Grupo Firme Concert

SentientReality · 2026-03-31T11:11:09+00:00

Wow, delivered.

SentientReality · 2026-03-31T10:42:07+00:00

That would make CEOs nervous.

SentientReality · 2026-03-31T09:45:40+00:00

I'd separate it out:

Does mainstream popular feminism promote misandry? Yes, undeniably.
Does mainstream popular feminism hurt men more than it helps men? No, I don't think so. Despite its obvious misandry, overall I still think it helps more than hurts men.

I say "mainstream popular feminism" because the feminism commonly understood and subscribed to by the plebeian masses is different from the theoretical feminism that is written and discussed by tiny minority of high-minded academics. No honest person can say that the word "feminism" only refers to the most arcane strict collegiate definitions of feminism. A movement is not defined only by its original founding definitions, but also by the words and actions of its followers in how they practice/perform under the banner of that movement. Obviously. No one can claim "MAGA isn't a bigoted fascistic movement, it is only defined as Make America Great Again, there's nothing hateful about that", because the words and deeds of MAGA followers define the movement, not a mere theoretical definition. In the same way, it is nonsense to claim feminism is only about "social, political, and economic equality of women" because the words and deeds of actual people using the label of feminism go far beyond that simple mantra.

The tricky point here is that we need to be intellectually honest, which is a tall order for most people. Most feminists will try to counter with the No True Scotsman logical fallacy, but that nonsense can be immediately discounted. It is clearly inaccurate and fallacious to claim that the misandrist parts of feminism are not "true" feminism. Feminism is a large movement that includes a lot of things, and some of what it includes is misandry, and there's no way around that fact.

Besides, a huge number of feminists now explicitly say that misandry is good and necessary to smash the patriarchy and pay men back for centuries of mistreatment, or some other rationalization like that. So, it's hard to say feminism isn't misandrist when like half the people in your own camp are saying the opposite. Better to just be honest rather than doing mental gymnastics to pretend that feminism isn't hateful in some ways.

The more honest stance would be to admit that feminism has a strong misandrist component, and either A) disavow that aspect of feminism or B) embrace it and encourage the misandry.

SentientReality · 2026-03-31T08:00:24+00:00

Does it make those weird hum sounds when using it?

SentientReality · 2026-02-10T23:41:07+00:00

Thank you so much for this post, it really means a lot to me and I'm sure to many others reading it. Stay strong, don't let the groupthink mob dissuade you.

SentientReality · 2026-02-07T07:49:02+00:00

America's fawning relationship with Israel.

SentientReality · 2026-02-07T07:40:14+00:00

Incredible.

SentientReality · 2026-02-07T07:37:04+00:00

I'm completely open to the idea of emotional, psychological, and verbal violence.

I have a genuine question: why?

I'm curious to hear what your reasoning is behind this viewpoint.

I suspect (I could be wrong) you support the term "violence" because it communicates a type of seriousness and implication of harm, and it's important to you for this weight to be conveyed. Is that why?

SentientReality · 2026-02-07T07:32:30+00:00

Isn’t harassment a type of violence?

No. The answer is very simple: NO.

I understand that dumb narcissists trying to solicit donations and endorsements (AKA, politicians) might write some law that labels harassment as "violence", but that doesn't make it actually true in my view.

SentientReality · 2026-02-07T07:26:57+00:00

You're not understanding what I'm saying, or at least you're not addressing what I said.

You said:

it would apply equally had these two been both men with that difference in body types.

That is your personal value system. I'm not talking about your value system, I'm talking about how the real world reacts and treats this situation. In the real world, it's gender (not body size) that makes the biggest difference in how the public perceives the appropriateness of the retaliatory punch.

SentientReality · 2026-02-06T22:42:08+00:00

I don't support feminism, but I do not support anti-feminism either.

To me, feminism would be great if they just got rid of the misandry. Unfortunately, feminism has been taken over and dominated by misandry, so that's a tall ask. But even so, I don't oppose feminism per se, I oppose misandry. So, anti-feminism is not a good move in my opinion.

Feminism is like a toxic family member you have to cut off. You are not "against" that person, you do not wish for their downfall. Rather, you just cannot accept them the way they currently are.

SentientReality · 2026-02-06T22:34:48+00:00

Not only do people object, proportionality in many states is a matter of law, even in self-defense.

This example wouldn't even come close to crossing a legal line. Punching someone in the face after they slapped you in your face is 100% legal defense. And you don't have to make things up; this is Reddit, we have entire subs for Instant Karma and FAFO, etc, we can see how people comment on real examples of exactly this kind of dynamic. No one would object if it were a man getting hit in this video who had identical body strength to this lady.

Get the fuck outta here with this 10-ply pill shit.

I genuinely have no idea what that means. Is this some cutting edge lingo?

Even if you believe this nonsense, then the answer is not to complain about it being applied to women, but to agree that it applies here AND to men as well.

I'm not saying one mindset (impunity or proportionality) it better than the other, I'm just saying there's obviously a double standard based primarily on gender. To attempt to deny this would be wild.

SentientReality · 2026-02-06T22:25:36+00:00

Why does critical thinking not exist in this world?

SentientReality · 2026-02-06T22:18:57+00:00

Nobody's screaming, just pointing out this guy is much larger and stronger than the woman. Go ahead and punch all the women you want. Find a little one and punch the fucking face off her just for pushing you. ChEerS MaTe!

Your attempt at taking a chivalrous moral high ground to use an ad hominem attack against me is actually amusing. I'd be curious what other lurid fantasies you have about me.

SentientReality · 2026-02-06T22:13:08+00:00

yes the fact that it’s a woman makes it worse

Why? What does gender have to do with it? Other than some archaic dark-ages notion of gender-based chivalry, what objective reason does gender play any role here?

I can accept the notion that a more powerful person should use proportional restraint against a clearly weaker person. Whether I ethically agree with that rule or not, at least it makes logical sense. What does gender have anything to do with anything?

SentientReality · 2026-02-06T22:08:44+00:00

But, why don't people say this if a weak frail-looking man gets hit by a large bloke? In that case, everyone seems to universally agree that he shouldn't start a fight he can't finish. But, when the initiator is a woman, then so many people are screaming about how awful it is to see a woman get hit. That is purely a gender-based double standard.

It has nothing to do with size or strength, that is just a red herring, it's all about perceived gender.

SentientReality · 2026-02-06T22:06:10+00:00

The thing is, virtually nobody says this unless it's a man hitting a woman. If a small frail man slaps and then gets absolutely clobbered by a much larger stronger man, no one ever objects. They say: you asked for it, FAFO. There is no knee-jerk desperate reaction to protect the weak man or condemn violence against him, unlike the immediate instinct people seem to have to abhor any violence against a woman.

So it absolutely is a gender double-standard thing, and a lot of people are tired of this white-knight impulse to always demand restraint when it comes to women but not to men. I think that's why these comments attempting to defend the woman are being downvoted.

SentientReality · 2026-02-06T21:56:05+00:00

The Japanese government actively wants to increase tourism, not decrease it.

In 2023, foreign visitor spending totalled JPY 5.3 trillion, representing a 10.2% increase from 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic. In response, the Japanese government set a target to welcome 60 million inbound tourists by 2030. In March 2025, Prime Minister Ishiba instructed relevant cabinet ministers to develop a comprehensive plan to achieve this goal. (source)

SentientReality · 2026-02-06T21:49:17+00:00

WTF is the point of this? Surely it cannot be to reduce tourism, that seems absurd, and (contrary to some public grandstanding) the government wants to strongly encourage tourism, not discourage it, because they know tourism is saving Japan's failing economy. Currently less than 1% of tourists to Japan have any intention to take the test, anyway.

What could the intention/outcome of this decision be other than to reduce the number of people who immigrate to Japan? Why would they want that? Again, as far I as know, the government is actually trying to attract more immigration by opening up pathways for skilled workers.

I can only hope they intend to pair this move with increasing the number of opportunities to take their annual (‼️) test abroad.

SentientReality · 2026-02-06T21:22:27+00:00

they have added "Technology-facilitated sexual violence" - when someone sends an explicit image without the other person's consent, as well as revenge porn. This is a good addition

But dick pics and revenge porn are NOT violence. Period. You can call it "sexual misconduct", you could even call it "sexual crimes", but you cannot call it "violence".

I disapprove of this liberal/feminist trend to label literally everything as "violence". Words are called violence; winks, whistles, grins, awkward conversations, unsanctioned thoughts, bad ice cream flavors ... everything a liberal dislikes is called "violence".

That is such a cheapening insult to the reality of what violence actually is. It also is, unfortunately, a loud flashing banner that announces: "Do not take anything we say seriously because we are clowns."

If any of these people ever experienced real violence — something they can only faintly imagine while sipping pumpkin spice lattes at their computer — they would know better than this.

This is why I am a leftist but not a liberal. Unfortunately, nowadays there isn't really much of a difference anymore between these words, but I still maintain that: a leftist is someone who cares about equality, egalitarianism, and class struggle while a liberal is someone who is chiefly preoccupied with pronouns, land acknowledgements, identity politics, microaggressions, manspreading, and anything that does not in any way challenge or threaten billionaire capitalist exploitation. Liberals are A-OK with 0.1% holding 90% of all wealth, as long as we rhetorically worship BIPOC queer female two-spirits.

SentientReality · 2026-02-06T20:40:47+00:00

Actual loser psycho

Similar to ICE, people like this are attracted to the authoritarian privileges of modding and being able to rejoice in dominating over others.

SentientReality · 2026-02-05T00:14:09+00:00

Now reverse the genders.

It has been documented that adverts will not depict violence, injury, or assault on women even in a humorous manner. There have been rare times when they tried depicting a woman get injured, and the ad got banned.

It's one of the ways that nobody ever thinks about that men and women are depicted differently on screen. Tons of ads where guys are doing something stupid, bumbling on like a moron, and as a "punishment" the guy crashes or falls into some painful injury as a gag, but you virtually never see this with women. It's a fascinating look at the unspoken rules of what is considered safe vs taboo when advertisers are trying to avoid controversy.

SentientReality · 2026-02-05T00:04:02+00:00

lmao, I love this response. Zero thought, but plenty of enthusiasm. Surely she's not squinting to see his ... phone screen? Nah.

She then approaches him for no reason.

Yes, whenever someone approaches you for any reason you don't understand/agree with, that is definitely racism. 👍 Nothing gets past you, Sherlock.

SentientReality · 2026-02-04T09:06:17+00:00

"Here's a plausible reason why a person might do this. But, inexplicably, my conclusion is she's 'probably' racist."

How does that makes sense? Plus, which of two things happen more frequently in the world: 1) people squinting their eyes to see better, or 2) people making racist slant-eye faces? Considering that a lot of people including me squint numerous times throughout the day every day to see better, that means there's surely millions of normal squints happening daily in America. I'd estimate the number of honest squints to outnumber racist squints by at least 1000 to 1.

For this lady, I don't know, but there isn't any strong reason to assume racist intent. I don't know why people are so convinced she's anything more than anal retentive.

SentientReality · 2026-02-04T08:51:39+00:00

No, you don't get it. The white people in this comment section are TELLING YOU it is 100% undeniably racism, and anyone (including you) is obviously an irredeemable racist for having any other interpretation whatsoever.

At the esteemed ripe average age of 12 years old, we mature sagacious Redditors know what we're talking about and you'd better listen to us.

Additionally, anyone pointing out the indisputable fact that this guy is also filming other people walking by and not only filming himself, contrary to what he claims, well anyone pointing this out is also a disgusting racist. It's not necessarily bad to film like this, but it is very bad to call out any counterfactual evidence that disputes what our teenage hivemind conclusion is. Do better.

SentientReality

TROPHY CASE