responsible for those things.
but you still can look at it and have fun

Councils would still have to answer to the government on higher level matters like the laws being enforced etc. But in regards to local allocation of funding for maintaining and improving infrastructure that'd fall to the councils themselves. It's complicated and I can't really think of how to explain all of it so if you wanted to know about particularly and responsibilities they'd have you'd have to ask questions about them individually. It's not a simple yes/no overall

i think our views match quite well, i think i started this with but still i see his problem and don't have a solution. the US with the 2nd ammendment go kinda the right direction, but what stops people form simply killing each other (as seen in the US)?

What stops people from killing each other is proper open political debate without escalation into violence over disagreement. Facilitating more of these platforms and encouraging open debate like that would likely have a knock-on effect of a reduction of politically related violence (in my view)

tbqh, it sounds like you're describing the US status quo, which has turned out to be a disaster. Maybe some contrast with the US system would be illuminating.

I would hope that having enough to go round and not being so possessive as Propertarian capitalism would have us would prevent any reason to do so.

I accidently Me Tooed my sister once. It was awkward at the time, but funny in retrospect

>proper open political debate
Doesn't really stop anything if someone's on the short end of the debate. Not all conflicts can be resolved and not all interests are legitimate.

>tbqh, it sounds like you're describing the US status quo, which has turned out to be a disaster. Maybe some contrast with the US system would be illuminating.

Out of curiosity, by what standards are you saying that the US status quo is not successful?

I don't agree with their system and believe a much smaller federal government would be a good solution to some of their problems.

Hehe nice bait user. You could open up a sushi chain with this one.

You're going to have to elaborate on what you mean by views that aren't legitimate and being on the short end of the debate

Sorry my bad. I just read the end of your post.

ok comrades, reporting out
nice to see that there are still people who know the diffrence between marxism and facebook

>>jerk off to maledom porn just out of spite

i wanted to laugh, but lets be honest here

the whole of the male population in the west and first world have been collectively cucked by feminism and social justice

women are absolute garbage who are indecisive and follow anything that seems like it might be beneficial to them without thinking about the effects

i cant wait to see this whole movement biblicaly backfire on them and swing all the way around in men's favor. hopefully when they are all alone in their 40's with no family to live for, they will have plenty of time to think about their actions

however sexist this may sound, but... when women rage men duck and cover.

it's basic survival, we do not engage, do not chose sides, do not encourage or discourage, defend or attack or anything in between.

she runs out of the cave screaming bloody murder alongside her sister, we slide back into that cave and weather the storm.

this is how that shit works.

t. and actual oldfart.

guys are just joining in this to get laid, right?

It's failing most of its people on a regular basis and its people are fighting against one another in almost every possible endeavor. As a corporation controlling its assets and as a broker of its citizens' labor, it's succeeding. We aren't.
>I don't agree with their system and believe a much smaller federal government would be a good solution to some of their problems.
Almost everything in the public sphere has been labeled as "commerce" and that loophole's had a billion trucks driven right through it. Definitely gotta fix that.

You are a master of art.

>It's failing most of its people on a regular basis and its people are fighting against one another in almost every possible endeavor. As a corporation controlling its assets and as a broker of its citizens' labor, it's succeeding. We aren't.

I feel like I can't really address this until you're a little more specific. When you say "We aren't" do you mean that as in the people do not share in a significant enough portion of the success of the country as a whole or that the quality of life as a country is not at a high enough standard. I'm a sucker for specifics.

>Almost everything in the public sphere has been labeled as "commerce" and that loophole's had a billion trucks driven right through it. Definitely gotta fix that.

Whilst it's having some things as commerce instead of essentials is an understandable standpoint to have, I'm curious to know what you think about allowing markets to compete as a means of providing goods and service that might be considered more essential. A lot of pro-propertarian capitalists might argue that allowing markets to compete on this with reduced regulation in some areas would allow for cheaper, better quality products for the people. Thoughts?

>people do not share in a significant enough portion of the success of the country
This, but the country as a corporate body. Some classes of people do rather well.
>allowing markets to compete as a means of providing goods and service that might be considered more essential
The interests of the executives in production, as a whole, are diametrically opposed to the interests of the consumers as a whole, as well as to others involved in production. I don't see the profit motive as a dynamic that encourages useful, universal, reliable *public goods*.

can we make "ME THREE" trending for trannies

As a guy who molested and blackmailed his secretaries for years, I'm getting off on this "me too" bullshit. it's the best when they are desperate for the job lol

i know alot of guys are actually scumbags but im willing to bet 75% of the people posting "ME TOO" were never a victim and are just doing it for the attention and making shit up when someone asks what happened to them

it always is dude. it always is. all attention whores.

When sobody mines for attention and they don't fucking want attention they mine for something is terribly wrong.

Some dude bumped into me at the grocery store and his hand hit my butt. He said sorry.

ME TOO

they don't want attention, they want compliance

Sorry it's 2:16AM in the UK so i'm barely keeping attention on this at this point.

Why do you think it is that some classes of people just simply don't do well? Do you think it could be fairly attributed to lack of skills or personal irresponsibility?

I'm not sure I agree that they're diametrically opposed. A company that can meet the needs of consumers on lower budgets with good quality products will succeed within that portion of the market. That success would be directly in line with the executives, no?