There are many double standards about men and women in general

>wikipedia

Very reliable source

its not a reliable source at all, they deem everyone they don't like a white supremacist, they are very incompetent in terms of research, they forbid people from correcting their misrepresentations etc

They called stefan molyneux and Nick fuentes white supremacist, a anarcho capitalist and a mexican dude.... That's how deranged

I have. Their citations do not support their assertion

Stefan molyneux

watch your language emotional child

If you cannot hold a coherent debate without refraining from acting like an emotional child you are, this isnt going anywhere

Edgy teen, even if i was a teenager, I still act more mature than you do

I don't "like" stefan

I disagree with him on some issues, agree on others

Regardless, you simply calling him names doesnt add towards your point, just shines light on your immaturity and emotional instability

Begging the question fallacy

They asserted he was a white supremacist. A definition of a white supremacist is someone who deems whites to be superior to non whites due to their skin color
Their "citation" is him acknwoledging that whites on average have higher iqs than blacks
He NEVER SAID, that based off of THAT, whites are superior. They are extending THEIR subjective view that IQ = superiority

They asserted he was a white supremacist. A definition of a white supremacist is someone who deems whites to be superior to non whites due to their skin color
Their "citation" is him acknwoledging that whites on average have higher iqs than blacks
He NEVER SAID, that based off of THAT, whites are superior. They are extending THEIR subjective view that IQ = superiority

Yes?

LOL

Do you know the definition of racism you incompetent fuck?

Acknowledging races exist isnt the same as deeming certain races superior to others

Nice arguments

I've never met a leftist who isn't emotionally unstable, you just validated that further!

Stop crying? Haha, is this your debate tactic? To use that immature "LMAO UR CRYING" when pointed out how irrational you are?

No, I am a fascist. I do not like alex jones, he is a zionist shill

Sure, then go piss of elsewhere

cuckhold

How old are you, i am willing to BET i am older than you

hmm, someone who continuesly resorts to insults after being pointed out how irrational they are, is NOT ridiculous, but someone actually having a geniune discussion IS?

Lol, such a child honestly

Ill leave this conversation now, who was the irrational and emotionally unstable one is left for others to infer. However its self evident.

Literally every leftist I've spoken to cannot have an intellectual discussion without resorting to childish unstable screeching

So people who disagree with you? Such rationality!

Very mature and intelligent. Thanks for making your side look even worse. Bye now

It was inevitable after they were given voting rights

Yeah, everyone you disagree with is an edgy kid

ALright buddy

Healthy mentality to hold

No, rebrand the whole constitution

I mean if you just look at the trends, after the 19th amendment was introduced, all of the degenerate policies and events which transpired were supported mostly by women prior

The fact that you believe that doesn't prove you're a good intuitive, but it proves you're just a delusional fuck

WHat i just said above is a literal fact you can google yourself

But you don't care, you can't use reason with someone who rejects reason if it conflates with his narrative

Oh you sure got me dude! What better way to respond to rational arguments than to just resort to insults!

Thanks for validating my point

Of course you don't. You don't take anyone seriously if they challange your close minded narrative

I don't care.

If i see something i disagree with and find ridiculous, I will voice my opinion, and elaborate on why I believe what I believe, instead of instantly resorting to immature insults just because the person im talking to disagrees with me on mostly everything

Its not silly. he didn't talk about should they have those privileges, but talked about the history behind it, and what would happen if we rejected them those privileges

Which i concede, however just because the consequence of an action may be bad, doesn't mean that the action itself is bad

Martin luther king's speech

Good action, which resulted with him getting killed

What? Not the getting killed part
The good action - him giving a speech about what he believes

Consequence of that action - People being enraged and killing him due to his stances

No I dont agree
Actions are independent of their consequences. The essence of an action is independeent from the essence of a consequence which prevails due to that action

There are many examples of this

Martin luther king, Galileo, Jesus etc

Bad things happen to good people.

No it has nothing to do with intent. It has everything to do with other people reacting badly to good actions just because they disagree with those actions

No, that was literally the point of this conversation

Other countries reactions to our action of forbidding women to vote

I personally, would be for China, Russia, North Korea, and the US to form some form of a mutual benefit allegiance, where they ensure their safety regardless of their economic/political disagreements, since they have the same mutual enemy

The only reason you are assuming this would occur as a consequence, is because you are looking at this while not realizing that when speaking about repealing the 19th amendment, we are presupposing an authoritarian/totalitarian state.

You wouldn't just repeal the 19th amendment, and just sit there waiting for everything to transpire or not transpire

They won't be able to leave. They will have an ensured steady job, with non capitalistic corporatist economy
The border would be heavily regulated, the media would also be heavily regulated. Everyone including men, will be the subject to the state.

They might try, but whether or not they will succeed is a separate issue.

Its about ensuring the preservance of our future. So of course women AND men will be involved.

Because as I said, there will be men disagreeing with this. There will be both men AND women disagreeing with anti free media policies, tough pro racial policies etc

Yes

I'm not negating that

As i said, they might try, but probably won't succeed

Why won't it have many highly educated people?

No they wouldn't lol. you are very idealistic and optimistic, your perception of human nature is what you wish humans acted like
But humans just do not give a shit about ethics, you will not have a civil war with 50 percent of people marching down the street with rifles ready to fight the state. that spirit is LONG gone

IF they get ensured a steady well benefiting job, they will take itt

They think they are. But really they are not. If they have seen 20 percent of what the fighters in the american civil war had seen, they would take literally ANYTHING except that

We wouldn't. When talking about repealing the 19th, a totalitarian authoritarian regime is presupposed. The army has drones, tanks, helicopters, fighting jets, nukes etc
If there was a civil war, (but thats a big IF, because people think they are ready, but actually are not), you would not have a CHANCE against someone who was trained for a whole straight year to kill, and not give a shit about killing, to know to analyze the environment around him, to find best hiding spots, good reaction time etc
People wouldn't have a chance

More numbers? You don't understand what I'm saying. If we are talking about repealing the 19th amendment, we are talking about a high portion of the country already supporting authoritarianism/totalitarianism
Because, how else could an openly proud fascist get to power, if majority of the people didn't support him?

Currently no, however after the tensions rise when Trump gets impeached/loses, people will grow angry, and would want something more radical than trump. Which will resort to either a even stronger conservative, or a reactionary traditionalist

I know, but that's not what matters. people THINK he is a conservative. People view him as a conservative, but presuming they grow more angry, they will want someone more radical

Of course he's not radical. depending on what happens with the impeachment, and the election, we will probably see a reactionary who is much MUCH more radical than trump, more stricter on capitalism, and overall more authoritarian
What I am skeptical about however, Is whether or not they will get elected

SInce

If trump loses, or gets impeached, and then loses 2020 if he reruns, and we get a democrat who increases immigration waves drastically, its very unlikely to see another constitutionalist/conservative elected in the next 10 years, even 20, unless they completely destroy the country with strong anti capitalist policies

If it ensures his/his parties reelection in the future, he will care

https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/status/1182500070220095488

https://twitter.com/VDAREJamesK/status/1182819043868401664

The conversation was not about fascism, idiot @Deleted User

Getting triggered? How did i get triggered exactly?

I do not give a shit what you "can tell" i give a shit about what actually is,

@Deleted User I defined racism as thinking that certain race X is superior to race Y

I have seen all of them mate

And have poinuted out at least a hundred times to others how stupid they are lol

Where, in that , does he suggest one race is superior to another?

Where

No

Youre not gonna give another quote until we resolve this one

I know this tactic, where you just spam quotes where i dont get the time to rebut

Ok, then address the question above

yes, acknowledging that isnt saying that one race is SUPERIOR to another lol

YOu guys are such fools holy shit

No

That's YOUR view that INTELIGENCE MEANS SUPERIORITY

he NEVER suggested that

No