>>25290211
It would actually be worth reading degozaimasu

>>25290211
It would be a comedy

>>25290211
why does it read like AI slop? is this what AI is trained on? bad metaphors, clunky prose, stupid situations that make no sense even in a comic book

>>25290222
none of those things are true thoeverbeit

>>25290227
Prepare to receive the mother of all redpills on old Cormhack:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/07/a-readers-manifesto/302270/

>>25290211
Rape. Lots more rape.

File: isildur-no.gif (1.64 MB, 498x206)

1.64 MB GIF

>>25290231

>>25290231
>theatlantic
LOL

females have no capacity for physical violence, so its a stupid comparison, inb4 emotional manipulation, they can't even do that at any scale without men helping

>>25290211
They would get lost in the desert and instead of scavenging water or evading injuns they’d have succumb to catatonic hysteria and all die in the first act

>>25290257
>females have no capacity for physical violence
Imagine actually believing this. Frank Herbert is that you? Do you unironically think that all men in the army are violent and repressed homosexuals that are destined to become gay rapists? Thad we should make all armies all-female for this reason? Just to emasculate men and leave a scar that lasts forever “in their bones”?

>>25290266
>Thad
That* (Thad is a retarded name for a guy btw)

>>25290266
are you psychotic or something, me saying females have no capacity for violence doesn't mean all men are violent

>>25290257
>emotional manipulation
But they also poison and set traps at a higher frequency too.

>>25290306
yes but they can't organize that at any scale because it degenerates to infighting since they do it to themselves too, this is why you will never find a company full of women thriving

>>25290315
>yes but they can't organize that at any scale
They literally kicked the majority of men out and organized the entire public education to poison the minds and bodies of young men, though.

>>25290317
yes, like i said, with the help of other men, and they only did this in the west, which is an abysmal part of world population

>>25290325
>like i said, with the help of other men
No you didn't (and by that logic men are incapable too since they also need the help of women to wage their wars) and they aren't really men, they are mindless cucks manipulated from childhood to act in women's interests.
>only did this in the west
Even if that was true and it was only half of the entire world's education system, it still refutes your claim about them being incapable of organizing poisonous traps at any scale and have traded in "any scale" to scales greater than half of the entire world.

>>25290334
by help, i literally mean deliberate help, what you are describing with men needing help is not the same thing, when a president orders men to go to war to defend their country, this is the closest you can come to saying women manipulate men because they are defending their loved ones, but it's not the same as saying powerful men enact policies that end up helping them further their own interests and allow women to gain more power in certain sectors like publishing or hr management, they did not organise any traps, they fell into one already designed by another system, they can't even organise to elect one of their own in the world's most powerful country, so your argument is moot

>>25290257
>females have no capacity for physical violence
my mom was a softball pitcher in high school and she fractured a girl's orbital bone with a punch because she saw her talking to my dad

>>25290334
>>25290355
and i am not even saying women can do no wrong, i am saying, they don't do it at scale, they do it in little steps individually

>>25290355
>what you are describing with men needing help is not the same thing
Yes it is, women also deliberately do things that enabled men to wage war.

>when a president orders men to go to war to defend their country, this is the closest you can come to saying women manipulate men
No, before women could vote they got organized enough to get alcohol banned via a constitutional amendment.
> they can't even organize to elect one of their own in the world's most powerful country
No, that undermines you own point about at no scale can they organize since you are implicitly admitting they in nearly every other country except only the most powerful one, they have had one of their own in control, so your new argument is refuting you original one while still being demonstrably wrong anyway.

>>25290363
>they don't do it at scale, they do it in little steps individually
No, they regularly organize things like prohibition and mother's against drunk driving that have massive legal implications that reverberate through the entire world's legal systems to turn the world's governments into the modern nanny state.

>>25290369
they organize with the help of men who voted it in, why do you continue arguing without reading? can women organize to overthrow the govt and defeat men, has this ever happened in history, why do you keep feigning ignorance about this? who do you think allows women to organize anything and get away with it if not men? why are countries like afghanistan able to suppress any female organization, do you think women gained some miraculous power in the last 80 yrs as opposed to western men tagging along with this system because it allowed the most powerful men to become richer because there were more workers and more consumers?

>>25290257
Women would be more violent than men if given the same physical advantage. They just can't so they resort to soft forms of power.

>>25290376
By that logic its impossible to poison someone else since they helped by having the poison in their body.
>can women organize to overthrow the govt and defeat men, has this ever happened in history
Yes, there have been women run nations, some of the largest slaving nations of the world were run by women who would regularly ritualistically cut off the genitals of any men who tried to interact with the women who were considered higher caste, they made a movie called The Woman King about it.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Dahomey-women-warriors

>why are countries like afghanistan able to suppress any female organization
Because people can organize to suppress just about anything like the western world with its firmly established CoIntelPro tactics is currently organized to suppress male organizations and even in afghanistan, women still organize in secret.

>it allowed the most powerful men to become richer
No, those men all got divorced and had to give billions of dollars to women because women have organized to dominate divorce court and make sure that women have an easy time taking men's money and men face an uphill battle when trying to secure their own wealth.

>>25290257
50% of all rapes are committed by women.

>>25290431
They don’t want you to know this thobeit

>>25290422
and yet the majority of millionaires and billionaires are men, where are these wealthy women you speak of, what companies do they run, it seems like all they organize for is against their interests and ends up benefitting someone else, you spoke about abolition, who got rich from this if not men, the kennedies got their money from selling illicit alcohol, the italian mob flourished from this trade, so how exactly is this organizing if it ends up benefitting men, the dahomey slave ended up benefitting other kingdoms ruled by men, etc this is why i am saying women can't organize if it isn't supported or okayed by other men, the poison analogy is retarded since it assumes poison is an agent with its own will

>>25290431
men can't be physically raped by women, so the definition is already against you, the crime is emotional not physical and its committed at an individual level

>>25290467
>the majority
Your original argument was that they are completely incapable, not that they are in the minority and it had nothing to do with financial success, it was about capacity for violence. Are you insinuating people only become millionaires and billionaires by being violence?

>where are these wealthy women you speak of, what companies do they run,
So now your only argument is that you are ignorant and can't find answers to basic questions on your own like you never heard of Oprah?

>this is why i am saying women can't organize
Men can't even organize being alive without a woman to birth them by your logic.

>>25290473
The legal system and physics disagrees with you.

>>25290477
now you are putting words in my mouth, this is my original comment and it looks like nothing you've written >>25290257
lmao oprah is now an an alcohol abolition billionaire, or one who got rich from the proceeds of female organization instead of enriching an already rich cabal or media moguls, by my logic, women get married against their choice and interests and end up having children because men see them as important, why do you think they hate doing this today, why are birth rates plummetting if women love having children so much? inb4 organization, this is still caused by men agreeing to import more immigrants who men make them richer because they pay them lower wages making it harder for everyone else to start a family

>>25290479
legally, those are consent violations not physical rape

File: male rape.jpg (1.54 MB, 800x3000)

1.54 MB JPG

>>25290473
>>25290487
It is rape, it's just referred to as "forced to penetrate" because the legal system hates men.

>>25290487
Then men can't rape either, what was being called rape is actually just consent violations.

>>25290481
>it looks like nothing you've written
No capacity for means exactly completely incapable.

>oprah is now an an alcohol abolition billionaire
No, you disingenuous bad faith arguer, you didn't say women weren't alcohol abolitionist billionaires you said millionaires and millionaires, you shouldn't have gone full retard, never go full retard.

>this is still caused by men agreeing to import more immigrants
By that logic, there wouldn't be plummeting birth rates, the men would just collectively import the slavic immigrant women fleeing war zones en masse to impregnate, but its not happening because men don't really want the responsibility of making and integrating new people either.

>>25290487
Its not just a matter of consent in general, it is a matter of sexual consent specifically and the legal term for violating sexual consent is rape. If they nonconsensually took your property it would be a matter of theft instead of rape, but that isn't what we are talking about we are talking about sex crimes specifically, not property crimes.

>>25290501
no by that logic men are competing with each other, this is the point of violence, some want more money while others want more children
the millionaires and billionaires is obvious to anyone who has been following the thread, you mentioned that women can organize, i refuted that by showing they aren't in control of the organization so they are just being led along and can't even benefit from it, this is why i asked to know who are the divorce billionaire women you spoke of when i said men benefited, this isn't difficult,
yes it means no capacity for violence, something you keep skipping, read the whole sentence

>>25290493
Invented statistics and bullshit

>>25290505
if a man did not physically want a woman to touch them, they can do something about it physically, again this is an emotional crime, if we are talking about boys, then that's not men is it?

>>25290509
>the millionaires and billionaires is obvious to anyone
Its obvious you lied since there are women billionaires.
>you mentioned that women can organize, i refuted that by showing they aren't in control of the organization so they are just being led along and can't even benefit from ii
Except Oprah is in charge of her business, you didn't show anytghing, you made nonsense claims that aren't true since she has used a wide variety of different media companies for her empire, not just one male mogul and she has personally benefited to the tune of billions of dollars and by making thousands of other women like Gale, millionaires in their own right.

>yes it means no capacity for violence
Yes and when I showed you the violent things they have definitely done, you falsely insinuated that they can only be violent if men tell them to be (which still refutes your original claim about no capacity) and you changed the subject to billionaires as if there aren't tons of female billionaires while pretending like the only possible type of political organization is president of the us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_billionaires

>>25290515
>if a man did not physically want a woman to touch them, they can do something about it physically
No, not always, women can outweigh men, just look at your mom.

>>25290523
oprah did not get rich because of female organization, she got rich because male media moguls made her rich, everything else you said i already refuted

>>25290524
them outweighing men has nothing to do with them forcing their vaginas onto men like your mom tried to do with your dad

>>25290528
>oprah did not get rich because of female organization,
She is a female who created an organization to make herself and all her female friends millionaires and billionaires.

> she got rich because male media moguls made her rich
No she got rich because she made a wide variety of programming that appealed to the general population such that they gave her organization billions of dollars to entertain them.

You haven't refuted anything, you have made up nonsensical lies, moved your goalposts, and tried to change the subject completely from physical violence to financial success repeatedly.

>>25290532
It seems to make a pretty big difference on all the video I have seen of them overpowering men so they can sit on their face until they pass out.

>>25290534
lmao you are the one who introduced the billionaire angle by taking my point about men benefiting most from female organization to women having money because they divorce billionaires, and you've already forgotten this, you can't even keep up with your own lies

>>25290535
that's your fetish isn't it

>>25290257
Lizzy Borden took an axe
and gave her mother 40 whacks
when she saw what she had done
she gave her father 41

>>25290539
No I am not, you are the one lying constantly while shifting goal posts.
>>25290376
>it allowed the most powerful men to become richer

>>25290541
You are trying to change the subject to me because that proved you wrong, didn't it?

>>25290549
yes that's the point which you twisted into a female billionaire angle, as if oprah got her money from this particular issue, you are trying to do gymnastics about female abolition organization to oprah becoming a billionaire and it doesn't stick

>>25290551
it's not my problem you want to be raped and sat face by a woman

>>25290555
No, you twisted your original claim of they have no capacity for violence into some nonsense about how their violence doesn't count as violence because a man might financially benefit from it, then when I showed that women have also financially benefited from their own organizations, you tried to say that their financial benefits don't count because some man might have financially benefited too.
Unfortunately for your retarded arguments, though, women have done violent things and there are women in politics and women who got very rich by creating their own organizations to financially benefit from, I am not saying they are all the same woman, but there are women warriors and women leaders and women billionaires when your original argument was that they don't have any capacity for those kinds of things.

>>25290557
No, its your problem that a silly face sitting fetish proves you are wrong.

>>25290561
no you did not show they had financially benefitted from their organizations because the original point was about abolition, you also have not shown how female organization helped oprah when its obvious what helped her was being cahoots with powerful people like media moguls and epstein--you forgot this didn't you, who promoted her show and introduced her to other powerful people, horrible example isn't it, try a powerful woman like clinton, ohh i forgot her husband was president

>>25290211
I would actually be totally fine with this if it was a film adaptation, especially if they recast Holden as a fat Jamaican woman speaking Patois.

>Ehn mek no difference wah man tink ’bout war. War nah go noweh. Yuh might as well aks man wah dem tink ’bout stone. War did deh yah from long time. Before man even deh yah, war did a wait pon him.

>>25290570
>the original point was about abolition
Yes and women violently smashed up bars and attacked their patrons and proprietors to force abolition, but you don't count that as violence since there might be men who fincancially benefited from their violence. Under this assumption you changed the subject to wealth and falsely claimed that women have never enriched themselves at men's expense, then when you did you counted it in favor of men who gave all their money to women's organizations because somehow women tricking men out of billions of dollars means that men are firmly in control of women and they have no capacity for anything but serving men by half all their money.

>>25290473
>men can't be physically raped by women

This is 100% true.

>>25290496
The whole point is, "rape" is defined in different ways in different situations, specifically to excuse women and demonize men.

You can define it however you like but you need to be consistent.

When it's men raping women, it's defined very aggressively. It doesn't just mean "he held a knife to her throat and screwed her".

It might be "statuatory rape" (she was perfectly willing but underage)
or
"emotional manipulation"
or
"there was a power gap so it was an abusive situation"
or (in practice)
"she felt perfectly willing at the time but then had regrets" etc.

But what's sauce for the gander should be sauce for the goose. If those same aggressive standards of what constitutes rape were applied the other way, thousand of cases of sex which are NOT now considered as rape, would be considered as females raping males.

>>25290577
no, abolition worked because men voted for it, not because women organized or smashed bottles in bars lmao, men voted for it because their benefactors would have profited from selling illicit alcohol, this is very simple, women did not benefit from this organization

>>25290582
No, just like with alimony, men COULD be petitioning courts way more often than they actually do, but they are too ashamed when it happens to actually put it to public record.

>>25290584
>men voted for it, not because women organized or smashed bottles in bars lmao
Wrong, men voted for it because women were turning their sewing circles into nagging squadrons and doing violent acts to reinforce their nagging.

>men voted for it because their benefactors would have profited from selling illicit alcohol
No, Al Capone didn't vote to abolish, the ones who voted to abolish did so because women were organizing and spreading sob stories of getting beat up and left penniless by alcoholic husbands and using those stories to justify violent acts against drinking establishment and alcohol manufacturers.

>women did not benefit from this organization
They got what they wanted without even having the right to vote themselves, of course they benefiting exactly how they wanted to just like MADD benefited after prohibition was overturned.

>>25290591
no, lmao, you can't be this naive, al capone didn't have to vote, neither did the families that became billionaires, their cronies in congress did it for them, they wrote about the sob stories because they couldn't reveal what was actually happening, and they didn't get what they wanted, people still bought alcohol, the rich got richer and the law was done away with, it was a massive failure that benefitted a few, same thing with divorce law, benefits law firms and insurance companies and real estate companies and banks that sell mortgages as the ultimate family investment to be later split in divorce, you know who owns these, men

>>25290593
No, I know there are definitely women that benefited because of their violent acts and pretty much all those men you are talking about were married themselves, so half of their wealth defacto belongs to women because of the divorce laws which is why women have benefited from divorcing rich men to the tune of hundreds of billions.

>>25290597
yes those married women benefited, but not from organization of any kind or any violence generated by them, these were men's actions and men's decisions already in place before any women ever smashed any bottle or ever

>>25290601
>not from organization of any kind or any violence generated by them
No, women formed social groups and acted to destroy the bars and whatnot, are you saying that those stories were all lies and some men (who specifically) actually physically bashed in the bars and blamed it on the women?

>>25290613
i am saying their effect was irrelevant, if you want to destroy alcohol you go to congress or disrupt shipping or railroads, i mean this is obvious, it feels like i am arguing with a teenager who thinks breaking a few windows in the bars affects anything, you are the same retards who think protests achieve anything when real decisions are made in boardrooms

>>25290588
This is true. I wasn't talking about how rape is defined in the statute books. I was talking about how it's defined in practice. Men being ashamed of admitting to it is a large factor but not the only one. Society is far less sympathetic even if a man does come forward.

If a woman cries and presents as a victim, most people's instinct is to feel sorry for her and try to help her. Not many people will despise her. If a man cries and presents as a victim, he will, to a large extent, get told to pull himself together.

It's the same with, say "hate speech" or "hate crime" laws. Sure, if you read how they're defined technically, the language is completely race-neutral. But in practice that's not how they work at all. If a white person is the offender, they are very aggressively used. If a non-white is the offender against a white, people at every stage of the process fight tooth and nail NOT to use them (or not to bring a "guilty" verdict).

So you have a situation where an "It's OK to be white" poster = "hate speech", but a non-white dropping a white kid off a balcony because, in his own words, he "hates white people" is just ruled as mental disturbance or whatever.

>>25290621
>i am saying their effect was irrelevant,
Then why didn't the men just do it without women's coalitions and without violent women physically destroying property and harming patrons and proprietors?

>if you want to destroy alcohol you go to congress
That is exactly who those women's organizations petitioned before they started using physical violence to compel congress to act
https://blogs.loc.gov/manuscripts/2024/03/we-the-undersigned-women-and-the-right-to-petition/.

>who thinks breaking a few windows in the bars affects anything
It did affect the abolition narrative and it was an example of women being physically violent to great effect.

>decisions are made in boardrooms
Those decisions are largely influenced by things that happen outside of the boardroom before the meetings were even called (usually being the reason the meetings in the boardrooms even need to be called in the first place) and you know it.

>>25290628
>I wasn't talking about how rape is defined in the statute books.
Yes you were, you were saying it was defined in the statue books as consent violations instead of rape, but its not, in practice men can petition courts to charge women with physical rape, they just don't do it because men actually feel shame.

>>25290257
You have down’s syndrome

>>25290630
because as i said, this benefited the men who were better placed to sell illicit alcohol, they were better prepared than the rest, they had connections with the mob and the congress, they understood you can't just wake up one day and ban alcohol in a secular country, so they placed themselves to benefit from this temporary crisis, this is what powerful people do all day, they either manufacture a crisis or benefit from one, this is how the world works

>>25290632
>Yes you were

Point out in my post here
>>25290582
where I mentioned statute books.

>>25290635
>this benefited the men
That doesn't cancel out their capacity for violence, though, you are just moving the goal posts while coping in a very retarded way because you were wrong about women having no capacity for physical violence.

>>25290639
The post where you implied that women can't be convicted of statutory rape when they can or the part where you implied that emotional manipulation is just as aggressive a crime as rape?

>>25290640
lmao, it does because their 'violence' did not benefit them, this is really simple, it did not have the intended effect, it's like farting in the wind and calling it a hurricane, that's not violence, that's a tantrum

>>25290650
>it does because their 'violence' did not benefit them, this is really simple,
No, it doesn't mean they aren't capable of physical violence at all, it means anyone who does physical violence can have their violence co-opted by other groups.

>it did not have the intended effect
It did, the intention was to pass a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol and that is exactly what happened as a result of their organization efforts and violence.

>that's not violence
Then violence isn't possible, men can't do it either by your nonsense definition since a woman could always benefit from any violence a man commits too.

>>25290652
yes women could benefit, but they don't since they can't organize for this sort of thing, no that's not exactly what happened, alcohol wasn't prohibited in any meaningful sense, and this brings us back to the point about them not having capacity for physical violence

>>25290656
>but they don't
But they do, in that case they did get what they wanted with the help of their violent actions.

>alcohol wasn't prohibited in any meaningful sense,
It was in a legal sense which was their goal, it was just a retarded goal that eventually had to be reversed because they were just a bunch of dumb violent women who took their sewing circle gossip too seriously.

>to the point about them not having capacity for physical violence
Which is refuted by their direct use of physical violence in prohibiting alcohol in the constitution.

>>25290659
we both know that the intention was to completely ban alcohol and that never happened, another one could have been preventing their men from fraternizing with prostitutes in alcohol-filled bars, which also never worked because powerful men treated it like a childish tantrum

>>25290660
The that is actually good for them since women are prostitutes, so it was the women who benefited, so men aren't actually capable of physical sex because women prostitutes financially benefit from sex.

>>25290665
except they've got pimps to pay, and a room to rent, and the prostitutes never organized for this either with the housewives, lmao, so no, they are not capable of that kind of selfless organization

>>25290670
No prostitution is the oldest profession, not pimping, the male pimps aren't even physically capable of sex. lmao.

>>25290675
to be a prostitute you need a place of lodging and you need to frequent alcohol dens, so yes, you need to pay them if you don't want to be taken advantage of by men who might abuse you and refuse to pay, so you need a pimp, this is very simple

>>25290680
>to be a prostitute you need a place of lodging and you need to frequent alcohol dens
No you don't, you need money to be exchanged a hole and a dick to put it in.

> so you need a pimp,
No, they generally used knives for protection.

>>25290684
of course they do, which is why serial killers like the ripper targeted them, in the modern day, you need a platform like chaturbate who takes a cut from your earnings, guess who owns chaturbate, guess who came up with the idea, guess who owns the biggest porn sites, in places like colombia which has the highest number of women on these sites, you can't do it at home, you need to go and rent a room lmao, you can't even be allowed to sell pussy in peace in america without logging into onlyfans or snapchat which were opened for this specific purpose to bait young women into the idea that they are generating income when all they are doing is enriching a few creative perverts

>>25290257
My mom beat me so bad she cracked a rib it wasn't even to punish me she just wanted to beat up males.

>>25290684
>>25290680
Do either of you posters have robust evidence to support your claims?

>>25290222
I have my own problems with his prose, but saying it's like AI just isn't true. AI is also bad but in an entirely different way.

God damn what a fucking mess this thread is lmao

>>25290782
It turned into a mess of dogshit starting at the 9th reply by someone too retarded even for /pol/ standards

>>25290257
10/10 post

Women are pure innocent unicorns

File: 1778733406705174m.jpg (182 KB, 819x1024)

182 KB JPG

>>25290211
>How different would Blood Meridian be had the Glanton gang been entirely female?
Including or not including the the kid?

Including "the girl" it turns blood meridian into a very toxic/doom yuri story
Not including the kid make the story about a guy trying not to get rape by a big boobs albino woman

>>25291415
>Including "the girl" it turns blood meridian into a very toxic/doom yuri story
Sounds like kino. There's a yuri webnovel called 灰色の少女と黒い女 that's at least vaguely similar to this premise, but I'm sure there are others out there that are much closer

>>25290493
I remember finding out about the "made to penetrate" loop hole that the CDC used along with the academics who were championing this model, Mary P. Koss being an unusually disgusting example. It was stomach churning realizing how deliberately designed the feminist movement was in its goal of fucking over men, even down to our bodily autonomy. The funny part is I don't even think women are actually evil enough to do this.

>>25290257
The hit dog hollers. Well done anon.

>>25291213
This but ironically

>>25290257
They lack homicidal capacity and organized violence but they are often physically violent in less dangerous ways

>>25290473
>roofies cant be compared with blue chill
virgin retard kek

>>25292168
YWNBAW. I know you troons love rape but real women can't rape men

>>25292258
If I stick my fist in your anus, is that rape?

File: 20260324_053642.jpg (228 KB, 2048x1262)

228 KB JPG

>>25290211
we should write the rule 63 version as the next /lit/ project

>this thread
Jesus Christ

File: S600xU_2x.jpg (59 KB, 620x775)

59 KB JPG

Some dopey-assed redditor(s) really thought that this dumb, goofy semi-wojakish painting was truly terrifying/unsettling.

I cannot take Blood Redditidian even remotely seriously as a result of this happening.

>OH MUH HECCIN' UPVOTES IS... IS THAT... AN IMMORAL ALBINO!?!
>HOLY HECCIN' FUCKERINOS XIXSTERS I'M SPOOKED!