PepeLivesMatter

That is provably false.

This you?

Women fought for equal rights - for being allowed to do the same things men were, without restriction. Have careers, live their own lives, be equal before the law, not be relegated to the role of housewife/childbearer by default and without being given a choice.

https://feddit.de/comment/5069083

That's essentially what I said in my initial comment, nothing else. I didn't say they ought to go back to the stove or anything stupid like that. Just that having to go to work to provide shareholder value is part and parcel of making that choice. Men have to do it too.

I see your station wagon full of tapes and raise you a station wagon full of SD cards.

I mean, you COULD play Tic-tac-toe or Battleship that way, and I'm pretty sure people in the past have even played chess via mail.

Well, by that reasoning I can also criticize women without being a troll or a misogynist.

No, I thanked you for explaining it without name calling or insults. But then you felt the need to go right back to calling it baseless and unintelligent, thereby erasing any progress that was made.

You already admitted that what I said was true, why go back to insulting me for saying it, when I made you an offer of truce by accepting that it was uncalled for?

If you aren’t upset, why spend all this time and effort trying to make me regret what I said instead of simply proving me wrong?

If what I said was baseless and nonsensical, it would be easier and more effective to just disprove it rather than coming up with more and more insults to my intelligence instead.

Other people have at least managed to point out that they found it inappropriate because the OP wasn’t blaming men for her situation, to which I have agreed. Yet here you are still heaping abuse over my head and trying to convince me you’re not upset.

Sorry, but I’m not buying it.

Why do you think you upset anyone?

Because if I didn’t, there’d be no point in so many people spending the time and effort they did to make sure I regret posting that.

Yet no one has managed to prove me wrong, at best they’ve managed to convince me it was inappropriate because the woman in the OP wasn’t blaming the patriarchy for her situation.

But I’m sure you could have articulated that if you had wanted to, you just didn’t because it’s easier to insult people you disagree with than to have an actual argument with them.

In that case, is beef jerky just meat-based chips (crisps for the anglophiles)?

Ah, wir machen das eine teurer um das andere billiger zu machen.

Danke, genau darauf wollte ich hinaus. Es gibt keine Steuer, die tatsächlich Geld spart, es läuft immer auf Umverteilung hinaus. Und am Ende wird dann meistens doch irgendwie beides teurer, und keiner weiß, warum.

“I called your argument shit because it IS shit.”

Yeah, sorry, I don’t buy that. That’s like telling a battered woman you beat her because she deserved it.

You’re just excusing your own verbal abuse on the grounds that it was necessary because what I said has upset you, but you’re unable to articulate why.

No, I do understand that nuance, and I appreciate your ability to explain it without resorting to name calling or insults.

You and others are upset not because what I said wasn’t true (it was), but because it’s something you’d rather not talk or even think about. Okay. Point taken. She did indeed not blame men for her situation, at least not directly, I will admit that. Although I’m sure there’s already a feminist somewhere waiting to explain to me how shareholder value is a tool of the patriarchy that was designed for no other purpose than to oppress women.

Man muss schon ziemlich Deutsch sein, um sich so aufzuregen über einen Witz, den man nicht kapiert hat.

Aber genau darum werde ich ihn dir nicht eklären, denn sonst gewinnt der Terrorismus.