LowTierGod Exposes A Geek-Rog Sub On Sora Who Tried To Slander Him ("I like tall women" because her height gives you the security you won't provide her)

He would be a tall womantard. 

Ending up with the right woman who happens to be tall is one thing, vs seeking out tall women specifically are two different things.

• Just look at the face 2:40 if he legit got a woman like that she wouldn't be in a relationship with a man, she'd be babysitting, his motivations for even being with her wouldn't sustain the relationship. Too superficial.

From amazons to those IQ drought macrocreeps: women are not here to coddle  small dicc energy-- needing her scale to make up for what the male refuses to be: A fixed point. A man. Security, something she ain't getting back. 😂

Realistically a male with this ‘tall/giantmommy’ mindset --what could one possibly do to make her feel safe when his first concern is how her height, not what she offers, not her agency, but how her height makes him feel- 

which sounds more female in sentiment than male. Which actually explains a lot: Because the whole ‘giant woman’ meta always did come off a bit effeminate, it definitely tracks with this modern trend among weak bred getting more bold on the internet..

• The only good reason to maybe prefer a slightly taller chic on purpose as a deadass dating standard (within reason) is fertility but the one's with that reason are like less than 0.1%  & usually don’t feel the need to broadcast it vs the compensation camp wanting mommy to make him special like he's 5 yrs old again.

Cause on everything 😂3:39 tell me that doesn't look like a mother & son walking down the street lmfao, she does all the talking, & he's just there, passive. The Ai made them look so uncomfortable with each other too, sheesh. Like she’s holding him hostage.

And it's not even a 5 inch difference or a foot & some change, bro's NECK & head is cocked back because she's a literal light post, like gaaahdamn. 2:40

And even without that reach it still looks goofy as fuck. I repeat, Women are not tryna coddle no one's grownass son with her height and she in this hypothetical: shouldn’t have to.  She’s supposed to mommy YOUR children, not you bruh. 🤨

Because if it begins that superficial & creepy, it won't last because guys of that proclivity (not always) but usually are 99% compensating for something through her height.

Wolverine from Marvel is like 5′3 in canon and he’s basically if masculinity was a superhero: pure aura, a good man. And frankly: short kings do exist- without the cringe. 

But the majority of dudes with this particular compensation tick (if we’re really being honest) the fixation on height comes into play to compensate for exactly what they don’t have--- PRESENCE, when you’re tall, you don’t always have presence but you stand out. 

So Tall/giant women bros want the woman to have the presence he doesn’t have and through that height inequity will provide a security for him that he won’t give back to her. He sounds like a real keeper. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Quality male mindset. It’s all in the subtext.

So really it’s projection as well as regression, because what he isn’t--- he wants to see in her.  Wanting someone to cast a shadow he can hide & retreat into, or a skirt to hide behind lmfao. 

When it’s unnecessary, a woman’s natural maternal warmth even when she’s tough as nails-- is the default security a man naturally craves to regress into with women (functional regression, not toxic or obsessive or fanatic or fetishistic regression-- FUNCTIONAL regression) and men already finds safety & vulnerability in that since antiquity : But it’s HEALTHY. That’s the security & strength your mother/mother figure provided (given she did her job properly), it wasn’t her size, it was her emotional availability.

"I like tall women" yea because her height gives you the security you ain't gonna provide her in return  😂 100% Keeping.

We didn’t have to call masculinity “toxic” just to coach men to be healthier in masculinity, because now you’re just losing men with any masculinity altogether and it’s manifesting in the crap they put on the internet. 

I’ve got my heat with double standards on women’s part, but dating for too many women in the west is just a game of 'Rent-A Boy' now.

Mushroom Godzilla looks promising but it's really just a malnourished Shin from the neck up. (2024)

 

looks promising but it's really just a malnourished Shin from the clavicle up.

Had a feeling I saw that right profile before, & I did. It's one of Shin's concepts. Just thin the neck, stretch it, and now *^bidi-bop bada boom, you have a different Gojira but nah and yet: kinda- IF the lore is on point.

Now if it's head actually looked like a mushroom, a lot wider cranium/jaw, more pronounced skull base protrusion, but the eyes stayed the exact same width but the head specifically is wider by 2-3x- it'd look more unique and 5x more terrifying especially when it turns it's head at 5 mph, slow as shit on some Aku.

eyes within pores

Now that wouldn't look anything like a godzilla in the face, but It'd actually compete if not surpass Shin's own freak factor. Because everything else would look like godzilla except that face/head, and give it a second head within the mushroom.

Say it disperses radiological spores or something when it reaches the end of it's life cycle, it just blows up at 150-300ft tall, a walking nuke that self-terminates to expand it's life essence by turning people into mini-godzilla mushrooms which it's consciousness is housed within. Same goes for trees, animals, etc. He invades organic life, period.

So it died but not really, like Godzilla Earth, it's a terraforming entity. Like a human's own reproduction cycle, it spawns perpetually to continue it's genetics thus achieving a form of immortality through it's children, down to infecting even ants.

With overgrowths coming out the humans eyes, mouth, ears, etc. Dorsal fins coming out the clothes, basically Minus-One's possible direction, just more "Last of Us" with a hint of The Thing 1982, Color out of Space, Annihilation, etc.

TL;DR It looks good because it looks like Shin, but it's not leaning hard enough in the direction it's going for to really be it's own profile. Looks good regardless.

Hunter x Hunter Episode 115-116 | Reaction Mashup

I only watched HxH 99 & 2011 just last year for the first time after 10 yrs of My Tears Academia.

Deku ain't got nothing on this kid Gon, the depth gap is beyond insane.

Gon is a force, Togashi was not shy of making Gon a source of hope & horror if necessary. Multi-faceted character.

“They’re Overweight, Entitled, and Liberal” - Nick Fuentes Goes Off on M... (Happy Us, or It's Bogus")

I love this back & forth between them when Tucker started dissenting, ppl say (ppl meaning conservatives too ngl) Tucker didn't push back on Nick. Yes tf he did, he just wasn't confrontational, he did it with class, calmly. Big brother energy without Little Broing Nick, respectful.

This is an important caveat whenever men go "off" on women or perceived double standards, be it behavioral, social, professional, or systemic  3:00  the only reason why women might do it or abuse the privilege is they're allowed to do it and not only enabled but men are part of the issue enabling. Thus they abuse it. Doesn't alleviate women choosing to do it, but it's an important caveat to not hold it against them for exploiting social leeway and cheat codes made available in the first place. Because the cheat codes have had & exploit  (physical exploitations & abuse, status) they do so too at women's expense.  Goes both ways, always.🧠

And "happy wife happy life" is bullshit, it's the mantra of a slave, a keeper: Womankeeping. 

• You're the partner, protector: You serve her needs, not her servant: just as she does for you. If yer not both happy or more importantly: if the consideration of happiness runs more than the other person gives a damn, there's no relationship. 
• That slogan is just code for idol worship which just enables low quality women thinking being vain & selfish is natural, it's what it's always been: Woman worship. 

Just like Nick said, it's a "pedestal", you can want her to be happy, you can make her a priority without disregarding yourself. Women can make men happy without service being an existential attack on modern rigid norms of perceived "autonomy".¯\_(ツ)_/¯

• And no, women are not complex: double meanings, Holding subtext back is a maturity problem. 
• Communicative incompetence even, that's a damn teenager. Stop enabling this crap as "girls being girls". It's not cute, and it's not attractive nor inevitable, it's a conscious tactic to get the man to give a crap, or get his attention. The same type of vehicle some women use through arguments, questions, or celebration. It's just a social vehicle.

Nick is 1000% correct, this complexity myth is just more enabling. If your woman is acting like a damn riddle, encourage her to communicate more effectively: She'll be more satisfied by not making her life more miserable because you didn't decode her brainteaser of the week because of something you did or didn't say on a Thursday 7 years ago.

• Women are encouraged to self-actualize & their actual gods are "agency", "Independence"  & the Holy spirit: "Autonomy" = Me me me, which is fine, find yourself but don't get lost in yourself. Because with that much self worship the ONLY destiny suited for you is isolation. 

Meanwhile the needs of everyone else in their orbit is thrown into a black hole, because if they do even a pinch too much, many burnout or some crap.

• Because that mindset is not fit of a mother or a wife or a pillar of a family or community, its not resembling anything of a woman a Nation desperately needs. Thats a product of the times, a member of society but not a pillar of stability or a source of any strength, a disposable-- which is why "self" is pushed--

•  an isolated member is more disposable, a narcissist is easier to isolate-- #WARFARE: 

•  all to dillute less quality women being raised that will pose a threat to the same system feeding women terms like "mankeeping". The entire point is to groom customers of the propaganda system that needs women as a living, breathing ammunition to the fakeass "gender war" to somehow think being educated equals no family is the natural outcome, when its really about having a funky attitude no one wants to deal with.
• A woman that takes accountability cant be manipulated with a scapegoat (aka men as the villain of the week again), because owning your mistakes as a person or as a group is the ultimate agency no hashtag, academia article, or gender studies major can give you- ever.
• A woman that gives while knowing her worth enough to avoid exploitation, boundaries- isnt a woman thats transactional, thats a woman who labors, gauges output of labor thus avoids burnout and mentored by women to know the differnce vs complaining that adulthood is inconvenient because labors and thus inconvenience & labora are a womens issue when its not. 
• That kind of a woman is a threat because she fights injustice, isnt looking for a scapegoat. Won't accept one, thus immune to one. That is as much a threat as a man who won't apologize for telling the truth, or man enough to admit when wrong without allowing it to bruise his masculinity. Fail with grace, concede with class. A brutally undervalued lesson boys need to be proper husbands and girls learn the same thing through accountability.

There's a lot of women out here holding it down, I see it everyday but a too many of us are using "Self-preservation" to mask fragility and adulting skill issues.

 Underdeveloped ENDURANCE skill issue.

Men are told to step up, do more and then when her priority is herself, his priority is also her, what happens to him? No one gives a crap, that's NOT the design of God, Quantum moderator or nature, brotha Tucker.

She submits to him in the first place to serve his needs as priority out of respect and he makes her the priority because he values her as his honor: That doesn't translate to "Happy wife, Happy life." that translates to a perpetual system  of give & takes = " We win." That's the design, that's how it works.

We're conflating male's natural proclivity for the well being of women with making women the only priority when One person doesn't make a relationship of TWO people. This is where both left & right wings get it wrong doing the same thing but having different values while making the same mistakes.

• Women dont belong in the kitchen, they belong where Adams rib was, right next to men. Adams rib wasnt attached to his asscheeks, thus not behind him. Right NEXT to him. If religious ppl like to use the book so much there's your lore accurate parallel.
• One person being happy is not everyone being happy, women's progress in society is not everyone winning. Because if it doesn't work for you, if her mankeeping you is a problem, then it doesn't work at all even if she's benefitting instead at the cost of his womankeeping.
• Reciprocity is not what women say it is,🚨🚨🚨 I can't make that anymore clear.
• It's give and take on both ends of the spectrum, and no it's not about keeping score, because even Lesbians can't manage an algorithmic 50/50, by probability: it is impossible. It's solely about giving a shit which can exceed to 70/70 easily.  This is what I meant by a woman that evolved past transactional mindaet paranoia, and it is 100% paranoia. So much how people ruin what they have is what they tell themselves they deserve because they either overrate their labor or they only value labors they see directly in front of them-- and dont even realize the sacrifices made that they'll never know about but are venting on reddit to strangers about how they deserve better:

Which maps out how Social Media was a double edged sword and double shot of poison into the veins of humanity. It was a mistake.

So if men care about women's happiness more than women care in reverse? Or at least that's the perception?

 Or emotionally dense men that don't know how to initiate an emotional/social bonding moment with women without wives having to ask to talk every single time? (And years into a marriage, it can get demoralizing for women)

 You're not raising women or men, you have a generation of oblivious parasites that are harmless but too self-centered. 

Either you're in a RELAT+ionship or you're keeping someone's daughter or son-- for little to nothing for free.

Because the giving back is the payment, you're not getting that? Then It's for free fellas. Burnout doesn't just happen to women, there's a reason why men drop sooner than women, and it has as much to do with lack of support or consideration as it does diet & habits. 

It's about the team----Period (!) or not at all. 

It's that simple. 

"Happy US, or it's BOGUS." 👎👎 now put that shit on a t-shirt.♂♀

14:18 "-by serving each other" EXACTLY Tucker.✅ So logically If you're serving each other in the first place, that's the intended system, so naturally "happy wife, happy life" logically doesn't fit into that. Precisely my point.

Anime Overview: The Book of Bantorra (2025)

I put this one off for over 5 yrs, it wasn't worth it. It was promising initially, but getting through the middle was painstaking & the ending was not good. The flashbacks of the characters (minor characters included) was better than the current day plot. Will watch episodes (ex. Ep12) not be watching it in full again. The lore was too damn dry, not interesting at all. It's mature in it's themes but something in the execution is holding it back, a lot of set up was squandered horribly (example: Volken's lackluster subplot & wasted potential/ Hamyuts' potential). A lot of this in terms of worldbuilding should've been more simplified so immersion would be a better experience. That bootstrap paradox (?) love story was probably one of the most interesting elements & luckily it's in the first few episodes for anyone who wants to try it. Not recommended but it was definitely unique.

Avengers: Doomsday - Have Marvel Learned From Their Mistakes?

7:50 thats how this sex relations & the alleged loneliness epidemic will fix itself. Equity has to fail, female empowerment has to hurt women more than it has for everyone to realize it doesn't work, nature has to correct itself.

But only after it's too late and decline becomes about survival than statistics, that's when people will absorb the stakes. It's unfortunate.

So Pennywise is a simultaneous causal being. *Dr.Manhattan effect* (the show did it better than the movies)

TL;DR the specific way Pennywise expresses his his jaded perception of his own beginning and end is a cleverly written way to imply that Pennywise is in a bootstrap paradox and experiences his timeline simultaneously like Dr.Manhattan can. 

No surprise there btw. 

I still don’t rock with IT:Chapter Two, I hate how bro went out.

• specifically this thing they do when he’ll kill someone in seconds, no simmering, no fear seasoning, just straight up fatality (best parts of the show) but when it comes to others, all of a sudden he wants to play whack- a mole on level 0.
• Now it’s explained that he underestimates humans, plays with them, the problem is what happened to those kids in Episode 1 proved he can both season his food, underestimate humans, play games and finish his plate- all at the same time.
• The issue is plot armor, writing, not Pennywises hunting methods or hubris. Because thanks to Episode 1, we know the bullshit isn’t enough to stop him when he’s ALLOWED to go to work. It’s Michael Myers all over again. The writing ties his hands, but everyone else gets split second game overs.

If those kids had IT:Chapter Two Writing they would've all escaped that building in one piece or just traumatized Pennywise calling him a mean name which makes him hesitate & planting the foreshadowing his 2016 defeat. All of them would've survived because the Turtle willed it so, and it would've been a worse premiere for it. -- I digress.

Jeepers Creepers 2001 & The Descent Part 1 is how you do a survivor situation but the monster still gets to catch bodies in a realistic sense.

The finale reveal of his simultaneous temporal condition--

makes it clear that The Losers Club "victory" was just enabling his existence than ending it. Which thus improves what that movie did to Pennywise in terms of optics, which bothered me for years.

Not entirely a fix for that plot armor fest, but it’s been patched big time. All it took was a “Bootstrap paradox” (Little Nightmares 2)

He knows it's going to happen in the future, he already lost yet in the future but he's still in the past completely intact after and before his death, having the time of his life.

All the Losers Club did was diffuse his physical form, the lights, his true self, is eternal. They accomplished nothing but prevent his terror extending beyond their generation, but not only did not stop him in a non-linear sense, they saved absolutely no one.

His power extends beyond their understanding, so does his existentialism, and he knows it. They bullied him to death, but he's the one laughing because when they die of old age, he's still alive before they're born & his lights still exist their bodies reside in caskets, it's still alive after 2016, he just doesn't have a vessel. 

So despite his "death" they didn't kill him, they just stripped him of his costume. That is cosmic horror--

(I'd go so far as to ponder what's to stop him from getting another costume, perhaps the same as always: Turtle Plot Device "Maturin" 🐢🌍)

I wasn't trying to watch this show tbh: I had zero interest. It was going to be another one of those 'try it in 4-10 years' deals.

• But while I'm unlikely to watch it in full ever again (understandable representation & social overtones that unfortunately & slowly became ham-fisted in the writing department as the show progressed. It was excruciating not because of the historical nature but because American lens in general/ or more accurately their media masters have a serious racism misery porn fetish as if they or Germany are the ONLY civilizations on the planet to ever commit such an atrocity or have committed the worst of it as if evil has a skin color.

When the real point of the in-meta of Pennywise is evil does NOT have a color, it shapeshifts, which is a brilliant metaphor that I think (?) the show misses. American media act like the U.S invented slavery & racism or something.

• Too little nuance in this show in that respect, but in context — I get it. Derry was supposed to be an isolated dimension, an intentional exaggeration, but the saint POC’s trope is very tiresome and where the plot loses me around episode 3.

• Just like I'm tired of most adults being jerks in this universe, like I get the point is to strip away the children's line of defense to make them more vulnerable but holy shit.

(it's part of what makes "Little Nightmares" horror affective, Adult indifference or predation to small innocence but it didn't play favorites or race. All adults were an extension of a degree of corruption.)

-but that didn't seem to affect Will's parents (maybe because they're not Derry natives) or Ronnie's dad (who I assume is a Derry native?), so even the show's own rules is being spat in the face of, though adult indifference is a good mechanism to manipulate children's mental health and state of isolation.

• However it is refreshing to see another black couple in tact on-screen, enduring and functioning. 👍✅ Even Ronnies dynamic & bond with her father was very comforting to see. That much the show did right.
• It seems who's good or bad is very much color lensed, which is not how evil works lmfao, cause then the Ghetto would be a paradise.

(Imagine Pennywise setting up shop in Detroit or Chicago: Banquet💀)

Again, zero nuance.

Despite all that. I’m glad I gave it a try, good acting, the kids pulled their weight big time, solid performances. A lot of good directing decisions, good shots, good transitions, we get a pretty decent one-take style shot in EP7, the effects: The show was impressive stylistically. 

But that few seconds of dialogue in the final episode served Pennywise immensely, that's all I care about.

His "death" (not rly) is still whack but it has an extra dimension solely because now: it doesn't matter. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Edit 1-5-26:

I took a gander at Chapter Two just for the hell of it and stumbled on this--

"You haven't changed anything yet; you haven't changed their futures. You- you haven't saved any of them." - Pettywise (Chapter Two)

With the cycle in context, he said that to spite Beverly, and it is 100% spite because his eyes are tearing up, watery & red with apparent frustration, because he knows what he's trapped in.

Again, Episode 8 didn't fix Chapter Two for me, but it's clear that the seeds of Pennywises condition was planted even back then, props to the writers, clearly there's vision here. I respect that even if I don't cosign the executions here and there.

He knew what they did stopping him then, eventually saved absolutely no one now, then in the past, his future after his death, to the future birth after he dies all over again.

After they total his heart, it's fair to say those deadlights just went forward to his conception, extradimensional transfer.

But at the same time he simultaneously sees he's at the end of his rope in 2016, an animal acting on primal impulse, defiance even. He can't escape because he's a prisoner in that goddamn place called "Derry", hence the watery eyes and snot dripping nose: 

• Go watch that specific scene, pay attention to his eyes, & maintain this context and think "Why is he damn near crying?", bro was legitimately distraught. He knew.

Beverly was too far away to truly see his expression, but in terms of vulnerability?

 Very human level of presumable despair in something as old as dirt. And while I'm not watching CHP Two no time soon: Not only was Bev the only one of the club he Deadlighted but (I believe) she was the only one he showed that level of emotional compromise to & spitefully told her straight up their coming victory saves no one.

All that damn power and that Turtle has It by the balls, so much so he's done-in by some humans calling him names--

Pennywise has a lot more depth than we give him credit for, than I GAVE him credit for all these years.

He's not "seeing" the future nor travelling, that's a human dimension of understanding, he's not seeing or going anywhere.

He's present collectively in his entire timeline, his death is not his end, that's the point. *The Christ effect*

"(some articles debate time travel vs. pure simultaneous experience)."

Again, It's a little bit of both; because he is simultaneous, he's more so not travelling his knowledge back & forth because he's there now. 

• He can't travel knowledge back to himself that knows what didn't happen yet, because it happened already.
• Pennywise, like Osterman- can't travel to any time because they are already there, thus have access to all knowledge of it.

Mono can't do that, The Thin Man is simply an older Mono that remembers what happened before but the omniscience would apply if Mono maintained what The Thin Man will know, knows, knew.

This is why Pennywise had Richie's wanted poster. He's not physically travelling because to him it's presumably already happening, happened, dead, alive.

Like Jesus Christ, a much older example of this with knowledge of the full picture from jump, full control.

• Or Elizabeth Comstock (*after the Siphon is destroyed, thus she's closer to Mono's situation because she's not aware of the full picture the entire time but unlike him, she is not a prisoner.
• She has the agency to make changes like Osterman *Doomsday Clock when he created & unmade The New52* but she's only capable of that after when she wasn't aware of the grand tapestry of the cosmos, after the destruction of the Siphon, the tower, her limiter. So she's a hybrid of both categories.) both a good example, Christ & Comstock.

So when a Christian or the book implies or says "God is everywhere", they really meant "everywhen", leagues more daunting. You can't "find" something in space that has no location.

That makes as much sense as giving Pennywise a Birthday & SSN.

All they have to do now is adhere to this, & not negate or ruin that element with Native American plot device bullshit, or more importantly that goddamn turtle. 

Piers Morgan ROASTS Nick Fuentes for Praising Hitler And Being a Virgin - [I never understood the credibility assassination strategy of the word "virgin"]

[I never understood the credibility assassination strategy of the word "virgin"]

Piers conceded the second he took it to sexual mileage.

Sex life becomes the goalpost when you have no argument & need to tear a persons existential worth down (now what does worth have to do with clapping cheeks or not? Idk, Westerners are really REALLY bizarre when it comes to that) and I love that Nick said it with such confidence:

 "No, absolutely not." No stuttering, no Uhs or buts.

See if Nick was a woman, then it wouldn't be a ROAST, it'd be misogyny. If what a man does with his body is everyone's business & on top of that, a joke. Then what a woman does with her body isn't her business either.

• Either all of it's okay or none of it is. We have two different sets of rules of engagement when it comes to men and women, and men are open season for dehumanization. Straight up subhumans.

And then we have this psychotic preconception that's been a thing for years now, that lack of sex aka & specifically: 

A man's lack of using women's bodies as sex utilities is somehow a BAD thing & somehow that discredits his stance or legitimacy regarding women. Now, I've never done drugs, but I know not doing drugs/avoiding hard substance abuse is better for your health. And not having done crack before doesn't discredit my stance on the matter because I've never done the thing I speak on.

Piers didn’t say intimacy, or made love, he’s not talking about having a meaningful unity. He’s talking about sex for the sake of badges, the act.

 So the credibility of your views on women is put into question------ 

Because you haven't physically exploited women for sex yet?! Uhhhhhh ¯_(ツ)_/¯

You know how many men that get tail every other day of the week, kids all over the place, not taking care of them or the mother, and STILL are misogynist?

What, we think sex creates allies? HA! If only it were that easy.

This "virgin = credibility assassination" be it aimed at man or a woman: makes no goddamn sense, never did, never has, because some of the most misguided & misogynist peons on the planet regarding women have had sex with women already.

Met plenty myself, wouldn't do it again even for a check. Every other word out their mouth is "bitch", casually, it's a great time to never speak to em again.

The most despicable aspect of a misogynist is they've taken that intimacy for granted, hold it like a badge for the wrong reasons and reduced a woman's cosmic autonomy down to that one act that he's used women for already, cause he's not interested in anything else she has to offer. And yes he has a mother lmfao.

THAT IS LEAGUES worse than a virgin. Now can a virgin complaining about the opposite gender be ironic? Yes! 100% it's ironic but is what they're saying #1 in itself irony #2 is it true? #3 what was the actual point they were making beyond mindless monke brain venting?

Same goes for women with hot takes on men: Plenty of sex experience, but zero life experience with actual men. Don't know shit themselves, yet running their mouths anyway. 

• We can sit here & call those women cat ladies/ Sure her hypothetical underlying sexual frustration is relevant to her passion for the topic, but is her argument regarding men valid: [Yes or No ?]

The fact is: Did she make a point or not? That's the point. Her motives and her logic are linked but not mutually exclusive in validity. That Is the point, same goes for Nick or even Piers.

Regardless: The logic of the question "Have you ever had-" to discredit someone says so much about the person asking it.

 IMAGINE if Nick was a woman instead, I don't doubt Piers would be disrespectful still, he's been disingenuous with women before but the only reason he took it to sex is because Nick was young and a male & Piers was getting emotional & wanted to hurt him in some way, any way possible. And the fact that the best he could do to "hurt" another male was ridiculing lack of sex as an irony to his views is actually misogynist. 

The question itself is masked misogyny, because it implies or blatantly stating a woman's sexual use provides legitimacy or some kind of credit system, the caveat being rolling stones who are misogynists anyway. 

So I never understood that logic myself. So by Piers' train of thought, Nick would be vindicated in being a "misogynist" if he's had sex with women. 

• Otherwise, where the hell was Morgan going with that?! Lmfao. If Nick was gay: Okay Piers, what are you getting at about gay people?

What Morgan did is exactly what a mentally exhausted 15 yr old girl would do when she ran out of things to say on her pre-determined script. 

Which is an insult to 15 year old girls who can actually compose themselves & make a case. 

I'm not even saying I agree with Nick, I don't actually-- Things won't get better if women in general just "shut the fuck up", women repressing their grievances or forced to shut down is just another form of regression. Which is how you turn into the middle east.

Things will get better when activists with no arguments shut the fuck up, when academia & article authors stop preying on women's proclivity to accept a narrative if 1# Men are painted as the problem #2 Women/they are the victim #3 Women are not held accountable while men are dragged through the mud, yet again.

Like this 2025 "mankeep" shit, & the hypocrisy of women having the word "reciprocity" in their mouths. That whole topic wasn't because of women talking, that came up because the dumbasses in power & troublemakers running their mouths because peace for Americans is not an option.

Nick is overlooking an important caveat to oversimplify the matter to just boil it down to women sitting down and being grateful will make things better, it won't. It will grant men more agency & they probably won't feel like subhumans anymore if female centric narrative died down but then women will become the black sheep again. 

No one needs to shut up, women need to grow "the fuck" up & stop listening to the snakes in power convincing them to bite the apple & sabotage their standing with men over and over and over again. 

Women need to stop talking about "autonomy" and start exercising it against same oppressor system that feeds them new slogans every quarter. 

There's a lot more to this than women just shutting the "fuck up".

Otherwise this wasn't how to do this on Piers' part. He might've given Nick something to think about if he just got out his feelings & made an argument. 

I assume Piers has experienced the bed rock rumble before, and yet he's still a spineless goofball, so what was sex even worth by his own standard.

Sex doesn't make men, it's a vehicle to opportunity or misery, REGARDLESS of gender, like cut the damn shit already. 

He's the seniority in the interview & that's where he took it.

Just one question to assassinate someone's credibility & instead, obliterated his own. It's sad.