>>317945 Based McGee (also, you put the same link twice)

>>317946 Yeah, kinda curious what TB had to say about it… OP pls.

>>317945 >>317946 >>317950 Sorry I fucked up the links. Here's TB on it. https://sli.mg/CRtLX3

>>317952 Thx

>>317952 Dude, these are the people who try and defend pedophiles. Not simple little 'pedophiles' like the twenty year olds that got lied to by a seventeen year old girl, or the twelve year old who got in trouble for receiving pics. These are the people who try and defend someone who raped six little girls and destroyed the lives of many more. Do we need any more reason for cringing around extreme leftists?

>>317968 Because "zero tolerance" measures leads to insane bullshit like this: >A North Carolina 17-year-old caught in a sexting scandal faces charges of sexually exploiting a minor that could land him in jail for up to 10 years, since the law considers him an adult. But one of the minors he supposedly exploited is himself­ >Copening and his girlfriend—now identified as Brianna Denson—are like other teenagers in that they have more than a passing interest in sex. >Indeed, when they were 16, they exchanged racy sexy photos via text message. http://reason.com/blog/2015/09/02/teen-boy-will-be-charged-as-adult-for-ha There is no justice in enforcing the law like this.

>>317968 >Dude, these are the people who try and defend pedophiles. *cough*birth-rape*cough*

>>317968 >defend someone who raped six little girls when did that happen? i thought they only defended non-offenders?

So my first reaction to this was: Why don't we all just make female pseudonyms and flood them with retarded articles, wait until a bunch get published, and then reveal them all at once for the bullshit they are?

>>318022 Needs coordination and the ability to spout retarded feminist rhetoric.

>>318022 It would probably work.

>>318022 Do what you will. The risk would be that they'd go for the idiot-genius argument: "you thought you were joking, but this is exactly what it is all about". When I heard that "air conditioning is sexist", I thought they couldn't get any lower, yet there is still a bunch of people thinking "they have a point"… even with such retarded shit. http://archive.is/3WcDl I mean, I heard that "taking the name of your husband after getting married makes patriarchy equals to slavery, because of the identity crisis the bride goes through" (disregard the fact that your maiden name was also coming from your father, which would also be muh patriarchy). It's a bottomless pit of bitching. But again, do what you will. There are plenty of topics you can twist to make them sexist/misogynistic (hell, if you can make a men's issue a patriarchy-harming-men kind of thing, then anything goes to say "you, camarade, need feminism") http://archive.is/ymgiS I don't think it's so much about the argument, but more about the outrage it generates.

>>318022 Thing is now they are aware of the tactic and are probably going to want full background checks. Which is GOOD because Background Checks cost $$$. Then again it also gives them Dox for harassment as well…

>>318022 Your dubs confirm this is a good idea. Maybe if we could put some of the articles under pseudo-profound bullshit we could start an incredible epidemic of Sokal Affairs. >>318179 >Thing is now they are aware of the tactic and are probably going to want full background checks. But what about the safety of the poor female writers? Are they going to force them to give their public info? I already see the headlines: News site gives no shit about the safety of women

afdsfasdf