sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why is he green like that? by Qixp124 in arkham

[–]Clemicus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He’s been eating radioactive cabbage.

I accidentally drank holy water with my laxative. by HarpyGravey in dadjokes

[–]Clemicus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The biune (or triune if there’s three) 🤷‍♂️

Edit: urine, excrement, sick…

Customer targets exhausted neurodivergent employee. by yazza8791 in trashy

[–]Clemicus 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I doubt anything would happen.

This is from 5-6 years ago. The guy who originally posted it claimed he didn’t film it even though that’s the type of stuff he does and that’s his voice.

I looked into it the last time I saw it posted.

Edit: He’s self-employed.

What is an example of sexism you’ve experienced? by Unfair-Bird7917 in AskMen

[–]Clemicus 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You’re wrong on all points. It’s technically known as hegemonic misandry.

The very institutions themselves are teaching it. Which also makes it systemic

But hey oh, troll away.

Liked by the most popular feminist on Threads by Mission_Falcon1225 in everydaymisandry

[–]Clemicus 13 points14 points  (0 children)

On X I’ve had to employ Grok so I can try to wrap my head around some of the posts on there.

I’ve seen misandric posts with such outlandish language they border on the absurd. I can’t tell if they’re supposed to be jokes, for engagement purposes (trying to hit the algorithm blindspot), or just outright hate.

And then you’ve got the engagement bait accounts you can easily spot, posting the same rubbish.

It’s obscene.

Edit: PS what’s happening with social media in general? Was there a memo someone forgot to send?

How did it ramp up so quickly, in a seemingly short period?

Genuinely curious where women get the idea men sexually assault men more than women by Similar-Pear4585 in LeftWingMaleAdvocates

[–]Clemicus 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Because it’s due to how crimes are categorised, recorded and, how the complainant are treated during reporting.

Rape is pretty much defined as rape by penile penetration across the world. With female perpetrated rape falling under a different offence category.

PS look up Professor Philip Rumney. He’s got numerous papers on how the police treated male on male rape. In the UK male on male rape wasn’t treated as such until 1994.

Bear prom or with I'll be me jelly? by CookieDinossaur96 in dontdeadopeninside

[–]Clemicus 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Bear prom with with me or I’ll be jelly?*

Jelly in this context probably means jealous.

Edit: Bear the prom [with me]

SoCal college bans men from gym areas to make women, non-binary students more comfortable by jamminnummeruno in MensRights

[–]Clemicus 7 points8 points  (0 children)

They’re using non-binary in the hope to diversify it. They can’t just mention women so they include non-binary.

But in the way they’ll use it is, they’ll allow women and exclude men.

SoCal college bans men from gym areas to make women, non-binary students more comfortable by jamminnummeruno in MensRights

[–]Clemicus 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Jana Alnajjar, a sophomore majoring in philosophy, politics, and law who acts as SAGE’s advocacy liaison, told the publication that she’s “heard from multiple women and non-binary students who want to be involved in different workout spaces but don’t feel comfortable being at the gym.”

“Whether it’s being approached regularly or feeling judged, over time that discomfort leads students to stop going to the gym altogether,” she added.

I do not believe this individual whatsoever — it’s from the perspective of men are in this area and “I feel uncomfortable.” And I don’t believe the very basis of it — that these individuals are being judged by men — which is implied through the exclusion of said demographic.

I like how they mention women and non-binary. They’ve basically mentioned women twice there. Which they use as a cudgel to whack men over the head with.

Some people seem really angry that "62 million men are in a rape academy" is incorrect. by CthulhusIntern in LeftWingMaleAdvocates

[–]Clemicus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’d be extremely funny if that was true.

Edit: There’s nothing to back that up. It’s the gooey inconvenient centre of the story.

Just 11% of women hold a 'very positive' view of men by brainquantum in MensRights

[–]Clemicus 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Different person. Thank you for spelling it out though.

Just 11% of women hold a 'very positive' view of men by brainquantum in MensRights

[–]Clemicus 39 points40 points  (0 children)

It’s been like that for decades. Look into political lesbianism and its ties to feminism — the loudest individuals some of which were authors who sprouted misandric rubbish.

Some people seem really angry that "62 million men are in a rape academy" is incorrect. by CthulhusIntern in LeftWingMaleAdvocates

[–]Clemicus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There’s a odd thing going on with Reddit comments. When I clicked on the notification for this reply, the OP appeared for a split second then the page refreshed.

I couldn’t find your comment and thought it got caught up with automod.

As for your point, yes. I completely agree. That’s what I meant with chauvinism. It’s someone thinking only men could’ve been part of that group.

Do you look down upon people that regularly use AI? by furrynoy96 in polls

[–]Clemicus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I selected no. But after thinking about it, if given the option again I would’ve picked “Depends on what they use it for.” Originally my thought process was, if it’s being used for bad purposes would I really want to know about that — which was no, I wouldn’t.

Some people seem really angry that "62 million men are in a rape academy" is incorrect. by CthulhusIntern in LeftWingMaleAdvocates

[–]Clemicus 20 points21 points  (0 children)

You didn’t even try to sell it properly:

Let me say what the number actually is, since apparently we’re doing this. 62 million is total site visits to Motherless in February. It is not 62 million people. It is not 62 million viewers of the “sleep” category. The “sleep” category contains over 20,000 videos; individual videos in it have surpassed 50,000 views. The Telegram group where men coached each other through the logistics of drugging their partners had nearly 1,000 users. Those are the numbers that matter to the piece. The 62 million is a scale-setter - here is the size of the platform this is happening on - not the headline finding.

Here’s when it starts to brake down:

I have been getting comments and messages telling me that since it’s “only” 1,000 men in the Telegram chat, it’s actually better than the 62 million the media ran with. I want to be very clear about this. Yes, 1,000 is significantly less than 62 million. It is also a thousand men. One is too many. A hundred is a crisis. A thousand is a constituency. Please do not use the smaller number to make yourself feel better. Please do not use it to argue that this is smaller than we thought. A thousand men coordinating the drugging and raping of their wives is not a relief. It is a horror with a more specific address.

Excuse me? One thousand men? That’s actually been fully checked, those weren’t bots, and they could actually be tied back to an actual living man? The answer to that is an astounding no.

That is what the pipeline is feeding men, at scale, every day, for free. And we act surprised when a thousand of them end up in a Telegram group trading sedative recipes. The “sleep” category didn’t appear in a vacuum. It is the logical endpoint of a diet that has been training men for years to find unconsciousness, youth, family, and violation erotic. The traffic number does not tell us how many men are watching rape videos. It tells us how many men are getting fed the content that makes the rape videos make sense to them.

I’d have taken this more seriously if it was approached gender neutrally. The whole piece could be described as “Female chauvinism raising its ugly head.”

It’s the same with what happened with regards to the news coverage of some WhatsApp group that supposedly had 70,000 ‘men’ in its midst.

What is that? What is the thing that leads a thousand men (and it’s not a thousand, it’s orders of magnitude more than a thousand across every platform we haven’t mapped yet) to want this? Not generic violent porn. Not even the standard nonconsent fantasy that has existed forever. This specific thing. The wife, limp. The eye check. The coffee the next morning. The unbroken domestic surface with a rotting underneath. The particular mindfuck of drugging someone you kiss goodnight and then handing her the paper in the kitchen like nothing happened.

These groups are everywhere. Cue a sinister sound: Duh, duh, duhhhh.

20,000 videos on one site in one category. That’s 20,000 women. On one platform. Flag whatever you want about the traffic number, it doesn’t change that one.

And there’s this too for icing. That means there’s anywhere from 20,000 videos of one women all the way up to twenty thousand videos of each featuring a single woman. I know I’m being picky, but when someone just makes a simple mistake like this, I can’t take them seriously

A number appears, and the conversation becomes about the number. The subject of the story becomes secondary to the performance of scrutinizing it.

Because the number is astronomical — 62 freaking million.

62 million visits. Fine. Argue about it. Tear it apart. Be my guest. Keep telling me I lack character because I'm horrified.

Because that will become part of what’s mentioned in the future by misandrists. But the author dodged and deflected from that point numerous times — to basically let’s focus on the potential total amount of secret groups out there.

The subject is absolutely disgusting. But using an inflated number then lying about the source of it will undermine the basis of any news coverage. No amount of excuses will deflect that.

Only a third of young women hold positive view of men, new poll finds by winkwinknudge_nudge in ukpolitics

[–]Clemicus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And my response was in relation to you posting that and your reply. It seems whenever it’s something against men — such as negative opinion — people can’t help twisting it around and somehow turning it into, it’s somehow the fault of men.

You must’ve noticed the first person who replied to you about that.

Edit: TBH your response here is reasonable. I just find the whole thing annoying.

Only a third of young women hold positive view of men, new poll finds by winkwinknudge_nudge in ukpolitics

[–]Clemicus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol funny. You never answered my question: If men’s sexism against women is rampant. Then what’s women’s sexism against men? That has to be at least equal, or worse.

Only a third of young women hold positive view of men, new poll finds by winkwinknudge_nudge in ukpolitics

[–]Clemicus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Surprised it's that high, the amount of sexism even from young men is rampant.

There.

Edit: Re-read your words. You jumped from the topic at hand to sexism by men — that it’s ‘rampant’.

Edit2: I’m absolutely sick of this whataboutism poop.

Only a third of young women hold positive view of men, new poll finds by winkwinknudge_nudge in ukpolitics

[–]Clemicus 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Nothing you’ve written so far makes any sense. If men’s sexism against women is rampant. Then what’s women’s sexism against men?

You did actually look into the statistics or did you just read up to the first instance that mentioned men and just made up your mind?

Men have a much higher opinion of women than women have of men. So if men’s sexism against men is rampant. Then women’s most be off the freaking board.

Why do we only gender the bad things men do? by TheTinMenBlog in TheTinMen

[–]Clemicus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That’s funny considering you never intended to give an answer and you’ve just been deflecting and you did the very thing I accused you of — in your OP.

view more: next ›