>What you don't realize is that you are not arguing with a feminist.
I never called him a feminist. I did call him a gynocentrist, though. Considering where we are, likely a tradcuck. They think they're against feminism, but they're still advocating for positions that give females advantages over males. But since they don't call it "feminism" it's fine.
>In a way we get women on our side.
Yes, but not through pandering and letting them away with the bullshit they usually get away with.
>The shills love to paint us as loser (Hello, I just arrived from Leddit, please bully me)s who are mad because we can't get laid. Don't help them.
If you're the guy the post you're replying to was replying to, then you were calling people (Hello, I just arrived from Leddit, please bully me)s in this very thread. But it doesn't matter. The point is that gynocentrists don't care. They don't care about any arguments you make, they'll just throw out insults, no matter how nonsensical. Trying to play their game and placate them won't matter. They aren't arguing in good faith.
>And is where people on the left go using exceptions as counter examples.
To be clear, I wasn't even saying the guy who said to disregard exceptions was correct. I was saying that the post replying to him wasn't actually addressing his argument. I thought I said that quite clearly. The fact that his argument wasn't actually addressed goes to show that the person arguing against it likely wasn't arguing in good faith.
Personally, when I meet someone, I treat that person as an individual. Maybe that person is an exception. With women, though? I've never actually met one of those exceptions. I keep giving them chances and it doesn't matter.
>you just went and assumed oh women are as good as holes.
No, I didn't, the gynocentrist I was arguing with did when he said...
>Most people need a leech to function or they will bang the nigger secretary, be a NEET or be ravished by the mailman.
He's saying to just let women away with bullshit because they're holes. They don't need to actually be productive members of society. It's okay that they're just holes. His argument, not mine.
>That's an example "(Hello, I just arrived from Leddit, please bully me)s, the internet guys on reddit r/(Hello, I just arrived from Leddit, please bully me)s, hate women because they can't get laid". I am just affirming it.
I don't know what goes on on reddit. The term (Hello, I just arrived from Leddit, please bully me) predates them, and has a much broader definition. They're dudes who can't get laid. They have many different attitudes toward it. I'd bet most of them don't hate women. Most of them are probably white knight little bitches.
>Aha!!! So now the exceptions matter and a nuanced view is required.
Never said anything about exceptions. In fact, I said "many," which if anything implies a significant number, more than "exceptions." You're going in with such hard coded preconceived notions that you can't even comprehend when the person you're talking to isn't talking in those same terms.
>You see how people are manipulative and usually say what's convenient to their purposes or their egos? Either by lack of attention or intentionally.
No, not "people," just you. Probably a woman. Again, not "people."
>I believed he was a shill.
When he did nothing that would be shill behavior. Shill doesn't just mean someone you don't like.
>And I am no newfag. I went to 4chan's pol since 2014 and to infinity chan since I don't know 2016?. But I do haven't come here since 2018 and I do changed a lot. And I did get rusty with the lingo and the characters.
Holy shit, you sound like the fucking Penguin of Doom. Also, 2014 is when everyone left 4chan, and anyone who stayed after that is not only a newfag but a spineless traitor. 4chan wasn't even good since at least 2011, and had been going downhill since 2007. You're a faggot newfag who doesn't even know what he missed out on.
>And it is shilling if it is someone using D&C
Saying something you don't like isn't D&C.
>I am not a feminist. You sound just like you are arguing with one. Like it's the only option of arguing against.
The difference between tradcucks and other types of feminists doesn't matter, just like "womanists" and other subsets of feminists. You advocate for things that give women advantages and preferential treatment by society. Call yourself what you want. I don't care.
>You should fuck some whores to get your urges down.
Any good will or pretense of acting in good faith disappears when this is your go-to argument. You are almost surely an actual hole, and deserve to be treated as such.
>Maybe then you stop seeing women as just a vagina and can enjoy their company. Even if it's a tomboy.
You are the perfect example of why women aren't enjoyable as actual company.
>I suppose we need to substitute then by robot dicks like the feminists want.
They already have those and they're socially acceptable. They aren't good enough for women because women take sex for granted, they can get it whenever they want. But a dildo can't give them money, a male can. They aren't happy unless they're successfully acting as a parasite on the man with the most resources to steal.
>And you sound like a boy who can't grow out of his hate for women because they don't let you touch their vaginas.
You sound like a woman that can't come up with actual arguments so defaults to insults against someone's sexuality. It would be fine to throw in insults along with actual arguments, but you're not capable of that. You don't have the brainpower, or maybe you've never had to train your actual intellectual abilities because society lets you walk through life unchallenged. Either way, you're left not being an actual person. Either way, you're proving that you're good for nothing but a hole.