I hate women. Women owe me stuff. I am entitled to things from women.
Is it sex? No.
Is it a relationship? No.
Is it a positive opinion of me? No.
Is it a non-negative opinion of me? No.
Is it being viewed better than a bear because of my chromosomes, age, and my stranger status? YES!!!
I am entitled to be viewed better than a bear whether I know the woman or not. Women can't even give me THAT.
I didn't hate women as a group before the, “Man vs Bear” situation. Now, I hate women because they dehumanize me.
Man vs Bear made me extremely misogynist. Women said they are worried rando dudes would rape them. Imagine if I said, “I'd rather be with a bear than a woman I don't know; the bear never falsely accused anyone of SA.” Nobody would stand for that; not even the manosphere.
You play stupid games, you get the majority of Hispanic and Asian men voting for, “The immigrants are eating the pets!”
And I'm going to hate any woman that I don't know (but not worse than a bear because I'm not a hypocrite) until the feminists admit just how much they fucked up with this one. And the left has conceded gracefully before; they did it with the vaccine mandates and “Believe women” and I don't accuse the left of supporting this anymore.
But, “Man vs Bear” is vastly different than, “Believe women” because at least with the ladder, you can logically understand why someone would do that. Evidence is hard to come by with r@pe cases; victims feel a way I can't comprehend; I take them at their word, but I also don't want to be falsely accused myself. Man vs Bear allowed left wingers to simultaneously claim that calling a trans man a woman violates their human rights while saying that a trans man is worse than a bear is not a violation of their human rights.
Women now have said that due to men arguing, they actually prefer murder over (not just rape, but arguing).
Now, everyone has their own pain tolerance for which they prefer death, and I (don't agree) but respect preferring murder to rape.
But murder to arguing? Buddy, with that mentality, you would have to abide by one of the 3 policies:
1. Legalize murdering women (because it's legal to argue with them and they think arguing is worse).
2. Make arguing with a woman punishable with life imprisonment or the death penalty (basically the penalty for murder).
Both of those are crazy, but you would have to accept it with the belief that arguing is worse than murder. Yes, men argue; they do it loudly. You don't like it? Fine; arguing isn't for everyone. You'd rather get murdered? You are an idiot and I don't sugarcoat stupid women that prefer getting murdered to arguing.
If you see a bear in the woods, you mace them before they try and touch you. If you mace a strange man in the woods before they try and touch you, then you're a monster.
If women prefer the bear to the rapist, then hey; rape is horrible and I'm not a rapist, so your opinion is your opinion even if I disagree.
But to be honest, I'd rather be in the woods with Hitler than a bear. Sure, Hitler was a horrible dude that murdered millions of people, BUT I don't think I'M going to be one of those people (or at least I think my odds of survival are better than with a bear).
Now if you ask me, “Would you rather be in the woods with Hitler or Bernie Sanders?” then I will prefer the Jew over the Genocider.
But there is not a single human who I would pick the bear over (unless I knew they wanted to murder me, then it's on the fence as to who I can survive against better).
But I'm going to hate strange women because of this stupid ass stunt in 2024 that is plausibly why Harris isn't POTUS right now. Congrats women; you played yourself you fucking dummies!
But this has taught me that there should be a minimum IQ of 120 to vote in elections and a minimum IQ of 140 to run for public office; stupid people don't do shit like this. If your IQ is below 120, then increase it to 120 and then you earn your voting rights.
