Feminists Mad Because They Lust after Right Wing Alphas
invite response
2018 Jan 31, 11:54am 7,481 views 38 comments
Comments 1 - 38 of 38 Search these comments
1
Goran_K
2018 Jan 31, 12:07pm
Goran_K
2018 Jan 31, 12:07pm
There was a guy on Youtube who did a survey on a college campus.
He showed a picture of a typical cucked liberal male and a picture of the typical alpha male (muscled, wearing male clothing, probably likes hunting).
Every SINGLE female lusted over the alpha male over the cucked liberal male.
He showed a picture of a typical cucked liberal male and a picture of the typical alpha male (muscled, wearing male clothing, probably likes hunting).
Every SINGLE female lusted over the alpha male over the cucked liberal male.
2
FuckTheMainstreamMedia
2018 Jan 31, 12:16pm
FuckTheMainstreamMedia
2018 Jan 31, 12:16pm
I do know left wing alpha males. Well actually Democrat alpha males...dudes are def not left wing. Two of them stopped voting for Democrats in the past two years.
BTW, would not tap Chanty Binx. Too much chance her vag stinks and real chance she tries to bite your cock off.
If you ever need to self induce vomiting:
https://everipedia.org/wiki/chanty-binx-big-red/
BTW, would not tap Chanty Binx. Too much chance her vag stinks and real chance she tries to bite your cock off.
If you ever need to self induce vomiting:
https://everipedia.org/wiki/chanty-binx-big-red/
3
Patrick
2018 Jan 31, 12:24pm
Patrick
2018 Jan 31, 12:24pm
Goran_K says
I'd be interested in seeing the Youtube if you have the link.
There was a guy on Youtube who did a survey on a college campus.
He showed a picture of a typical cucked liberal male and a picture of the typical alpha male (muscled, wearing male clothing, probably likes hunting).
Every SINGLE female lusted over the alpha male over the cucked liberal male.
I'd be interested in seeing the Youtube if you have the link.
7
Malcolm
2018 Jan 31, 4:01pm
Malcolm
2018 Jan 31, 4:01pm
I'm not going to wave my cock around, but I have made a similar observation. I see a pattern in the #metooers. That pattern seems to involve men that have traditionally been viewed as go-getters. The criteria of these charges changes based on the people involved. Often, it is supposedly a situation where there is a large power imbalance, such as boss/subordinate, producer/actress. Now, pretty much any successful man has to answer to every woman who interacted with him during his career.
My observations:
The women, for the most part are middle aged.
Most are broke or have failed.
Even actresses like Jennifer Lawrence, who is gorgeous, are feeling hard times, movie attendance is at an all time low. There are very few projects that pay anything.
They seem to be single.
My hypothesis:
A recurring pattern seems to be a situation where a young impressionable, up and coming woman teams up with a man who is established in a field. Often he is married.
The woman will fall deeply in love with this man. And why wouldn't they, right?
The woman will seek the man's attention, could be purely to enhance a career, nothing wrong with that.
They might click as a professional team. For all outside observers, they will seem like an inseparable team.
An unprofessional comfort level develops and it becomes easy for them to share emotions, hopes, goals......etc.
The woman, then starts picturing herself being his only one, again perfectly normal, until she pictures herself replacing a wife, who normally enjoys a life of leisure.
A relationship will start, either involving sex, or unprofessional closeness.
Then something happens, either the man breaks it off, or doesn't take it to the next level, or something separates them, like a failed project or reassignment.
The woman will then publicly praise him as a wonderful person, a career advancer, a confidant.
She will keep this up as long as there is a spark of hope for a relationship or for career advancement.
When this fizzles out, some trigger, like a rumor, or another woman years later will make the "victim" reflect on her life with that man.
Certain things will make her put herself in the other stories, like if he did or said something to both of them.
Then she reflects further and instead of everything that she got from him, the attitude seeks to account for everything she didn't get out of him. Then goals become broken promises, lost other opportunities (yes, all of a sudden there were a zillion better opportunities that she passed up).
Then she does some simple equating and realizes, he has made a happy, successful life without her, she is just a memory to him, he is now an asshole because her life now sucks. She's normally overweight, addicted to something, not glamorous, so no easy jobs, she has to work like a man to make it in the world.
Then, when someone else has a problem, she becomes a pile on victim.
My philosophy is simple, and I like what Patrick wrote on another thread:
1. When a woman chooses to be alone with a man, it should be viewed as general consent. There are obvious exceptions, like a man babysitting a girl or a woman hiring a contractor or a business situation. Other than that, keep your distance unless you want people to gossip.
2. Unless you can prove it to the cops, or in a civil or criminal court, keep it to yourself. If you can't prove it and you mouth off, you are defaming someone.
3. Understand the letter of the law. A bad date, or disappointing sexual encounter is not harassment or RAPE.
4. Call a cop, that is what they are there for. Report it to your boss or HR, same day.
5. Most importantly, verbalize the word NO or Stop! I love these stories where the girl is victimized 20 years later, but she never said anything at the time.
6. Don't maintain the appearance of a friendship, and certainly, don't ask Russel Simmons to fund your fucking movie afterwards and then coincidentally slam him in the press as an abuser because he couldn't get your film funded.
For crying out loud, this has gone too freaking far!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My observations:
The women, for the most part are middle aged.
Most are broke or have failed.
Even actresses like Jennifer Lawrence, who is gorgeous, are feeling hard times, movie attendance is at an all time low. There are very few projects that pay anything.
They seem to be single.
My hypothesis:
A recurring pattern seems to be a situation where a young impressionable, up and coming woman teams up with a man who is established in a field. Often he is married.
The woman will fall deeply in love with this man. And why wouldn't they, right?
The woman will seek the man's attention, could be purely to enhance a career, nothing wrong with that.
They might click as a professional team. For all outside observers, they will seem like an inseparable team.
An unprofessional comfort level develops and it becomes easy for them to share emotions, hopes, goals......etc.
The woman, then starts picturing herself being his only one, again perfectly normal, until she pictures herself replacing a wife, who normally enjoys a life of leisure.
A relationship will start, either involving sex, or unprofessional closeness.
Then something happens, either the man breaks it off, or doesn't take it to the next level, or something separates them, like a failed project or reassignment.
The woman will then publicly praise him as a wonderful person, a career advancer, a confidant.
She will keep this up as long as there is a spark of hope for a relationship or for career advancement.
When this fizzles out, some trigger, like a rumor, or another woman years later will make the "victim" reflect on her life with that man.
Certain things will make her put herself in the other stories, like if he did or said something to both of them.
Then she reflects further and instead of everything that she got from him, the attitude seeks to account for everything she didn't get out of him. Then goals become broken promises, lost other opportunities (yes, all of a sudden there were a zillion better opportunities that she passed up).
Then she does some simple equating and realizes, he has made a happy, successful life without her, she is just a memory to him, he is now an asshole because her life now sucks. She's normally overweight, addicted to something, not glamorous, so no easy jobs, she has to work like a man to make it in the world.
Then, when someone else has a problem, she becomes a pile on victim.
My philosophy is simple, and I like what Patrick wrote on another thread:
1. When a woman chooses to be alone with a man, it should be viewed as general consent. There are obvious exceptions, like a man babysitting a girl or a woman hiring a contractor or a business situation. Other than that, keep your distance unless you want people to gossip.
2. Unless you can prove it to the cops, or in a civil or criminal court, keep it to yourself. If you can't prove it and you mouth off, you are defaming someone.
3. Understand the letter of the law. A bad date, or disappointing sexual encounter is not harassment or RAPE.
4. Call a cop, that is what they are there for. Report it to your boss or HR, same day.
5. Most importantly, verbalize the word NO or Stop! I love these stories where the girl is victimized 20 years later, but she never said anything at the time.
6. Don't maintain the appearance of a friendship, and certainly, don't ask Russel Simmons to fund your fucking movie afterwards and then coincidentally slam him in the press as an abuser because he couldn't get your film funded.
For crying out loud, this has gone too freaking far!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
8
Y
2018 Jan 31, 4:09pm
Y
2018 Jan 31, 4:09pm
This is a non-starter right out of the blocks.
Infinite number of situations where a woman may be with a man alone. Impossible to square that with "well she chose to be alone with me".
Malcolm says
Infinite number of situations where a woman may be with a man alone. Impossible to square that with "well she chose to be alone with me".
Malcolm says
1. When a woman chooses to be alone with a man, it should be viewed as general consent.
9
Malcolm
2018 Jan 31, 4:12pm
Malcolm
2018 Jan 31, 4:12pm
BlueSardine says
There really aren't.
Infinite number of situations where a woman may be with a man alone. Impossible to square that with "well she chose to be alone with me".
There really aren't.
10
Goran_K
2018 Jan 31, 4:14pm
Goran_K
2018 Jan 31, 4:14pm
Patrick says
I'll try to find it. I think the Poll taker was Gavin McGinnes.
I'd be interested in seeing the Youtube if you have the link.
I'll try to find it. I think the Poll taker was Gavin McGinnes.
11
Malcolm
2018 Jan 31, 4:14pm
Malcolm
2018 Jan 31, 4:14pm
Seriously, men, if you have a brain in your head, do NOT let yourself be put in a compromising situation.
12
Y
2018 Jan 31, 4:20pm
Y
2018 Jan 31, 4:20pm
Well the first one to do the research wins.
And i'm already bored with the question...
Malcolm says
And i'm already bored with the question...
Malcolm says
BlueSardine saysInfinite number of situations where a woman may be with a man alone. Impossible to square that with "well she chose to be alone with me".
There really aren't.
13
Y
2018 Jan 31, 4:21pm
Y
2018 Jan 31, 4:21pm
OTOH...well, yeah, there is...
Malcolm says
Malcolm says
BlueSardine saysInfinite number of situations where a woman may be with a man alone. Impossible to square that with "well she chose to be alone with me".
There really aren't.
14
Patrick
2018 Jan 31, 4:50pm
Patrick
2018 Jan 31, 4:50pm
Malcolm says
I think Malcolm has it all exactly correct.
"Harassment" is for the most part simply the wrath of a woman scorned. Not actually harassment at all, much less rape. Just a way to get back at the guy.
I'm not going to wave my cock around, but I have made a similar observation.
I think Malcolm has it all exactly correct.
"Harassment" is for the most part simply the wrath of a woman scorned. Not actually harassment at all, much less rape. Just a way to get back at the guy.
15
Patrick
2018 Jan 31, 5:06pm
Patrick
2018 Jan 31, 5:06pm
Women and men can still fuck who they like in view of others or not. Just saying that a woman's voluntarily being alone with a man is in fact giving consent to sex with him.
And sure, women want to get men to fight like roosters, until there is a clear victor or somebody's dead. Problem is, the victor gets inundated with offers of poon and this means the average woman probably is not going to get the victor to commit to anything other than 5 minutes in the broom closet.
And after her voluntary 5 minutes in the broom closet, the woman will be bitter and resentful that Mr Victor does not commit to her alone, but instead keeps on accepting voluntary offers of 5 minutes in the broom closet from other women.
At that point, all the average women get together and yell harassment!
And then Gloria Allred hears their cry, slithers out of the sewers, and goes after Mr Victor if there is enough money and publicity to be had.
And sure, women want to get men to fight like roosters, until there is a clear victor or somebody's dead. Problem is, the victor gets inundated with offers of poon and this means the average woman probably is not going to get the victor to commit to anything other than 5 minutes in the broom closet.
And after her voluntary 5 minutes in the broom closet, the woman will be bitter and resentful that Mr Victor does not commit to her alone, but instead keeps on accepting voluntary offers of 5 minutes in the broom closet from other women.
At that point, all the average women get together and yell harassment!
And then Gloria Allred hears their cry, slithers out of the sewers, and goes after Mr Victor if there is enough money and publicity to be had.
16
Ceffer
2018 Jan 31, 6:02pm
Ceffer
2018 Jan 31, 6:02pm
Whether women compete with each other or not, they are like a consolidated union when it comes the to commodity value of sex. They do everything they can to tempt, tease and sell while creating scarcity in order to maximize the commodity value of sex.
If they don't believe they have received the appropriate value, then they think they are justified to re-draw the consent script after the fact to characterize the man in a way that draws scorn, humiliation or expense on him.
The age of information has revealed the true costs of sex, and tended to drive the market value away from permanent contractual quicksand to more negotiable short term arrangements. Women see that sex has become cheaper for men, and react in rage to drive things back to higher prices and more mired contractual relationships. Unattractive women, of course, get the short end of this stick, but like everybody knows, just about any horrid woman can find a male troll who will screw her and knock her up. They don't even need the male, they can just hijack some sperm.
Women don't even perceive that they have negative motives, since they narcissistically believe that they are faultless, blameless, pure, unsullied, and act out of benevolent, nurturing motivation when they are actually acting out of greed, covetousness, selfishness, jealousy and vindictiveness.
All this really does is drive things back to sexual segregation, because men just won't want women around them when they actually have to work and get things done.
If they don't believe they have received the appropriate value, then they think they are justified to re-draw the consent script after the fact to characterize the man in a way that draws scorn, humiliation or expense on him.
The age of information has revealed the true costs of sex, and tended to drive the market value away from permanent contractual quicksand to more negotiable short term arrangements. Women see that sex has become cheaper for men, and react in rage to drive things back to higher prices and more mired contractual relationships. Unattractive women, of course, get the short end of this stick, but like everybody knows, just about any horrid woman can find a male troll who will screw her and knock her up. They don't even need the male, they can just hijack some sperm.
Women don't even perceive that they have negative motives, since they narcissistically believe that they are faultless, blameless, pure, unsullied, and act out of benevolent, nurturing motivation when they are actually acting out of greed, covetousness, selfishness, jealousy and vindictiveness.
All this really does is drive things back to sexual segregation, because men just won't want women around them when they actually have to work and get things done.
17
Strategist
2018 Jan 31, 6:53pm
Strategist
2018 Jan 31, 6:53pm
Malcolm says
A little bit more than that might be needed for consent in today's world.
She chooses to be alone with a man.
They have drinks.
Sit close to each other.
Start kissing, and make passes at each other.
After that it's ....fuck my brains out baby, and don't stop until I tell you to stop.
My philosophy is simple, and I like what Patrick wrote on another thread:
1. When a woman chooses to be alone with a man, it should be viewed as general consent.
A little bit more than that might be needed for consent in today's world.
She chooses to be alone with a man.
They have drinks.
Sit close to each other.
Start kissing, and make passes at each other.
After that it's ....fuck my brains out baby, and don't stop until I tell you to stop.
18
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Jan 31, 7:14pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Jan 31, 7:14pm
Men are also at fault, esp. the young dudes.
Guys, Vag ain't rare, stop treating it like it is. Ceffer hit on what the core problem is, women value themselves too highly. Everything is about the value of their vagina, aka "Feelings".
Guys, Vag ain't rare, stop treating it like it is. Ceffer hit on what the core problem is, women value themselves too highly. Everything is about the value of their vagina, aka "Feelings".
19
anonymous
2018 Jan 31, 8:12pm
I can't understand how a man can believe in Left wing principles. It's embarrassing to our gender when a man wants redistribution of wealth and social justice. I can somehow see how women believe those things, but it's a disgrace when it's a man.
20
WookieMan
2018 Jan 31, 9:56pm
WookieMan
2018 Jan 31, 9:56pm
anon_86e60 says
Do you own your own company? If not, your boss is redistributing his wealth to you. It's possible to work for a woman too. Wouldn't that be tricky. We could call is Social Wealth Redistribution. Or SWR.
The only thing that really matters is how large your penis is. Right? I'm 9 and 1/16th inches. Beat it, I dare anybody.
redistribution of wealth
Do you own your own company? If not, your boss is redistributing his wealth to you. It's possible to work for a woman too. Wouldn't that be tricky. We could call is Social Wealth Redistribution. Or SWR.
The only thing that really matters is how large your penis is. Right? I'm 9 and 1/16th inches. Beat it, I dare anybody.
21
Strategist
2018 Jan 31, 11:29pm
Strategist
2018 Jan 31, 11:29pm
WookieMan says
9 and 1/8. :)
The only thing that really matters is how large your penis is. Right? I'm 9 and 1/16th inches. Beat it, I dare anybody.
9 and 1/8. :)
22
Al_Sharpton_for_President
2018 Feb 1, 4:10am
Al_Sharpton_for_President
2018 Feb 1, 4:10am
Women clearly enjoy sex. But the preconditioning may be different than for men.
Common male triggers:
Physical attraction.
No funky smells.
No kids.
Common female triggers:
Love.
Security ($$).
Hai Karate.
Common male triggers:
Physical attraction.
No funky smells.
No kids.
Common female triggers:
Love.
Security ($$).
Hai Karate.
24
georgeliberte
2018 Feb 1, 7:32am
georgeliberte
2018 Feb 1, 7:32am
In my experience while women seem less inclined to aggression and violence, they are as much or even more than men but avoid physical intimidation because we generally have the upper hand. But they are vengeful and never forget their resentments. They certainly drive as aggressively as men and when driving a larger vehicle like to thro their 'weight' around. That is the root of this whole harassment #MeToo, etc. industry.
27
anonymous
2018 Feb 1, 7:56am
WookieMan says
I'm 9 and 5/64ths inches.
anon_86e60 saysredistribution of wealth
Do you own your own company? If not, your boss is redistributing his wealth to you. It's possible to work for a woman too. Wouldn't that be tricky. We could call is Social Wealth Redistribution. Or SWR.
The only thing that really matters is how large your penis is. Right? I'm 9 and 1/16th inches. Beat it, I dare anybody.
I'm 9 and 5/64ths inches.
28
anonymous
2018 Feb 1, 8:48am
anon_86e60 says
No, it's embarrassing when a man doesn't understand how an economy works.
It's embarrassing to our gender when a man wants redistribution of wealth
No, it's embarrassing when a man doesn't understand how an economy works.
29
anonymous
2018 Feb 1, 9:06am
WookieMan says
Actually if you are a worker, your boss is most likely redistributing your wealth up to him. Workers almost certainly don't receive all the fruits of their labor.
Do you own your own company? If not, your boss is redistributing his wealth to you.
Actually if you are a worker, your boss is most likely redistributing your wealth up to him. Workers almost certainly don't receive all the fruits of their labor.
30
WookieMan
2018 Feb 1, 9:20am
WookieMan
2018 Feb 1, 9:20am
anon_8f378 says
I get this perspective, honestly. But if that's your thought process, why would you have a boss? Just be a business owner.
I'm okay with a boss myself. I know I create value and money for him. He started a business and took on risk I wasn't willing to. There's value to that. That is hard to understand for most workers. And if it's so easy, just go start a business. That's all I'm getting at. It's not an either or situation. The boss creates something of value to the employees and the employees create value to the boss/owner. It's a give and take.
I'm also thinking you'd have a different perspective after having to pay, hire and work with 1, 5, 10 employees that you're in charge of. They also rely on you the business owner to keep their paychecks flowing. That can be some stress that some will never understand, yet so many darts are thrown at the business owner. Who in a lot of cases has some employees that might be making more salary or commissions then they take home annually as the boss.
And yes there are shithead business owners and some really nasty large corporation. Or kids that were handed businesses by mommy and daddy who didn't have to take the risk and now boss people around. So I'm not Mr. business defender by any means.
But it's the equivalent of Libtard and Trumpcuck. Neither side is going to be perfect, but neither side is always wrong. Everyone has to get out of the fringes and edges of the force fed narrative and start seeing the reality of the big picture.
WookieMan saysDo you own your own company? If not, your boss is redistributing his wealth to you.
Actually if you are a worker, your boss is most likely redistributing your wealth up to him. Workers almost certainly don't receive all the fruits of their labor.
I get this perspective, honestly. But if that's your thought process, why would you have a boss? Just be a business owner.
I'm okay with a boss myself. I know I create value and money for him. He started a business and took on risk I wasn't willing to. There's value to that. That is hard to understand for most workers. And if it's so easy, just go start a business. That's all I'm getting at. It's not an either or situation. The boss creates something of value to the employees and the employees create value to the boss/owner. It's a give and take.
I'm also thinking you'd have a different perspective after having to pay, hire and work with 1, 5, 10 employees that you're in charge of. They also rely on you the business owner to keep their paychecks flowing. That can be some stress that some will never understand, yet so many darts are thrown at the business owner. Who in a lot of cases has some employees that might be making more salary or commissions then they take home annually as the boss.
And yes there are shithead business owners and some really nasty large corporation. Or kids that were handed businesses by mommy and daddy who didn't have to take the risk and now boss people around. So I'm not Mr. business defender by any means.
But it's the equivalent of Libtard and Trumpcuck. Neither side is going to be perfect, but neither side is always wrong. Everyone has to get out of the fringes and edges of the force fed narrative and start seeing the reality of the big picture.
31
anonymous
2018 Feb 1, 9:45am
WookieMan says
We shouldn't make this about me, but who says I'm not a business owner?
I get this perspective, honestly. But if that's your thought process, why would you have a boss? Just be a business owner.
We shouldn't make this about me, but who says I'm not a business owner?
32
Patrick
2018 Feb 1, 9:51am
Patrick
2018 Feb 1, 9:51am
Woman astronaut to ground control: "Houston, we have a problem."
Houston: "What's the problem?"
Woman astronaut: (silence)
Houston: "Please reply."
Woman astronaut: "Never mind"
Houston: "So there is no problem?"
Woman astronaut: "You know what the problem is."
Houston: "What's the problem?"
Woman astronaut: (silence)
Houston: "Please reply."
Woman astronaut: "Never mind"
Houston: "So there is no problem?"
Woman astronaut: "You know what the problem is."
33
WookieMan
2018 Feb 1, 10:13am
WookieMan
2018 Feb 1, 10:13am
anon_8f378 says
If you are a business owner or aren't that doesn't matter to me either as my reply wasn't about you.
I was addressing the social stigma of owners bad, employees good, wealth distribution, etc that was brought up. All I'm getting at, is it's not a A OR B conversation. It's an A AND B conversation. You can't have one without the other Al Bundy.
My apologies if you thought I was talking about you in the reply. I was more or less using the word "you" in the greater sense of us all as business owners or employees.
WookieMan saysI get this perspective, honestly. But if that's your thought process, why would you have a boss? Just be a business owner.
We shouldn't make this about me, but who says I'm not a business owner?
If you are a business owner or aren't that doesn't matter to me either as my reply wasn't about you.
I was addressing the social stigma of owners bad, employees good, wealth distribution, etc that was brought up. All I'm getting at, is it's not a A OR B conversation. It's an A AND B conversation. You can't have one without the other Al Bundy.
My apologies if you thought I was talking about you in the reply. I was more or less using the word "you" in the greater sense of us all as business owners or employees.
34
anonymous
2018 Feb 1, 10:32am
WookieMan says
OK good. Owners in general aren't bad. They are trying to maximize their wealth, like any good capitalist. The problem is with the system.
Of course we need owners, although in theory and oftentimes in practice, businesses can be employee owned. We need the system to properly compensate owners and workers, which doesn't happen now.
I was addressing the social stigma of owners bad, employees good, wealth distribution, etc that was brought up. All I'm getting at, is it's not a A OR B conversation. It's an A AND B conversation. You can't have one without the other Al Bundy.
OK good. Owners in general aren't bad. They are trying to maximize their wealth, like any good capitalist. The problem is with the system.
Of course we need owners, although in theory and oftentimes in practice, businesses can be employee owned. We need the system to properly compensate owners and workers, which doesn't happen now.
35
WookieMan
2018 Feb 1, 11:40am
WookieMan
2018 Feb 1, 11:40am
anon_8f378 says
I'm with you on pretty much everything else you said here. This part of the last sentence stuck out to me though. I would just suggest adding "always" between doesn't and happen. There really are some good business owners out there that would put their employees before themselves. It might only be 5-10% of businesses, but they do exist.
anon_8f378 says
In a truly healthy company, aren't the owners AND the employees trying to maximize their wealth, right? I've yet to meet an owner or employee that doesn't want to make more money. If the owner is making money and the employees know it and aren't getting raises, most intelligent employees will be gone. Then that owner has a bit of a problem.
I'm not saying this is an argument at all. But as with most things we're not going to see eye to eye 100%. You've been cordial compared to some other anon accounts and I'll keep responding, but I'm not sure there's much more here unless we're going to start getting into specific companies or something like that. We, and probably me more then anyone, have effectively hijacked the thread to an extent. So I plan to let it go back to it's original topic.
which doesn't happen now.
I'm with you on pretty much everything else you said here. This part of the last sentence stuck out to me though. I would just suggest adding "always" between doesn't and happen. There really are some good business owners out there that would put their employees before themselves. It might only be 5-10% of businesses, but they do exist.
anon_8f378 says
They are trying to maximize their wealth, like any good capitalist.
In a truly healthy company, aren't the owners AND the employees trying to maximize their wealth, right? I've yet to meet an owner or employee that doesn't want to make more money. If the owner is making money and the employees know it and aren't getting raises, most intelligent employees will be gone. Then that owner has a bit of a problem.
I'm not saying this is an argument at all. But as with most things we're not going to see eye to eye 100%. You've been cordial compared to some other anon accounts and I'll keep responding, but I'm not sure there's much more here unless we're going to start getting into specific companies or something like that. We, and probably me more then anyone, have effectively hijacked the thread to an extent. So I plan to let it go back to it's original topic.
37
anonymous
2018 Feb 1, 12:07pm
WookieMan says
I agree with you there. I should have added some wording to show that sometimes it doesn't happen.
'm with you on pretty much everything else you said here. This part of the last sentence stuck out to me though. I would just suggest adding "always" between doesn't and happen. There really are some good business owners out there that would put their employees before themselves. It might only be 5-10% of businesses, but they do exist.
I agree with you there. I should have added some wording to show that sometimes it doesn't happen.
38
anonymous
2018 Feb 1, 12:18pm
8 years of losing under Obama made it trendy to be a loser (e.g., identity politics, socialism, beta, lazy poor, victim, feminist, racist toward whites).
Now that Trump is in office, it’s getting trendy to be a winner again (e.g., hardworking, alpha, capitalism, wealthy, dominant, confident, fucking hot women of all races who need your schlong)
Clear divide of winners and losers.
Now ask yourself. Which philosophy do you subscribe to?
Now that Trump is in office, it’s getting trendy to be a winner again (e.g., hardworking, alpha, capitalism, wealthy, dominant, confident, fucking hot women of all races who need your schlong)
Clear divide of winners and losers.
Now ask yourself. Which philosophy do you subscribe to?
Discuss.