Tales from the Men's Rights Crypt!!

No true liberal wants people harmed. Not even in war.

No true Scotsman wants people harmed either.

The partisan game you are playing is pretty transparent. People in my ideological group are good and all evil is from those other people.

You refuse to even think about it, and you are arguing nonsensical bullshit. He's a criminal (not a liberal or a conservative) he tried to kill people because he thinks they are evil....does that make any sense to you? I know that the people who kill abortion doctors are not conservatives, they are CRIMINALS, not "JUST' mentally disturbed, not people who had a bad childhood, they are hate filled irrational criminals. They want to punish people who think differently than they do> I don't want to kill anybody or make excuses for criminals...do you??? Or do you just have a chip on your shoulder and need to believe everyone else thinks 'incorrectly"....

You are addressing me, but I think you are arguing against the point that Edgar made. I am not sure how to answer.

There is violence committed by both self-described liberals, and self-described conservatives. This shouldn't speak ill of people who don't support violence whether they are liberals, or conservatives, or people who don't fit in either ideological bubble.

The idea that all violence is committed by liberals is ludicrous. So is the idea that all violence is committed by conservatives.

Frankly, I think you're a little nuts or just a little confused. You are the one claiming I'm making excuses for 'liberals' who are actually criminals......I don't have any problems with Edgar...I'm not arguing against his point. I think you intentionally claim this 'misunderstanding' of others to avoid taking responsibility for your juvenile justifications.

That's about all the time I have to spend engaging your utter nonsense. Plus, you probably need to search thru the forum and make sure to discredit anyone who says anything positive about women. I don't want to interrupt your game.

I am saying that violence is done by violent people. Some of them express liberal ideology. Some of them express conservative ideology. That doesn't mean anything (other than ideological propaganda), I don't even know why we are arguing about this.

Are you arguing that all conservatives are violent? This whole thread is silly. It ideological propaganda.

Please explain to me (without a personal attack) what your point is?

I am against this ideological mindless name calling and personal attacks.

If you look at my posts, I am not a conservative (at least self-professed conservatives don't claim me). I am rooting strongly against Trump, I support immigrant rights and abortion rights. I support views on many issues (but not all issues) that would be labeled as far left in 2019 US politics.

Liberals seem to want to attack me because I am not pure enough. I am critical of the woman's march for example (which is apparently enough to label me a Nazi). If you disagree with the party line on any one thing, that is enough to make you hateful.

Let me try to summarize the argument of this thread.

1) Men's rights advocates have bad beliefs.
2) Nazi's have bad beliefs.
3) Therefore Men's rights advocates are Nazi's.
4) Men's rights advocates don't like Gillettes advertisement
5) Therefore anyone who doesn't like Gillette's advertisement is a Nazi.

I don't think this is a very strong line of reasoning. If there is something I am missing other than that Conservatives are responsible for violence and "no true liberal" does anything violent... please tell me.

The Gillette ad is different than the Nike ad with Kaepernick in at least two important standpoints.

- The Nike ad used a controversial figure, but it wasn't criticizing anyone. It was a positive message "Just do it!".

- The Nike ad pissed off people who weren't in it's target demographic. The Nike ad was smart because they want to reach people who are young, urban, athletic. They intelligently targeted the people who are likely to buy their shoes. The people who were getting upset were largely white, middle-aged and not particularly physically active.

The Gillette ad targeted people with a liberal ideology (which is not a particular demographic that buys razors more than any other). The people they pissed off were conservatives and men. Men tend to be more conservative, and men buy significantly more Gillette shaving products then women.

The message "believe something and just do it!" is far more positive and inspiring then "men are assholes, try to do better".

This didn't really bother me. I use Gillette razors and I will continue to use them. I do think that this was a stupid ad that was designed more to troll conservatives than to make any real social change.

The problem with the ad is, it equates masculinity with bad behavior.

How about all the hysterical nutcases who falsely accuse men of sexual assault? Should we describe this behavior as "toxic femininity"?

I have to go easy on Barack Obama for setting up these detention camps. What else was he going to do with these kids, feed them to wolverines?

People got upset with the ad because it suggested that their gender is inherently bad. People don't like being labeled with offensive stereotypes.

Electric razors here, so no opportunity for a product boycott for me this time.

I'm not sure whether I would boycott if I was a Gillette customer. On one hand their attacks against my gender were offensive. But on the other hand they aren't out to violate my civil liberties like the corporations that cut ties with the NRA.

Probably if I used razors I'd start choosing competing products if I had an equal choice right there on the shelves when in a store. But I wouldn't be a fanatic about it like I am about my boycott of corporations that are waging war against my civil liberties.

Yes, of course. And some girls are bullies. I'm sure there are just as many evil women as there are evil men. Although they're supposed to be "the weaker sex," some women are incredibly vicious. Toxic behavior is simply bad behavior. Many of those who speak of "toxic masculinity" are not saying masculinity is bad. They're simply saying that some men engage in bad behavior or behavior that hurts themselves or others -- behavior that is supposed to be characteristic of "real men."

If you are a woman smiling ear to ear due to the ad you should think more about the men in your life than your politics.

You are so full of sh*t that it's laughable.

The story you so heavily rely upon has been thoroughly disputed.

Your "liberal" Black Hebrew Idiots were taunting the kids. The Indian Leftwing Activist was confronting the kids.

Do you really think that everyone who agrees with your politics is a saint?

That doesn't even make sense......but then again, it's a little late to start now.

Makes sense to me, but not surprised it doesn't to you.

It is funny that the only people creating threads about this video are feminists. It doesn't seem to be the men's rights people who are "losing their ****"... at least not here.

I wouldn't have cared enough to post on this silly video had this thread not been created.

There's no room for rational discussion

In the 21 January issue of the Washington Post, Style Section, Monica Hesse wrote an interesting article about the Gillette ad. and the hubbub pro and con, is titled Perrspective- How should conversation about toxic masculinity deal wthxiwomen who also perpetuate it?

TheBestMenCanBe.org #TheBestMenCanbe